alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Terraine Sanchez BYERS

No. 69A06-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 16, 2019

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Wyatt B. Orsbon, Assistant Appellant Defender, Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, for Byers, Terraine Sanchez.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 15th of January 2019 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of January 2019."
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Docket No. FAA-2005-21874; Airspace Docket No. 05-ACE-28] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Direct final rule; request for comments; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        This action corrects an error in the legal description of a direct final rule, request for comments that was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on Friday, July 29, 2005 (70 FR 43744).                    

# DATES:

This direct final rule is effective on 0901 UTC, October 27, 2005.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2524.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## History

**Federal Register**                     Document 2005-21874 published on Friday, July 29, 2005 (70 FR 43744), modified Class E Airspace at Dodge City, KS. The latitude and longitude used in the airport reference point was incorrect. This action corrects that error.                

                        Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the errors for Class E Airspace, Dodge City, KS as published in the                         **Federal Register**                         Friday, July 29, 2005 (70 FR 43744), (FR Doc. 2005-21874), are corrected as follows:                    

§ 71.1

On page 43745, Column 2, change the latitude and longitude of Dodge City Regional Airport, KS to (Lat. 37°45′48″ N., long 99°57′56″ W.) for ACE KS E2 and ACE KS E5.

Issued in Kansas City, MO, on September 28, 2005.

Elizabeth S. Wallis,

Acting Area Director, Western Flight Services Operations.

[FR Doc. 05-20628 Filed 10-13-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Order entered November 18, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01042-CR

JOE ANTHONY CORTEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-63290-W

ORDER

On June 4, 2013, we ordered the Dallas County District Clerk to prepare and file a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing a detailed itemization of the costs assessed in this case, 

including but not limited to, specific court costs, fees, and court appointed attorney fees. The 

Dallas County Clerk subsequently filed a supplemental clerk’s record. However, the itemization 

of costs included in the supplemental record does not comply with the Texas Code of Criminal 

Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 103.001, 103.006 (West 2006).

Accordingly, we ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, WITHIN TEN 

DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, a second supplemental clerk’s record that contains 

a detailed itemization of the costs assessed in this case that complies with article 103.001 and 

103.006 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See id. arts. 103.001 (“A cost is not payable 
by the person charged with the cost until a written bill is produced or is ready to be produced, 

containing the items of cost, signed by the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is 

entitled to receive payment for the cost.”) (emphasis added), 103.006 (“if a criminal action or 

proceeding . . . is appealed, an officer of the court shall certify and sign a bill of costs that have 

accrued and send the bill to the court in which the action or proceeding is . . . appealed) 

(emphasis added).

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; the Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, 

Criminal Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
#### Joseph C. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D03-1891.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 10, 2003.

Appellant, pro se.

Charlie Crist, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellant claimed that his trial counsel affirmatively misadvised him with regard to the maximum sentence to which he might be exposed should he violate probation after entering into a plea agreement. He further claimed that but for this misadviee, he would not have entered his plea but would have proceeded to trial. The plea and sentencing colloquy attached to the appellant’s motion do not refute the appellant’s claim. Because the appellant’s claim is facially sufficient, we reverse the summary denial and remand for the trial court to either attach record portions conclusively refuting his entitlement to relief or else hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim. *See Kasper v. State,*828 So.2d 1047, 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

WOLF, C.J., LEWIS and POLSTON, JJ., Concur.
##### 



Exhibit 12.1
 PlanetOut Inc.
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(in thousands, except ratios)
 Three monthsYear ended December 31,
    
    
    ended2001
    
    
    2002
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2005
    
    
    March 31, 2006Net income (loss) from
operations as
reported
    
    $
    (15,644
    )
    
    $
    (7,807
    )
    
    $
    (423
    )
    
    $
    449
    
    
    $
    2,043
    
    
    $
    (105
    )Add: Fixed charges
    
    
    836
    
    
    
    112
    
    
    
    193
    
    
    
    1,713
    
    
    
    238
    
    
    
    197Earnings as defined
    
    $
    (14,808
    )
    
    $
    (7,695
    )
    
    $
    (230
    )
    
