alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS

LAMONT RENARD STEWART *

Appellant *

*

vs. * No. 

* COA No. 10-14-00183-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, *

Appellee *

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

FILE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

COMES NOW, the Appellant, by and through her undersigned Attorney of

Record, and respectfully moves the Court to extend the time for filing a petition for

discretionary review in this cause, and in support therefore would show the Court as

follows:

I.

Appellant was found guilty of the offense of unlawful possession of a controlled

substance with intent to deliver in Cause No. 2013-179-C2in the 54th District Court of

McLennan County, Texas. Appellant appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals for

the Tenth Judicial District. That court affirmed the trial court decision in an opinion

delivered on June 18, 2015.

 II.

Appellant’s petition for discretionary review is currently due on July 18, 2015.

PD-0875-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 7/14/2015 8:41:28 AM

Accepted 7/15/2015 4:18:53 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
V.

Appellant hereby requests an extension of time to file his Petition for Discretionary

Review until August 18, 2015, and as reasons therefore would show this cause as follows:

 Counsel does not have sufficient to time to properly prepare a petition for

discretionary review by the current due date, and for that reason seeks additional time to

do so. Counsel would show that he has had several matters to deal with in the last thirty

days, including a brief in the Tenth Court of Appeals that is due lat er this week. As a

result, counsel has not had sufficient time to devote to the petition in this case.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant respectfully requests this

honorable court to extend the time for filing Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review

in this cause to August 18, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ Walter M. Reaves, Jr. 

Walter M. Reaves, Jr.

100 N. 6 Street, Suite 802 th

Waco, Texas 76701

(254) 296-0020

FAX (877) 726-4411

TBA#16644200

walterreaves@att.net
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing motion was delivered

to Abel Reyna, District Attorney for McLennan County, Texas, on July 14, 2015

 /s/ Walter M. Reaves, Jr. 

Walter M. Reaves, Jr.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 118 (Monday, June 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 29477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14646]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Meetings; Sunshine Act

Agency Holding the Meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Time and Date: 2 p.m., July 15, 2009.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters To Be Considered: Enforcement Matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-14646 Filed 6-18-09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 122 (Friday, June 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 30642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15217]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,912]


L and L Products, Romeo, MI; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on May 12, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed on behalf of workers of L and L Products, Romeo, Michigan.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of May 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-15217 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 118 (Monday, June 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 29516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14588]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Policy on Special Park Uses, Draft Directors Order 53

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Availability and Request for Comments.

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

SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) is requesting comments on its 
revision of its policy governing the issuance of permits for special 
park uses. This policy will apply to all units of the national park 
system, and will replace the previous policy which was issued in April 
2000.

DATES: Comments must be received by July 22, 2009.

ADDRESSES:  The Draft Director's Order 53 is available on the internet 
at http://www.nps.gov/policy/DO-53draft.htm. Requests for printed 
copies and written comments should be sent to Lee Dickinson, NPS 
Special Park Program Manager, 1849 C Street, NW. (2460), Washington, DC 
20240 or to the internet address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#90fcf5f5cff4f9f3fbf9fee3fffed0fee0e3bef7ffe6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="39555c5c665d505a5250574a56577957494a175e564f">[email protected]</span></a>. Please 
include ``Comments on Director's Order 53'' in the e-mail subject line.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Dickinson at (202) 513-7092.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Director's Order 53 (DO-53) is a policy 
intended to govern the internal management of the NPS. It will cover 
topic associated with the special park uses program such as legal 
authorities for permit issuance, permitting considerations, permit 
provisions, and the various categories of special park uses. Categories 
of use will include, but be limited to special events, first amendment 
demonstrations, commercial filming and still photography, agriculture, 
and grazing. This new revision of Director's Order 53 will replace the 
existing one, which was published in April 2000. The reference manual 
(RM-53) will be revised to outline procedures for implementation of the 
new version of DO-53.
    Commenters should be aware that we may make their entire comment--
including personal identifying information--publicly available at any 
time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying 
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be 
able to do so. We will always make submissions from organizations or 
businesses and from individuals identifying themselves as 
representatives or officials of organizations or businesses available 
in their entirety.

