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

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-18-00067-CR

LEXINGTON LAINE MCFARLAND,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 20170032CR2

ABATEMENT ORDER

Appellant, Lexington Laine McFarland, was convicted of driving while 

intoxicated. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.04 (West 2011). The Clerk’s record in this 

appeal has been filed. It reflects that appellant was represented by counsel at trial but 

that trial counsel was permitted to withdraw from representing McFarland. We do not 

know whether new counsel has been appointed or retained to represent McFarland on 

appeal.
McFarland v. State Page 2

Accordingly, this appeal is abated to the trial court to determine whether: 1) 

McFarland is indigent; 2) the court will appoint new counsel for McFarland; or 3) 

McFarland will hire new counsel or represent himself on appeal. See TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. arts. 1.051, 26.04 (West 2005 & 2009). If necessary, a hearing to make these 

determinations should be held within 14 days from the date of this order. The Clerk’s 

and Reporter’s Records containing the trial court’s written or oral findings and rulings, if 

any, are ordered to be filed within 28 days from the date of this order.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal abated

Order issued and filed March 28, 2018
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4322 

To require disclosure of foreign government subsidies in the premerger 

notification process, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 26, 2022 

Mr. COTTON (for himself and Mr. HAGERTY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To require disclosure of foreign government subsidies in the 

premerger notification process, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Foreign Merger Sub5 sidy Disclosure Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MERGERS INVOLVING FOREIGN GOVERNMENT SUB7 SIDIES. 

8 (a) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘foreign 

9 entity of concern’’ has the meaning given the term in secVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:19 Jun 02, 2022 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S4322.IS S4322

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4322 IS

1 tion 40207 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 

2 (42 U.S.C. 18741(a)). 

3 (b) ACCOUNTING FOR FOREIGN GOVERNMENT SUB4 SIDIES.—A person required to file a notification under 

5 section 7A of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a) that re6 ceived a subsidy from a foreign entity of concern shall in7 clude in such notification content regarding such subsidy. 

8 (c) AUTHORITY OF ANTITRUST REGULATORS.—The 

9 Federal Trade Commission, with the concurrence of the 

10 Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Di11 vision of the Department of Justice, and in consultation 

12 with the Chairperson of the Committee on Foreign Invest13 ment in the United States, the Secretary of Commerce, 

14 the Chair of the United States International Trade Com15 mission, the United States Trade Representative, and the 

16 heads of other appropriate agencies, and by rule in accord17 ance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, con18 sistent with purposes of this section shall require that the 

19 notification required under subsection (b) be in such form 

20 and contain such documentary material and information 

21 relevant to a proposed acquisition as is necessary and ap22 propriate to enable the Federal Trade Commission and the 

23 Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Di24 vision of the Department of Justice to determine whether 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4322 IS

1 such acquisition may, if consummated, violate the anti2 trust laws. 

3 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect 

4 on the date on which the rule described in subsection (c) 

5 takes effect. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-03-2000
<CASH>                                       1,737,542
<SECURITIES>                                20,683,823
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,978
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         523,982
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,935,086
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     20,358,746
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,558,709
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,309,306
<SALES>                                      2,203,334
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,203,334
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,549,833
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,346,449)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,346,449)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,346,449)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,346,499)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.31)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

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

I,
Kevin C. Eichler, certify, to the best of my knowledge, that based upon a review of the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MIPS Technologies, Inc. for the three months ended
December 31, 2003 (theForm 10-Q), the Form 10-Q fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of MIPS Technologies, Inc. for the three
month period covered by the Form 10-Q.

|                          |                                           
|------------------------- | ------------------------------------------
|                          |                                           
|                          |                                           
|                         
|Dated:  February 11, 2004 | By:     /s/ KEVIN C. EICHLER              
|                          | Kevin C. Eichler                          
|                          | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                          | MIPS Technologies, Inc.                   

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided by MIPS Technologies and will be
retained by it and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

1

---
Exhibit 13.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. §1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In connection with the Annual Report of Lorus Therapeutics Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ended May 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Aiping H. Young, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:
  1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  
  Date: November 29, 2010
  /s/ Aiping H. Young
 Aiping H. Young
 President and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 10898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5077]



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


United States International Trade Commission

TIME AND DATE: March 3, 1995 at 2:30 p.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street S.W., Washington, DC 20436.

STATUS:

    1. Agenda for future meeting.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Inv. Nos. 731-TA-684-685 (Final) (Fresh Cut Roses from Colombia 
and Ecuador)--briefing and vote.
    5. Inv. No. 731-TA-718 (Final) (Glycine from China)--briefing and 
vote.
    6. Outstanding action jackets: none.

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    Issued: February 24, 1995.
    By order of the Commission.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-5077 Filed 2-24-95; 4:01 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1753

Katadyn North America, Inc: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions_03.20.1

9.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 53 (Monday, March 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6818]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Minority Business Development Agency


Business Development Center Applications: Jacksonville, FL

AGENCY: Minority Business Development Agency, Commerce.

ACTION: Cancellation.

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

SUMMARY: The Minority Business Development Agency is cancelling the 
announcement to solicit competitive applications under its Minority 
Business Development Center (MBDC) Program to operate its Jacksonville, 
Florida MBDC. This solicitation was originally published in the Federal 
Register, Wednesday, March 8, 1995, Vol. 60, No. 45, 12739.

