alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

THEODORE JACKSON, §
§ No. 285, 2015
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below-Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware in and
v. § for New Castle County
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 1102005390
§
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §

Submitted: July 8, 2015
Decided: July 17, 2015

Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER

This 17" day of July 2015, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On June 8, 2015, the appellant, Theodore Jackson, filed a notice
of appeal from a Superior Court order dated May 30, 2015 in State v.
Jackson, Cr. ID No. 1102005390. The order identified in the notice of
appeal does not appear on the docket in the Superior Court case.

(2) By letter dated June 8, 2015, the Clerk directed Jackson to file
an amended notice of appeal identifying the date of the order on appeal.
Jackson did not file an amended notice of appeal or otherwise respond to the

Clerk’s letter by the June 23, 2015 deadline.


(3) On June 25, 2015, the Clerk issued a certified notice directing
Jackson to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for his failure
to file an amended notice of appeal. Jackson received the notice to show
cause on June 27, 2015.

(4) On June 30, 2015, Jackson filed an amended notice of appeal
purporting to appeal from an order dated June 23, 2015. The order identified
in the amended notice of appeal does not appear on the docket in the
Superior Court case.

(5) On July 2, 2015, Jackson filed a letter requesting “information
of date and where to be.” In the same letter Jackson advised the Court that
he would file a response to the notice to show cause. The Clerk sent Jackson
a Supreme Court docket sheet.

(6) Other than the amended notice of appeal filed on June 30, 2015
and letter filed on July 2, 2015, Jackson has not responded to the notice to
show cause. Any further response from Jackson was due on or before July
7, 2015.

(7) Under the Delaware Constitution, this Court may review a final
judgment in a criminal case.’ Jackson has not identified such a judgment in

his notice of appeal or amended notice of appeal. Under these

* Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b).

i)


circumstances, the Court concludes that Jackson’s appeal fails to invoke the
jurisdiction of the Court.

NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule
29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY COURT:

z Lékg

J ui
H. Res. 564 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 19, 2019. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4378) 

making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2020, and 

for other purposes. All points of order against consideration 

of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. 

All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. 

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 

bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without 

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion 

to recommit. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
OFFlCE OFTHE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS 

AUSTIN 

szana?eh10 Earal& 3QecraoLan 

h68istaotCXvll Distrietnttonwy 

Eall CJf Rooard8 

Dalla8,%xaa 

Dear sirs 

letter of July 

1010 5951, ROiaw within whioh a 

y publlo wiy quality. 

In p"om latter and 

8 l.n7v1784, but 4lffsrantly 

Geaersl 2. F. LooBey-, Zune 

County ikttornay 0r 5?ravia 

th8ZI El Citizen Of 

(1) Doea Ax-Mole SOSl, Revised Statutes, authorize 

a oounty am?k, before he raoeirea a oalanlssion from the Sear&my of Statd~ for a pizrty appalnted notary publia, to 

'notify sal4 party to appear before him wIthin tea days, pay 

for his oomml~slon, and quality acraardfng to lm"? 

(2) IX It does mt, is said party entitled lm rsoeefte 8tmhmtfoed’te&la oaml8slanlma beenrewl~edbg 

the elerm 
Bon. XarolU ::cCraaken, Faga 2 

(3) If be ia, may he then qualify at any time 

within ten daya frolz tho roaalpt of crush notioe? .uld 

(4) If he my, are the sxaeptiom aontained in 

said artlals available to him? 

ti -9 27, 1917, AttOTJley %Xl8rS3 ~OMY a~~I’O7Od 

&UlfUl’0Zi00 O&loa No. 1777,in whloh the quo8tion8 subPELt?& 

by Hr. Romrby mre fully amwW4d. (Reports Of the AttOl’B0y 

General, 1916-19l8, p* 422) The opinion quotes Art.10108 6015 

and 6016, Revbed Statute8 of 19ll. These art10108 vme 

brou@t forward in the Rwised Statutes of 1926, without mtorlal #mnge8, a8 krtlole8 I5381 and SQSE feqmtimly, and 

they have not since been amended. Therefore, tf the uzmer8 

found in Opinion ZZo! 1777 ware aorrsot then, they am oorreat 

now. X0 beliera that o~l.ni.anorraotly OOmtTUw the statute8 

involved and spgrova It. A oopy or whloh irr herowith onoloaed. 

It ctnswera the tirst three of the qnestians nbove steted, It 

doe.0 not answer the Sourth qU08tbn, but it is apparent that 

the exemptions OQX apj-Ap only where the party Las beast legally 

notif 94 or hi6 sppaintment. Xe aannot be lagally notified by 

the albrk until that o:?ioer has in his possas$ion the paty*s 

cozzR3b3sion. 

