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

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-22-00275-CR 

 

JAMES BATES, APPELLANT 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the 137th District Court 

 Lubbock County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2021-423,086, Honorable John J. “Trey” McClendon III, Presiding 

November 2, 2022 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

Appellant, James Bates, appeals his conviction for continuous sexual abuse of a 

child1 and sentence to fifty years’ confinement. We dismiss the untimely appeal for want 

of jurisdiction and because Appellant has no right of appeal.

The timely filing of a written notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to 

hearing an appeal. Castillo v. State, 369 S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). In a 

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.02. 
2

criminal case, the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after sentence is 

imposed or suspended or within ninety days if the defendant timely files a motion for new 

trial. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). If a notice of appeal is not timely filed, an appellate court 

has no option but to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Castillo, 369 S.W.3d at 

198.

The trial court sentenced Appellant on October 15, 2021. Because no motion for 

new trial was filed, a notice of appeal was due within thirty days after sentencing, by 

November 15, 2021. See TEX. R.APP.P. 4.1(a), 26.2(a). Appellant filed a notice of appeal 

on September 30, 2022. Thus, Appellant’s untimely notice of appeal prevents this Court 

from acquiring jurisdiction over the appeal.

Further, under Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), we are required to dismiss an 

appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been 

made part of the record.” Here, the trial court’s certification of Appellant’s right of appeal 

indicates that this is a plea-bargain case with no right of appeal and that Appellant has 

waived the right of appeal. The certification comports with the record before the Court. 

By letter of October 4, 2022, we notified Appellant of the consequences of his late 

notice of appeal and the trial court’s certification and directed him to show how the Court 

has jurisdiction over the appeal by October 14. Appellant has not filed a response or had 

any further communication with this Court to date.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and based on the trial 

court’s certification.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
#### Serafin Lopez HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-74121.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 20, 2008.*

Filed May 21, 2008.

Serafín Lopez Hernandez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

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 **

Serafín Lopez Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez Hernandez’s motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than eleven months after the BIA’s final order. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final administrative decision).

Contrary to Lopez Hernandez’s contention, the BIA considered and rejected his equitable tolling claim in denying the motion as untimely.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 21, 2017

d0614 

# Order

Clerk June 21, 2017

154944

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154944

COA: 327179

Livingston CC: 14

- 022070

- FH

JOSHUA QUINCY BURNS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 1, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
registrant's Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 27, 1995 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-27-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-27-1995
<CASH>                                             928
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     7906
<ALLOWANCES>                                       975
<INVENTORY>                                       5284
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 13203
<PP&E>                                           33282
<DEPRECIATION>                                   20618
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   26065
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             9175
<BONDS>                                          15996
<COMMON>                                            34
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                         810
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     26065
<SALES>                                          62542
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 62542
<CGS>                                            38450
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    49444
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   142
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2960
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   9996
<INCOME-TAX>                                       158
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               9838
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      9838
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.40
        

</TABLE>
#### In re RAINEY’S ESTATE. RAINEY v. THOMAS.

No. 33814.

Sept. 19, 1950.

*222 P. 2d 510.*

F. J. Lucas, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Norman Barker, of Tulsa, for defendant in error.

GIBSON, J.

The appellant, Mildred Barton Rainey, made application to the county court of Tulsa county for appointment as administratrix of the estate of Lee Kidd Rainey, deceased. As the basis of the right to the appointment she alleged that she was the common law wife of the decedent. Children of decedent by a former marriage protested the appointment and denied the existence of the alleged marriage. The court found the issues for the protestants, denied the application and appointed appellee, Raymon B. Thomas, administrator of the estate. Appellant appealed to the district court of Tulsa county where, upon trial de novo, the judgment of the county court was in all respects affirmed. Therefrom this appeal is prosecuted.

For reversal it is urged that the judgment of the court is against the clear weight of the evidence.

We have reviewed the evidence and conclude that the judgment is sustained by it.

*402The marriage is alleged to have occurred May 19, 1947. Decedent died June 16, 1947.

