alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

November 24, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00658

- CR

James E. SALDANA

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 12, Bexar Coun ty, Texas

Trial Court No. 365341 Honorable Scott Roberts, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The trial court’s certification in th is app eal states that “this criminal case is one in which

the defendant has waived the right of appeal

. ” The clerk’s record contains a judgment and “Defendant’s Waiver of Constitutional Rights and Court’s Admonitions” showing that the defendant entered an “open plea” of nolo contendere without an agreed recommendation for sentencing. W hen a defendant waives the right to appeal before sentencing and w ithout an agreed recommendation on punishment, the waiver is not valid. Washington v. State , 363 S.W.3d 589, 589

- 90 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Ex parte Delaney , 207 S.W.3d 794, 799 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (when there is no recommended maximum punishment at th e time the

defendant waives the right to appeal, the consequences of such waiver cannot be known, and the waiver is not knowing and intelligent) ; s ee also Ex p arte Broadway , 301 S.W.3d 694, 696 n. 3 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (primary advantage to entering open plea is a relatively unlimited right to appeal). Therefore, the trial court certification does not accurately reflect the record before us.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2) , (d) ; Dears v. State

, 154 S.W.3d 610, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)

.

Accordingly, the trial court is ORDERED to prepare and file an amended trial court

certification which accurately reflects the record

, and the trial court clerk is instructed file a supplemental clerk’s record containing said amended trial court certification in this Court within fifteen days from the date of this order. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2 (f), (d); 34.5(c); 37.1; see D ears , 154 S.W.3d at 614

. All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending resolution of the

certification issue._________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 24th day of November, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk o f Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-8039

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LARRY DUNLAP FRAZIER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00087-RJC-1; 3:09-cv-00416-

RJC)

Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: April 29, 2013

Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Dunlap Frazier, Appellant Pro Se. Keith Michael Cave, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, 

Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Dunlap Frazier seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 (2000); see MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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 motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Frazier has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 79166 / October 26, 2016 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING 

File No. 3-16852

____________________________________

 :

In the Matter of :

 :

Focus Media Holding Limited and : SECOND EXTENSION ORDER

Jason Jiang, :

:

Respondents. :

____________________________________:

The Division of Enforcement (“Division”) has requested an extension of time until 

April 28, 2017 to submit a Proposed Plan of Distribution under Rule 1101(a) of the 

Commission’s Rules on Fair Fund and Disgorgement Plans, 17 C.F.R. § 201.1101(a).

On September 30, 2015, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist 

Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21C of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order

(“Order”)1against Focus Media Holding Limited (“Focus Media”) and Jason Jiang (“Jiang”) 

(collectively, “Respondents”). The Order required Respondents to pay a total of 

$55,627,865.43 in disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil money penalties to the 

Commission and created a Fair Fund pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 

2002, as amended.

On June 7, 2016, the Commission issued an order extending the Division’s time until 

June 30, 2016 to submit a Proposed Plan of Distribution.2The Division now requests a 

 

1

 Securities Act Rel. No. 9933 (Sept. 30, 2015).

2

 Exchange Act Rel. No. 78006 (June 7, 2016).
2

second extension. In its request for an extension of time, the Division states that it requires 

additional time to develop a methodology for distribution of the Fair Fund.

Accordingly, for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Division’s 

request for an extension of time until April 28, 2017 to submit a Proposed Plan of Distribution 

is granted.

For the Commission, by its Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority. 

Brent J. Fields

Secretary
# Official Journal C 295/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 295 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 495 December 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 295

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 495 December 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 295/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2006/C 295/2 | Notice to importers — Imports into the Community of textile and clothing products following the enlargement of the European Union of Bulgaria and Romania on 1 January 2007 | 2 |
| 2006/C 295/3 | List of the national competent authorities as provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 of 12 October 1993 on common rules for imports of certain textile products from third countries | 3 |
| 2006/C 295/4 | Guidelines on National Regional aid for 2007-2013 — National regional State aid map: Germany | 6 |
| 2006/C 295/5 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 24 |
| 2006/C 295/6 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4348 — PKN/Mazeikiu) (1) | 27 |
| 2006/C 295/7 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4370 — EBN/COGAS Energy) (1) | 27 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2006/C 295/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2006/C 295/2

Notice to importers — Imports into the Community of textile and clothing products following the enlargement of the European Union of Bulgaria and Romania on 1 January 2007

2

2006/C 295/3

List of the national competent authorities as provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 of 12 October 1993 on common rules for imports of certain textile products from third countries

3

2006/C 295/4

Guidelines on National Regional aid for 2007-2013 — National regional State aid map: Germany

6

2006/C 295/5

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

24

2006/C 295/6

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4348 — PKN/Mazeikiu) (1)

27

2006/C 295/7

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4370 — EBN/COGAS Energy) (1)

27

---

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 295/8 | Youth in Action Programme 2007-2013 — Conditional publication of the Programme Guide | 28 |

