alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 96 (Thursday, May 16, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 24807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12324]



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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Clean Water 
Act

    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a consent decree in United States of America v. 
Ritschard Brothers, Inc. Carmelo Ritschard, and Donald Ritschard, No. 
3:96-CV-310AS (N.D. Ind.), was lodged with the United States District 
Court for the Northern District of Indiana on May 9, 1996.
    The proposed consent decree concerns alleged violations of the 
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1311, as a result of the discharge of 
fill material onto portions of property located in St. Joseph County, 
Indiana, which are alleged to constitute ``waters of the United 
States.'' The consent decree requires Ritschard Brothers, Inc., Carmelo 
Ritschard, and Donald Ritschard to (1) refrain from further discharges 
at the wetland; (2) perform partial restoration at the wetland; (3) 
monoitor the fill material for three years, to ensure that no hazardous 
substances are leaching into the wetland; (4) place a conservation 
easement on the portion of the wetland and surrounding uplands which 
the Ritschard own; (5) pay a portion of the purchase price of a 120-
acre farmland parcel, and perform all necessary design and construction 
necessary to create a mitigation wetland; and (6) pay a penalty of 
$20,000 to the United States Treasury.
    The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to 
the proposed consent decree for thirty (30) days from the date of 
publication of this notice. Comments should be addressed to the 
Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
U.S. Department of Justice, Attention: Daniel R. Dertke, 10th & 
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 7215--Main Building, Washington, D.C. 
20530 and should refer to United States v. Ritschard Brothers, Inc., DJ 
Reference No. 90-5-1-6-555.
    The consent decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, United 
States District Court, Room 102, Robert A. Grant Federal Building and 
U.S. Courthouse, 204 South Main Street, South Bend, Indiana, 46601.
Letitia J. Grishaw,
Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environment and Natural Resources 
Division, U.S. Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 96-12324 Filed 5-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL ANTHONY TORRES, AKA

Mikey,

Applicant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent. No. 20

- 71724

MEMORANDUM *

Application to File Second or Successive Petition

Under 28 U.S.C. § 225 5

Argued and Submitted June 11, 2021

Pasadena, California

Before: CALLAHAN and FORREST, Circuit Judges, and SEEBORG, * * District

Judge.

Applicant Michael Anthony Torres seeks leave to file a second or successive

motion for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argues that his conviction for

possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crim e of violence or drug trafficking

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Richard Seeborg, Chief United States District Judge

for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAR 17 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) is invalid because his predicate crime

—

racketeering

— is no longer a categorical “crime of violence” under a new rule of

constitutional law announced in United States v. Davis , 139 S. Ct. 231 9 (2019). 1 We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and we grant Torres’s request for leave to

file a second or successive § 2255 habeas motion.

In our concurrently filed opinion

, Muñoz Gonzalez v. United States , __F.4th__

(9th Cir. 2022 ) , we adopted a pragmat ic approach for determining whether a new

rule of constitutional law was “previously unavailable” within the meaning of

§ 2255(h)(2) that focuses on systemic barriers , including timing and accessible

procedural means for presenting a claim . Applying this a pproach here , we conclude

that an argument based on the new rule announced in Davis was not available to

Torres while his first habeas motion was still pending. The district court rejected

Torres’s initial habeas motion less than two months after the Supre me Court issued

Davis . Torres faced multiple institutional hurdles in accessing legal resources and

preparing and filing legal documents and

, unlike in Muñoz Gonzalez

, there is no

1 The verdict form did not require the jury to specify which conviction

— racketeering or Torres ’s two drug offenses

— served as the predicate offense for his

§ 924(c) conviction. The government concedes that, despite the uncertainty about

which offense was the predicate for his § 924(c) conviction, Torres can establish that

Davis at least advances his claim. See Henry v. Spearman , 899 F.3d 703, 706 (9th

Cir. 2018) (petitioner need only show “ possible meri t to warrant a fuller exploration

by the district court”) (citation omitted)

.3 indication that Torres knew about Davis during th e very short window of time before

his initial habeas motion was denied. Given these restraints, we find that t he real

world circumstances that Torres faced rendered his Davis claim previously

unavailable to him.

The request for leave to file a second or successive ha beas motion is

GRANTED.
EXHIBIT 23

Bedinger  &  Company
1850 Mt. Diablo, Blvd., Suite 610
Walnut  Creek,  California


March  14,  2001


         CONSENT  OF  INDEPENDENT  CERTIFIED  PUBLIC  ACCOUNTANTS

We  hereby  consent  to  use in this form 10-KSB of our report dated January 24,
2001  relating  to  the  financial  statements of DDR Systems, Inc. for the year
ended  and  period  ended  December  31,  2000  and  1999  respectively.