    $
    2,162
    
    
    $
    2,281
    
    
    $
    92Fixed charges
    
    $
    836
    
    
    $
    112
    
    
    $
    193
    
    
    $
    1,713
    
    
    $
    238
    
    
    $
    197Ratio of earnings to
fixed charges (1)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1.3
    x
    
    
    9.6
    x
    
    
    0.5
    x
 
 (1)
    
    The ratio of earnings to fixed charges is computed by dividing income (loss) from
operations plus fixed charges by fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest expense,
amortization of debt issuance costs and that portion of rental payments under operating leases
that we believe to be representative of interest. Earnings were insufficient to cover fixed
charges in 2001 through 2003 by amounts equal to the net loss for the period.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.P., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

U.S. CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION, 

San Diego, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0291

Issued: December 28, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On December 8, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from an April 21, 2020 nonmerit decision

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 22-0291.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’Compensation Act.1 

For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s review 

authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of OWCP’s 

decision.2

The 180th day following the April 21, 2020 decision was October 18, 2020. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until December 8, 2021, more than 180 days after the

April 21, 2020 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0291 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

2

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

a reason to explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

establish compelling circumstances.

The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date 

of their issuance.”

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0291 is dismissed.

Issued: December 28, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3

Id. at § 501.6(d).
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 24.1


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears
below constitutes and appoints David Chen and Stephen Tang, jointly and
severally, as his attorneys-in-fact, each with the power of substitution, for
him in any and all capacities, to sign any amendments to this Report on Form
10-QSB and to file the same, with exhibits thereto and other documents in
connection therewith with the Securities and Exchange Commission, hereby
ratifying and confirming all that each of said attorneys-in-fact, or his
substitute or substitutes may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof. Pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been
signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the
capacities and on the dates indicated.


PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1934, THIS FROM 10-QSB HAS
BEEN SIGNED BY THE FOLLOWING PERSONS IN THE CAPACITIES AND ON THE DATES
INDICATED:


        SIGNATURE                       TITLE                        DATE
        ---------                       -----                        ----

/s/ David Chen                 Chief Executive Officer and        April 29, 2005
------------------------       Director
David Chen


/s/ Stephen Tang               President and Chairman             April 29, 2005
------------------------
Stephen Tang
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 18, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 60494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20877]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Thursday, November 10, 2005.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-20877 Filed 10-14-05; 9:44 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2624

___________

Robert David Raine, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Dave Dormire, Superintendent; Jeremiah *

(Jay) Nixon, Attorney General of the * [UNPUBLISHED]

State of Missouri, *

*

Appellees. *

_____________

 Submitted: February 12, 1999

Filed: February 18, 1999 

_____________

Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, and FAGG and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Robert David Raine appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

habeas petition. For several reasons, we affirm. We first reject Raine’s claim that he

is actually innocent of the crime of rape. Raine has failed to show the allegedly new

facts unquestionably establish his innocence, seeCornell v. Nix, 119 F.3d 1329, 1334

(8th Cir. 1997), and thus his freestanding actual innocence claim is not a proper

ground for federal habeas relief, see Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 404-05 (1993);

Meadows v. Delo, 99 F.3d 280, 283 (8th Cir. 1996). Similarly, Raine’s claim that the

trial court erroneously excluded lay testimony by Raine’s family and friends is a
-2-

matter of state law that is not reviewable in this federal habeas proceeding. See

Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). We also reject Raine’s assertion that

his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated. Raine caused most of the

delay before both of his trials, did not request a speedy trial until almost two years

after his arrest, and has not shown the legitimate delays prejudiced him. See

Reynolds v. Leapley, 52 F.3d 762, 763 (8th Cir. 1995). Last, we deny Raine’s claim

for sanctions. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Raine’s petition for a writ

of habeas corpus.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4916 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4916

 To amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to authorize the Coquille Indian 
  Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, the Confederated 
Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, the Klamath Tribes, and 
  the Burns Paiute Tribe to obtain 99-year lease authority for trust 
                                 land.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 23, 2010

  Mr. DeFazio (for himself and Mr. Schrader) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to authorize the Coquille Indian 
  Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, the Confederated 
Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, the Klamath Tribes, and 
  the Burns Paiute Tribe to obtain 99-year lease authority for trust 
                                 land.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LEASES OF RESTRICTED LAND.