III   Notices

Commission

2006/C 295/8

Youth in Action Programme 2007-2013 — Conditional publication of the Programme Guide

28

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
### §1682. Pilot projects and demonstrations

#### (a) Establishment, implementation

The Secretary may establish pilot projects and demonstrations to carry out the purposes of this subchapter. The pilot projects and demonstrations established under this section (1) may be operated by the Secretary; or (2) may be carried out through contracts or agreements with owners of private forest lands or other persons, or in conjunction with projects, contracts, or agreements entered into under any other authority which the Secretary may possess: Provided, That nothing contained in this subchapter shall abrogate or modify provisions of existing contracts or agreements, including contracts or agreements for the sale of national forest timber, except to the extent such changes are mutually agreed to by the parties to such contracts or agreements.

#### (b) Scope; residue removal credits

Pilot projects and demonstrations carried out under this section may include, but are not limited to (1) establishment and operation of utilization demonstration areas; (2) establishment and operation of fuel wood concentration and distribution centers; and (3) construction of access roads needed to facilitate wood residue utilization: Provided, That residue removal credits may be utilized by the Secretary only as provided in section 1683 of this title.

(Pub. L. 96–554, §3, Dec. 19, 1980, 94 Stat. 3257.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1981, see section 9 of Pub. L. 96–554, set out as a note under section 1681 of this title.
### §5981. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, Pub. L. 105–391, title V, §501, Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3518; Pub. L. 109–131, title I, §102(b), Dec. 20, 2005, 119 Stat. 2568, related to fees. See section 101531 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer. Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the full texts of the opinions after they have been released electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.

The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

Nationwide Insurance Company, Appellee, v. Corliss et al., Appellants. [Cite as Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Corliss (1993), Ohio St.
3d .] Insurance -- Underinsured motorist coverage -- Wrongful death claim -- Each person entitled to recover under R.C. 2125.02 has separate claim subject to any per accident limit -- Insurers may contractually preclude intrafamily stacking but may not contractually preclude interfamily stacking -- Underinsurance claim must be paid, when -- Each person who is covered by an uninsured/underinsured policy has a separate claim subject to a per person policy

limit. (No. 93-1518 -- Submitted November 10, 1993 -- Decided December 29, 1993.) Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Butler County, No.

CA92-11-234.

Baden & Jones Co., L.P.A., and Thomas P. Erven, for appellee. Daniel J. Gattermeyer, for appellant.

Pursuant to Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St. 3d 500, N.E.2d , the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Butler County is reversed. A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer,

JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., concurs separately. Wright, J., dissents. Moyer, C.J., concurring separately. I concur separately in the judgment entry in the above-styled case. As my dissent in Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 500, N.E.2d , stated, I do not agree with the law announced in the majority decision. Nevertheless, it is the law on the issue in the above-styled case. As I believe all parties should receive equal application of the law announced by this court, and only for that reason, I concur in the judgment entry.Wright, J., dissenting. I must dissent in continuing protest to the majority's sundry holdings in Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 500, 620 N.E.2d 809. As stated in the dissent in Savoie, that holding lacks sound reasoning, reverses ten years of established case law and flaunts the will of the General Assembly. Thus, I feel compelled to remain in this posture until the General Assembly has had the opportunity to undo the damage caused to the public by this unfortunate, result-oriented decision.
IN RE: Case No.:

TRANSFER OF CLAIM OTHER THAN FOR SECURITY

Debtors: Lottie Alisa Wallace

15-36117

A CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED IN THIS CASE or deemed filed under 11 U.S.C. § 1111(a). Transferee hereby gives evidence and 

notice pursuant to Rule 3001(e)(2), Fed. R. Bankr. P., of the transfer, other than for security, of the claim referenced in this evidence 

and notice.

U.S. Bank N.A., as trustee, on behalf of the J.P. 

Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp. 2006-FRE2 Asset 

Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-FRE2

Serviced by Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

Name of Transferee

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond)

I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in this notice is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and 

belief.

U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee

Attn: Correspondence Mail

Name of Transferor

3815 South West Temple

Salt Lake City, UT 84115

800-258-8602

PO Box 65450

Salt Lake City, UT 84165

800-258-8602

2900

Name and Address where transferee payments should be sent (if different from above):

Penalty for making a false statement: Fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. §§ 152 & 3571.

Date: 10/27/2016

Phone: 

Last Four Digits of Acct #: 2900

Court Claim # (if known):

Amount of Claim:

Date Claim Filed:

Last Four Digits of Acct #:

Phone: 

Last Four Digits of Acct #:

9

$30,299.03

04/13/2016

0844

By:

BK Management

/s/ Gina Hiatt

470487-59655b9a-1d8f-49ee-87b4-562deb45ab13

Specific Contact Information:

P: 800-258-8602

Loan Number (Last 4): 2900

B2100A (Form 2100A) (12/15) Case 15-36117-KLP Doc 32 Filed 10/27/16 Entered 10/27/16 15:43:23 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
No. 98-10311

-1-

 

* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-10311

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LORETA DE-ANN COFFMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:92-CR-238-6-T

- - - - - - - - - -

December 23, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Loreta De-Ann Coffman argues that the district court’s

imposition of consecutive sentences for her convictions for

possession with intent to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine

(count 2) and for the distribution of cocaine and crack cocaine and

manufacturing crack cocaine within 1000 feet of a school (count 26)

violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution.

We have reviewed the record and have determined that the

district court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences for

counts 2 and 26 because each count involved separate drug offenses
No. 98-10311

-2-

which occurred at two different locations. The indictment did not

result in the imposition of multiplicious sentences and, thus, did

not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution. United

States v. Cluck, 143 F.3d 174, 178-79 (5th Cir. 1998).

AFFIRMED.
SERVED: FEBRUARY 21. 2012 TPARTMENTOF 

• iRANSPORWiOi^! 

•0::KLT0PERAT10rlS 

mi FEB 22 P 2-- 32 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

M & R HELICOPTERS, LLC 

FAA DOCKET No. CPIOSOOOI1 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS No. FAA-2010-1211 

ORDER SETTING OUT BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

In accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 13.231(c), Coinplainani, Federal Aviation 

Administration, and Respondent, M & R Helicopters, LLC, have agreed upon the following posthearing briefing schedule: 

1. The Post-Hearing Brief of Complainant shall be filed on or before Thursday, March 22, 

2012; 

2. The Post-Hearing Brief of Respondent shall be filed on or before Monday, April 23, 

2012;and 

3. The Rebuttal Brief of the Federal Aviation Administration, if any, shall be filled on or 

before Monday. May 7, 2012. 

Service of documents shall be in accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 13.211. Computation of 

time shall be in accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 13.212. 

SO ORDERED. 

Attachment - Service List 

Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

^ 
FAA Docket No. CPIOSOOO 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

REVISED SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H, 

Responc/enf 's Represenlalive 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA 18104 

TEL: 610-360-3953 

FAX: 

Charles Raley, ComplainanI \s Counsel 

Attorney, Enforcement Division/AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

TEL: 202-267-3357 

FAX: 202-267-5106 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Adminisiraiive Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 -

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For scr\icc in person or by expedited courier, nse tJic following address; Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue. S.W.. Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Wasliingion, 

DC 20591: Attention; Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### McDaniel *v.*German American Insurance Company.

Exsi-i, C. J.

1. It being stipulated in a policy of fire insurance that no suit should be sustainable thereon “unless commenced within twelve months next after the fire,” an action brought after the lapse of that period would be barred, although it purported on its face to be a renewal of a previous action which was instituted in a State court having-jurisdiction thereof, within the time limited, which was removed to the circuit court of the United States and there dismissed, and then renewed in the State court, after the payment of all costs, within six months from such dismissal. *Melson*v. *Phenix Ins. Co.,*97 *Ga.*722 (25 S. E. 189) ; *Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.*v. *Caudle,*122 *Ga.*608 (50 S. E. 337) ; *Webb*v. *Southern Cotton-Oil Co.,*131 *Ga.*682 (63 S. E. 135).

2. Where, however, it was alleged in an amendment to the petition in such an action: “That at the time the order of dismissal was taken and just,before the same was passed, in the presence of the court, the form *190of the order was being discussed, plaintiff desiring the order taken in one form and defendant in another form, plaintiff’s right to’ renew her said suit oh said policies of insurance .in the State courts was referred to in, connection with the order under consideration, when plaintiff through her counsel turned to defendant’s attorney and its duly authorized agent and asked in substance this question: ‘If the case is dismissed, can there be any trouble in renewing suits on these policies in the State .courts?’ In answer to this .question .defendant, through its counsel and duly authorized agent, answered in substance, ‘Of course she can renew her suits on the policies — there will be no trouble about that.’ , That said representations misled plaintiff and induced her to consent for said order of dismissal to be taken,” it will be held, that, under such allegations, the statement of counsel for the defendant amounted to an estoppel of the right of the defendant company to plead the contractual limitation, contained in the policy, that no suit should be sustainable thereon “unless, commenced within twelve months next after the fire.” The court, therefore, erred in disallowing such amendment, referred to in the record as “Amendment No. 2.”

February 22, 1910.

Rehearing denied March 3, 1910.

Action upon insurance policy. Before Judge Brand. Franklin superior court.

October *22,*1908.

*F. A. Quillian,*for plaintiff.

*Smith, Hammond <& Smith,*for defendant.

3. It was not error to refuse to allow an amendment to the petition to the effect that the stipulation in the policy that any suit thereon must be commenced within twelve months next after the fire meant “twelve months after plaintiff was entitled to commence” suit.

*Judgment reversed.*

*'All the Justices concur.*
**EXHIBIT 32.2**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002I, John Horan, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Ablest Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:(1) Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for theperiod ended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”), which this certification accompanies,fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.          /s/  John Horan   John Horan   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer   April 25, 2007