alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3151 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3151

 To amend title 18, United States Code, to require the impaneling of a 
new jury if a jury fails to recommend by unanimous vote a sentence for 
               conviction of a crime punishable by death.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 12, 2021

 Mr. Keller (for himself, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, 
Mr. Norman, and Mr. Reschenthaler) introduced the following bill; which 
             was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, to require the impaneling of a 
new jury if a jury fails to recommend by unanimous vote a sentence for 
               conviction of a crime punishable by death.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as ``Eric's Law''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO IMPANEL A NEW JURY IN CERTAIN CASES.

    (a) Additional Ground for Impaneling Jury.--Section 3593(b)(2) of 
title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C); and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(E) a new special hearing is required pursuant to 
                subsection (g); or''.
    (b) Impaneling of New Jury When Jury Does Not Reach a Unanimous 
Recommendation.--Section 3593 of such title is amended by adding at the 
end the following:
    ``(g) Special Rule When Jury Does Not Return a Unanimous 
Recommendation.--
            ``(1) In general.--If a jury described in subsection (b)(1) 
        or subparagraphs (A) through (D) of subsection (b)(2) does not, 
        by unanimous vote, make a recommendation whether the defendant 
        should be sentenced to death, to life imprisonment without 
        possibility of release, or some other lesser sentence pursuant 
        to subsection (e), the court, upon motion of the attorney for 
        the government, shall order a new special hearing and impanel a 
        new jury pursuant to subsection (b).
            ``(2) Imposition of sentence.--If the jury impaneled 
        pursuant to paragraph (1) does not reach a unanimous 
        recommendation as to sentence, the court shall impose a 
        sentence other than death authorized by law.''.
                                 <all>
```
{"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":"Remarks of Commissioner Dye, International Bar Association, Annual Conference 2018","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"rWz9AjKBNq\"><a href=\"\/remarks-of-commissioner-dye-international-bar-association-annual-conference-2018\/\">Remarks of Commissioner Dye, International Bar Association, Annual Conference 2018<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/remarks-of-commissioner-dye-international-bar-association-annual-conference-2018\/embed\/#?secret=rWz9AjKBNq\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Remarks of Commissioner Dye, International Bar Association, Annual Conference 2018” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"rWz9AjKBNq\" 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"}
#### OKLAHOMA NAT. BANK v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO.

No. 3983.

Opinion Filed February 23, 1915.

(146 Pac. 716.)

LIMITATION OF ACTION — Operation of Statute — Foreign Corporation. The statute oí limitation (Rev. Laws 1910, sec. 4657, subdv. 3) does not run in favor of a foreign corporation which has failed to comply with section 43, art. 9, sec, 260, Williams’ Ann. Constitution.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

*708*Error from Superior Court, Pottawatomie County; Geo. C. Abernathy, Judge.*

Action by the Oklahoma National Bank, a corporation, against the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, a corporation. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.

Reversed and remanded.

*B. B. Blalceney*and *J. H. Maxey, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*C. O. Blake,*for defendant.

TURNER, J.

This is a suit in damages for the conversion of 37 bales of cotton of an alleged value of $1,902.50. Plaintiff alleges itself to be the owner thereof as the owner and holder of bills of lading to shipper’s order, and that the cotton was converted by defendant in transit on its line of road from Sayre to Shawnee, Okla. The point raised by demurrer is conceded to be whether the statute of limitation (Rev. Laws 1910, sec. 4657, subd. 3) runs in lavor of a foreign corporation which has failed to comply with section 43, art. 9, sec. 260, Williams’ Ann. Constitution. This court has held that it does not in *Hale v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co.,*39 Okla. 192, 134 Pac. 949, and in *St. Louis etc., R. Co. v. Bloom,*39 Okla. 78, 134 Pac. 432.

As defendant seems to so concede by failure to file brief, the judgment of the trial court in sustaining a demurrer to the petition is reversed,. and the case remanded.

All the Justices concur.
{"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":"Next Meeting of FMC Data Initiative Focuses on Ocean Carriers","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"EQKk0esawS\"><a href=\"\/next-meeting-of-fmc-data-initiative-focuses-on-ocean-carriers\/\">Next Meeting of FMC Data Initiative Focuses on Ocean Carriers<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/next-meeting-of-fmc-data-initiative-focuses-on-ocean-carriers\/embed\/#?secret=EQKk0esawS\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Next Meeting of FMC Data Initiative Focuses on Ocean Carriers” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"EQKk0esawS\" 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"}
{"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":"January 2023 Activity Report","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"hBzRKGryGO\"><a href=\"\/january-2023-activity-report\/\">January 2023 Activity Report<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/january-2023-activity-report\/embed\/#?secret=hBzRKGryGO\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“January 2023 Activity Report” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"hBzRKGryGO\" 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"}
