alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 13

- 00342

- CV
LONE STAR NATIONAL BANK, Appellant

v.
TEXAS CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., Appellee
From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas Trial Co urt No. 2011

- CVF

- 001535D2 Honorable Monica Z. Notzon, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 27, 2013

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; DISMISSED
Appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal , stating that the part i es have resolved all
issues in dispute between them

. The motion further requests expedited issuance of the mandate
and states that appellee does not oppose the request. We grant the motion. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.
18.1(c), 42.1(a)(1).
Appellant’s motion does not disclose an agreement of the parties regarding the assessment

of costs

. Accordingly , we order all costs assessed against appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(d)
(a bsent agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against appellant)

.04

- 13

- 00342

- CV

We dismiss the appeal and the clerk of this court is ordered to immediately issue the

mandate.

PER CURIAM

2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

LEONARDO NICOLAS-BLAS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-50412

D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00136-ODW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 14, 2013** 

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Leonardo Nicolas-Blas appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

conspiracy to harbor and conceal illegal aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

FILED

MAY 20 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-50412

affirm.

Nicolas-Blas contends that the district court erred by denying his request for

a role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The record reflects that the court

properly considered Nicolas-Blas’s conduct as compared to the other participants

in the conspiracy in assessing whether to grant the adjustment. Because NicolasBlas failed to prove that he was substantially less culpable than the average

participant, the district court did not clearly err by denying the adjustment. See

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A); United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282-83

(9th Cir. 2006).

Nicolas-Blas next contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of

Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) by failing to address his argument that his criminal

history category was overstated. Nicolas-Blas’s contention is without merit

because his legal challenge did not trigger the district court’s obligations under

Rule 32, which only applies to factual challenges to the presentence report. See

United States v. Petri, No. 11-30337, 2013 WL 1490604, at *7 (9th Cir. Apr. 12,

2013).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,827
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,448
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     22,982
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         42,577
<ALLOWANCE>                                        555
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  73,865
<DEPOSITS>                                      66,021
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                408
<LONG-TERM>                                         45
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           803
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,348
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  73,865
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,074
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,243
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   147
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,464
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,181
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,186
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,278
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      179
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (12)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,849
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    947
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         947
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       597
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.79
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.33
<LOANS-NON>                                         59
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   391
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     (15)
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  555
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               555
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Camilio Santiago, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court’s charge failed to explain adequately the application of the law of justification to the facts of this case. Defendant did not object to the court’s initial charge or its supplemental charge in this regard and therefore he has not preserved this issue for our review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Harrell,*59 NY2d 620, 622; *People v Cotto,*139 AD2d 967, *Iv denied*72 NY2d 917; *People v Comfort,*113 AD2d 430, *Iv denied*67 NY2d 760). We decline to review defendant’s contention in the interest of justice *(see,*CPL 470.15 [6]). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J.—manslaughter, first degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
Order entered July 18, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01399-CR

No. 05-13-01400-CR

DAVID EUGENE FIELDS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F08-62384-Q, F12-51531-Q

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeals, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeals. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

The appeals are ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeals shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Money Tree Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended December 25, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Bradley D. Bellville, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Steven P. Morrison, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: |  | February 8, 2011 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Bradley D. Bellville
|      |  |                  |  |  |  |     |  | Bradley D. Bellville    
|      |  |                  |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer 
|      |  |                  |  | 
|Date: |  | February 8, 2011 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Steven P. Morrison  
|      |  |                  |  |  |  |     |  | Steven P. Morrison      
|      |  |                  |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
Organization Name:

Note: Representatives submitting on behalf of an organization must enter information below.

Requestor Representative:

Section 301 Investigation: China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology 

Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation - Form to Request Exclusion of Product

When submitting a product exclusion request using this form, enter the specified 

information in the following fields and explain the basis and rationale for your statements. 

By completing this form, you certify that the information provided is complete and 

correct to the best of your knowledge. 

1. Indicate whether the comment contains business confidential information (BCI), is a public

document, or is a public version of a BCI document.

3.

2. Please provide a complete and detailed description of the product of concern:

4.

5. Requestor's relationship to the product:

CONTINUED BELOW

*

10-digit HTSUS item number* for product you wish to address in this product exclusion request:

Use numerical characters only with no special characters (example: 1023456789). For help in finding 

the HTSUS item number associated with your product, see https://hts.usitc.gov/

1

7.

6. Does this submission in regulations.gov include additional attachments?

Please indicate whether any additional attachment contains business confidential

information (BCI), is a public document, or is a public version of a BCI document.

