alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

CASE NO. 14–0786 _____________________________________________

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

_____________________________________________

WORLDWIDE CLINICAL TRIALS, a/k/a WTC CORPORATION,

Petitioner

V.

HERLINDA ARNOLD,

Respondent

_____________________________________________

On Petition for Review from the Fourth Court of Appeals,

San Antonio, Texas, Case No. 04–13–00609–CV

_____________________________________________

RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S PETITION FOR REVIEW

_____________________________________________

Respondent, Herlinda Arnold, requests a 30-day extension to file her response to 

Petitioner’s Petition for Review and for good cause, would show as follows:

1. The Fourth Court of Appeals issued its opinion and judgment in the underlying 

appeal, Case Number No. 04–13–00609–CV, on August 13, 2014.

2. After being granted three extensions of time, Petitioner filed its Petition for 

Review with this Court on November 25, 2014.

3. Respondent’s response to Petitioner’s Petition for Review is December 24, 2014.

4. This is Respondent’s first request for an extension of time.

5. Respondent respectfully requests a 30–day extension to file its response so that 

the undersigned attorneys can adequately prepare the response.

FILED

14-0786

12/24/2014 1:23:20 PM

tex-3589887

SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK
2

6. The undersigned attorneys have not had sufficient time to respond to Petitioner’s 

Petition for Review due to the Thanksgiving holidays, taking time off for vacation and 

hearings and obligations in other cases.

7. Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3, the undersigned attorneys conferred with 

counsel for Petitioner, but have yet to receive a response from opposing counsel with 

regard to whether he is opposed to this motion.

FOR THESE REASONS, Respondent prays that this Honorable Court grant this 

Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Petitioner’s Petition for Review and 

extend the deadline for filing the response to January 26, 2014, and requests all other 

relief to which she may be entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

Ecke and Poling, PLLC

By: ______/s/____________________

Joseph R. Ecke

SBN: 24082946

1203 Buena Vista #201

San Antonio, Texas 78207

Email: joe.ecke@gmail.com

Ph. (210) 645-5356

Fax (210) 775-6490

Law Office of Matthew S. Norris

By: ______/s/____________________

Matthew S. Norris
3

TBA No. 24076881

6243 IH-10 West, Suite 1010

San Antonio, Texas 78201

Email: mattnorrislaw@gmail.com

Ph. (210) 549-7633

Fax (210) 446-4482

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the above has been served to all interested 

parties of record on this the 24th day of December 2014.

Sean Michael Reagan 

sreagan@lpmfirm.com 

9545 Katy Freeway, Suite 200 

Houston, Texas 77024 

______/s/____________________

Joseph R. Ecke
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 240 (Thursday, December 14, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 64115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30459]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 64115]]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Parts 300, 301, 318-322, 330, 340, 352, 354-356, 360, and 380

9 CFR Parts 1-3, 49-54, 70-75, 77-80, 82, 85, 91-114, 116-118, 124, 
130, 145, 147, 151, 156, 160-162, and 166-167

[Docket No. 95-091-1]

Revision of Delegations of Authority

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are amending our regulations to reflect the recent revision 
of the delegations of authority from the Secretary of Agriculture to 
the Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs and 
redelegation to the Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 14, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Kathy Holmes, Regulatory Coordination Specialist, Regulatory 
Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, suite 3CO3, 4700 River Road Unit 
118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, (301) 734-8682.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    A final rule effective and published in the Federal Register on 
November 8, 1995 (60 FR 56392-56458) revised the delegations of 
authority from the Secretary of Agriculture and general officers of the 
Department due to a reorganization of the Department. This document 
amends the authority citations in titles 7 and 9 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations to reflect the changes made by that final rule.

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 7 CFR 2.22 and 2.80.

    In 7 CFR parts 300, 301, 318-322, 352, 354-356, 360, and 380 and in 
9 CFR parts 1-3, 49-54, 70-75, 77-80, 82, 85, 91-114, 116-118, 124, 
130, 145, 147, 151, 156, 160-162, and 166-167 the authority citations 
are amended by removing ``7 CFR 2.17, 2.51'' and adding ``7 CFR 2.22, 
2.80'' in its place.

