alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Robert Demison, III

, * From the 9 1st District Court

of Eastland County,

Trial Court No. 2362 3

.

Vs. No. 11

- 18

- 0004 8

- CR * November 15, 2018

The State of Texas

, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(P anel consists of: Willson, J.,

Wright, S. C.J., siting by assignment;

and Judge Satterwhite, sitting by

assignment)

( Bailey, C. J. , and Willson, J., not

participating )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<S>                             <C>
<ARTICLE> 5
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                     $   374,598
<SECURITIES>                               $         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              $     2,608
<ALLOWANCES>                               $         0
<INVENTORY>                                $    45,964
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           $   448,145
<PP&E>                                     $   652,487
<DEPRECIATION>                             $   554,389
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             $   756,479
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      $   312,726
<BONDS>                                    $         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      $         0
<PREFERRED>                                $         0
<COMMON>                                   $    45,593
<OTHER-SE>                                 $ 1,398,160
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               $   756,479
<SALES>                                    $         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           $    42,490
<CGS>                                      $    64,353
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              $   484,685
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           $         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           $         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         $    11,250
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            $ (453,445)
<INCOME-TAX>                               $         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        $         0
<DISCONTINUED>                             $         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            $         0
<CHANGES>                                  $         0
<NET-INCOME>                               $ (453,445)
<EPS-BASIC>                                $    (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              $    (0.11)


</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEMBER 11, 2024

NO. 03

- 24

- 00451

- CR

Warren Duray Joiner , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, SMITH, AND THEOFANIS

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the tr i a l court

. Appellant has filed a

motion to dismiss the appeal. Therefore, the Court grants the motion, allows appellant to withdraw

his notice of appeal, and dismisses the appeal. Because appellant is indigent and u nable to pay

costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
FLRA NEWS

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY - WASHINGTON, DC 20424

Contact: Eric Prag FLRA.gov FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 202-218-7922 December 21, 2022

The FLRA Proposes Revising Its Regulations, and Revoking a Related Policy Statement, 

Concerning the Revocation of Written Assignments for the Payment of Union Dues

Today, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (the Authority) granted the National Treasury 

Employees Union’s petition for rulemaking in Case Number 0-MC-0033 and published a Notice 

in the Federal Register. The Notice concerns the intervals at which federal employees may 

revoke their voluntary, written assignments of payroll deductions for the payment of regular and 

periodic dues allotted to their exclusive representative. Specifically, the Authority proposes: 

(1) either revising 5 C.F.R. § 2429.19 to provide that dues revocations may be processed only at 

one-year intervals, or, alternatively, rescinding § 2429.19 in its entirety; and (2) rescinding the 

Authority’s general statement of policy or guidance in OPM, 71 FLRA 571 (2020) (Member 

Abbott concurring; then-Member DuBester dissenting). 

Written comments on the proposed revision and rescission must be received on or before January 

20, 2023.

The Authority encourages all interested persons to submit comments on the proposed revision 

and rescission. The Notice includes the instructions for submitting comments.

###

The FLRA administers the labor-management relations program for 2.1 million non-Postal federal 

employees worldwide, approximately 1.2 million of whom are represented in 2,200 bargaining 

units. It is charged with providing leadership in establishing policies and guidance related to 

federal sector labor-management relations and with resolving disputes under, and ensuring 

compliance with, the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20424

December 20, 2019

21st Century Integrated Digital Experience Act Report

The U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) is providing this report in accordance with 

subsection 3(d) of the 21st Century Integrated Digital Experience Act (21st Century IDEA), Pub. L. No. 

115-336 (Dec. 20, 2018). The FLRA currently provides two major public facing digital services: 

FLRA.GOV and EFILE.FLRA.GOV.

The FLRA’s public website FLRA.GOV is the main source of information regarding 

organizational data, press releases, resources and training, decisions from all FLRA components, and 

links to other relevant resources. The other major public-facing website provided by the FLRA, 

EFILE.FLRA.GOV, allows parties to file unfair labor practice charges, arbitration appeals, requests for 

impasse assistance, and other charges relevant to the mission of the FLRA. 

