alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 12

- 00 544

- CR

IN RE Raymond Isaac URIBE

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 5, 2012

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On August 27, 2012 , relator Raymond Isaac Uribe filed a petition for writ of mandamus,

complaining trial court denied his motion for an examining trial and has failed to set the case for

an examining trial

. However, counsel has been appointed to represent relator in the criminal

proceeding pending in the trial court for which he is currently confined. A criminal defendant is

not entitled to hybrid representation. See Robinson v. State , 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2007); Patrick v. State , 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). A trial c ourt has no

legal duty to rule on pro se motions or petitions filed with regard to a criminal proceeding in

which the defendant is represented by counsel. See Robinson , 240 S.W.3d at 922.

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 152268 , styled State of Texas v. Raymond Isaac Uribe , in the 227 th

Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Philip Kazen presiding.04

- 12

- 00544

- CR

- 2

- Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by fail ing to grant relator’s pro se

request for an examining trial . Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. T EX

.

R. A PP

. P. 52.8( a).

P ER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6324

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL WAYNE SHIFFLETT, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CR-99-42, CA-00-77-3) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 29, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Wayne Shifflett, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Michael Wayne Shifflett appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000), and a subsequent order denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) does not bring up for review the merits of the underlying substantive judgment, nor does it toll the period for filing an appeal of the underlying judgment. See Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 263 n.7, 264-65, 268-69 (1978). Because Shifflett did not file his Rule 60(b) motion within ten days of the district court’s order denying relief on his § 2255 motion, entered on November 20, 2000, the time period for filing his appeal of that order was not tolled. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). Shifflett had sixty days to appeal the district court’s November order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). He did not appeal until February 23, 2001, twenty-three days after the court denied reconsideration. Therefore, Shifflett’s appeal is only timely as to the district court’s denial of his subsequent motion for reconsideration. This court reviews a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. See NOW v. Operation Rescue, 47 F.3d 667, 669 (4th Cir. 1995). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court’s denial of Shifflett’s motion for reconsideration did not3constitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 23.    Consent of Experts and Counsel



Beckstead and Watts, LLP
Certified Public Accountants

                                           3340 Wynn Road, Suite B
                                               Las Vegas, NV 89102
                                                      702.257.1984
                                                  702.362.0540 fax

To Whom It May Concern:

We  have  issued our report dated February 27, 2003,  accompanying
the  financial statements of Le Gourmet Co., Inc. on  Form  10-KSB
for  the year ended December 31, 2002 and for the period of  April
21,  1999  (inception date) through December 31, 2002.  We  hereby
consent  to the incorporation by reference of said report  on  the
Annual Report of Le Gourmet Co., Inc. on Form 10-KSB.

Signed,

/s/ Beckstead and Watts, LLP
------------------------------

February 27, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 197 (Thursday, October 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 59674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24190]


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

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting of the Board of Directors Finance Committee

Times and Dates: The Finance Committee of the Legal Services 
Corporation's Board of Directors will meet at 11 a.m. Eastern Time, on 
October 14, 2008.

Location: Legal Services Corporation Headquarters, 3rd Floor Conference 
Center, 3333 K Street, NW., Washington, DC.

Public Observation by Telephone: Members of the public who wish to 
listen to the meeting live may do so by following the telephone call-in 
directions provided below. You are asked to keep your telephone muted 
in order to eliminate background noises. Comments from the public may 
be solicited from time-to-time by the Committee's Chairman.

Call-In Directions

    <bullet> Call toll-free number 1-800-988-9769;
    <bullet> When prompted, enter the following numeric pass code: 
13523;
    <bullet> When connected to the call, please ``mute'' your telephone 
immediately. You may do so by dialing ``*6.''

Status Of Meeting: Open.

Matters to be Considered: 

Agenda

    1. Approval of agenda.
    2. Presentation on FY 2009 Budget Calculation error.

--Presentation by David Richardson
--Comments by Charles Jeffress

    3. Presentation on Management's Recommendation for LSC's FY 2010 
Budget Request to Congress.

--Presentation by Charles Jeffress
--Comments by John Constance

    4. Public Comment.

--Robert Stein, on behalf of SCLAID
--Don Saunders, on behalf of NLADA
--Other

    5. Consider and act on recommending to the Board Resolution 
<greek-i> 2008-014, A Resolution Adopting LSC's FY 2010 Budget Request 
to Congress.
    6. Consider and act on other business.
    7. Consider and act on adjournment of meeting.

Contact Person for Information: Patricia D. Batie, Manager of Board 
Operations, at (202) 295-1500.

Special Needs: Upon request, meeting notices will be made available in 
alternate formats to accommodate visual and hearing impairments. 
Individuals who have a disability and need an accommodation to attend 
the meeting may notify Patricia D. Batie, at (202) 295-1500.