VERSION 1

Requestor Information

Requestor Name (Last, First):

Public Version of BCI

RC2512, 25.8 ton Capacity, 12.25 in Stroke, General Purpose Hydraulic Cylinder; Maximum Operating 

Pressure psi: 10000; Weight Kgs: 16,3; Oil Capacity Advance cm3: 1033; Stroke Ranges mm: 290 - 

379

8412210075 Schmidt, Jackie Enerpac Jackie SchmidtImporter Yes Contains BCI
END 2

8. Is this product, or a comparable product, available from sources in the United States?:

VERSION 1

11. Please provide information in support your request, taking account of the instructions

provided in Section B of the Federal Register notice (note: text entered below can extend

beyond the apparent size of this box).

9. Is this product, or a comparable product, available from sources in third countries?:

10. Please provide the value and quantity (with units) of the Chinese-origin product of concern

that you purchased for each calendar year specified. Limit this figure to the products

purchased by your firm (or by members of your trade association) alone. Please provide 

estimates if precise figures are unavailable.

2016 Value:

2015 Value:

2017 Value:

2016 Quantity:

2015 Quantity:

2017 Quantity:

No No BCI BCI BCI BCI BCI BCI

See addendum for additional information.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph James, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered January 20, 1987, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law *273§ 265.02), and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to an indeterminate term of from six years to life, to run concurrently with an indeterminate term of from 12 years to life previously imposed on a robbery conviction in Kings County, is unanimously affirmed.

The sole contention on appeal was that defendant’s sentence should be vacated in the event of a reversal of his Kings County judgment of conviction, which was also being appealed, since the terms of his negotiated plea called for the sentence to run concurrently with the sentence in that matter. *(See, People v Rogers,*48 NY2d 167, 174-175; *People v Clark,*45 NY2d 432.) In light of the fact that the Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department has, since the filing of defendant’s brief, affirmed the Kings County judgment *(see, People v James,*159 AD2d 723), this issue has become moot, leaving no basis for disturbing the judgment of conviction. *(See, People v Landy,*59 NY2d 369, 377.) Concur— Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-7450

Nissan North America, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

“Made in China 2025” or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3294-3295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-956]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

RTCA, Inc.; Special Committee 172, Twelfth Meeting; Future Air-
Ground Communications in the VHF Aeronautical Band (118-137 MHz)

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix I), notice is hereby given for 
Special Committee 172 meeting to be held January 30--February 1, 1995 
starting at 9:30 a.m. The meeting will be held at the RTCA Conference 
Room 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1020, Washington DC, 20036.
    Agenda will be as follows: (1) Introductory remarks; (2) Accept 
agenda; (3) Review summary of 11th plenary; (4) Review first draft of 
8.33kHz MOPS; (5) Review issues necessary (including the layers not in 
the (MASPS) to proceed with (CSMA, TDMA) VDR MOPS; (6) Begin joint 
(SC's 172), 165 and AEEC VDR) review, evaluation and selection of CODEC 
for MOPS, Spec's. for TDMA circuit mode voice applications. (Wednesday, 
February 1); (7) Other business; (8) Date and place of next meetings.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the Chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain [[Page 3295]] information should contact the RTCA 
Secretariat, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC 
20036; (202) 833-9339. Any member of the public may present a written 
statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 5, 1995.
David W. Ford,
Designated Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-956 Filed 1-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7651

Global Trade Works, LLC:

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/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.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 the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2907

Curtis Instruments, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5382 

To prohibit funding for implementation of the Equity Action Plan of the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2023 

Mr. SELF (for himself and Mr. ROSENDALE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently 

determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit funding for implementation of the Equity Action 

Plan of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 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 ‘‘HUD Equity Action 

5 Plan Elimination Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING. 

7 Beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act 

8 and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no FedVerDate Sep 11 2014 19:10 Sep 10, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5382.IH H5382

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5382 IH

1 eral funds may be obligated or expended to implement or 

2 carry out the Equity Action Plan of the Department of 

3 Housing and Urban Development. 

4 SEC. 3. NULLIFICATION OF PROPOSED RULE. 

5 The Congress disapproves the proposed rule of the 

6 Department of Housing and Urban Development relating 

7 to ‘‘Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing’’, published in 

8 the Federal Register on February 9, 2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 

9 8516; Docket No. FR–6250–P–01), such Department 

10 may not issue a final rule based on or substantially similar 

11 to such proposed rule, and such proposed rule and any 

12 final rule based on or substantially similar to such pro13 posed rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB