alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion filed October 27, 2011

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-10-00336-CR

__________

OTIS CHAMP ALLEN, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 358th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. D-35,627

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

After a bench trial, the trial court convicted Otis Champ Allen of possession of a 

controlled substance and assessed his punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of 

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of two years. Specifically, a consensual 

search of appellant revealed the presence of crack cocaine located within a fanny pack that 

appellant was wearing. We dismiss the appeal.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is 

supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record 

and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has 
2

provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record 

and file a response to counsel’s brief. A response has not been filed.1 Court-appointed counsel 

has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 

S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); 

and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.). Following the 

procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and 

we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 

409. 

We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that he may file a petition 

for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review 

by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on 

appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the 

opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for 

discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises appellant that he may file a 

petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68. 

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. 

PER CURIAM

October 27, 2011

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.

 

1

By letter, this court granted appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3053 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to prohibit oil and gas 

leasing in the Southern California planning area. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2021 

Mr. LEVIN of California introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to prohibit 

oil and gas leasing in the Southern California planning area. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Coasts and 

5 Oceans Protection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN THE 

7 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PLANNING AREA. 

8 Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

9 (43 U.S.C. 1337) is amended by adding at the end the 

10 following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3053 IH

1 ‘‘(q) PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN THE

2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PLANNING AREA.—Notwith3 standing any other provision of this section or any other 

4 law, the Secretary of the Interior may not issue a lease 

5 for the exploration, development, or production of oil or 

6 natural gas in the Southern California planning area, as 

7 such planning area is described in the document entitled 

8 ‘2019–2024 National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Draft 

9 Proposed Program’, dated January 2018, or a subsequent 

10 oil and gas leasing program developed under section 18 

11 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 

12 1344).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of CurrencyShares® Australian Dollar Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Arruda, Chief Financial Officer of Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the Trust, 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 Trust.



|                             
|-----------------------------
|Date: December 29, 2010      
|                             
|/S/ JOSEPH ARRUDA            
|Joseph Arruda*               
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(principal financial officer)



|* | The Registrant is a trust and Joseph Arruda is signing in his capacity as the principal financial officer of Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the
Registrant.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the quarterly report of Freestone Resources, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 operation of the Company.








Dated:  June
30, 2008





/s/ Lloyd
Lane





Name:
Lloyd Lane


Title:  Chief
Executive Officer











Dated:  June
30, 2008





/s/ James F.
Carroll





Name:
James F. Carroll


Title:  Chief
Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE: VICTOR REYES.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00050-CR

Appeal from the

210th District Court of 

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20060D04136-210-01)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Victor Reyes is attempting to appeal the trial court’s denial of his application for writ of 

habeas corpus. Finding that Appellant did not timely file his notice of appeal, we dismiss the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. Olivo v. State, 

918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). In a criminal case, a defendant’s notice of appeal is 

due within thirty days after the sentence is imposed in open court or the trial court enters an 

appealable order. See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.2(a)(1). The trial court’s order denying Appellant’s writ 

application filed pursuant to Article 11.072 is an appealable order. See TEX.CODE 

CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 11.072, § 8; Ex parte Delgado, 214 S.W.3d 56, 58 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2006, 

pet. ref’d).

The trial court signed the order denying the writ application on December 18, 2018. 
- 2 -

Although Appellant filed a motion for new trial, it did not extend the time for filing the notice of 

appeal. See Ex parte Delgado, 214 S.W.3d at 58 (holding that in appeal from order denying habeas 

corpus petition, motion for new trial does not extend deadline for filing notice of appeal). 

Consequently, the notice of appeal was due to be filed no later than January 17, 2019. Although 

Appellant filed his notice of appeal on February 1, 2019, which is within fifteen days of the filing

deadline, he did not file an extension motion. See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.3 (a court of appeals may 

extend the time to file the notice of appeal if, within 15 days after the deadline for filing the notice 

of appeal, the party files in the trial court the notice of appeal, and files in the appellate court a 

motion complying with Rule 10.5(b)). In the absence of a timely filed notice of appeal, a court of 

appeals does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal in a criminal case and can 

take no action other than to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State, 981 

S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

February 27, 2019

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bruce H. PERRIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-30736

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 12, 2008.

Catherine M. Maraist, lead counsel, Corey Ross Amundson, U.S. Attorney’s Office Middle District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Rebecca L. Hudsmith, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Bruce Perrin pleaded guilty to two counts of receipt of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. *United States v. Perrin,*478 F.3d 672, 674 (5th Cir.2007). The district court determined that Perrin’s guideline sen*299tence range was 108-35 months of imprisonment with a statutory minimum of 60 months. *Id.*at 674-75. The court sentenced Perrin to the statutory minimum, stating four reasons for imposing a sentence below the recommended range. *Id.*at 675. On direct appeal, this court vacated the sentence, finding that “each of the four reasons given for the departure was improper” and that “no justification remains for the significant departure from the guideline range.” *Id.*at 679.

At resentencing, the district court stated that the decision from this court on direct appeal had held that a sentence within the guideline range must be imposed. The court then imposed a sentence of 108 months, the bottom of the range.