    Done at Washington, DC, this 8th day of December 1995.
Terry L. Medley,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 95-30459 Filed 12-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-M
```
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 22-2466

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Skye L. Nelson

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Southern

____________ 

Submitted: November 14, 2022

Filed: February 9, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Skye L. Nelson pled guilty to failing to register as a sex offender, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). The district court sentenced him to 13 months in prison. 

Upon release, he violated the conditions of his release. The district court1 sentenced 

1

The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the 

District of South Dakota.
-2- 

him to 11 months in prison. He appeals the sentence. Having jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Nelson challenges the substantive reasonableness of his within-guidelines 

sentence. This court reviews for abuse of discretion. United States v. Edwards, 820 

F.3d 362, 366 (8th Cir. 2016). “The sentencing court abuses its discretion when it 

(1) fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight; 

(2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor; or (3) considers the 

appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing them.” United 

States v. Corey, 36 F.4th 819, 823 (8th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

A sentence within the guideline range is presumptively reasonable. Id. 

 At sentencing, the district court relied on Nelson’s behavior during 

supervised release. He became “aggressive” at his first halfway house and was 

discharged “almost immediately after” he arrived. He was “disrespectful to staff” at 

the second halfway house and was asked to leave. At a hotel paid for with probation 

office “second-chance funds,” he violated curfew, had unauthorized guests, perhaps 

allowed a drug deal in the room, and failed to wear his electronic monitor. Nelson 

claims the district court placed “inordinate” weight on his multiple supervised 

release revocations in an earlier case. However, a district court must consider the 

history and characteristics of a defendant in fashioning a revocation sentence. See

U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), 3583(e). Nelson’s argument that his prior behavior on

supervised release should receive less weight is “nothing more than a disagreement 

with how the district court chose to weigh the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. 

Brown, 992 F.3d 665, 673 (8th Cir. 2021). The district court properly considered 

Nelson’s behavior while on supervised release in this case and his repeated 

violations in his earlier case. It did not abuse its discretion. 

* * * * * * *

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62839-62840]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29798]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP85-170-014]


Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation; Notice of Filing of 
Refund Proposal and Request To Terminate Proceedings

December 1, 1995.
    Take notice that on November 21, 1995, Texas Eastern Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Eastern) filed a report of an agreement and refund 
proposal with Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia) to 
resolve the issues and disputes in RP85-170 and the related appeals 
pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit (Panhandle Eastern v FERC No. 94-1727). Under the 
agreement Texas Eastern will refund to Columbia a principal amount of 
$11,948,555.73, $1,440,000 in interest for the period prior to 10/1/94, 
and additional interest 

[[Page 62840]]
on the principal amount for the period 10/1/94 to the date of the 
refund.
    Texas Eastern states Columbia and Texas Eastern have filed with the 
United States Court of Appeals to withdraw their pending appeals cited 
above. It is the intent of Texas Eastern (as agreed to by Columbia) to 
refund to Columbia the settlement amount within 10 days of the later of 
(a) the date of this report and (b) the date the order of the United 
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granting 
Columbia's and Texas Eastern's request to withdraw their appeals is 
final.
    Texas Eastern and Columbia request that the Commission issue an 
order accepting the refund proposal and terminating the proceedings in 
Docket No. RP85-170, conditioned, as necessary, upon an order of the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia granting 
the motions to withdraw the appeals of the orders issued in Docket No. 
RP85-170.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC, 20426, in accordance with Sec. 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests should be filed 
on or before December 8, 1995. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this 
filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-29798 Filed 12-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Supplemental Agreement
Entered into by and between Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd. (“the Company”) and
Shenzhen Branch, China CITIC Bank Co., Ltd (“the Creditor”) dated May 21,
2009

    


    Whereas,
the Company and the Creditor have entered into a loan agreement (contract
number: 2009Shenyinsun daizi003) (hereinafter called “Loan Agreement”). Hereby,
the parties agree to enter into the following supplemental agreements for
amending part of the clauses of the Loan Agreement:

    


    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Contract
      number: 2009Shenyinsun Daibuzi001;

            


    

    


    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Changing
      the interest rate of the loan under the Loan Agreement from 5.31% to
      4.779%.

            


    

    


    
      	
              Ø

            	
              No
      amendment to the other clauses of the Loan
  Agreement.

            


    

    


    
      	
              Ø

            	
              In