Wo armuw question.Bo. 1 ln the negative, and eaah 

of the three e+mtn2u~ questionSin the affirui&lYe. 

In this commotion, we call to your attQntlon for 

chtaver it my be xorth, the awe of Taablm v. ZWite, 104 

Tsx. cri... .iep. 70, xt s. x. 597. 

~losso ccce;?t our thanks for the vary able namer 

in ~:hi.ch you !mvu stated the i'uots, the questions submitted 

ind Ubwzised the lsf;cl points involved. 

Yours v&y truly 

AFPROVED .TuL 12, 1939 

=.&
|   | (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      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                  |   |               |                         |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------|------------------------------|--------|
|  Date:   November 13,      2009    |   |     | /s/      Thomas P. Sperzel   |   |
|                                                                  |   |               | Thomas P.    Sperzel         |   |
|                                                                  |   |               | Chief      Financial Officer |   |
|   | (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      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      May 14,    2008 | /s/ Anthony      P. Costa                  |   |
|----------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                       | Anthony      P. Costa                           |   |
|                       | Chairman      and Chief Executive Officer  |   |
|                       |                                            |   |
#### In the Matter of Carlos Abreu, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Respondents.

Submitted September 4, 2012;

decided October 30, 2012

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for leave to appeal denied. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41600

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROSBEL FLORES-VERA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:15-CR-422-1

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rosbel Flores-Vera appeals the 84-month sentence imposed by the 

district court after his guilty plea conviction for being found in the United 

States illegally following a prior conviction for an aggravated felony. Relying 

upon Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), he argues that the district 

court erred by imposing a U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) enhancement based 

upon his prior conviction under Texas Penal Code § 30.02(a)(1).

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 5, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41600 Document: 00513981044 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2017
No. 15-41600

2

We review the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines 

de novo. See United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 

2008). We have previously held that § 30.02(a) is divisible under the modified 

categorical approach and that a § 30.02(a)(1) conviction supports a 

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) enhancement. United States v. Conde-Castaneda, 753 F.3d 

172, 176 (5th Cir. 2014). Contrary to Flores-Vera’s argument, CondeCastaneda remains good law in the wake of Mathis. See United States v. Uribe, 

838 F.3d 667, 669-71 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 2017 WL 661924 (Mar. 20, 

2017) (No. 16-7969).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-41600 Document: 00513981044 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2017
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

LEO JOE COOPER, JR.,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2014-7106

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 13-2048, Judge Mary J. Schoelen.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

KENNETH M. CARPENTER, Law Offices of Carpenter

Chartered, Topeka, KS, argued for claimant-appellant.

 LOREN MISHA PREHEIM, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. 

Also represented by JOYCE R. BRANDA, ROBERT E.

KIRSCHMAN, JR., MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR.; Y. KEN LEE,

AMANDA R. BLACKMON, Office of General Counsel, United 

States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and 

WALLACH, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 July 15, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00179-CR

RON EASTON D/B/A ACE BAIL BONDS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the County Court

Freestone County, Texas

Trial Court No. 5522

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Ron Easton d/b/a Ace Bail Bonds appealed the trial court’s entry of a 

default judgment. Appellant now files a motion to dismiss his appeal, stating that the 

appeal is moot because the trial court granted a motion for new trial and amended its 

judgment. 

The motion is granted, and this appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a). 

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice
Easton v. State of Texas Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted

Opinion delivered and filed July 16, 2015

[CV06]
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________

No. 07-15-00246-CR 

________________________

RICKY DAN ALLEE, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

 

On Appeal from the 47th District Court 

Randall County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 17,917-A; Honorable Dan Schaap, Presiding 

 

July 16, 2015 

 

ORDER OF SEVERANCE 

 

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

Appellant, Ricky Dan Allee, was charged with one count of possession of a 

controlled substance in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 in a drugfree zone1

and one count of possession of marihuana in an amount of five pounds or 

 

1

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(d) (West 2010). The offense is a second degree 

felony with punishment increased by five years when committed in a drug-free zone. Id. at § 481.134(c).
2

less but more than four ounces in a drug free-zone.2In exchange for pleas of guilty, the 

trial court placed Appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision. The State 

subsequently moved to adjudicate Appellant guilty of both offenses for violating the 

conditions of community supervision. The trial court granted the State’s motion, entered 

a finding of guilt in each count, and entered two separate judgments. Punishment in 

Count I was assessed at eight years confinement and a $1,500 fine and punishment in 

Count II was assessed at eight years confinement. The sentences were ordered to run 

concurrently. Appellant filed a single notice of appeal challenging his convictions.

