alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO.  2-04-080-CR

MARIANN MELTZER	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant was charged with possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, methamphetamine, of four grams or more, but less than two hundred grams.  Appellant pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement and was placed on eight years’ deferred adjudication community supervision.  Appellant did not appeal that order.  

	Almost eighteen months later, the State filed a petition to adjudicate guilt based on allegations that Appellant had violated conditions of her community supervision.  After conducting a hearing, the trial court found that Appellant had violated her probation, adjudicated her guilty, and sentenced her to twenty- five years’ confinement. 

	In one point, Appellant complains of ineffective assistance of counsel at her original plea. 

	After the adjudication of guilt, this court cannot consider challenges to the original proceeding in which an appellant was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision, except for a complaint that the original judgment was void, such as for lack of jurisdiction.  Nix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 664, 667-68 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661- 62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).  The court of criminal appeals has held that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is non-jurisdictional.  Lyon v. State, 872 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Tex. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1209 (1994), abrogated on other grounds by Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Ebiana v. State, 77 S.W.3d 436, 438 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002, pet. ref’d).  Therefore, the void judgment exception does not apply in this case.  See Ebiana, 77 S.W.3d at 438.

	Because Appellant failed to appeal from the order placing her on deferred adjudication community supervision and her sole complaint is now untimely, we are precluded from considering the merits of it.  Accordingly, we dismiss her appeal.

							ANNE GARDNER

							JUSTICE

PANEL F:	GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

DELIVERED:  March 17, 2005
#### Cohen *v.*Mangum, sheriff.

June 24, 1910.

Habeas corpus. Before Judge Pendleton. Fulton superior court.

November 25, 1909.

*F. M. Hughes*and *Morris Macks,*for plaintiff.

*Daley, Chambers & Smith,*for defendant.

Atkinson, J.

1. Under the ruling in the case of *Loeb*v. *Mangum,*134 *Ga*335 (67 S. E. 882), there was no error in refusing to discharge the prisoner on the hearing of the application for habeas corpus.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  SBA Leadership 
-  Jonathan Alter 

#   Jonathan Alter

Senior Advisor

Office of Congressional & Legislative Affairs

Jonathan Alter serves as Senior Advisor for Policy and Legislative Affairs. In this role, Mr. Alter provides specialized leadership and professional insights to support the mission of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), the Office of the Administrator (Policy), and the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs (Legislative Affairs). As Senior Advisor, Mr. Alter advises and assists SBA senior leadership with the planning, development and implementation of programs, policies, and priorities. Previously, Mr. Alter served as Senior Advisor in SBA’s Office of Investment and Innovation.

Before joining the U.S. Small Business Administration, Mr. Alter served on campaigns in numerous management and leadership roles during the 2008, 2012, 2018, and 2020 election cycles.

In addition to his political activities, Mr. Alter has served in executive and strategic advisory roles for numerous private and nonprofit organizations. Within the private sector, Mr. Alter held leadership roles in several consultancies, including Pathfound and The Xigent Group – bringing together inventors, investors, and entrepreneurs to incubate, accelerate and commercialize innovation. In this capacity, Mr. Alter nurtured and facilitated the successful launch of numerous small businesses, start-up ventures, and social enterprises.

Mr. Alter’s experience within the nonprofit sector includes engagements in governance and as a strategic advisor for aligned organizations, their founders, and senior leadership – specifically for organizations and institutions focusing on social justice, educational equity, and economic development. In this capacity, Mr. Alter championed a culture of virtuous entanglement – engaging diverse stakeholders to achieve shared outcomes.

A native of Winnetka, Illinois, Mr. Alter is an alumnus of University of Chicago and Yale University.
### 125

O-CL-

-- **OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **CPENE ’** **kAL OF**  TEXAS **AUSTIN**

fronoreble Jamee E. Klld& htor **‘ r** **’ reneportation**  Dlvlolon Railroad Conmlesion of Texar Austin, Term Dur SirI Oplnion~Co. 0-10~3 \. Ret ‘iheth&%r-nciti a’;person havi~~.,authority’to use State hi$?hways as

hn Interstate co&on o~xrlcr

Way a manho permit and auth a contmonoarrio oial oorzoditp

no. O-1518, that a rovislono ,ot krtlole Ollb, ot at the osme time operate ap~lioation for psrnission to **use** o do only intorotate **businese, the**  power to detormlne need or oonvenOlnmlS8ion Om only deteX3IIine VihOthQr ommeroe in 3oua.t to be oarrled, considerz;erafrio thers?n, are ~such as will properly