    Dated: October 7, 2008.
Victor M. Fortuno,
Vice President for Legal Affairs, General Counsel & Corporate 
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-24190 Filed 10-7-08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7050-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 8049]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2433]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Accreditation and Approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, 
as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America 
Corporation, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 
CFR 151.13, Inspectorate America Corporation, 37 Panagrossi Circle, 
East Haven, CT 06512, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test 
petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils 
for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 
151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to 
conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and 
receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or 
approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the 
specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries 
regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited 
or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a4c7c6d48ac8c5c6ccd5e4c0ccd78ac3cbd2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8fecedffa1e3eeede7fecfebe7fca1e8e0f9">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reference the website listed below for a 
complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. 
http://cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/operations_support/labs_scientific_svcs/commercial_gaugers/.

DATES: The accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America 
Corporation, as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on 
July 25, 2007. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for 
July 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commercial Gauger Laboratory Program 
Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 
20229, 202-344-1060.

    Dated: January 31, 2008.
 Ira S. Reese,
 Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
 [FR Doc. E8-2433 Filed 2-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting: 

*Name:*                         Advisory Committee for Geosciences (1755).                     

*Dates:*

November 19, 2008, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. 

November 20, 2008, 8:30 a.m.-2 p.m. 

*Place:*                         Stafford II, Room 555, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230.                     

*Type of Meeting:*                         Open.                     

*Contact Person:*                         Melissa Lane, National Science Foundation, Suite 705, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230. Phone 703-292-8500.                     

*Minutes:*                         May be obtained from the contact person listed above.                     

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice, recommendations, and oversight concerning support for research, education, and human resources development in the geosciences.                               ( print page 61916)    

*Agenda:*

November 19 

Directorate Activities and Plans. 

Discussion of Draft Strategic Plan. 

Division Subcommittee Meetings. 

Education & Diversity Subcommittee Meeting. 

November 20 

Earth Scope Briefing. 

Meeting with the Director. 

Planning for Spring Meeting. 

Dated: October 14, 2008. 

Susanne Bolton, 

Committee Management Officer.

 [FR Doc. E8-24657 Filed 10-16-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 
. .J” 

John 8. Taylor, Pag0.S 
aaMtr?ble tabn IS. Taylor, Pa@ 8 

UC.11 tllldtW Slljr QrdOr OP OYdsrS Of the bVl muwntsi Agenay. tbsntal'~m pmaul~teQ 

and in r0r0b at the tImo.* 

N=tIale lllab, 6ooblon Qa, Vwnoo'8 AimotateU 

Pvll* cod8, prov+les IO ro11owrr 

%ea. 8a. #hwlavar the ooYsrnl5entul k~~rc~y‘sholl hffo aQopts(i arty rule or 

regulntlon andcr the mar o.onterreQ by 

thle Act, such Wmwsuumt'al Agancy ahal 

mbli8h in thrro (9) XlOW89E@W8 0f @aoral oircul.atIan la the tltate of Texau 

(aueh YMWbp~~rZJ to bo 8alOebd by b&? 

Covernwntol Agan‘cg),, onae saoh day for 

three (5) aoawoutirs dayu a aoqlets 

oopy 0r suoh rule 1314 ra&atlon and 033 

and after &he 7th onl8nfmx day arter the 

date ot t&e lust pullicrlrtloa, muoh rU, 

mqgulatlon or ariler #hall b000im err00- 

tlve and snfwtwable~ Ilotiae Of cay 

wawdmmat, repeal, alt4rat$.an or xo&iflcation of such order asay be eitd.lcrly 

pltmulgated and will bacon0 similarly 

slneotire after biailar aotioeta 

J%.l'tiO~ lllBb, &OtiQd 9, ?+3l7IO~'S hlUlQtate8 

PWd Cdl., prISYibe8 88 fOl~CWUt ' 
IEolwrKbla John E. Taylor, Frge 4 

Artielo WNa, Seetton 6, Vertaen~s Am&ate4 

Clrll %tute8, provides a8 rollowe: 

QOVO. 3. xlk3nver the coRwl.l~ci~on 

shall have sdopted, urtar notioe anO 

homing ss provldob rndsr othsc atatutelr or the State, qny nilo, rqulation or order pumuant to ang statute 

artthis State, no orimPnPl action shn3.l 

bo,aaintalned egetit any persrm tnvolv- lag the rioiation or any provioion or 

mwh rule, ro&&ion or order, until 

fba Qodawion shei have pm~ated 

mob ‘mle, rscpllatlan or order by pub- 

,lichin a~oomplete oopy g? 8em IR 

chroe ir 9) nmspnpars or gonsral omna-’ 

lotion la t&'Gtate or Fdx~s (auoh newpagers to be meleoted by aaid ComnIw 

slon) on&e baoh dey ror t&roe (3) 008- 

i%itiUtfVe days, end OR Snd utter the &?Wenth (9th) day ~rrter the 4ate ot tt!m 

last publioatton swh tia, rsgulatlea 

or order shall be l ffeo tlve end onfw~mable In any 0rimine.L ution, brbu6t~8 

pursuant to this hpt. ‘No ariplinal eo-
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1836 

