alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Trisha MUKWEYA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-73308.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 21, 2011.

Jesse Adams Moorman, III, Judith L. Wood, Esquire, Law Offices of Judith L. Wood & Jesse A. Moorman, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Kathryn McKinney, Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, 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 **

Trisha Mukweya, a native and citizen of Uganda, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791 *684(9th Cir.2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Mukweya’s motion to reopen where the motion was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s final order, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Mukweya failed to establish materially changed circumstances in Uganda to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); *see also Malty v. Ashcroft,*381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) (requiring circumstances to have changed sufficiently that petitioner now has a well-founded fear of persecution). Because this issue is dispositive of Mukweya’s motion to reopen, we reject her contention the BIA erred by failing to address whether she established prima facie eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Mukwe-ya’s challenges to the BIA’s May 14, 2003, order, because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. *See Singh v. INS,*315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Terry RICHARDSON, also known as Freeze, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-10416

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 30, 2010.

Terry Richardson, Oakdale, LA, pro se.

Before DAVIS, SMITH and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Terry Richardson, federal prisoner # 24513-077, appeals pro se from the *973district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction based on the crack cocaine amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. A district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and its interpretation of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo. *United States v. Evans,*587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir.2009), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 3462, 177 L.Ed.2d 1064 (2010). A district court may reduce “a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(2). A reduction is not authorized if the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s guidelines range. U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s.; *United States v. Carter,*595 F.3d 575, 578-80 (5th Cir.2010). Because Richardson was held accountable for sentencing purposes for more than 4.5 kilograms of crack cocaine, a sentence reduction was not permitted. *See*§ 2D1.1, comment. (n,10(D)(ii)) (providing that “[t]he 2-level reduction provided in subdivision (i) shall not apply in a case in which ... the offense involved 4.5 kg or more ... of cocaine base”); *Carter,*595 F.3d at 578-80. To the extent that Richardson seeks to challenge the calculation of the drug quantity attributable to him for sentencing purposes, that issue is beyond the scope of the guideline amendment and is not cognizable in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. *See Evans,*587 F.3d at 674; *United States v. Whitebird,*55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir.1995).

Richardson argues that § 1B1.10 conflicts with *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and impermissibly restricts consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Richardson’s arguments regarding *Booker*are foreclosed by *Dillon v. United States,*-U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2691-94, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010), and *United States v. Doublin,*572 F.3d 235, 238-39 (5th Cir.), cert. *denied,*— U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 517, 175 L.Ed.2d 366 (2009).

Lastly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint counsel for Richardson and in denying Richardson’s motion for a reduction in sentence without conducting an evidentiary hearing. *See Dickens v. Lewis,*750 F.2d 1251, 1255 (5th Cir.1984); Fed.R.Crim.P. 43(b)(4); *Whitebird,*55 F.3d at 1010-11.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *973the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7861

GARY L. PETTY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ANTHONY J. PADULA, Warden at Lee Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(0:08-cv-02967-RBH)

Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: March 4, 2010

Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary L. Petty, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gary L. Petty seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El 

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th 

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Petty has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Detention and Demurrage, and Data Initiatives Addressed at Commission Meeting","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Xg7ZUF8dL0\"><a href=\"\/detention-and-demurrage-and-data-initiatives-addressed-at-commission-meeting\/\">Detention and Demurrage, and Data Initiatives Addressed at Commission Meeting<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/detention-and-demurrage-and-data-initiatives-addressed-at-commission-meeting\/embed\/#?secret=Xg7ZUF8dL0\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Detention and Demurrage, and Data Initiatives Addressed at Commission Meeting” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"Xg7ZUF8dL0\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-8515

WALTER D. SHANNON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-95-1425-0-20BD)

Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 2, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter D. Shannon, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Shannon

v. South Carolina, No. CA-95-1425-0-20BD (D.S.C. Nov. 16, 1995). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 212 (Friday, November 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 51305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24063]


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

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION


Sunshine Notice--December 6, 2017 Public Hearing

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Wednesday, December 6, 2017.

PLACE: Offices of the Corporation, Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New 
York Avenue NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: Hearing OPEN to the Public at 2:00 p.m.

PURPOSE: Public Hearing in conjunction with each meeting of OPIC's 
Board of Directors, to afford an opportunity for any person to present 
views regarding the activities of the Corporation.

PROCEDURES: Individuals wishing to address the hearing orally must 
provide advance notice to OPIC's Corporate Secretary no later than 5 
p.m. Wednesday, November 29, 2017. The notice must include the 
individual's name, title, organization, address, and telephone number, 
and a concise summary of the subject matter to be presented.
    Oral presentations may not exceed ten (10) minutes. The time for 
individual presentations may be reduced proportionately, if necessary, 
to afford all participants who have submitted a timely request an 
opportunity to be heard.
    Participants wishing to submit a written statement for the record 
must submit a copy of such statement to OPIC's Corporate Secretary no 
later than 5 p.m. Wednesday, November 29, 2017. Such statement must be 
typewritten, double spaced, and may not exceed twenty-five (25) pages.
    Upon receipt of the required notice, OPIC will prepare an agenda, 
which will be available at the hearing, that identifies speakers, the 
subject on which each participant will speak, and the time allotted for 
each presentation.
    A written summary of the hearing will be compiled, and such summary 
will be made available, upon written request to OPIC's Corporate 
Secretary, at the cost of reproduction.
    Written summaries of the projects to be presented at the December 
14, 2017, Board meeting will be posted on OPIC's Web site.

CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION: Information on the hearing may be 
obtained from Catherine F.I. Andrade at (202) 336-8768, via facsimile 
at (202) 408-0297, or via email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#83c0e2f7ebe6f1eaede6adc2ede7f1e2e7e6c3ecf3eae0ade4ecf5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a8ebc9dcc0cddac1c6cd86e9c6ccdac9cccde8c7d8c1cb86cfc7de">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: November 1, 2017.
Catherine F. I. Andrade,
OPIC Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-24063 Filed 11-1-17; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 3210-01-P


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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0110

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

FRANK WAYNE RENIKE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, and

good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including June 5, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve its response 

brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 6 2024

05/06/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0110
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Commissioners Bentzel and Maffei Urge MARAD and CDC to Prioritize Maritime Workforce","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"8acXWORECx\"><a href=\"\/commissioners-bentzel-and-maffei-urge-marad-and-cdc-to-prioritize-maritime-workforce\/\">Commissioners Bentzel and Maffei Urge MARAD and CDC to Prioritize Maritime Workforce<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/commissioners-bentzel-and-maffei-urge-marad-and-cdc-to-prioritize-maritime-workforce\/embed\/#?secret=8acXWORECx\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commissioners Bentzel and Maffei Urge MARAD and CDC to Prioritize Maritime Workforce” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"8acXWORECx\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

Al Sahraa General Transport & Clearance ) ASBCA No. 62770

)

Under Contract No. W912ER-18-C-0032 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Scott M. Heimberg, Esq.

Thomas P. McLish, Esq.

Samantha Block, Esq.

 Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP

 Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

 Engineer Chief Trial Attorney

Cara M. Mroczek, Esq.

Rebecca L. Bockmann, Esq.

 Engineer Trial Attorneys

 U.S. Army Engineer District, Middle East

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: September 28, 2022

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62770, Appeal of Al Sahraa General 

Transport & Clearance, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: September 29, 2022

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD

Administrative Judge

Acting Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7673

JOHN L. CORRIGAN, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

FRED C. PFLANZ; A. HILLE, Judge; D. BARGER, Sheriff; B. 

SCUDDER, Deputy Prosecutor; ADAMS COUNTY; PAUL L. 

KIRKPATRICK, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:12-mc-00012-LMB-TRJ) 

Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 19, 2012

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

John L. Corrigan, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

John L. Corrigan appeals the district court’s order 

denying his Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Corrigan v. Pflanz, No. 1:12-mc-00012-LMB-TRJ (E.D. Va. 

Sept. 14, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00121

- CV

The City of Houston, Sylvester Turner, Mayor, and Carol Haddock, Director of Public Works
v. Myriad Apartment Associates d/b/a Myriad Apartments

On Appeal from the 80th District Court of Harris County , Tex as Trial Court Cause No. 2019

- 35408

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on
appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal
DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against
appellant s

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
January 27, 2022
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-18-00109-CV

JIMMY JOSEPH NEWELL,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-1307-C2

ORDER

Appellant’s Request for Clerk’s Record-Reporter’s Record, filed on June 2, 2018, 

was not properly served. Every document requesting relief sent to this Court must reflect 

that it was served on all parties to the proceeding. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(a). Nevertheless, 

we use Rule 2 to dispense with this requirement, and proceed to a disposition of 

appellant’s request. See id. 2. Future requests not properly served will not be 

acknowledged or acted upon by the Court. 

The clerk’s record in this appeal was filed on June 7, 2018. The reporter’s record 
Newell v. State Page 2

has not yet been filed. Because this appeal was only recently reinstated by the Court, the 

reporter will not be “compelled” to file the reporter’s record or sanctioned per our local 

rules at this time. Moreover, there may be no reporter’s record regarding the order being 

appealed. The Court will pursue the filing of the reporter’s record, if any, through the 

Court’s normal procedures.

Appellant will be informed when the entire appellate record is filed with the Court 

or when the Court determines that no reporter’s record exists and the appeal will be 

submitted on the clerk’s record alone. At that time, appellant may request to check out 

the record from the Clerk of this Court. See 10TH TEX. APP. (WACO) LOC. R. 11(a). Because 

the Court’s local rules provide a way for appellant to have access to the appellate record, 

the Court will not order the district clerk or the reporter to provide appellant with a copy 

of the appellate record.

Accordingly, appellant’s request is denied at this time without prejudice to request 

to check out the record from the Clerk of this Court at the appropriate time.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion denied 

Order issued and filed July 3, 2018