    Subsection (a) of the first section of the Act of August 9, 1955 
(25 U.S.C. 415(a)), is amended in the second sentence by inserting 
``land held in trust for the Coquille Indian Tribe, land held in trust 
for the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, land held in trust for 
the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, 
land held in trust for the Klamath Tribes, and land held in trust for 
the Burns Paiute Tribe,'' after ``lands held in trust for the 
Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon,''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 24.1



POWER OF ATTORNEY



KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each
person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints Jack Chen and Amy Ping Li, jointly and severally, as his attorneys-in-fact,
each with the power of substitution, for him/her in any and all capacities, to sign any amendments to this Report on Form 10-Q
and to file the same, with exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said attorneys-in-fact, or his substitute or substitutes may do or cause to be
done by virtue hereof.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities
Act of 1934, this Form 10-Q has been signed by the following persons in the capacities and on the dates indicated:





|Signature               | Title                                | Date           
|----------------------- | ------------------------------------ | ---------------
|                        |                                      |                
|/s/ Jack Chen           | Chief Executive Officer and Director | August 15, 2011
|- --------------------- |                                      |                
|Jack Chen               |                                      |                
|                        |                                      |                
|/s/ Amy Ping Li         | Acting Chief Financial Officer       | August 15, 2011
|- --------------------- |                                      |                
|Amy Ping Li             |                                      |                
|                        |                                      |
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Gramercy Capital Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Marc Holliday, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|                |   | /s/ Marc Holliday       |   |
|----------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
| Name:          |   | Marc Holliday           |
| Title:         |   | Chief Executive Officer |
|           |
| August 9, 2007 |   |                    |
|                |        |                         |        |  |  |

 

1

----
# Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Significant Narcotics Traffickers Centered in Colombia

On October 21, 1995, by Executive Order 12978, the President declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the actions of significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia, and the extreme level of violence, corruption, and harm such actions cause in the United States and abroad.

The order blocks all property and interests in property of foreign persons listed in an annex to the order that are in the United States or within the possession or control of U.S. persons, as well as of foreign persons determined to play a significant role in international narcotics trafficking centered in Colombia. The order similarly blocks all property and interests in property of foreign persons determined to materially assist in, or provide financial or technological support for or goods or services in support of, the narcotics trafficking activities of persons designated in or pursuant to the order, or persons determined to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of, persons designated in or pursuant to the order. The order also prohibits any transaction or dealing by United States persons or within the United States in such property or interests in property.

                        Because the actions of significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia continue to threaten the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States and to cause an extreme level of violence, corruption, and harm in the United States and abroad, the national emergency declared on October 21, 1995, and the measures adopted pursuant thereto to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond October 21, 2005. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia. This notice shall be published in the                         **Federal Register**                         and transmitted to the Congress.                    

[FR Doc. 05-21210

Billing code 3195-01-P
<PAGE>   1
                                  Exhibit 12.1
                            Park-Ohio Industries, Inc.
                Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

                        (In thousands except ratio data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     1998          1997          1996          1995          1994
                                                     ----          ----          ----          ----          ----
<S>                                                <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>
Earnings from continuing
    operations before income taxes                 $22,820       $19,199       $14,753       $12,913       $ 6,652
Fixed Charges                                       20,370        11,495         8,787         7,192         2,370
                                                   -------       -------       -------       -------       -------
Earnings Available for Fixed Charges               $43,190       $30,694       $23,540       $20,105       $ 9,022
                                                   =======       =======       =======       =======       =======

Fixed Charges:
    Interest Component of Rent Expense             $ 2,352       $ 2,232       $ 1,584       $ 1,176       $   783
    Interest Expense                                17,488         9,101         6,947         5,911         1,501
    Amortization of Deferred Financing Costs           530           162           256           105            86
                                                   -------       -------       -------       -------       -------
Total Fixed Charges                                $20,370       $11,495       $ 8,787       $ 7,192       $ 2,370
                                                   =======       =======       =======       =======       =======

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                     2.1x          2.7x          2.7x          2.8x          3.8x
</TABLE>