                                         /s/  Bedinger & Company

                                         Bedinger  &  Company
                                         Certified Public Accounts
                                         Walnut Creek, California


                                       14
<PAGE>
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28592-28593]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14064]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[ES-930-06-1320-01-241A; ALES-46611]


Alabama: Notice of Coal Lease Offering; Coal Lease Application 
ALES 46611

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Competitive coal lease offering by sealed bid.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that as a result of a Coal Lease 
Application filed by Drummond Company Incorporated, for the tract below 
will be offered for competitive lease by sealed bid. This is in 
accordance with the provisions of the Federal Mineral Leasing Act of 
1920, as amended and supplemented (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq). The 
application area consists of private surface with federally-owned coal. 
The coal tract to be offered is underground-minable, potentially bypass 
coal. The coal tract is described as the Prescott Tract in the Mary Lee 
Seam, T. 16 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 30, SWSW, Walker County, Alabama, 
Huntsville Principal Meridian, containing 40.08 acres more or less. The 
Prescott Tract will be leased to the highest qualified bidder provided 
that the high bid equals or exceeds the Fair Market Value (FMV) for the 
tract as determined by the Authorized Officer. The Department has 
established a minimum bid of $100.00 per acre for the tract. The 
minimum bid may not represent the amount for which the tract may 
actually be leased, since FMV will be determined in a separate postsale 
analysis.

DATES: The lease sale will be held at 10 a.m. Friday, June 28, 1996. 
Each bid must be clearly identified on the outside of the sealed 
envelope containing the bid. The bid should be sent by certified mail, 
return receipt or be hand delivered on or before 4:30 p.m., Thursday, 
June 27, 1996 to Bureau of Land Management at the address below. If any 
bid is received after the time specified it will not be considered.

ADDRESSES: The sale will be held at the Bureau of Land Management, 
Eastern States, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Any lease issued as a result of this 
offering will require an annual rental payment of $3.00 per acre and a 
royalty payable to the United States of 8.0 percent of the value of the 
coal mined by underground methods. The value of the coal shall be 
determined in accordance with 43 CFR 3485.2. Bidding instructions and 
bidder qualifications are included in the Detailed Statement.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the Detailed Statement and 
of the proposed coal lease and case file documents are available at the 
Bureau of Land Management, Eastern States, 7450 Boston Boulevard, 
Springfield, Virginia 22153. Please contact Ida V. Doup at (703) 440-
1541.


[[Page 28593]]


    Dated: May 30, 1996.
Walter Rewinski,
Deputy State Director, Resources Planning, Use and Protection.
[FR Doc. 96-14064 Filed 6-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-HC-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 105 (Thursday, May 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 27126]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13529]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration


Notice of Approval of Applicant as Trustee

    Notice is hereby given that First Union Bank of Connecticut, with 
offices at 10 State House Square, 2nd Floor CT5845, Hartford, 
Connecticut 06103-3698, has been approved as Trustee pursuant to Public 
Law 100-710 and 46 CFR Part 221.

    Dated: May 23, 1996.

    By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Joel C. Richard,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-13529 Filed 5-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-81-P
Order entered March 30, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00261-CR

ROBERTO PALACIOS-SANCHEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F14-12347-Q

ORDER

By letter dated March 13, 2015, the Court notified the parties that it has a question 

concerning its jurisdiction over this appeal. Specifically, the Court noted that the documents 

received from the Dallas County District Clerk reflect appellant pleaded guilty and received 

deferred adjudication pursuant to a plea agreement. The trial court certified that case involves a 

plea bargain and appellant has no right to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a), (d); Dears v. 

State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Both appellant and the State responded that 

there are no plea papers or other documentation to show the case involved a plea bargain 

agreement and there are some discrepancies in the signatures on some of the documents. 

Appellant also responds that the trial court allowed appellant to be released on an appeal bond 

and set conditions of that bond, appointed counsel for appeal, and ordered the court reporter to 
prepare the record. The parties agree that this Court should obtain findings regarding the 

existence of a plea agreement, and the State also requests findings as to the signatures on the 

documents and whether the Dallas County District Clerk has copies of all documents relevant to 

the case. We agree that in order to properly determine our jurisdiction over the appeal, we 

require information not in the record before us.

Accordingly, we ORDER the trial court to make findings regarding the following.