Snlth v. :iald ‘i’ranafcr dcStoreca of e&or disnlsscd)~ R. R. Conmhof ‘lbxasCo., hound Lima, Ino., 92 S. X. (2d) 296 (We 99 This, however, would not affect the power of the State to grant or nlthhold an intrastate permit or oertifloa~e~

If a oomon oarrier doing only lntorstato buslsises in Texasis prohibited from holding a special oommbdlty petit, it ia by the provision **or** Saotion d (bb.) of the Motor Carrier Aot, eupre, Woh reeds ab followd~

### 4.26

“500, 6.bb. Fo eppliontfon for pornit to oporais ns e contreot oerflclr shall bs erootad by the ComIsslon to any porocn’ oparatlng at a oo%mon oarrier an&holdlng a certlflcats of oonvenlsnoo and naoeaslty, nor shell eny application for oertifioats of oonvenienos and neoesolty be grentnd by ths Co~slseIon to any parson operating es a oontrect oerrlor nor shell any vehio&e bt oporatsd by any motor carrierwith both a pbmlt and e csrtiricats.’ 3eotion 6 (bb) prohibits a oommoncarrieriron holdlnc( e ooatrect pemlt and problblts a oontraot carrier from **holdlng** a orrtirIoete of public oonvanienoe end naoosolty. Eeotlon 8 (bb) thbn providtr:

Vor shall sny vehlole be opnrated by any motor oerrlar with both a pemlt and,a ctrtlfloate.” Sinot.aa inttrstate oomon oarrler does not have to show commitnot and necessity In order to obtain pem&mIdn to do buslmcs in Texas,tho quo&ion then arises ae to whether. or not It ia prcvont~d from holding a npaolel comotlIty permit under the above quotedpert of iiectlon 6 (bb)

.

iihen the Le&ielature provided that the holder of a aertlficete oould not at ths se~e tImo hold a ptx’zlt, It **sust have** meant that e oonmonoarrler oould not at the mm time hold a oontreat permlt or a eptolal obrmodlty permit. If this ba not .tNa, then the provIsion IA quartion would hart no meaning.

The Legislature undoubtedly ho4 a rtason for prohibiting l o omon osirrler rr3R opcretlog 88 a contract carrier or a Gp4Oiel oorzodity oarrier. ;tts intent lo plainly shownwhenthe provIsIons or Seotlon 6 (bb) are oonstruad toctthsr. Shoe HOart unable to find any authority for the proposltlon that an Interotatt conmon csrricr Is to be treated differently rrom an lntmetate oomnonobrrler wlthln tha provision8 of Stotloa 6 **(bb),** we conoludc that 6n interstate commonoarrler’oannot at the 04~4 time hold en lntrertato Dpcolal cfomaodltp permit. Youn very truly



### LBrP ApJ:~;:OVEDDEC

14, 1039

ATTORNEY

GENERAL

CT~
---

---

Exhibit 8.1

# List of Significant
Subsidiaries and Portfolio Investments

|Subsidiary                                                               | Country of 
Incorporation | Proportion of Ownership Interest                                                                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Franz Kalff GmbH                                                         |                           |                                                                                                                                                   
|Mersa Holdings B.V                                                       | The Netherlands           | 100% held by Robomatix                                                                                                                            
|Franz Kalff GmbH                                                         | Germany                   | 100% held by Mersa                                                                                                                                
|Primacura Verwaltungs GmbH                                               | Germany                   | 100% held by Franz Kalff                                                                                                                          
|Tadiran Telecom                                                          |                           |                                                                                                                                                   
|Tadiran Telecom Communication 
Services in
Israel - Limited 
Partnership | Israel                    | 90% held by Robomatix, the Limited Partner
10% held by Marc Zalcman
Tadiran Telecom - Communication Services in Israel Ltd.
Is the General Partner
|Tadiran  Telecom -   
Communication 
Services in Israel Ltd.             | Israel                    | 90% held by Robomatix
10% held by Marc Zalcman                                                                                                    



