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

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 110-343) the Idaho Panhandle Resource Advisory Committee will meet Friday, November 12, 2010, at 9 a.m. in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho for a business meeting. The business meeting is open to the public.

# DATES:

November 12, 2010.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting location is the Idaho Panhandle National Forests' Supervisor's Office, located at 3815 Schreiber Way, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83815.

# FOR FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ranotta K. McNair, Forest Supervisor and Designated Federal Official, at (208) 765-7369.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting agenda will focus on reviewing proposals for forest projects and recommending funding during the business meeting. The public forum begins at 11 a.m.

Dated: October 27, 2010.

Ranotta K. Mcnair,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 2010-27738 Filed 11-3-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. THERESA DELL.

May 2, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Geer v. Winston.

Instructions — Evidence — In Support of.

A mere abstract proposition of law should not be submitted to the jury without evidence upon which to base it,

Adverse Possession.

Before one can recover against a party in the possession of land he must show in himself a superior legal title.

APPEAL PROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.

February 24, 1866.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Peters :

The court below could not properly have sustained the motion' of appellant to exclude unqualified the deposition of John Cox from the jury, and instructions Nos. 1 and 2 as asked by appellant without qualification should not have been given.

Instruction No. 5 as asked by appellant should not have been given, as by it the appellee was not only required to have had. twenty years’ continuous, adverse possession of the land, but his possession must have been during the whole period by enclosure and clearing, or cultivation, and unless they found all of said facts to exist, they were to find for one who did not show himself or claim to be clothed with the superior legal title.

The seventh instruction was obnoxious to the same objections as those enumerated in the fifth and differed from that only in not requiring appellant to be connected with Fowler’s patent.

*374In instruction No. 10, a mere abstract proposition of law is asked to be submitted to the jury without evideuce upon which to base it, and without any regard to the *evidence*in relation to the previous, continuous, adversary holding by appellee and those under whom he claimed, and was calculated to mislead and confuse the jury, and was properly refused.

Looking to the evidence in this case instruction No. 11 should not have been given. If Taylor was in possession under the Ash patent, as is assumed in the instruction, by his compromise and dismissal of the suit in the Bracken Circuit Court with Breading’s heirs, which he had brought against them to recover the land he left them in possession, and his prior possession if he had such thereby inured to their benefit. But if Taylor’s possession did not inure by the dismissal of his suit against Breading’s heirs to their benefit, and the entry of Breading within the bounds of his deeds only put him in possession of the land he actually enclosed a.s to Taylor holding the superior title, that as proposition of' law was not applicable to and could not benefit appellant claiming under a junior grant.

This disposes of all the instructions asked by appellant and refused, and perceiving no error in the record prejudicial to appellant the judgment is affirmed.
THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS Post Office Box 12248 Austin, Texas 78711

March 29, 2013 FILE COPY
(512)463-1312

Mr. Gregory D. Smith Ramey & Flock, P.C. 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 500 Tyler, TX 75702 RE: Case Number: 10-0887 

### Court ofAppeals Number: 12-08-00175-CV Trial Court Number: 2004-299 Mr. Charles R. 'Skip' Watson Jr. Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell, L.L.P 

## 100Congress Av^^^pCOURT0FAPPEALS Austin, TX 78701 ' 

## 40fith CourtofAppeais District
Style: WENDELL REEDER v. WOOD COUNTY ENERGY, LLC; WOOD COUNTY OIL & GAS, LTD.; NELSON OPERATING, INC.; DEKRFOUR, INC.; BOBBY NOBLE; EXZENA OIL CORPORATION; DAVID FRY AND PATRICIA FRY Dear Counsel: TYLER TE) 

### CATHY S. LUSK,


### Today, the Supreme Court of Texas granted the Motion for Rehearing and issued a Supplemental Per Curiam Opinion in the above-referenced cause. The judgment issued August 31, 2012 is withdrawn and substitutes thejudgment ofthis date.

cc: Ms. Jenica Turner Ms. Cathy S. Lusk Sincerely, 

# g>c^*<^ a. Hcmo*&*>v^ Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk 

### by Claudia Jenks, ChiefDeputy Clerk

### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
No. 10-0887 

### Wendell Reeder, Petitioner, 

### Wood County Energy, LLC, Wood County Oil & Gas, Ltd., Nelson Operating, Inc., Dekrfour, Inc., Bobby Noble, Exzena Oil Corporation, David Fry, and Patricia Fry, Respondents On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Twelfth District of Texas supplemental per curiam on motion for rehearing ofcause 

### In their motion for rehearing, respondents contend that this Court's judgment improperly reversed portions ofthe trial court's judgment that petitioner did not challenge and we did not address. We agree. Forthe reasons explained in our opinion issued August 31, 2012, the trial court 

### erred in entering judgment for respondents on their claims governed by the joint operating agreement. Butpetitionerdid not challengethe portion ofthejudgmentawarding $7,500plus $7,500 in associated attorney's fees to Patricia Fry or the portion granting declaratory reliefand awarding $55,000 in associated attorney's fees to respondents. We therefore grant the motion for rehearing, withdraw ourjudgmentdated August 31,2012, and issue a newjudgmentthat affirms those portions

### ofthe trial court's judgment and reverses and renders a take-nothingjudgment on the remaining claims.
OPINION DELIVERED: March 29, 2013
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_______________________________

GELACIO MACEDO-NAVARRO,

 Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States 

Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-9519

_______________________________

ORDER

_______________________________

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 

42.1.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 20, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 10-9519 Document: 01018460143 Date Filed: 07/20/2010 Page: 1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PEDRO TRUJILLO

- RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 72625

Agency No. A205

- 054

- 215

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 4, 2020 * *

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Pedro Trujillo

- Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir

.

