alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Gary S. Muse, appellant.

727 N.W.2d 689

Filed February 23, 2007.

No. S-05-947.

Stefanie A. Martinez and James Walter Crampton for appellant.

Jon Bruning, Attorney General, and James D. Smith for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Wright, Connolly, Gerrard, Stephan, McCormack, and Miller-Lermán, JJ.

Heavican, C.J.

Having reviewed the briefs and record and having heard oral arguments, we conclude on further review that the decision of the Nebraska Court of Appeals in *State v. Muse,*15 Neb. App. 13, 721 N.W.2d 661 (2006), is correct.

We are not persuaded by the concerns raised by the opinion dissenting from the judgment of the Court of Appeals. That dissent cites *State*v. *Baker,*No. A-00-177, 2001 WL 221557 (Neb. App. Feb. 6, 2001) (not designated for permanent publication), for the proposition that “the relevant information should not be considered properly filed for purposes of speedy trial calculations until it was file stamped.” *Muse,*15 Neb. App. at 31, 721 N.W.2d at 675 (Irwin, J., dissenting). The dissent thus concludes that the lack of a file stamp on the second amended information indicates the information was never properly filed and the district court lacked jurisdiction.

In *Baker,*although the information was file stamped, the defendant contended the information had actually been filed before the date reflected on the stamp. In its opinion, the Court óf Appeals simply concluded there was insufficient evidence in the record to suggest that the information was filed on an earlier date. As such, *100the Court of Appeals determined the file-stamped date controlled. This court granted further review, but later dismissed the petition as having been improvidently granted. *State v. Baker,*262 Neb. xxvi (No. S-00-177, Sept. 12, 2001).

While we encourage the practice of using file stamps, we do not read *Baker*as requiring that an information be file stamped in order to be filed. As such, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Affirmed.
#### Tarvish Leviticus DUNHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION GILMER; A. Sligar, Lt., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-7990.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 17, 2014.

Decided: April 21, 2014.

Tarvish Leviticus Dunham, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tarvish Leviticus Dunham appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012) his complaint filed pursuant to *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and dismissing as premature Dunham’s claim filed pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district *274court. *See Dunham v. Fed. Corr. Inst. Gilmer,*No. 2:13-cv0006S-JPB-JES, 2013 WL 6148070 (N.D.W.Va. Nov. 22, 2013). 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.*
Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors and Shareholders of

Empresa Nacional de
Electricidad S.A. (Endesa-Chile)

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form F-3 of Enersis S.A. (No.
333-186823)of our reports dated April 30, 2015, with respect to the consolidated statements of financial position of Endesa-Chile and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, and the related consolidated statements of
comprehensive income, changes in equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2014, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014, appearing in the
Annual Report on Form 20-F of Enersis S.A. for the year ended December 31, 2014.







|                                
|--------------------------------
|/s/ KPMG                        
|KPMG Auditores Consultores Ltda.
|SANTIAGO,CHILE                  
|April 30, 2015                  



















© 2014 KPMG Auditores Consultores Ltda, a Chilean limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent
member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

March 30, 2021

No. 04

- 20

- 00611

- CV

Justin W. LITTLE
, Appellant

v.
Christy B. LITTLE
, Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District Court
, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2016

- CI

- 08129 Honorable Angelica Jimenez , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The trial court’s judgment was signed on November 20, 2020. A ppellant filed h is notice of appeal on December 21, 2020

. Because appellant filed a motion for new trial, the clerk’s record and reporter’s record were due on March 22, 2021

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.1(a). On March 24, 2021
, the trial court clerk responsible for preparing the clerk’s record in this appeal filed a notification of late record, stating that appellant has failed (1) to request in writing that she prepare the clerk’s record and (2) to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3 ( a )(2)

.

W e therefore ORDER appellant to file written proof in this court no later than ten (10) days after the date of this order showing t hat : (1) he has requested that the trial court clerk prepare the clerk’s record and that the official court reporter prepare the reporter’s re cord in compliance with Texas Rule s of Appellate Procedure 34.5 and 34.6 , respectively; and that either (2) the clerk’s and court reporter’s fees for preparation of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record have been paid or payment arrangements have been made, or appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the fees

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34. 5, 34.6 ; 20.1(a); Tex. R. Civ. P. 145

. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3

.