---

---
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 on Form 10-Q of Quotemedia, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, R. Keith Guelpa, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to my best knowledge and belief, 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ R. Keith Guelpa    
|    |  | R. Keith Guelpa        
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer
|    |  | August 13, 2010
Exhibit


Canadian Pacific Railway Company Pension Plan


Consolidated as at January 1, 2009


Amendment Number 2    Page 1




AMENDMENT NUMBER 2
TO THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY PENSION PLAN
CONSOLIDATED AS AT JANUARY 1, 2009
AMENDMENTS FOR CPPA AND TC/USWA EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2010.
Effective January 1, 2010,
		
	1.
	Delete subparagraph 17.01 (c) and replace it with the following:


		
	17.01
	(c)    “Buyback Window” means the period commencing and ending on the dates set out in the table below: 


	
			
	 
	 
	 

	Affiliation
	Buyback Window Commencement Date
	Buyback Window 
Ending Date

	 
	 
	 

	CAW-TCA
	March 1, 2008
	June 30, 2011

	CPPA
	January 1, 2010
	June 30, 2013

	IBEW
	October 1, 2005
	June 30, 2010

	RCTC
	January 1, 2003
	June 30, 2006

	TCRC-RTE
	Not applicable
	Not applicable

	TCRC-MWED
	August 1, 2007
	July 1, 2010

	TC/USWA
	January 1, 2010
	June 30, 2013

	Management
	Not applicable
	Not applicable






		
	2.
	Delete subparagraph 17.02(a) and replace it with the following:


		
	17.02
	(a)    was a Member on the date determined by the Committee as set out in the table below: 


	
		
	 
	 

	Affiliation
	Eligibility Date

	 
	 

	CAW-TCA
	January 1, 2008

	CPPA
	January 1, 2006

	IBEW
	January 1, 2001

	RCTC
	January 1, 2003

	TCRC-RTE
	Not applicable

	TCRC-MWED
	August 1, 2007

	TC/USWA
	January 1, 2010

	Management
	Not applicable







V:\CANADIAN PACIFIC - 101360\REF\RET\PLAN DOCS\AMENDMENT 2 TO THE JANUARY 1, 2009 PLAN RULES.DOC
Exhibit (32)(i)(a)

STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

The undersigned chief executive officer of Great Lakes Chemical Corporation hereby certifies that this Annual Report on Form 10-K as amended
for the year ended December 31, 2004 ("Periodic Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and
that information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Great Lakes Chemical Corporation.

| |  | /s/JOHN J. GALLAGHER IIIJohn J. Gallagher III, Chief Executive Officer
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | Dated:                                                                

---



QuickLinks
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM v. PATRICK J. PALOMO, Defendant

Criminal No. 113F-75

Superior Court of Guam

September 12, 1975

*287ABBATE, *Judge*

DECISION

A motion having been heard pursuant to Section 170 of the Code of Civil Procedure to disqualify me as a trial judge in the matter of the People of the Territory of Guam against Patrick J. Palomo; and the basis for the disqualification being the comments that I made in a prior case where the jury came back with a verdict of not guilty. As a trial judge in that case, I disagreed with the verdict having felt that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction.

The motion to disqualify me as trial judge is hereby denied; and pursuant to Section 172 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I make the following statements:

That the comments that were made during the trial of the *People of the Territory of Guam v. Patrick J. Palomo,*Criminal Case No. 111F-75, charged with Burglary in the Second Degree, is not prejudicial to the defendant in this case;

That this is a new jury panel; and that the instructions I will give to the jury will be that they are the sole judges of the facts; and comments or statements made by me should be totally disregarded by them. This would cure any possible prejudice that has been raised by defense counsel pursuant to Section 170.
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.                  

###### Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning Council

# AGENCY:

                        Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning Council (Northwest Power and Conservation Council), an interstate compact agency organized under the authority of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, 16 U.S.C. 839*et seq.*                         (Northwest Power Act).                    

# ACTION:

                        Notice of final action adopting the management plan elements of the Blackfoot River Subbasin Plan into the Council's                         *Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.*

# SUMMARY:

                        Pursuant to Section 4(h) of the Northwest Power Act, the Council has amended its                         *Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program*                         to add the Blackfoot River Subbasin Plan. The program as amended may be found on the Council's Web site at                         *http://www.nwcouncil.org/​fw/​program*                         and then, for the subbasin plan elements and relevant decision documents in particular, at                         *http://www.nwcouncil.org/​fw/​subbasinplanning/​Default.htm.*                         Further information and an explanation of this amendment process may be found in the documents on that page or by contacting the Northwest Power and Conservation Council at (503) 222-5161 or toll free (800) 452-5161.                    