To require the Comptroller General to address certain questions in connection 

with the closure of Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, and the transfer of 

personnel, functions, and activities from Fort Monmouth to Aberdeen 

Proving Ground, Maryland, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 19, 2007 

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. MENENDEZ) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require the Comptroller General to address certain questions in connection with the closure of Fort Monmouth, 

New Jersey, and the transfer of personnel, functions, 

and activities from Fort Monmouth to Aberdeen Proving 

Ground, Maryland, 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. COMPTROLLER GENERAL INVESTIGATION OF 

4 CLOSURE OF FORT MONMOUTH, NEW JER5 SEY. 

6 (a) INVESTIGATION.—The Comptroller General shall 

7 require methodological, scientific, and technical experts 


ccoleman on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 1836 IS

1 within the Government Accountability Office to undertake 

2 a new investigation to address the following questions re3 lating to Fort Monmouth, New Jersey: 

4 (1) Whether the cost estimates of the Depart5 ment of Defense on closing Fort Monmouth and 

6 transferring personnel, functions, and activities to 

7 Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, and the esti8 mates for the United States Military Academy Pre9 paratory School move to the United States Military 

10 Academy at West Point, New York, were based on 

11 complete and sound data. 

12 (2) Why specific data showing a future shortfall 

13 of scientists and engineers was not provided to the 

14 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, 

15 thus ensuring insufficient support for the Depart16 ment’s future force structure. 

17 (3) Whether officials of the Department or the 

18 Army involved in the processes described in para19 graphs (1) and (2) violated any laws by providing 

20 false or misleading information. 

21 (4) Why the Department has failed to timely 

22 prepare the report required by the Defense Base 

23 Closure and Realignment Commission certifying that 

24 the movement of personnel, functions, and activities 

25 from Fort Monmouth will be accomplished without 


ccoleman on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•S 1836 IS

1 disruption of their support to the Global War on 

2 Terror or other critical contingency operations. 

3 (b) AUDIT OF REPORT.—Upon the submission of the 

4 report described in subsection (a)(4), the Comptroller 

5 General shall audit the report to ensure the information 

6 provided in the report is accurate. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
#### Carl Jackson TROWEL, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 8, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 17, 1971.

John Tim McCall, Louisville, for appellant.

John B. Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., James B. Wooten, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

PALMORE, Judge.

The appeal in this case is from an order overruling Carl Jackson Trowel’s RCr 11.42 motion to vacate a judgment sentencing him to 21 years’ imprisonment pursuant to a jury verdict finding him guilty of voluntary manslaughter under an indictment charging him with wilful murder. KRS 435.010, 435.020.

The motion to vacate specifies several respects in which it is claimed that Trowel’s lawyer, whom he had retained on a fee-paying basis, did not adequately represent him during the proceedings leading to and following the verdict. On this appeal, however, his only contention is that the lawyer’s failure to take an appeal from the conviction deprived him unconstitutionally of his right of appeal.

In the hearing held by the trial court on the motion to vacate Trowel acknowledged that he had been duly advised and was aware of his right of appeal, cf. RCr 11.02(2). He said his attorney made an oral motion for probation of the sentence and a written motion for new trial but that they had no face-to-face meetings after he was committed to jail following the overruling of these motions. Meanwhile, he says, he expected the lawyer to perfect an appeal and was never advised to the contrary until after the time for appeal had expired.

The attorney, on the other hand, while admitting he had not visited his client in jail after the hearing on the motion for new trial, testified that before that hearing he told Trowel an appeal would be fruitless, that he also discussed the matter with Trowel’s mother and girl friend, “and they told me that they had been in contact with him and explained it; and they told me that they agreed with that and that they were going to work on seeing if they could get him an early parole,” etc.

Neither Trowel’s mother nor the girl friend testified at the hearing on the motion to vacate. Trowel admitted, however, that they had discussed with him their conversations with the lawyer and had advised him that the lawyer said he was not going to appeal. He was not sure just when he received this information.

The trial court found that Trowel knew of his right to appeal, had the benefit of *135counsel of his own choice, and chose to waive the right. It is our opinion that there was sufficient evidence to support that finding. We therefore do not reach the question of whether the principle with respect to denial of the right of appeal applies to counsel employed by the defendant himself in the same manner and to the same extent as it applies to counsel provided by the state. See, however, Howard v. Commonwealth, Ky., 446 S.W.2d 293 (1969); Bartley v. Commonwealth, Ky., 463 S.W.2d 321, 323 (1971); and Brooks v. Commonwealth, Ky., 461 S.W.2d 547 (1970).

The order is affirmed.

All concur.
---

Exhibit 32.2

U.S. GEOTHERMAL INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with the report of U.S. Geothermal Inc. on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Kerry D. Hawkley, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or Section 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 business issuer.

Date: June 9, 2010

/s/ Kerry D.
HawkleyKerry D. Hawkley Chief Financial Officer

---