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodrig uez , JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 30th day of March, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A . CRUZ
, Clerk of Court
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU NE 19, 2015

NO. 03

- 15

- 00114

- CV

Robert Emrich, Appellant

v.

Federal National Mortgage Association a/k/a Fannie Mae, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF HAYS COUN TY
BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBERTON, AND BOURLAN D
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BOURLAND

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on January 22, 2015. Having

reviewed the record , the Court holds that appellant has not prosecuted his appeal and did not

comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for

want of prosecution. A ppellant sha ll pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and

the court below.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           7

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           1,235,048
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            0
<EQUITIES>                                     0
<MORTGAGE>                                     0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 1,235,048
<CASH>                                         14,082
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             3,468
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         149,561
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,530,648
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                142,601
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            425,238
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                99,875
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          75,000
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       369
<OTHER-SE>                                     554,399
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,530,648
<PREMIUMS>                                     106,274
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            34,849
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             5,028
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 3,174
<BENEFITS>                                     187,927
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    27,064
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           7,228
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (111,870)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (41,656)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (70,214)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (23,665)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (93,879)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (2.90)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (2.87)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 84,553
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            50,172
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              57,891
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             56
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               52,808
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                139,752
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                        0



</TABLE>
SIXTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This  Sixth  Amendment  to  the  Employment   Agreement   between  Chartwell  Re
Corporation and Richard E. Cole is entered into as of December 30, 1998.

                                    RECITALS

A.   Chartwell  Re  Corporation  (the  "Company")  entered  into  an  Employment
     Agreement (the "Agreement")  with Richard E. Cole (the  "Executive")  dated
     December 8, 1993; and

B.   The  Agreement  set  forth  the  terms  and conditions  of the  Executive's
     employment with the Company.

NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration,  the receipt and sufficiency
of which are hereby  acknowledged,  the Company and Executive  hereby consent to
amend the Agreement as follows:

1.       The Term of the Agreement is hereby extended in accordance with Section
         2 of the Agreement to December 31, 1999.

2.       Capitalized  terms used and not defined in this Sixth  Amendment  shall
         have the respective meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.

3.       Except as expressly  amended  hereby,  the Agreement  shall continue in
         full force and effect in accordance with the provisions  thereof on the
         date hereof.

4.       This Sixth  Amendment shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon
         the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.

5.       This Sixth Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts,  each
         of which  shall  constitute  an  original,  but all of which when taken
         together shall constitute but one instrument.

6.       This Sixth  Amendment  shall be governed by and construed in accordance
         with the laws of the State of Delaware  without  regard to its conflict
         of law principles.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the Executive  has executed  this Sixth  Amendment and the
Company has caused this Sixth  Amendment  to be executed by its duly  authorized
representative.

                                            CHARTWELL RE CORPORATION


/s/ Richard E. Cole                         By: /s/ John V. Del Col
-----------------------                        --------------------------------
    Richard E. Cole                            John V. Del Col
                                               Vice President, General Counsel
                                               & Secretary
Affirmed an d Memorandum Opinion filed October 20 , 2011

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 1 0

- 0 1 0 68

- CR

____________ HARDY SMITH , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 17 9 th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1055262



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted a ppellant of sexual assault of a child and found the allegations in two enhancement paragraphs to be ―true.‖ T he jury sentenced appellant to confinement
for forty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
Appellant ’ s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirement of Anders v. California , 3 86 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of
the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).2

A copy of counsel ’ s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. (Tex. Crim. App.1991). As of this date, no pro se response has
been filed.
We have carefully re viewed the record and counsel ’ s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record

. We
are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response
when we hav e determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State
, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Brown, Boyce, and McCally

. Do Not Publish

— T ex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Organics

Organic Certification Cost Share Program

Introduction

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Organic Certification Cost Share Program 

(OCCSP), administered by the Farm Service 

Agency (FSA), provides organic producers 

and handlers with financial assistance to 

reduce the cost of organic certification. 

The program reimburses producers 

and handlers for a portion of their paid 

certification costs. Once certified, organic 

producers and handlers are eligible to 

receive reimbursement for 75 percent of 

certification costs for program year 2023, 

up to a maximum of $750 per certification 

scope—crops, livestock, wild crops, 

handling, and State Organic Program fees.

Who is Eligible?

Certified organic producers and handlers 

who have paid certification fees during 

the 2023 program years may apply for 

reimbursement of the incurred costs.