Because this appeal involves two separate judgments, for purposes of clarity, we 

sua sponte sever this appeal into separate appellate cause numbers, one as to each 

judgment. Henceforth, the appeal of the judgment entered as to Count I will bear 

appellate cause number 07-15-00246-CR, whereas the appeal of the judgment entered 

as to Count II will bear appellate cause number 07-15-00286-CR. 

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.

 

2

TEX. HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.121(b)(3) (West 2010). The offense is a state jail 

felony with punishment increased to that of a third degree felony when committed in a drug-free zone. Id.

at § 481.134(d).
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**STATEMENT      FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C.      SECTION 1350 **

|   |   |    /S/                Eugene Malobrodsky_____________________Eugene                Malobrodsky, Chief Executive Officer and                Principal Executive Officer Date:  May                16, 2006 /S/                David Gorodyansky_____________________David                Gorodyansky, Principal Financial Officer Date:  May                16, 2006   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 Exchange Commission or its staff upon                request.   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 122 (Friday, June 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30562-30563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15150]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ES09-36-001]


Upper Peninsula Power Company; Notice of Filing

June 19, 2009.
    Take notice that on June 17, 2009, Upper Peninsula Power Company 
(UPPCO) filed a supplement to its application for renewed authorization 
to issue short-term debt, with new Exhibits C, D, and E, pursuant to 
section 204 of the Federal Power Act and Part 34 of the Commission's 
regulations.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to

[[Page 30563]]

serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the 
Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#50161502131f3e3c393e35032520203f222410363522337e373f26"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f2b4b7a0b1bd9c9e9b9c97a18782829d8086b294978091dc959d84">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 29, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-15150 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Union Pacific Railroad Company

Appellate case number: 01-15-00600-CV

Trial court case number: 2014-23177

Trial court: 129th District Court of Harris County

On July 9, 2015, relator, Union Pacific Railroad Company, filed a petition for writ 

of mandamus requesting an order “directing the trial court to vacate its order overruling 

Union Pacific’s privilege objections and finding that Koenig’s consulting expert status 

was destroyed.” The Court requests that the real parties in interest, Donald and Mary 

Trichel, respond to the petition for writ of mandamus. It is ordered that the response of 

any interested party, if any, shall be due within 20 days of the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: July 10, 2015
EXHIBIT 32.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  ONLINE  ORIGINALS,  INC.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  August 31, 2008,  as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Gregory Adams, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all  material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date:    October 10, 2008


By:       /s/ Gregory Adams
         -------------------------------
         Gregory Adams
         Chief Financial Officer, principal financial officer and
         principal accounting officer
20HS

COA# 08-12-00299-CR OFFENSE: OTHER CRIMINAL

STYLE: Texas'CarVerVTheState0f COUNTY: Denton

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 362nd District Court

DATE: 1/28/15 Publish: NO TCCASE#: F-2010-1716-D

im thf r.niIRT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Fl FCTRQNIC RECORD

Robert Carver v. The State of

STYLE: Texas .

PRO Sf Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

___J^-/^ - DATE: Qtr/n/xQiS'

JUDGE: j** Clusa^

CCA#:

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:_

DNP:

MOTION FOR

4i

Mi

>

#a
Exhibit
        32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO
 18
        U.S.C.
        SECTION 1350,
 AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 Each
        of
        the undersigned hereby certifies, in his/her capacity as an officer of Aamaxan
        Transport Group, Inc. (the "Company"), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section
        1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
        that
        to the best of his knowledge:
 
 (1)
        The
        Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
        31,
        2008 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 Company.
 
 Dated:
        August 19, 2008
 
 /s/Chen
        Zhong
 
 Chen
        Zhong
 Chief
        Executive Officer
  /s/ Xu
        Yifei
 
 Xu
        Yifei
 Acting
        Chief Financial Officer
  A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        Aamaxan Transport Group, Inc. and will be retained by Aamaxan Transport Group,
        Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
        upon
        request.
@misc{1125201,
  author = {Colleen E. Bryan Sallee and Melissa M. Phillips and Charles Barber and Carolyn Burdette and Laura Wood and Shaun Kotoski},
  title = {Food Nutrition and Safety Measurements Quality Assurance Program: Exercise 1 Final Report},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-05-18 04:05:00},
  publisher = {NIST Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936769},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8447r1},
  language = {en},
}