These resources, in place before the passage of the 21st Century IDEA, are generally compliant 

with all of the requirements of subsection (3)(a) the Act. With respect to section 508 compliance, for 

each website, the FLRA is investigating the cost of contract assistance for testing and development with 

ongoing compliance auditing and management. Initial estimates indicate a cost of approximately $50,000 

and an ongoing yearly cost of $1,500-$5,000. These efforts will likely take place in fiscal year 2021, 

subject to available funding.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3539 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

427 Harrison Avenue in Harrison, New Jersey, as the ‘‘Patricia D. 

McGinty-Juhl Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2009 

Mr. SIRES (for himself, Mr. LANCE, Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey, Mr. 

LOBIONDO, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. ADLER of New Jersey, 

Mr. PAYNE, Mr. HOLT, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, Mr. 

SMITH of New Jersey, and Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 427 Harrison Avenue in Harrison, New Jersey, as the ‘‘Patricia D. McGinty-Juhl Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PATRICIA D. MCGINTY-JUHL POST OFFICE 

4 BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 427 Harrison Avenue in HarVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:14 Sep 09, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3539.IH H3539

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3539 IH

1 rison, New Jersey, shall be known and designated as the 

2 ‘‘Patricia D. McGinty-Juhl Post Office Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Patricia D. McGinty7 Juhl Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.333-129434, 333-129433, 333-129200, 333-129373, 333-129726, 333-116870, 333-116869, 333-115478,333-111090, 333-109089, 333-109278, 333-109275, 333-101105, 333-101104, 333-69374, 333-69376,333-42670, 333-84341  ̧ 333-84331, 333-65571, 333-65549, 333-65551, 333-42059, 333-42061, 333-42063)pertaining to the amended and restated 2001 Stock Incentive Plan, Infommersion, Inc. 2002 StockIncentive Plan, SRC Software, Inc. 2003 Stock Incentive Plan, French Employee Savings Plan, 2004International Employee Stock Purchase Plan, Stock Subscription Warrants, Business Objects AmericasDeferred Compensation Plan, 1995 International Employee Stock Purchase Plan, Crystal Decisions,Inc. 1999 Stock Option Plan, 2001 Stock Option Plan, 1999 Stock Option Plan, 1994 Stock OptionPlan, and in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 No. 333-126082 and 333-119662) of BusinessObjects S.A. of our reports dated March 10, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and schedule of Business Objects S.A., Business Objects S.A., management’s assessment ofthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting of Business Objects S.A., included in this Annual Report (Form10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005./s/ Ernst & Young LLPSan Jose, California
<PAGE>

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Atlas-Energy for Nineties-Public #8
Ltd. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Nancy J. McGurk, Chief Financial Officer of the Managing General
Partner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

   (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
       Partnership.



/s/ Nancy J. McGurk





Nancy J. McGurk
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2002
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted
Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the TiVo Inc. (the Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas Rogers, Chief Executive 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 my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: December 10, 2008



/s/ THOMAS ROGERSThomas RogersPresident and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Mark Miles, Appellant-Respondent, v Paul Italiano et al., Respondents-Appellants.

[666 NYS2d 506]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, (1) the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), entered September 18, 1996, as, upon a determination made at *553the close of the plaintiffs case granting the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law, dismissed the complaint, and (2) the defendants cross-appeal from so much of the same judgment as dismissed their affirmative defenses.

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed, as the defendants are not aggrieved by the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5511; *Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co. v Austin Powder Co.,*68 NY2d 465); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.

Giving the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference to be reasonably drawn from the evidence, there was no rational basis upon which the jury might have concluded that the defendants were liable for the plaintiffs alleged injuries *(see,*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104; *Saarinen v Kerr,*84 NY2d 494; *Campbell v City of Elmira,*84 NY2d 505). Accordingly, the court did not err in granting the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law *(see,*CPLR 4401; *Rhabb v New York City Hous. Auth.,*41 NY2d 200). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Gold-stein and Lerner, JJ., concur.
#### QIANG CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-70916.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 21, 2011.

David Z. Su, Esquire, Law Offices of David Z. Su, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner.

Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James A. Hurley, OIL, Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Qiang Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Li v. Holder,*559 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based upon the omission from his asylum application and declaration of the tip Chen received that the police were investigating his family, *see Li v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 959, 962-64 (9th Cir.2004) (omissions and inconsistencies that go to the heart of the petitioner’s claim support an adverse credibility finding), and his failure to provide reasonable explanations for the omission, *see Rivera v. Mukasey,*508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir.2007). Substantial evidence *643also supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Chen’s vague testimony regarding his Christian practices in the United States. *See Mejia-Paiz v. INS,*111 F.3d 720, 724 (9th Cir.1997) (vague testimony regarding religious affiliation supported adverse credibility determination). In the absence of credible testimony, Chen’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal based on his membership in an underground Christian church fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Chen failed to establish that the Chinese government “forced” his fiancee to have an abortion. *Cf. Ding v. Ashcroft,*387 F.3d 1131, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Chen’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B) fail.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposilion is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3496 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3496

To authorize and request the President to award the congressional Medal 
of Honor to Arthur Jibilian for actions behind enemy lines during World 
   War II while a member of the United States Navy and the Office of 
                          Strategic Services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 2009

  Mr. Latta introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize and request the President to award the congressional Medal 
of Honor to Arthur Jibilian for actions behind enemy lines during World 
   War II while a member of the United States Navy and the Office of 
                          Strategic Services.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION AND REQUEST FOR AWARD OF MEDAL OF HONOR TO 
              ARTHUR JIBILIAN FOR ACTS OF VALOR DURING WORLD WAR II.

    (a) Authorization.--Notwithstanding the time limitations specified 
in sections 6248 and 6250 of title 10, United States Code, or any other 
time limitation with respect to the awarding of certain medals to 
persons who served in the Armed Forces, the President is authorized and 
requested to award the Medal of Honor under section 6241 of such title 
to Arthur Jibilian for the acts of valor described in subsection (b) 
during World War II while a member of the United States Navy and the 
Office of Strategic Services.
    (b) Acts of Valor Described.--The acts of valor referred to in 
subsection (a) are the actions of Arthur Jibilian during the successful 
1944 operation by the Office of Strategic Services, code-named 
``Operation Halyard'', to protect and facilitate in the rescue of over 
500 allied airmen behind enemy lines.
                                 <all>
```
O pinion filed May 6 , 202 1



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

___ ___ ____ No. 11

- 20

- 00 262

- C V

____ __ ____ IN THE INTEREST OF J. O. G

. A., J.A.G.A., D.O.G., AND R .G

. , C HILD REN

On Appeal from the 118 th District Court Howard County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 53660

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N This is an appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the parental rights of the mother of J.O.G.A., J.A.G.A., D.O.G., and R .G

. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 161.001 (West Supp. 20 20 ). The mo ther filed a notice of appeal. We
affirm

. Appellant ’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a supporting brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and conclude s that the appeal is frivolous and presents no issues of arguable merit

. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and2 demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re
Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403 , 406

– 08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); High v. State , 573
S.W.2d 807 , 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). In light o f a holding by the Texas Supreme Court, however, an Anders motion to withdraw “ may be premature ” if filed in the court of appeals under the circumstances presented in this case. See In
re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). The court in P.M. stated that “a ppointed
counsel ’ s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the
standards for an Anders brief. ” I d. at 27

– 28. Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief and the
motion to withdraw

. In compliance with Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 318

– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the record in this
cause and informed Ap pellant of h er right to review the record and file a pro se
respo nse to counsel’s brief. W e conclude that Appellant’s counsel has satisfied his
dut ies under Anders , Schulman , and Kelly

. We note that Appellant has not f ile d a pro se response to counsel’s Anders
brief. F ollowing the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record in this cause , and we agree that the appeal is
frivolous

. However, in light of P.M. , we must deny the motion to withdraw that was filed by Appellant ’s court

- appointed counsel. See P.M. , 520 S.W.3d at 27

. Accordingly, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the trial
court’s order of termination

.

PER CURIAM

May 6 , 2021
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trott er , J., and Williams , J.
Dated:  3/29/2007                                                                            In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:By: /s/  Bruce Kaiserman                                                                  Title:Vice PresidentCredit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp.I, Bruce Kaiserman, certify that:1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of  Home Equity Mortgage Trust 2006-1 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");2.  Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.  Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.Bruce Kaiserman**Exhibit 31 : Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications**J.P. Morgan Trust Company, N.A, as CustodianLaSalle Bank National Association, as CustodianOcwen Loan Servicing, LLC, as ServicerSelect Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as Special ServicerU.S. Bank National Association, as TrusteeWells Fargo Bank, N.A., as CustodianWilshire Credit Corporation, as ServicerThe Bank of New York and The Bank of New York Trust Company, as Successor in interest to J.P. Morgan Trust Company, as Custodian