alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011052EN.01000201.xml

| 18.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

17 February 2011

2011/C 52/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3560 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 113,39 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4555 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84090 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,7430 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2973 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8075 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,325 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 269,25 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7044 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9075 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2480 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1390 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3498 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3327 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5616 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7951 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7332 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 514,32 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,8149 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,9225 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4080 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 035,99 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1250 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,783 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,7050 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,521 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2673 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,3585 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 61,4880 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3560

JPY

Japanese yen

113,39

DKK

Danish krone

7,4555

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84090

SEK

Swedish krona

8,7430

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2973

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8075

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,325

HUF

Hungarian forint

269,25

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7044

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9075

RON

Romanian leu

4,2480

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1390

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3498

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3327

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5616

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7951

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7332

KRW

South Korean won

1 514,32

ZAR

South African rand

9,8149

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,9225

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4080

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 035,99

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1250

PHP

Philippine peso

58,783

RUB

Russian rouble

39,7050

THB

Thai baht

41,521

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2673

MXN

Mexican peso

16,3585

INR

Indian rupee

61,4880

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

STUART W. RYAN, 

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:10-cv-336/RS-MD

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF 

THE UNIVERSITY OF WEST FLORIDA, 

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me are the Amended Motion to Quash and Motion for Protective Order by 

the Florida Commission on Human Relations (“FCHR”) (Doc. 42), and Defendant’s 

Response in Opposition (Doc. 43). 

Defendant represents that files maintained by FCHR contain discrepancies which 

may be relevant to the issue of whether Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative 

remedies. Files not already produced and deposition testimony of the FCHR investigator 

and FCHR records custodian shall be discoverable to the extent that they may be relevant 

to the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. FCHR’s Motions (Doc. 42), 

therefore, are DENIED. 
ORDERED on March 7, 2011

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
811 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN ‘11 

Honomtble I. Predeckl 

countr AudItor 

Oelverton county 

Oalveston, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

ThI6 will acknou 

N an opinion froln this d 

If VO correct1 

capensatim of c 

plop88 by the Coun 

f your l*M roqueate above-captioned 

letter, you desire 

et fra tin reg73lar 

paid ta ruch emwould authorize 

t or profit withIn 

of our ConJ!4tItutIon, 

r posItIons sImultanooullly. 

Inaident to one’8 aititenship. 

l eutlon (h), pmvtdiag that the 

d to deputtes, aaafstants and employees 

tlon olc sorvieee, Is made applloable 

a popuUtlon In exae88 of 

therefore, not applj to Oalre8ton 

Jury few, not being linted by Irtatut*, a~*) not “fee8 

of office” and need not be pald Into the Officers Iklsry Fund 

when oollected by a county 0frioer. 

In aa8em uheyevty employees recrive jury fee8 in 

addition to their regular nalarlen, they are not noeivIng extra 

salaries or wage0 from the wnanty, slnoe jum fees are not 

considered salaries or wages. Yhey are more In bha haturn of 

an allowance or gratultr. Jury rorvice being a “duty”, the juror 
. 

I 

Honorable I. Predeokl, page 2 

I8 entitled to no coapematlon. 31 Am. Jur., Seotlon 57, p, 

Most atater, however, have 8tatuter providing a fee for 8uoh 

8ervIoe. 

Trusting thF8 filly annwar your InQUIry, we are 

812 

597. 

Vary truly yours, 

ATTORRHY OElwRAL OF TEXAS 

BY A+ -2. /3r-tL - 

Ii. T. Bob Doxmhue 

HTBD/JCP
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DONALD PERRY,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:11-cv-105-RH-GRJ

KAREN ROBERTS, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Donald Perry, Florida Department of Corrections (DOC) inmate number

050031, initiated this case by filing a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C

§ 1983, and seeks leave to proceed as a pauper (Docs. 1 and 2). The allegations of

the complaint are difficult to construe, but it appears that Plaintiff contends that he has

been denied access to court and that he has been subject to administrative discipline

for filing court cases. The named defendants include prison officials at the DOC’s

Reception and Medical Center in Lake Butler, Florida, where Plaintiff is incarcerated, as

well as Leon and Duval County Circuit judges and a clerk of court. Doc. 1.

 A review of Plaintiff’s previous federal cases establishes that he is subject to the

three-strikes bar of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), having had three or more prior civil actions or

appeals dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, Plaintiff is barred from 1

See, e.g., Perry v. Madan, Case No. 3:03-cv-721 (M.D. Fla. 8/29/03) (imposing 1

three-strikes bar and citing previous strikes incurred by Plaintiff). The Court has
Page 2 of 2

proceeding as a pauper in a civil action unless he is under “imminent danger of serious

physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Even liberally construed, the Complaint makes no allegation that Plaintiff is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. Accordingly, the Court concludes that

Plaintiff is barred by the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from bringing this

case as a pauper. A prisoner who is no longer entitled to proceed in forma pauperis

must pay the filing fee at the time he initiates the suit, and failure to do so warrants

dismissal without prejudice. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir.2002).

Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. That pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(g), this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

2. That all pending motions be DENIED as moot.

IN CHAMBERS this 12 day of April 2011. 

th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), a party may file specific, written objections to the

proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report

and recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s objections within 14 days after being

served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of review of proposed

factual findings and recommendations.

independently confirmed Plaintiff’s strikes. 

Case No: 4:11-cv-105-RH-GRJ
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

SILVIO L CORONADO,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00181-SPM -GRJ

ADVANCED TURBINE SUPPORT, INC., 

RICHARD GINDER, and 

RODNEY SHIDLER,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

On October 26, 2010, the Court held a telephonic hearing to address

Defendants’ Motion For Scheduling Order (Doc. 9) and Plaintiff’s Response. (Doc. 12.)

Defendants request the Court to enter a scheduling order tailored to meet the

circumstances of this FLSA case the purpose of which is to direct the early exchange of

information so that the parties will be able to engage in discussions to resolve the case

early-on before expensive and time consuming discovery is conducted. While the

Plaintiff advised that he does not consent to the procedure requested by Defendants,

Plaintiff agrees that early disclosure of time sheets and payroll records may facilitate

early resolution of the case. 

The Court agrees that the proposed scheduling order suggested by Defendants

is consistent with the just, speedy, and inexpensive administration of justice.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, which are fully

incorporated into this Order, Defendants’ Motion For Scheduling Order (Doc. 9) is due

to be GRANTED. By separate Order this Court will enter a scheduling order
Page 2 of 2

substantially similar in form and substance to Defendants’ proposed scheduling order. 

Further, because the proposed scheduling order contemplates the exchange of

information after which the parties will meet and confer to resolve the case, the parties

will not be engaging in formal discovery nor filing the required joint case management

report, as required in the Initial Scheduling Order entered by the Court on September

20, 2010. (Doc. 8.) Accordingly, the provisions of the initial scheduling order (Doc. 8)

shall be STAYED until the parties have exhausted all settlement efforts and then filed

the joint case management report. The Court will then enter a further scheduling order

addressing the deadlines, including trial, for the further progress of this case.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

(1) Defendants’ Motion For Scheduling Order (Doc. 9) is GRANTED.

(2) The requirements of the Initial Scheduling Order dated September 20,

2010 (Doc. 8) are STAYED pending further Order of this Court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of October, 2010. 

s/Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 1:10-cv-00181-SPM -GRJ
Exhibit 13.1
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
    "Company") for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), John William Cornelius Sayers, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:
  Subject to the audited financial statements of Emperor Mines Limited required by Rule 3-09 of Regulation S-X that have not been included in the Report (but have been substituted by comparable unaudited financial statements of Emperor Mines Limited), the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
  Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ John William Cornelius Sayers By:
  Title:   
  Chief Executive Officer Date:    December 14, 2007
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JOSHUA S. FRIEBEL and 

ELIZABETH F. FRIEBEL,

husband and wife,

Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-120/RS-EMT

PARADISE SHORES OF BAY COUNTY,

LLC, a Florida limited liability company;

ROBERT E. BLACKERBY, an individual;

MAGNUM CAPITAL, LLC, a Florida limited

liability company; DURDEN ENTERPRISES

II, INC., a Delaware corporation; DURDEN

ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Florida limited

liability company; ESTATE OF KEDRICK

EARL DURDEN; MICHAEL EARL DURDEN,

as Personal Representative of the Estate of

Kedrick Earl Durden; and MH I, LLC, a Florida

limited liability company, 

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

1. A joint status report shall be filed by the 10th day of each month and shall provide

a current account of discovery that has been accomplished, and discovery that has 

yet to be accomplished. Attorney Jeffery Stephens is charged with preparing this 

report for comment by Defendants. 

2. Before December 25, 2010, the parties shall update their discovery plan which 

shall identify persons and entities from which discovery is sought, and specific 

dates and deadlines by which discovery is to be accomplished. 
3. The non-jury trial has been rescheduled for June 27, 2011, beginning at 9:00 a.m. 

CDT, in Panama City, Florida. 

4. The pretrial conference is rescheduled for June 17, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. CDT in 

Panama City, Florida. 

5. All other dates and deadlines remain unchanged. 

ORDERED on November 30, 2010

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal Nos. 08-01] 

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 08-01 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

Dated: December 27, 2007.

L.M. Bynum,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 848)          ( print page 849)          ( print page 850)          ( print page 851)          ( print page 852)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[FR Doc. 07-6284 Filed 1-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3514

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Joshua James Roberts, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 28, 2010

Filed: June 2, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joshua Roberts was charged with conspiring to manufacture 5 grams or more

of actual (pure) methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)

and 846. He pleaded guilty in accord with a written plea agreement, which contained

an appeal waiver. The district court1

 sentenced Roberts to 262 months in prison, the

bottom of the advisory Guidelines range. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and seeks to withdraw. 
-2-

We will enforce the appeal waiver in this case because Roberts’s appeal falls

within the scope of the waiver, the record shows the requisite knowledge and

voluntariness, and enforcing the appeal waiver would not constitute a miscarriage of

justice. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)

(court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where appeal falls within

scope of waiver, both plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and

voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result); see also United States v.

Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal

waiver in Anders case). 

Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issue not covered by the waiver.

Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we dismiss this appeal. 

______________________________
# C_2011198EN.01001701.xml

| 6.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/17

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

5 July 2011

2011/C 198/08

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4461 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 117,23 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4591 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89840 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0806 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2213 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,7525 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,320 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 264,64 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7091 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9500 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,1805 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3533 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3526 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3929 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,2536 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7457 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7765 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 542,09 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,7602 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,3528 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3990 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 338,42 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3491 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,229 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,3136 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,106 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2571 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,7998 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 64,2000 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4461

JPY

Japanese yen

117,23

DKK

Danish krone

7,4591

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89840

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0806

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2213

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,7525

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,320

HUF

Hungarian forint

264,64

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7091

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9500

RON

Romanian leu

4,1805

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3533

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3526

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3929

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,2536

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7457

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7765

KRW

South Korean won

1 542,09

ZAR

South African rand

9,7602

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,3528

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3990

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 338,42

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3491

PHP

Philippine peso

62,229

RUB

Russian rouble

40,3136

THB

Thai baht

44,106

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2571

MXN

Mexican peso

16,7998

INR

Indian rupee

64,2000

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Honorable D. C. Greer Opinion No. WW-666 

State Highway Engineer 

Texas Hi hway Department 

& 

Re: Whether Certificates 

Austin 1 , Texas of Number of motorboats issued by the 

Texas Highway Department pursuant to 

Houae Bill 11, Acts 

of the 56th Legislature, Regular Session, 

1959, Chapter 179, 

Page 369, are valid 

for a two year or three 

Dear Mr. Greer: year period. 

In your recent letter you have propounded the 

following question to this office for an opinion: 

Whether Certificates of Number issued by the Texas Highway Department are valid for a per-rod of three years or 

for a period of two years. 

House Bill 11, Acts of the 56th Legislature, 

Regular Session, 1959, Chapter 179, Page 369, provides 

for the registration of motorb~oats with the Texas Highway Department. The pertinent sections of the Act are 

as follows: 

"Sec. 4.(f) Every Certificate of 

Number awarded pursuant to this Act 

shall continue in full force and effect 

for a period of three (3) years unless 

aooner terminated or discontinued in 

accordance with the provision of this 

Act. Certificates of Number shall be 

valid for the biennium from April 1 of 

one year to March 31 of the second,,succeeding year, both days inclusive. 

"Sec. 17. (a) There is hereby 

levied a three (3) year fee in Section 

4 of this Act as follows: 

11 I, 

. . . 
Honorable D. C. Greer, page 2 (WW-666) 

The last sentence of Section 4(f) may cast doubt 

as to the period of time which then Legislature intended 

for a Certificate of Number to be valid. However, the 

first sentence of the same Section (4(f)) together with 

Section 17(a) reveal the intention of the Legislature 

to be that a Certificate of Number be valid for three 

years. 

In Wood v. State, 133 Tex. 110, 126 S.W.2d 4, 

the Supreme Court used the following language in construing a statute: . 

"It is the settled law that statutes 

should be construed so as to carry out the 

legislative intent, and when such intent is 

once ascertained, it should be given effect, 

even though the literal meaning of the words 

used therein is not followed. Also, statutes 

should never be given a construction that 

leads to uncertainty, injustice, or confussion, 

a0 it is possible to construe them otherwise. . . .' 

It is therefore the opinion of this office a three 

year peri od of validity was contemplated by the Legislature and that such a construction is the only reasonable 

construct ion that can be placed on the Act. 

JLE:rm 

SUMMARY 

The Certificates of Number of 

motorboats issuecl by the Texas 

Highway Department pursuant to 

House Bill 11, Acts of the 56th 

Legislature, Regular Session, 

1959, Chapter 179, Page 369, are 

valid for a three year period. 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WTLSON 
Honorable D. C. Greer, page 3 (WW-666) 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Geo. P. Blackburn, Chairman 

Houghton Brownlee, Jr. 

Mrs. Marietta Payne 

Charles D. Cabaniss 

Dean Davis 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: W. V. Geppert
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DANIEL BROWN,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-67-MP -GRJ

SECRETARY, DEPT.

OF CORRECTIONS, 

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc 15, Respondent’s fifth motion for

extension of time to respond to Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. Upon due

consideration, it is ORDERED:

That the fifth motion for extension of time, Doc. 15, is GRANTED. Respondent

shall file a response to the petition on or before January 18, 2012. Petitioner

shall have until February 20, 2012 to file a reply.

DONE AND ORDERED this 19 day of December 2011.

th

 

s/ Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-00067-MP-GRJ Document 16 Filed 12/19/11 Page 1 of 1
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-23-00286-CR

DALPHINES CHIDIEBERE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 1

of Tarrant County (1747260)

July 25, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgments. It is ordered that the judgments of the trial 

court are affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Mike Wallach___________________

 Justice Mike Wallach