### Court of Appeals , State of Michiga n ORDER People of MI v Willie Joseph Grimes DocketNo. 341417 LC No . 17-004669-01-FC Kathleen Jansen Presiding Judge Patrick M. Meter Elizabeth L. Gleicher

Judges The Court orders that the motion to fi le a late answer is GRANTED and the answer filed with the motion is accepted. The motion for reconsideration is GRANTED, and this Court's opinion issued April 23, 2019 is hereby VACATED. A new opinion will be issued.

A true copy en tered and certified by Jerome W. Zimmer Jr.. Chief Clerk, on 

# JUN - 

# 4 2019 Date
{"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":"Applicants June 13, 2022","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"xl2PRwwunY\"><a href=\"\/oti\/applicants-june-13-2022\/\">Applicants June 13, 2022<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/applicants-june-13-2022\/embed\/#?secret=xl2PRwwunY\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Applicants June 13, 2022” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"xl2PRwwunY\" 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"}
#### Jose GARCIA-CHAIDEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-71313.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 20, 2014 *.

Jan. 20, 2016.

ALexander Warren Tucker, Esquire Law Offices of Alexander Tucker San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.

Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security San Francisco, CA, OIL, Michele Yvette Frances Sarko, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: WARDLAW and PAEZ, Circuit Judges and KENNELLY,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Jose Garcia-Chaidez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) decision that his conviction under California Penal Code section 273a(a) was a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 16, and therefore qualified as an aggravated felony. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision pretermittihg Garcia-Chaidez’s application for cancellation of removal, and ordering him removed.

In *Ramirez v. Lynch,*No. 08-72896, we held that California Penal Code section 273a(a) is categorically overbroad and indivisible, and therefore is not a “crime of violence” and cannot constitute an aggravated felony. Because Garciar-Chaidez appealed to the BIA only the determination that his conviction qualified as an aggravated felony, we do not reach the IJ’s decision that he was also removable for having committed a crime of child abuse under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E).

We therefore grant the petition and remand to the BIA for further proceedings.

Petition GRANTED and REMANDED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and. is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
{"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":"License Applicants – May 15, 2015","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"GehPuZOdGe\"><a href=\"\/oti\/license-applicants-may-15-2015\/\">License Applicants – May 15, 2015<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/license-applicants-may-15-2015\/embed\/#?secret=GehPuZOdGe\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“License Applicants – May 15, 2015” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"GehPuZOdGe\" 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"}
Exhibit 13.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Annual Report of Canadian Satellite Holdings Inc.
(the ”Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ending August 31,
2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the ”Report”), I, Michael Moskowitz, President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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, 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.








Date:
            November
      6, 2008By:
            /s/
      MICHAEL MOSKOWITZName:
      Michael MoskowitzTitle:
      President and Chief Executive
Officer





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is
not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-09-370-CR

TRIMAINE MCCLARTY	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM THE 362ND DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant Trimaine McClarty attempts to appeal his conviction for aggravated assault, for which he was sentenced to fifteen years’ confinement on December 11, 2008.  On October 22, 2009, McClarty filed a notice of appeal.

	On October 30, 2009, we sent McClarty a letter stating that the court was concerned that it lacked jurisdiction over his appeal because his notice of appeal was not timely filed.2  See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1) (stating that the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or after the day the trial court enters an appealable order).  Our letter also stated that the trial court’s certification stated that this is a plea-bargain case, that McClarty had no right of appeal, and that he had waived his right of appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).  We instructed McClarty or any party desiring to continue the appeal to file with the court a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal by November 9, 2009, or this appeal would be dismissed.  We have received no response.

	Because the trial court certified that McClarty possesses no right of appeal and because McClarty failed to file a timely notice of appeal, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.  See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).  Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b), (d), 43.2(f).

									PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and MEIER, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: DECEMBER 23, 2009