 Whether appellant pleaded guilty to the offense for which he received deferred 

adjudication community supervision pursuant to a plea bargain agreement.

 If appellant pleaded guilty pursuant to an agreement, whether there is a written 

document, signed by all parties, memorializing the terms of the agreement.

 If appellant pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement, whether he reserved the 

right to appeal any written motions ruled on before trial or whether the trial court 

granted permission to appeal.

 Whether the record maintained by the Dallas County District Clerk is complete, 

and, if not, the trial court shall determine what are true and correct copies of any 

missing documents pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(e).

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record containing its written findings of fact, any 

supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of 

this order. We further ORDER that the supplemental record contain a new certification of 

appellant’s right to appeal that accurately reflects the trial court proceedings as evidenced in the 

trial court’s findings.

We ABATE the appeal to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal 

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

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF VIASYSTEMS, INC.

Viasystems International, Inc.
Viasystems FSC, Incorporated
Viasystems Technologies Corp. LLC
PAGG Corporation
Viasystems Technologies Corp.
Viasystems International (Cayman Islands) Ltd.
Viasystems ULC
Viasystems Partners Ltd.
Espana Viasystems Technologies, S.A.
Viasysterns Asia Pacific Company Limited
Viasystems Luxembourg S.a.r.l.
Viasystems Canada Partnership
Viasystems NRO Ltd.
Viasystems Canada, Inc.
Viasystems Group Limited
Viasystems Puerto Rico, Inc.
Chips Acquisition Limited
PCB Investments Plc
Viasystems Solutions, Inc.
Viasystems II Limited
Viasystems Holdings Limited
Interconnection Systems Limited
Viasystems BVI Ltd.
Viasystems Tyneside Limited
Viasystems Tamworth Ltd.
Forward Circuits (Advanced Products) Ltd.
Kalex Printed Circuit Board Limited
Lee Lap & Sons Limited
Interconnection Systems Sales Ltd.
Viasystems Blackburn Ltd.
Forward Circuits II Limited
Termbray Property (B.V.I.) Limited
Kalex Circuit Board (Hong Kong) Limited
Viasystems Trading Limited
Termbray Laminate Company Limited
Kalex Printed Circuit Board (S) PTE Ltd.


<PAGE>   2


Viasystems Technograph Ltd.
Forward Microcircuits Ltd.
Guangzhou Kalex Laminate Company Ltd.
Kalex Circuit Board (China) Limited
Exacta Circuits Limited
Circuit Bureau Limited
Guangzhou Termbray Electronics Technology Co. Ltd.
Kalex Multilayer Printed Circuit Board Co. Ltd.
Covecourt Ltd.
Forward Circuits Limited
Termbray Circuit Board Company Ltd.
Kalex Multilayer Printed Circuit Board Co. Ltd.
Powertracks Designs Limited
TI Technologies (PTY) Ltd.
Kalex Circuit Board (Guangzhou) Limited
Viasystems Manchester Limited
Swift International (PTY) Ltd.
Guangzhou Termbray Circuit Board Co. Ltd.
TDS Circuits Ltd.
Interconnection Systems (Holdings) Limited
Viasystems Selkirk Limited
Flexible Circuits Limited
Fourlayer Limited
Viasystems France (S.A.R.L.)
Viasystems International Ltd.
Forward Lamination Ltd.
Viasystems BV
Viasystems (Nantong) Electronic Technologies Company Ltd.
Print Service Holding NV
Viasystems Sweden AB
Viasystems Srl
Mommers Print Service BV
Alex Cars BY
Viasystems Blackburn, Ltd.
Mommers Vastgoed BV
Momm BV
Lamberto BV
Print Belgie Beheer BV
Masthoff BV
European Semiconductors Assembly BV
Print Belgie Holding BV
Mommers Print Service France SARL
Torag Trading A.G.


                                       2
#### Emilie Rose CULP, Respondent, v. Robert D. CULP, Appellant.

No. WD 46318.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 3, 1993.

*820Patricia D. Reynolds, Kansas City, for appellant.

L. Clay Barton, Oak Grove, for respondent.

Before KENNEDY, P.J., and BERREY and SPINDEN, JJ.

KENNEDY, Presiding Judge.

Former husband appeals from judgment in former wife’s independent suit in equity, by which court divided the stipulated lump sum value of husband’s pension, $12,500, equally between husband and wife.

The dissolution had taken place in 1988. The pension was marital property, but it was not allocated or otherwise mentioned in the 1983 dissolution judgment.