Karen Taylor-Goodrich,
Associate Director, Visitor and Resource Protection.
[FR Doc. E9-14588 Filed 6-19-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 3, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D23-0193 Lower Tribunal No. F00-40145

________________ 

### Joshua Hamilton, Appellant, vs. 

### The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ariana Fajardo Orshan, Judge. Joshua Hamilton, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before SCALES, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See Hamilton v. State, 935 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Hamilton v. State, 139 So. 3d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).
# Fourth **C ourt**  **of Appeals**  **Sa n**  **Antonio, Texas** Septembe r 2 0, 2021 No s. 04-19-00714-CV , 0 4 -19-00715-CV , 0 4 -19-00716-CV The STATE of Texas ex. rel. Todd A. Durden, in his Official Capacity as County Attorney, Appellant

v. James T. 'Tully' SHAHAN , in his Official Capacities as County Judge; Mark Frerich, in his Official Capacity as County Commissioner; Joe Montalvo, in his Official Capacity as County Commissioner; Dennis Dodson, in his Official Capacity as County Commissioner; Tim Ward, in his Official Capacity as County Commissioner; Kinney County Commissioners Court and Kinney County, Appellee Fr o m the 63rd J udicia l District Court , Kinney County, Texas

Tria l C ourt No s. 4845, 4863, 4866 Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding



### ORD E R Sitt ing: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice The panel has considered the State of Texas’s motion for rehearing and its motion for leave to file second amended notices of appeal

— in which Todd A. Durden also seeks relief in his individual capacity. The motion s are DENIED. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 49.3.

_________________________________ P atricia O. Alvarez, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 20th day of September, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ , Clerk of Court
JEC-6.28.2013-ex10.1


Exhibit 10.1


AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT


This Amendment No. 2 to the Consulting Agreement between Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (“Jacobs”) and Noel G. Watson (“Mr. Watson”) dated July 1, 2010 is made effective July 1, 2013.
WHEREAS, the Consulting Agreement provides for a term of one (1) year and is renewable for additional periods by mutual agreement of the parties;  
WHEREAS, Mr. Watson and Jacobs have previously mutually agreed to renew the Consulting Agreement for a two (2) year period from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2013; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Watson and Jacobs have agreed, once again, to renew the Consulting Agreement for an additional one (1) year period commencing July 1, 2013 thru June 30, 2014.
THEREFORE, in consideration of the valuable promises and the agreements contained herein, it is agreed as follows:
		
	1.
	The Consulting Agreement shall be extended through June 30, 2014.


		
	2.
	All other terms and conditions of the Consulting Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 2 effective as of July 1, 2013.




	
			
	Noel G. Watson
	 
	Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.

	/s/ Noel G. Watson
	 
	/s/ Craig L. Martin

	 
	 
	By: Craig L. Martin, President & CEO
@misc{1212406,
  author = {Tina G. Butcher and Michael Nelson},
  title = {An Evolving Regulatory Landscape for Commercial Electric Vehicle Fueling},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-08-22 04:08:00},
  publisher = {Special Publication (NIST SP), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=956351},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.2200-03},
  language = {en},
}
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

AGUSTIN ENCARNACION-CAMPOS,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2018-2313

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 17-968, Judge William S. Greenberg.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

KENNETH M. CARPENTER, Law Offices of Carpenter 

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

 DAVID PEHLKE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented 

by JOSEPH H. HUNT, CLAUDIA BURKE, ROBERT EDWARD 

KIRSCHMAN, JR.; MARTIE ADELMAN, BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, 
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, PLAGER and 

STOLL, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

September 6, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: In re Aaron Marroquin and Integrated AV Systems, LLC

Appellate case number: 01-15-00255-CV

Trial court case number: 2012-75578

Trial court: 215th Judicial District Court of Harris County

The panel has voted to deny relators’ motion for rehearing.