Stephen L. Crow,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 2011-5599 Filed 3-10-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
§ 115.211 Zero tolerance of sexual abuse and sexual harassment; PREA coordinator. ( a ) An agency shall have a written policy mandating zero tolerance toward all forms of sexual abuse and sexual harassment and outlining the agency's approach to preventing, detecting, and responding to such conduct.
( b ) An agency shall employ or designate an upper-level, agency-wide PREA coordinator, with sufficient time and authority to develop, implement, and oversee agency efforts to comply with the PREA standards in all of its community confinement facilities.
§ 22.23 Privacy certification. ( a ) Each applicant for BJA, OJJDP, BJS, NIJ, or OJP support either directly or under a State plan shall submit a Privacy Certificate as a condition of approval of a grant application or contract proposal which has a research or statistical project component under which information identifiable to a private person will be collected.
( b ) The Privacy Certificate shall briefly describe the project and shall contain assurance by the applicant that: ( 1 ) Data identifiable to a private person will not be used or revealed, except as authorized under §§ 22.21, 22.22.
( 2 ) Access to data will be limited to those employees having a need therefore and that such persons shall be advised of and agree in writing to comply with these regulations.
( 3 ) All subcontracts which require access to identifiable data will contain conditions meeting the requirements of § 22.24.
( 4 ) To the extent required by § 22.27 any private persons from whom identifiable data are collected or obtained, either orally or by means of written questionnaire, shall be advised that the data will only be used or revealed for research or statistical purposes and that compliance with requests for information is not mandatory. Where the notification requirement is to be waived, pursuant to § 22.27(c), a justification must be included in the Privacy Certificate.
( 5 ) Adequate precautions will be taken to insure administrative and physical security of identifiable data.
( 6 ) A log will be maintained indicating that identifiable data have been transmitted to persons other than BJA, OJJDP, BJS, NIJ, or OJP or grantee/contractor staff or subcontractors, that such data have been returned, or that alternative arrangements have been agreed upon for future maintenance of such data.
( 7 ) Project plans will be designed to preserve anonymity of private persons to whom information relates, including, where appropriate, name-stripping, coding of data, or other similar procedures.
( 8 ) Project findings and reports prepared for dissemination will not contain information which can reasonably be expected to be identifiable to a private person except as authorized under § 22.22.
( c ) The applicant shall attach to the Privacy Certification a description of physical and/or administrative procedures to be followed to insure the security of the data to meet the requirements of § 22.25.
[41 FR 5486, Dec. 15, 1976, as amended at 51 FR 6401, Feb. 24, 1986]
No. 20,380.

#### Jerry Wayne Boone *v.*The People of the State of Colorado.

(379 P. [2d] 628)

Decided March 11, 1963.

Plaintiff in error, pro se.

*553Mr. Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, Mr. Frank E. Hickey, Deputy, Mr. George W. Nicastro, Special Assistant, for plaintiff in error.

*En Banc.*

Mr. Justice Day

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Plaintiff in error was charged in a criminal information filed in the district court of Garfield County with “confidence game,” to which he entered a plea of guilty.

Sentence was imposed and mittimus issued on June 26, 1961. No motion was filed in the trial court by the defendant for leave to change his plea or to vacate the sentence. Nor did he in any manner challenge the jurisdiction of the court or the validity of the proceedings either at the time of the entry of the plea of guilty or at the time of sentencing or thereafter.

Writ of error to the judgment and sentence of the trial court was not sought in this court until July 12, 1962, and, although the writ issued, it was then not apparent on the face of the record that more than thirteen months had elapsed since the final judgment of the court, nor was it apparent until examination of the record that no petition or motion had been filed in the trial court seeking relief on the grounds now urged on writ of error.

For the reason that the writ of error here was issued many months after expiration of the period provided by the rules of this court for the issuance of such writ, it must be dismissed. However, with the record now before us, we have examined the contentions urged by defendant and find no merit in them.

The writ of error is dismissed.

Mr. Justice Moore not participating.
### SUBCHAPTER III—ENDANGERED SPECIES OF FISH AND WILDLIFE