In accordance with *State ex rel. McClintock v. Black,*608 S.W.2d 405 (Mo. banc 1980), which held that a spouse by an independent suit in equity could seek the division of marital property left undivided in a dissolution decree which had become final, wife filed the present suit in equity. The present suit was filed in 1990, seven years after the dissolution decree.

We hold that wife has not alleged in her petition any ground for equitable relief, nor has her evidence shown any such ground. It is not sufficient merely to show that marital property was left undivided in the dissolution decree; there must also be shown some ground for the exercise of the equitable powers of the court, such as fraud or mistake. Wife does not claim any such ground exists. The pension was before the court in the original dissolution case. It was unaccountably omitted from the property-dividing provisions of the decree.

The Supreme Court case of *Chrun v. Chrun,*751 S.W.2d 752 (Mo. banc 1988), is very much like the present case on its facts, and its holding is dispositive of this case. There a husband’s pension had been left undivided by the dissolution decree, and wife, in a motion which was treated by the court as an independent suit in equity, sought division of the pension. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s division of the husband’s retirement plan. The court said:

> ... [T]he motion in this case makes no averments nor could it be liberally construed as pleading equitable grounds for review of the judgment. Instead, the language of the motion is consistent with that customarily employed in motions to modify decrees, citing changed circumstances, but making no reference to mistake, accident or extrinsic fraud ... [W]e cannot say that she has invoked the equitable powers of the court to divide the previously undivided property. The trial court was thus without jurisdiction to proceed, the judgment in the dissolution having become final.

*Chrun,*751 S.W.2d at 755.

We have examined the cases cited by wife for her position, but none of them is essentially inconsistent with *Chrun.*

The judgment of the trial court is reversed.

All concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas November 9, 2021 No. 04-21-00430-CV TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONand James M. Bass, Appellants
v. ROBERT DIXON TIPS PROPERTIES, LLC ,

Appellee From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI10003 Honorable Tina Torres, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Appellants’ brief was originally due on November 8, 2021. On November 5, 2021, appellants filed a motion requesting an extension of their briefing deadline until December 8, 2021. After consideration, we GRANT the motion and ORDER appellants to file their brief by December 8, 2021
.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 9th day of November, 2021.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
18-15876 Fernando Bustillo v. Beacon, et al "Mandate Issued (Screening/Motions Panel)"

ca9_ecfnoticing 

to:

08/20/2018 09:21 AM

Hide Details 

From: ca9_ecfnoticing@ca9.uscourts.gov

To: 

***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record 

and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if 

receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, 

download a copy of each document during this first viewing.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 08/20/2018 at 9:18:23 AM PDT and filed on 08/20/2018 

Case Name: Fernando Bustillo v. Beacon, et al

Case Number: 18-15876

Document(s): Document(s)

Docket Text:

MANDATE ISSUED. (WCC, KMW and JBR) [10981599] (Lopez, Rebecca)

Notice will be electronically mailed to:

USDC, Tucson

Case participants listed below will not receive this electronic notice:

Fernando Bustillo

#02530-051

USP - U.S. PENITENTIARY - TUCSON

P.O. Box 24550

Tucson, AZ 85734 

The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:

Document Description: Mandate Order

Original Filename: /opt/ACECF/live/forms/RebeccaJ.Lopez_1815876_10981599_v2Order-Mandate_216.pdf

Electronic Document Stamp:

[STAMP acecfStamp_ID=1106763461 [Date=08/20/2018] [FileNumber=10981599-0] 

[81833047a5252928dfbf16027b1d01f06ff181fff52dfd75fc68d8506fd798dfd20de48436160a0a8a60583c36c5a28d86bbbe1b860dc

Recipients: 

• Fernando Bustillo

• USDC, Tucson

The following information is for the use of court personnel:

DOCKET ENTRY ID: 10981599 

RELIEF(S) DOCKETED:

DOCKET PART(S) ADDED: 13227672 

Case 4:18-cv-00039-CKJ-PSOT Document 23-2 Filed 08/20/18 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors
AFC Enterprises, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-56444, 333-81404, 333-90706, and 333-98867) on Form S-8 of AFC
Enterprises, Inc. of our report dated March 29, 2004, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of AFC Enterprises, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 28, 2003 and December 29, 2002, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, changes in shareholders' equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 28, 2003, which report
appears in the December 28, 2003, annual report on Form 10-K/A of
AFC Enterprises, Inc.

Our report dated March 29, 2004 contains an explanatory paragraph that states
that Effective December 31, 2001, the Company adopted the provisions of
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, "Goodwill and Other
Intangible Assets."

/s/ KPMG LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
May 24, 2004