Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 1989); Tweedle v. State, 153 Tex.Crim. 200, 218 S.W.2d 846 (1949). But Humphreys was not convicted in a Texas court, and we think it sufficient answer to point out the obvious: Texas criminal procedure does not govern federal criminal trials in Iowa. BODA was required, under Tex.R.Disci-plinaey P. 8.02 (1992), to treat the record of conviction as “conclusive evidence” of Hum-phreys’s guilt. Moreover, U.S. Const, art. 4, § 1, and 28 U.S.C. § 1738, require Texas to extend “full faith and credit” to the judgments of federal trial courts in other states just as Texas must to the decisions of other state courts. Hancock Nat’l Bank v. Farnum, 176 U.S. 640, 645, 20 S.Ct. 506, 508, 44 L.Ed. 619 (1900); see generally Bard v. Charles R. Myers Ins. Agency, Inc., 839 S.W.2d 791, 794 (Tex.1992) (<HOLDING>). While Texas will not extend full faith and 
 Holding statements: (A) holding this rule does not deny full faith and credit (B) holding that texas is required to extend full faith and credit to valid judgments from other states (C) holding that puerto rican judgments are entitled to full faith and credit (D) holding that a judgment of another states court is entitled to full faith and credit j when the judgment is considered final under the laws of the rendering state (E) holding that the full faith and credit clause does not require a state to apply another states law in violation of its own legitimate public policy
Output (English): holding that a judgment of another states court is entitled to full faith and credit j when the judgment is considered final under the laws of the rendering state