There is no direct evidence of a contract sufficient to give rise to a marital relation and the only indirect evidence thereof is admissions of deceased and acts of cohabitation. The probative value of the admissions is weakened if not destroyed by admitted statements and conduct of the deceased which are at variance with the admissions and statements and conduct of appellant before and after the death which are inconsistent with the fact of such marriage. The cohabitation relied on was irregular and for a limited period of time and does not afford cogent evidence of the contract and is entirely insufficient to give rise to a presumption of the existence of a marital status. Richard v. Richard, 172 Okla. 397, 45 P. 2d 101.

The situation here comes squarely within the rule stated in Jackson v. Jackson, 182 Okla. 74, 76 P. 2d 1062, as follows:

> “The burden is upon the person relying upon a common-law marriage to establish same.

> “The judgment of a trial court against the claim of the consummation of a common-law marriage will not be reversed where it appears that the evidence does not preponderate in favor of such claim.”

Affirmed.

ARNOLD, V. C. J., and CORN, LUTTRELL, JOHNSON, and O’NEAL, JJ., concur.
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   FY2012 Justification              

#   FY2012 Justification

##           Downloads        

FY12budget_request.pdf

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: 771-210-1887 TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   United Mine Workers of America on behalf of Local 1248, District 2 v. Maple Creek Mining, Inc., Docket No. PENN 2002-23-C.              

#   United Mine Workers of America on behalf of Local 1248, District 2 v. Maple Creek Mining, Inc., Docket No. PENN 2002-23-C.

argument_032207.pdf

fmshrc_032207.mp3

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Fernando L. Fernandez, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Continucare Corporation (the“Registrant”);2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining “disclosure controls and procedures” (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.     Date:October 30, 2006 By: /s/ Fernando L. Fernandez       Fernando L. Fernandez  Senior Vice President – Finance, Chief  Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3615 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3615

   To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to monitor 
 compliance with the requirements of the American Rescue Plan relating 
                  to the uses of funds for child care.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 28, 2021

    Mrs. Miller-Meeks (for herself and Mr. Buchanan) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
                                 Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to monitor 
 compliance with the requirements of the American Rescue Plan relating 
                  to the uses of funds for child care.

    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 the ``Child Care Funds Accountability 
Act''.

SEC. 2. MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICAN 
              RESCUE PLAN ACT RELATING TO THE USES OF FUNDS FOR CHILD 
              CARE STABILIZATION GRANTS AND THE CHILD CARE AND 
              DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM.

    Section 2201 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law 
117-2; March 11, 2021) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(d) Monitoring Compliance.--
            ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall dedicate such 
        portion of the amounts made available by subsection (b) for 
        Federal administrative costs in carrying out this section as 
        the Secretary determines necessary to monitor compliance with 
        the requirements relating to all uses of funds made available 
        under section 2202 for stabilization grants and under this 
        section for the child care and development block grant program 
        to ensure the integrity of the program, including--
                    ``(A) compliance with the requirements under 
                subsection (c) and under section 2202(f), and
                    ``(B) to ensure that there is no duplication with 
                loans under the Paycheck Protection Program received by 
                child care providers.
            ``(2) Report to congress.--Not later than January 1, 2026, 
        the Secretary shall make publicly available and provide to the 
        Committee on Finance and the Committee on Health, Education, 
        Labor, and Pensions of the Senate, and the Committee on 
        Education and Labor and the Committee on Ways and Means of the 
        House of Representatives a report summarizing the findings of 
        compliance reviews under this section.''.
                                 <all>
```
-  Home 
-  National Training Center 

# In This Section

                      -  National Training Center  
                      -  Class Schedule 
                      -  Course Catalog 
                      -  Safety Programs 
                      -  Drug Interdiction Assistance Program (DIAP) 
                      -  Instructor Certification Program 
                      -  Truck and Bus Enforcement Training 
                      -  Resources 
                      -  Contact the NTC 

# Large Truck and Bus Traffic Enforcement Lesson Plan

Instructor June 2016  Large Truck  Bus TE Lesson Plan.pdf (575.5 KB)

*DOT is committed to ensuring that information is available in appropriate alternative formats to meet the requirements of persons who have a disability. If you require an alternative version of files provided on this page, please contact					MCNTCOffcial@dot.gov.*