Is Certification Required 

to Participate?

Yes. Organic certification cost share funds 

are only available to certified organic 

producers and handlers. Certification 

must be provided by a USDA-accredited 

certifying agent. If your operation is not 

currently certified organic and you would 

like to learn more about the certification 

process, please visit www.fsa.usda.gov/

organic.

What Costs are 

Reimbursable?

Eligible costs include application fees, 

inspection costs, fees related to equivalency 

agreement/arrangement requirements, 

travel/per diem for inspectors, user fees, 

sales assessments, and postage. 

What Costs are Not 

Reimbursable?

Ineligible costs include equipment, 

materials, supplies, transitional certification 

fees, late fees, and inspections necessary 

to address National Organic Program 

regulatory violations.

What is the Maximum 

Reimbursement Amount?

The maximum per certification scope (crops, 

livestock, wild crops, handling, or State 

Organic Program fees) is $750.

How Do I Apply for a 

Reimbursement

You may apply to a 

participating state agency 

according to their deadlines, 

or you may apply directly to 

one of over 2,100 FSA offices. 

Applicants must typically 

submit a one-page application 

form, W-9 tax form (to 

participating state agencies), 

proof of certification and 

an itemized invoice of 

certification expenses.

For More Information

This fact sheet is for 

informational purposes only; 

other eligibility requirements 

may apply. 

For more information, visit 

www.fsa.usda.gov/organic or 

contact your local FSA office.

To find your local FSA office, 

visit farmers.gov/servicecenter-locator.

fsa.usda.gov

*OCCSP funds are limited and applications 

are paid on a first-come, first-served basis. 

Applications received after all funds are 

obligated will not be paid.

Program 

Year

Covers expenses 

paid from ...

The application 

deadline is ...*

2021 Oct. 1, 2020 through 

Sept. 30, 2021

Oct. 31, 2021

2022 Oct. 1, 2021 through 

Sept. 30, 2022

Oct. 31, 2022

2023 Oct. 1, 2022 through 

Sept. 30, 2023

Nov. 1, 2023

 SEPTEMBER 2023
#### Ajaron GAMBLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 09-7448.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 9, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 30, 2010.

John Christopher Mills, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ajaron Gamble seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gamble has *722not 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.*

*

 Although Gamble correctly asserts that his petition was timely filed, he does not state a debatable claim of the denial of his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel.
# Dry Peas

&"Arial,Bold"&16Pulse Crop Repayment Rates	

# Lentils

&"Arial,Bold"&16Pulse Crop Repayment Rates	

# Large Chickpeas

&"Arial,Bold"&16Pulse Crop Repayment Rates	

# Small Chickpeas

&"Arial,Bold"&16Pulse Crop Repayment Rates
FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 16, 2020 

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD

AWARDS RECORDKEEPING CONTRACT

Washington, D.C. -- The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB) 

announced today that, after a competitive process, it has awarded its Recordkeeping 

Services Acquisition (RKSA) contract to Accenture Federal Services LLC. Accenture 

Federal Services LLC will support Thrift Savings Plan recordkeeping and provide 

defined contribution managed services that will operate and manage the associated 

people, processes, and systems required to deliver TSP services. 

The RKSA contract has a performance period comprised of an 18-month transition period 

and four 3-year option periods. 

The TSP is a retirement savings plan for Federal employees 

and members of the uniformed services; it is similar to the 

401(k) plans offered by many private employers. As of Oct 

31, 2020, TSP assets totaled approximately $644 billion, 

and retirement savings accounts were being maintained for 

more than 6.1 million TSP participants. Participants 

include Federal civilian employees in all branches of 

Government, employees of the U.S. Postal Service, and 

members of the uniformed services. Additional information 

can be found at www.tsp.gov. 

MEDIA CONTACT:

Kim Weaver 

202-942-1641

(end)
Certification

I, Frank Jiang, certify that: 

1.         I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Great China International Holdings, Inc. for the period ended June 30, 2007; 

2.         Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3.         Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.         The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined 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 disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; 

(b)        Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; 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 (theregistrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal controlover financial reporting; and 

5.         The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a)        All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and 

(b)        Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internalcontrol over financial reporting.
946 A.2d 92

#### Wendell LONG, Appellant v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 30, 2008.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 30th day of April, 2008, the order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED.