alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered August 5, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00309
- CR
PATRICK DARNELL LAWR ENCE, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Tri al Court Cause No. F08
- 73515
- S



### O RDER
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 a ppellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial c ourt 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 effec tive 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. Thi s appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier. /s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1866 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Senate, Miscellaneous 

Items for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for 

Senate, Miscellaneous Items for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 SENATE, MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS FOR FISCAL 

5 YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for Senate, Miscellaneous Items for fiscal year 2024 

9 may not exceed $18,871,410. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-15-001]

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: 

United States International Trade Commission.

# TIME AND DATE: 

January 12, 2015 at 11:30 a.m.

# PLACE: 

Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

# STATUS: 

Open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Agendas for future meetings: none.

2. Minutes.

3. Ratification List.

4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-457 and 731-TA-1153 (Review) (Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission on January 22, 2015.

5. 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. Earlier notification of this meeting was not possible.

Issued: January 7, 2015.

By order of the Commission.

William R. Bishop,

Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 2015-00232 Filed 1-7-15; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________

No. 07-12-0502-CR 

________________________

Lisa Marie Fletcher, Appellant 

 

v. 

 

The State of Texas, Appellee 

 

On Appeal from the 108th District Court 

Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 58,749-E, Honorable Douglas R. Woodburn, Presiding 

 

April 10, 2013 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Lisa Marie Fletcher (appellant) appeals her conviction for tampering with a 

government record. She was originally placed on three years deferred adjudication 

after pleading guilty to the indictment. Subsequently, the State filed to adjudicate 

appellant’s guilt which the trial court granted and sentenced her to two years in a state 

jail facility. Appellant’s appointed counsel has now filed a motion to withdraw, together 
2

with an Anders1 brief, wherein she certified that, after diligently searching the record, 

she concluded that the appeal was without merit. Along with her brief, appellate 

counsel filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing her of counsel’s belief that 

there was no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response pro se. No 

response has been filed.

In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel 

discussed two potential areas for appeal, which included sufficiency of the evidence to 

support adjudication and whether the grounds alleged supported adjudication of guilt. 

However, counsel then proceeded to explain why the issues were without merit.

In addition, we have conducted our own review of the record to assess the 

accuracy of appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any reversible error 

pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After doing so, 

we concur with counsel’s conclusions. We have noted that in the judgment, court costs 

were assessed against appellant and that those costs included attorney’s fees of $800 

paid for the revocation hearing. There is no evidence in the record that appellant has 

the ability to pay those attorney’s fees so their assessment against her was error. See 

Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552, 556-57 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). 

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment is modified to 

delete any obligation to pay attorney’s fees and, as modified, is affirmed. 

Brian Quinn 

 Chief Justice

Do not publish. 

 1

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-15-004]

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

United States International Trade Commission.

# TIME AND DATE:

January 20, 2015 at 11:00 a.m.

# PLACE:

Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

# STATUS:

Open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Agendas for future meetings: None.

2. Minutes.

3. Ratification List.

4. Vote in Inv. No. 731-TA-1020 (Second Review) (Barium Carbonate from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determination and views of the Commission on February 2, 2015.

5. 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.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: January 12, 2015.

William R. Bishop,

Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 2015-00583 Filed 1-13-15; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Robinson, Appellant.

[973 NYS2d 570]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Hubert, J.), rendered February 17, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review two orders of protection issued at the time of sentencing.

Ordered that upon the appeal from the judgment, the two orders of protection issued at the time of sentencing are vacated; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court has broad discretion in restricting the scope of voir dire by counsel *(see People v Jean,*75 NY2d 744, 745 [1989]; *People v Rodriguez,*240 AD2d 683, 683 [1997]), and “[a] restriction on the time allotted for voir dire is generally permissible where defense counsel is ‘afford[ed] ... a fair opportunity to question prospective jurors about relevant matters’ ” *(People v Littlejohn,*92 AD3d 898, 899 [2012], quoting *People v Jean,*75 NY2d at 745). Moreover, while “counsel has a right to inquire as to the qualifications of the veniremen [and venirewomen] and their prejudices so as to provide a foundation for a challenge for cause or a peremptory challenge, . . . it is simply not the province of counsel to question prospective jurors as to their attitudes or knowledge of matters of law” *(People v Boulware,*29 NY2d 135, 141 [1971], *cert denied*405 US 995 [1972] [citation omitted]). Here, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record demonstrates that the County Court providently exercised its discretion in connection with the conduct of the voir dire process *(see People v Jean,*75 NY2d at 745; *People v Littlejohn,*92 AD3d at 898-899; *People v Thompson,*45 AD3d 876, 877 [2007]; *People v Rodriguez,*240 AD2d at 683).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

However, under the particular circumstances of this case, the County Court improperly issued orders of protection in favor of two witnesses who testified on behalf of the People at trial *(see*CPL 530.13 [4]). Accordingly, we vacate those orders of protection. Eng. P.J., Balkin, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.
[906 NE2d 373, 878 NYS2d 645]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bajro Hoti, Appellant.

Decided February 19, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Center for Appellate Litigation,*New York City *(Mark W. Zeno*of counsel), for appellant.

*743
      *Robert M. Morgenthau, District*Attorney, New York City *(Richard Nahas*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed. The mandatory surcharge, crime victim assistance fee and DNA databank fee are not components of a defendant’s sentence *(see People v*Guerrero, 12 NY3d 45 [2009] [decided today]). Accordingly, the court’s failure to pronounce the surcharge and fees prior to the entry of defendant’s plea did not deprive the defendant of the opportunity to knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action *(cf. People v Catu,*4 NY3d 242, 245 [2005]).