In *Gall v. United States,*— U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 595, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), the Court rejected the notion that a district court needs extraordinary circumstances to justify a deviation from the guideline range. In making its sentencing decision, a court should use the range as “the starting point and the initial benchmark” but should consider all the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). *Gall,*128 S.Ct. at 596. In reviewing a sentence, we first determine whether the decision was procedurally sound. *See Gall,*128 S.Ct. at 597.

The government has requested that the sentence be vacated and remanded for re-sentencing because the district court’s statement that this court’s decision on direct appeal mandated a sentence within the guideline range is a procedural error under *Gall.*The government notes that this reasoning holds even if the district court misinterpreted this court’s mandate.

We agree. The sentence is VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing in accordance with *Gall.*We note that the district court did not have the benefit of *Gall*when it imposed the sentence on remand.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Remigio VALDEZ-BRITO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-50568.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 20, 2008.*

Filed May 23, 2008.

Randy K. Jones, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Frank T. Morell, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Remigio Valdez-Brito appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Valdez-Brito contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence of his unlawful presence in the United States. Because Valdez-Brito *546pled guilty unconditionally, he waived his right to challenge any non-jurisdictional antecedent ruling. *See United States v. Lopez-Armenta,*400 F.3d 1173, 1175 (9th Cir.2005).

Valdez-Brito also contends that the district court erred under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), by enhancing his sentence based on facts not alleged in the indictment, admitted, or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. We conclude that any *Apprendi*error was harmless. *See United States v. Salazar-Lopez,*506 F.3d 748, 751-56 (9th Cir.2007).

AFFIRMED.

**

 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. Adrian DAVIE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-4057.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 10, 2008.

Decided: May 22, 2008.

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, Lex A. Coleman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Lisa Grimes Johnston, Office of the United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Adrian Davie pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and was sentenced to fifty-seven months of imprisonment. The district court rejected Davie’s request for a variance sentence based on the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine under the Sentencing Guidelines, relying on then-binding precedent. *See United States v. Eura,*440 F.3d 625, 632-34 (4th Cir.2006) (holding that 100:1 ratio cannot be the basis of a variance), *vacated,*— U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 853, — L.Ed.2d - (2008). Because *Eura*was vacated by the Supreme Court’s opinion in *Kimbrough v. United States,*— U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), we grant the parties’ joint motion to remand in light of that opinion. Accordingly we vacate and remand for re-*267sentencing in light of *Kimbrough.*
      ***

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.

*VACATED AND REMANDED.*

We offer no criticism of the district court which properly applied the relevant law at the time of sentencing.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3030 

To ensure that Members of Congress and Congressional staff receive health 

care from the Department of Veterans Affairs instead of under the 

Federal Health Benefits Program or health care exchanges. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2021 

Mr. DAVIDSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To ensure that Members of Congress and Congressional staff 

receive health care from the Department of Veterans 

Affairs instead of under the Federal Health Benefits 

Program or health care exchanges. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Lead by Example Act 

5 of 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3030 IH

1 SEC. 2. HEALTH CARE FURNISHED BY DEPARTMENT OF 

2 VETERANS AFFAIRS TO MEMBERS OF CON3 GRESS AND CONGRESSIONAL STAFF. 

4 (a) HEALTH CARE BENEFITS.—Notwithstanding any 

5 other provision of law, beginning January 3, 2023, the 

6 only health care plan that the Federal Government may 

7 make available to Members of Congress and Congressional 

8 staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress 

9 or Congressional staff shall be health care provided 

10 through the Department of Veterans Affairs, including at 

11 facilities of the Department and non-Department facilities 

12 pursuant to chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, 

13 and any other provision of law authorizing the Secretary 

14 of Veterans Affairs to furnish such care to veterans, as 

15 if such Members and staff were veterans. 

16 (b) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.—Not later than Sep17 tember 15, 2021, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and 

18 the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall 

19 jointly submit to Congress a plan to carry out subsection 

20 (a), including recommendations for any legislative actions 

21 the Secretary and the Director determine necessary to 

22 carry out such subsection. 

23 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

24 (1) The term ‘‘Congressional staff’’ means the 

25 employees described in section 2107(1) of title 5, 

26 United States Code. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3030 IH

1 (2) The term ‘‘Member of Congress’’ means a 

2 member of the Senate or the House of Representa3 tives, a Delegate to the House of Representatives, 

4 and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico. 

5 (3) The term ‘‘non-Department facility’’ has 

6 the meaning given that term in section 1701 of title 

7 38, United States Code. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 10196]

Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled pursuant to Section 219(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)(4)(C)) (“INA”), and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I conclude that the circumstances that were the basis for the designation of the aforementioned organization as a Foreign Terrorist Organization have not changed in such a manner as to warrant revocation of the designation and that the national security of the United States does not warrant a revocation of the designation. Therefore, I hereby determine that the designation of the aforementioned organization as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, pursuant to Section 219 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1189), shall be maintained.

                    This determination shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Rex W. Tillerson,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2017-24598 Filed 11-13-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4710-AD-P
{"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":"October 2023 OTI License Revocations and Surrenders","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"3ozRubrare\"><a href=\"\/oti\/october-2023-oti-license-revocations-and-surrenders\/\">October 2023 OTI License Revocations and Surrenders<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/october-2023-oti-license-revocations-and-surrenders\/embed\/#?secret=3ozRubrare\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“October 2023 OTI License Revocations and Surrenders” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"3ozRubrare\" 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"}