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is denied.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

  

Panel consists of: Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale

Date: July 16, 2015
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment No. 2 to
Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”) is made by and between Remi Barbier (the “Executive”) and Pain Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company” and together with the Executive hereinafter collectively
referred to as the “Parties”), on June 20, 2013. 
 WITNESSETH: 

WHEREAS, the Parties previously entered into an employment agreement, dated as of July 1, 1998 (as subsequently amended pursuant to
that certain Amendment to Employment Agreement, dated as of December 17, 2008, the “Employment Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive wish to amend the Employment Agreement, as set forth below. 

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, Executive and the Company agree that the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as
follows: 
 1. The following language is inserted immediately following Section 3(g) of the Employment Agreement and shall
constitute Sections 3(h) and 3(i) of the Employment Agreement: 
 “(h) Non-Assumption of Agreement. In the event of
the Change in Control (as defined below) in which this Agreement and the obligations of the Company are not assumed by the successor entity either by operation of law or by assignment, Executive’s employment with the Company shall be deemed to
be terminated for Other than Cause, and Executive shall be entitled to the benefits sect forth in Section 3(d) above. For purposes of this Agreement, “Change in Control” shall have the meaning set forth in the Company’s 2008
Equity Incentive Plan, as may be amended from time to time, or the same or similar term set forth in any successor plan thereto. 

(i) Clawback. Executive’s incentive-based compensation that is earned based on financial performance or financial metrics of
the Company shall not be subject to clawback or other recovery from the Executive in the event of a restatement of the Company’s financial statements upon which such compensation is based, except to the extent required by applicable law or
regulation (including pursuant to Section 954 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and any regulations that have or may be promulgated thereunder) or pursuant to the listing rules or regulations of any securities
exchanges or listing services on which the Company’s securities are traded or quoted.” 
 These provisions are not
intended to increase or to decrease any severance or other compensation arrangements currently in place between Executive and the Company. 
 (Signature page follows) 

  
 Page 1









 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has executed this Amendment, in the case of the
Company by its duly authorized officer, as of the day and year set forth above. 
  

									
	Pain Therapeutics, Inc.	 		 	Executive
					
	By:	 	/s/ Peter S. Roddy	 		 	By:	 	/s/ Remi Barbier
	Name:	 	Peter S. Roddy	 		 		 	Remi Barbier
	Title:	 	Vice President & CFO	 		 		 	


  
 Page 2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 16, 2015

No. 04-15-00212-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF R.K.H., A CHILD,

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-PA-01466

Honorable Larry Noll, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On June 17, 2015, we ordered appellant to show cause why we had jurisdiction over this 

appeal, explaining that the clerk’s record did not contain a final order. We suspended appellate 

deadlines pending our determination of whether we had jurisdiction. On June 30, 2015, a 

supplemental clerk’s record was filed. This supplemental clerk’s record contains a final order 

signed by the trial court on June 25, 2015. We therefore reinstate this appeal on the docket of this 

Court. And, because appellant filed her brief on July 2, 2015, appellee’s brief is due August 5, 

2015.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
@misc{1214111,
  author = {Simson Garfinkel and Joseph Near and Aref Dajani and Phyllis Singer and Barbara Guttman},
  title = {De-Identifying Government Datasets: Techniques and Governance},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-09-14 04:09:00},
  publisher = {Special Publication (NIST SP), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936829},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-188},
  language = {en},
}
[982 NE2d 614, 958 NYS2d 694]

#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant-Respondent, v Louis Riley, Respondent-Appellant.

Submitted July 16, 2012;

decided December 18, 2012

*981APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney,*New York City *(Andrew E. Seewald*of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

*Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation,*New York City *(Bruce D. Austern*of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Motion for reargument granted and, upon reargument, the decision of June 28, 2012 adhered to *(see*19 NY3d 944 [2012]). CPL 470.15 (4) (a) and (b) do not eliminate the necessity of preservation in the trial court to challenge legal sufficiency of the evidence on appeal *(People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 20 [1995]). Moreover, contrary to the contention the People press upon re-argument, CPL 470.15 (4) (b) does not alter, for issues of legal sufficiency of the evidence, the well-settled rule that an order reversing or modifying on an unpreserved issue is an exercise of *982discretion in the interest of justice and not appealable to this Court (CPL 450.90 [2] [a]; *see People v Bonilla-Lugo,*85 NY2d 965 [1995], *and People v Christian,*85 NY2d 965 [1995] [decided the same day as *People v Gray]).*The People’s appeal in this case was properly dismissed.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo and Read.