      case of any difference between the Loan Agreement and this Supplemental
      Agreement, the Supplemental Agreement shall
  prevail.

            


    

    


    
      	
              Ø

            	
              This
      Supplemental Agreement becomes effective since it is signed and
      stamped.

            


    

    


    
      	
              Ø

            	
              This
      Supplemental Agreement has two originals. Each of the Company and the
      Creditor has one original, which has the same
  effect.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 65723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30878]



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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 01/01-0341]


Mezzanine Capital Corporation; Notice of Surrender of License

    Notice is hereby given that Mezzanine Capital Corporation, 75 State 
Street, Suite 2500, Boston, Massachusetts 02109, has surrendered its 
license to operate as a small business investment company under the 
Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (the Act). Mezzanine 
Capital Corporation was licensed by the Small Business Administration 
on May 28, 1987.
    Under the authority vested by the Act and pursuant to the 
Regulations promulgated thereunder, the surrender was accepted on 
December 1, 1995 and accordingly, all rights, privileges and franchises 
derived therefrom have been terminated.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 59.011, Small 
Business Investment Companies).

    Dated: December 14, 1995.
Don A. Christensen,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 95-30878 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
EXHIBIT 11-1



SAVVIS
COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION

CALCULATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE AND WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES

USED IN EPS CALCULATION

(UNAUDITED)



|For the Three-Months Ended                                                                                                             |  |   | March 31, 2003 |  
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | - | -------------- | -
|                                                                                                                                       |  |   |                |  
|                                                                                                                                      
|Weighted average shares outstanding:                                                                                                   |  |   |                |  
|Common stock:                                                                                                                          |  |   |                |  
|                                                                                                                                      
|Shares outstanding at beginning of period, net of 336,890 shares subject to
forfeiture                                                 |  |   | 93,691,491     |  
|Weighted average shares, net of treasury shares, issued or vested during the three
months ended March 31, 2003 (184 new shares issued) |  |   | 74,577         |  
|                                                                                                                                       |  |   |                |  
|                                                                                                                                       |  |   | 93,766,068     |  
|                                                                                                                                       |  |   |                |  
|                                                                                                                                      
|Loss attributable to common shareholders                                                                                               |  | $ | (32,430,000    | )
|                                                                                                                                       |  |   |                |  
|                                                                                                                                      
|Basic and diluted loss per share                                                                                                       |  | $ | (0.35          | )
|                                                                                                                                       |  |   |                |
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 10, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50591

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ISAAC FELIPE CARRILLO-ANDRADE,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-03-CR-57-ALL-PRM

--------------------

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Isaac Felipe Carrillo-Andrade appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Carrillo-Andrade complains that his sentence was improperly

enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior

conviction. He argues that the sentencing provision is

unconstitutional. Carrillo-Andrade thus contends that his

sentence should not exceed the two-year maximum terms of
No. 03-50591

-2-

imprisonment and supervised release prescribed in 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Carrillo-Andrade acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
a.
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b.
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;c.
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
andd.
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  a.
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: November 3, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Lewis W. Dickey, Jr.Lewis W. Dickey, Jr.Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer 51
#### Edward Rowe, Respondent, v. William H. Kelly and another, Administrators, Appellants.

Judgment reversed,new trial ordered, costs to abide event Opinion by

Daniels, J.