Concur: Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones. Taking no part: Chief Judge Lippman.
Opinion issued September 27, 2012

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-12-00734-CV

———————————

JENNIFER ELAINE TOWNES, Appellant

V.

WAYLON PERRY TOWNES, Appellee

On Appeal from the 300th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 64803

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. No opinion 

has issued. Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot. 
2

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.
Exhibit 32(f)

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  FOR PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION'S 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31,
  2005

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PPL Electric Utilities
  Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with
  the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered Report"),
  I, the principal financial officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
  hereby certify that:

| |  | The Covered Report fully complies with the
        requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
        of 1934, as amended; and                   
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |   |                                                                                                                                                                             
| |  | The information contained in the Covered
        Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
        and results of operations of the Company.





|Date:  May 4, 2005 | /s/ James E. AbelJames E. AbelTreasurerPPL Electric Utilities Corporation
|------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------

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



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 6-K Report of Foreign Private Issuer Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the month of September 2004 Commission File Number 1-14916 BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES CORPORATION 
 (Translation of registrants name into English)
 BCE Place
181 Bay Street
Suite 330
Toronto, Ontario
Canada M5J 2T3
(416) 359-8600 (Address of principal executive offices)
 Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports
under cover of Form 20-F or Form 40-F. Form 20-F     o
    
    Form 40-F     þ
 Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1):     o Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7):     o Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this
Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Yes     o
    
    No     þ
 If Yes is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant
in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82-




---



##### 



SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. Date: September 24, 2004 Brookfield Properties CorporationBy:
    /s/ Craig LaurieName:
    Craig LaurieTitle:
    Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer




---



##### 



EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press Release Dated
September 24, 2004
EXHIBIT 32















<PAGE>


24

                                  CERTIFICATION

      In connection with the Annual Report of Whispering Oaks International,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), we, Dr.
Ricardo Moro, President and Chief Executive Officer and Dr. Gerald Wittenberg,
Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of their 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 the
            Company.

Date:  July 8, 2004
                                  By: /s/ Ricardo Moro
                                      ----------------------------------------
                                      Dr. Ricardo Moro, President and
                                      Chief Executive Officer and a Director


                                  By: /s/ Gerald Wittenberg
                                      ------------------------------
                                      Dr. Gerald Wittenberg, Principal
                                      Financial Officer, Chairman and a Director
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3586 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3586

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the dollar 
             limitation on contributions to funeral trusts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 27, 2006

   Mr. Hatch introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the dollar 
             limitation on contributions to funeral trusts.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF DOLLAR LIMITATION ON CONTRIBUTIONS TO FUNERAL 
              TRUSTS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 685 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to treatment of funeral trusts) is 
repealed.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Subsections (d), (e), and (f) of such 
section are redesignated as subsections (c), (d), and (e), 
respectively.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2005.
                                 <all>
```
Chris E. Taylor is a Forensic Chemist with the US Army Criminal 

Investigation Laboratory (USACIL) - Defense Forensic Science 

Center (DFSC) in the Trace Evidence and Drug Chemistry 

Branches. Chris received his B.S. in Forensic Science from 

Michigan State University in 1992. Prior to joining the USACIL,

Chris worked for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation-Division of 

Forensic Sciences. 

Chris has 10 years of supervisory experience and over 28 years in 

forensic science. He has served the OSAC as a member, Executive 

Secretary and Vice Chair of the Chemistry and Instrumental Analysis SAC, Affiliate to the 

Materials (Trace) SC, and co-chaired and member of task groups in the development of 

interdisciplinary standards. Chris is a member of ASTM, past president of the American Board of 

Criminalistics; co-founder, past president of the American Society of Trace Evidence Examiners, 

AAFS-Fellow, and member of the ASCLD, CLIC, MAFS and SAFS. He also serves on the NIJ 

Technical Work Group for the development of research needs and the review of research 

proposals. 

Chris was formerly an appointee to the National Commission on Forensic Sciences –

Subcommittee on Accreditation and Proficiency Testing; The National Science and Technology 

Council-Subcommittee on Forensic Science within the Executive Office of the President of the 

United States; and to the INTERPOL Forensic Science Organizing Committee.

He was appointed to the FSSB in 2020.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed May 4, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-21-00195-CR

TAMELA LASHALL WEST, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F19-71835-T

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Nowell 

Opinion by Justice Osborne 

Before the Court is appellant’s April 19, 2021 motion to withdraw the appeal. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). We grant the motion and dismiss this appeal.

210195f.u05

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

/Leslie Osborne//

LESLIE OSBORNE 

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

TAMELA LASHALL WEST, 

Appellant

No. 05-21-00195-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F19-71835-T.

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Osborne. Justices Pedersen, III, and 

Nowell participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal. 

Judgment entered this 4th day of May, 2021.
666 A.2d 528

#### IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT J. SAYPOL, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

November 6, 1995.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed its decision with the Court on September 29, 1995, concluding that ROBERT J. SAY-POL of WEST ORANGE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1988, should be reprimanded for violating *RPC*8.4(d) *557(conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) by persuading an ethics grievant to sign a document releasing respondent from all charges against him, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that ROBERT J. SAYPOL is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.