Smith, J. and Pigott, J. (dissenting).

Judges Smith and Pigott dissent in part and, upon reargument, vote to retain the People’s appeal for the reasons stated in Judge Pigott’s dissenting in part opinion of June 28, 2012 (19 NY3d 944, 947 [2012]) and upon the further reason that the modification by the Appellate Division, on an unpreserved issue of legal sufficiency of the evidence, should be deemed to be upon the law (CPL 470.15 [4] [b]) and appealable by the People (CPL 450.90 [2] [a]).
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00214-CR

Joseph Alan Neeley

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 2

of Tarrant County (1338838D)

July 9, 2015

Opinion by Chief Justice Livingston

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Terrie Livingston

 Chief Justice Terrie Livingston
@article{1214706,
  author = {Lee L. Yu and Li Piin Sung and YuYe Tong and Robyn Winz and Dejun Chen},
  title = {Assessing Children's Potential Exposures to Harmful Metals in Tire Crumb Rubber by Accelerated Photodegradation Weathering},
  year = {2023},
  number = {13},
  month = {2023-08-24 04:08:00},
  publisher = {Nature - Scientific Reports},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935547},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-38574-z},
  language = {en},
}
1

The Honorable John F. Forster, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-2009

___________

Farion Walker, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner * [UNPUBLISHED]

of Social Security Administration, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: October 28, 2002

 Filed: November 15, 2002

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MELLOY, Circuit

Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Farion Walker appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial of

disability insurance benefits. In his March 1998 application and later documents,

Walker alleged disability since July 1997 from hypertension, chest pain, an ulcer,
-2-

migraines, a hearing loss, diabetes, and problems with his shoulder, thumb, sinuses,

knees, and back. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that

Walker could perform his past relevant work as a security guard as he described the

job requirements and as the job is performed in the national economy. 

We reject Walker’s challenge to the ALJ’s credibility findings, as the ALJ

listed the factors from Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1321-22 (8th Cir. 1984),

and then gave multiple valid reasons for finding not entirely credible Walker’s

statements as to the impact of his impairments on his ability to work. See Lowe v.

Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 972 (8th Cir. 2000) (if adequately explained and supported,

credibility findings are for ALJ to make; ALJ is not required to discuss methodically

each Polaski factor, as long as he acknowledges and examines them). 

Walker also challenges the ALJ’s residual-functional-capacity (RFC) findings,

contending he cannot do a good deal of walking and standing, see 20 C.F.R.

§ 404.1567(b) (2002) (defining light work), or perform light work on a daily basis.

We disagree: none of Walker’s doctors gave him any restrictions during the relevant

period, a nurse practitioner’s opinion as to his RFC on “bad” days appeared to be

based primarily on Walker’s reports, and the ALJ’s RFC findings were more generous

to Walker than those of the Social Security Administration reviewing physicians. See

Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217-18 (8th Cir. 2001) (it is ALJ’s

responsibility to determine RFC based on medical records, observations of treating

physicians and others, and claimant’s description of his limitations; ALJ must first

evaluate claimant’s credibility). 

As to Walker’s remaining arguments, the ALJ adequately weighed the

Department of Veterans Affairs’ disability determination, see Morrison v. Apfel, 146

F.3d 625, 628 (8th Cir. 1998), and properly considered the combined effects of

Walker’s impairments, see Hajek v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 89, 92 (8th Cir. 1994). 
-3-

The judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

HANDDOWN LIST OF JULY 14, 2015

WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

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

WD77079 Matthew Rounds vs. State of Missouri

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

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

None