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

FEB 6 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 72625

2008). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Trujillo

Rodriguez cannot establish the requisite ten years of continu ous physical presence

for cancellation of removal , where a signed Form I

- 826 from 2011 indicates that he

accepted voluntary return in lieu of appearing before an immigration judge. See

8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Gutierrez v. Mukasey , 521 F.3d 1114, 1117

- 1 8 (9th

Cir. 2008) ( a voluntary departure breaks continuous physical presence, but the

record must contain some evidence that the alien was informed of and accepted the

terms of the voluntary departure agreement)

.

Trujillo

- Rodriguez ’s contention that hi s accept ance of voluntary return was

not knowing and voluntary is not supported by the record

. See Valadez

- Munoz v.

Holder

, 623 F.3d 1304, 1312 (9th Cir. 20 10 ) ( voluntary departure was accepted

“knowingly and voluntarily” where applicant chose voluntary departure and signed

document expressly waiving his right to appear before an immigration judge ).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### Donald CROMWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James V. PEGUESE; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 03-7033.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.

Decided Aug. 22, 2003.

Donald Cromwell, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*255PER CURIAM.

Donald Cromwell, a Maryland inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition and dismissing the petition as frivolous. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cromwell has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense with oral 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      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. 1350**

|   | (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                Registrant as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the                report. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                        |                                                                                                                         |                              |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| Date:                December                21, 2006  |                                                                                                                              | /s/                B. S. P. Marra |
|                                                        | B.                S. P. Marra  Chief                Financial Officer (Principal Financial                Officer) |

----
Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Don T. Squire, Jr. certify that:  1.   I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the small business issuer;  2.   Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report;  3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financing information included in this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this Annual Report;  4.   The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and  maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have:  a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;  b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my 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; and  c)   disclosed in this Report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and  5.   The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's Board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);  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 small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.     Dated: 1/26/2008                 Signature:/s/Don T. Squire, Jr. Don T. Squire Jr. Chief Financial Officer
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Hematology Small Business.                    

*Date:*                         November 11-12, 2010.                    

*Time:*                         12 p.m. to 3 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Delia Tang, MD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4126, MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-2506,                         *tangd@csr.nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research; 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 29, 2010.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-28072 Filed 11-4-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-90,760-01

EX PARTE JOSE MARIO TREVINO, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 2015CRS001588D1(A) IN THE 49 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM WEBB COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of two counts of sexual assault of a child and sentenced to twenty

years’ imprisonment on each count to be served consecutively. The Fourth Court of Appeals

affirmed his conviction. Trevino v. State, No. 04-17-00133-CR (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 5,

2018). Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and

the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant contends that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to investigate and

present evidence of Applicant’s alleged mental illness and incompetency. Applicant has alleged

facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 

Accordingly, the record should be developed. The trial court is the appropriate forum for findings
2

of fact. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court shall order trial counsel to

respond to Applicant’s claim. In developing the record, the trial court may use any means set out

in Article 11.07, § 3(d). 

It appears that Applicant is represented by counsel. If the trial court elects to hold a hearing,

it shall determine if Applicant is represented by counsel, and if not, whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whethertrial counsel’s

performance was deficient and Applicant was prejudiced. The trial court may make any other

findings and conclusions that it deems appropriate in response to Applicant’s claim.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from

the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court’s

findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things,

affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from

hearings and depositions. See TEX.R.APP.P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested

by the trial court and obtained from this Court.

Filed: January 15, 2020

Do not publish
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1764

To designate the building located at 493 Auburn Avenue, N.E., in Atlanta, 

Georgia, as the ‘‘John Lewis Civil Rights Institute’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 21, 2003

Mr. MILLER (for himself and Mr. CHAMBLISS) introduced the following bill; 

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

Public Works 

A BILL

To designate the building located at 493 Auburn Avenue, 

N.E., in Atlanta, Georgia, as the ‘‘John Lewis Civil 

Rights Institute’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. JOHN LEWIS CIVIL RIGHTS INSTITUTE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The building located at 493 Au5 burn Avenue, N.E., in Atlanta, Georgia, shall be known 

6 and designated as the ‘‘John Lewis Civil Rights Insti7 tute’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 
2

•S 1764 IS 

1 States to the building referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the John Lewis Civil Rights 

3 Institute.

Æ