11.800  Minority Business Development Center

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance)

    Dated: March 13, 1995.
Donald L. Powers,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Minority Business Development Agency.
[FR Doc. 95-6818 Filed 3-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-21-P
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 53 (Monday, March 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6738]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--The Smart Valley Commercenet Consortium, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 18, 1995, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), The Smart Valley 
CommerceNet Consortium, Inc. (the ``Consortium'') has filed written 
notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing certain changes in its membership. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, the identities of 
the additional members at the sponsor level are: Ameritech, Chicago, 
IL; Delphi Internet Services Corporation, Cambridge, MA; InterNex 
Information Services, Menlo Park, CA; Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, 
Livermore, CA; MasterCard International, New York, NY; Social Security 
Administration, Baltimore, MD; Solectron, Milpitas, CA; The General 
Electric Company, Rockville, MD; and Trusted Information Systems, 
Mountain View, CA. The following organizations have joined the 
Consortium as associate members: Arroyo Seco/Fore Play Golf, South 
Pasadena, CA; Boomerang Information Services, Palo Alto, CA; CONNECT, 
Inc., Cupertino, CA; CyberCash, Inc., Vienna, VA; CyberMark, Inc., 
Washington, D.C.; Equifax, Inc., Atlanta, GA; National Association of 
Purchasing Management Silicon Valley, Inc., San Jose, CA; National 
Housewares Manufacturers Association, Rosemont, IL; O'Reilly & 
Associates, Sebastopol, CA; Process Software Corporation, Framingham, 
MA; Sybase, Emeryville, CA; Telequip, Hollis, NH; UC Berkeley Center 
for Information Technology and Management (CITM), Berkeley, CA; and 
Wave Systems Corporation, New York, NY. In error, in the October 18, 
1994, notice, Financial Services Technology Consortium, New York, NY 
was listed as a sponsor. It is actually a member at the associate 
level.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activities of the Consortium. Membership remains open, and the 
Consortium intends to file additional written notifications disclosing 
all changes in membership.
    On June 13, 1994 the Consortium filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on August 31, 1994 (59 Fed. Reg. 45012).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 19, 
1994. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on January 12, 1995 (60 F. R. 2986).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 95-6738 Filed 3-17-95; 8:45]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FY 1996
AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO 
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          25,655
<SECURITIES>                                    14,126
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,467
<ALLOWANCES>                                       678
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                55,327
<PP&E>                                          20,740
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,271
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  78,831
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,400
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                      64,418
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    78,831
<SALES>                                         62,073
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                62,073
<CGS>                                           33,122
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,122
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,862
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,453)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,542
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,417
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,125
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,125
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .60
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 47 (Friday, March 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 13142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5885]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. TM95-3-33-000]


El Paso Natural Gas Company; Tariff Filing

March 6, 1995.
    Take notice that on March 1, 1995, El Paso Natural Gas Company (El 
Paso), tendered for filing and acceptance pursuant to Part 154 of the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) Regulations Under the 
Natural Gas Act, a revision to the rates and charges for El Paso's 
Take-or-Pay Buyout and Buydown Cost Recovery for interest in accordance 
with Sections 22 and 21, Take-or-Pay Buyout and Buydown Cost Recovery, 
of its Second Revised Volume No. 1-A and Third Revised Volume No. 1 
FERC Gas Tariff, respectively.
    El Paso states that the interest revision results in a Take-or-Pay 
Throughput Surcharge of $0.0348 per dth (a decrease of $0.0006. El Paso 
also states that its Monthly Direct Charges have been fully amortized 
for the currently authorized amounts. However El Paso proposes to 
recover the remaining interest related to the Monthly Direct Charge as 
a one-time adjustment which totals only $3,152.00.
    El Paso requests that the Commission accept the tendered tariff 
sheets for filing and permit them to become effective April 1, 1995, 
which is not less than thirty (30) days after the date of filing.
    El Paso states that it has served a copy of the filing, together 
with all enclosures, except for the diskettes, on all affected 
interested pipeline system customers of El Paso and interested state 
regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests should 
be filed on or before March 13, 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. Any 
person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. 
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available 
for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
FR Doc. 95-5885 Filed 32-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-21-00115-CR

Julian Ortega, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 331ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-DC-21-200066, THE HONORABLE CHANTAL ELDRIDGE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Julian Ortega, representing himself pro se, has filed a notice of “direct 

appeal,” in which he appears to challenge an emergency protective order signed by a magistrate 

on January 3, 2021, following his arrest for assault-family violence.

1

See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. 

art. 17.292.

The standards for determining whether an appellate court has jurisdiction to hear 

and determine a case “is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is 

authorized by law.” Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894, 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (quoting

Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)). In Texas, appeals in criminal 

cases are permitted only when they are specifically authorized by statute. State ex. rel. Lykos v. 

Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.02 (“A 

1

 By its terms, the emergency protective order expired on February 5, 2021. On March 

2, 2021, Ortega was charged by indictment for the offense of assault family-violence. See Tex. 

Penal Code § 22.01(b)(2)(A). That charge currently remains pending.
2

defendant in any criminal action has the right of appeal under the rules hereinafter prescribed 

. . . .”); Tex. R. App. P. 26.2 (notice of appeal must be filed “within 30 days after day sentence is 

imposed or suspended in open court, or after the day the trial court enters an appealable order”).

Although a defendant may appeal from a judgment of conviction for violation of an emergency

protective order, see e.g., Smith v. State, No. 02-19-00035-CR, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 1066, 

at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 6, 2020, pet. ref’d) (mem. op. not designated for publication),

no statute authorizes an appeal from an emergency protective order.

Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal, and the appeal is 

dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

__________________________________________

Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Triana, and Kelly

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: May 7, 2021

Do Not Publish