alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00559-CR

NO. 03-02-00560-CR

Rosalee Cunningham, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 45,518 & 45,850, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In number 03-02-00559-CR, appellant Rosalee Cunningham appeals from judgments of 

conviction for theft of over $750 and misapplying more than $200 of fiduciary funds, both of which were 

third-degree felonies when the offenses were committed. Act of May 23, 1991, 72d Leg., R.S., ch. 565, 

'' 1, 2, 1991 Tex. Gen. Laws 2003, 2003-04 (Tex. Pen. Code Ann. '' 31.03(e)(4)(A), 32.45(c)(2), 

since amended). In number 03-02-00560-CR, she appeals from a judgment of conviction for theft of over 

$20,000, a second-degree felony. Id. (Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 31.03(e)(5)(B), since amended). In both 

causes, the adjudications of guilt followed the revocation of deferred adjudication community supervision for 

nonpayment of restitution and costs. Appellant contends the revocations were an abuse of discretion 

because she was unable to pay the required amounts.
2

Upon the filing of a motion to proceed to adjudication, A[t]he defendant is entitled to a 

hearing limited to the determination by the court of whether it proceeds with an adjudication of guilt on the 

original charge. No appeal may be taken from this determination.@ Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, 

' 5(b) (West Supp. 2003). Under the express terms of the statute, a defendant whose deferred 

adjudication supervision has been revoked and who has been adjudicated guilty may not raise on appeal 

any claim of error in the adjudication process. Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1999); Williams v. State, 592 S.W.2d 931, 932-33 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Garcia v. State, 45 

S.W.3d 740, 742 (Tex. App.CAustin 2001, pet. ref=d). After adjudication, all proceedings, including 

assessment of punishment and sentencing, continue as if adjudication had not been deferred. Art. 42.12, '

5(b). A defendant may appeal issues arising after adjudication. Williams, 592 S.W.2d at 932.

Because the alleged errors are not appealable, the appeals are dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

 

Mack Kidd, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, Yeakel and Patterson

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: April 24, 2003

Do Not Publish
* 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. 04-40227

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ODILON MOLINERO-JIMENEZ, also known as

Odilon Jimenez-Molinero,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-03-CR-999-1

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Odilon MolineroJimenez concedes that the arguments raised are foreclosed by

circuit precedent but seeks to preserve them for further review. 

The Government has moved for summary affirmance in lieu of filing

an appellee’s brief. The motion is GRANTED, and the judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
1 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. 

Attorney General of Califomia 

2 MICHAEL W. JORGENSON 

Supervising Deputy Attorney General 

3 CHARLES J.·ANTONEN . 

Deputy Attorney General 

4 State Bar No. 221207 

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 

5 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 

Telephone: (415) 703-5443 

6 Fax: (415) 703-5843 

E-mail: Charles.Antonen@doj.ca.gov 

7 Attorneys for Defendants 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

,Navarro, Risenhoover, Speaker, and Thom 

LEO MERAZ, 

V •. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

Case No. C 08-4540 MHP (PR) 

Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF 

DEFENDANTS REPPOND, NAVARRO, 

RISENHOOVER, SPEAKER, AND 

THOM 

17 . STEVEN REPPOND, et aI., 

18 

19 

Defendants. 

20 THE PARTIES HEREBY VOLUNTARILY STIPU.LATE to the dismissal with prejudice 

21 of Defendants Reppond, Navarro, Risenhoover, Speaker, and Thorn from the above-captioned 

22 action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41 (a), with each party to bear his own· 

23 attorneys' fees and costs. 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Dated: August~, 2010 .~rr~ LEOM~E-RA--Z~·-T~~P.7~-----------

Plaintiff 

1 

Stip. & Order of Dismissal (Case No. C 08-4540 MHP (PR)) 

Case 3:08-cv-04540-MHP Document 33 Filed 08/25/10 Page 1 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

13 

Dated: August _'_,2010 ~ 

Dated: August jL, 2010 

IT IS eso ORDERED 

SF2009202493 

14 20323289.doc e 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

RLESJ. NTONEN 

Attorney for Defendants Navarro, Risenhoover, 

Speaker, and Thom 

MATTHEW ROMAN 

Attorney for Defendant Reppond 

The Honorable Marilyn H. Patel 

2 

Stip. & Order of Dismissal (Case No. C 08-4540 MHP (PR)) 

8/23/2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:08-cv-04540-MHP Document 33 Filed 08/25/10 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Case Name: Meraz v. Reppond, et al. No. C 08-4540 MHP (PR) 

I hereby certify that on August 16, 2010,.I electronically filed the following documents with the 

Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system: 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS 

REPPOND, NAVARRO, RISENHOOVER, SPEAKER, AND THOM 

) 

/ Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the CM/ECF system. 

I further certify that some of the participants in the case are not registered CM/ECF users. On 

August 16, 2010, I have mailed the foregoing document(s)by First-Class Mail, postage prepaid, 

'or have dispatched it to a third party commercial carrier for delivery within three (3) calendar 

days to the following non-CM/ECF participants: 

Leo Meraz, J-04563 

California State Prison - Sacramento 

P. O. Box 290066 

Represa, CA 95671 

Pro Se 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true 

. and correct and that this declaration was executed on August 16, 2010, at San Francisco, 

California. 

SF2009202493 

20327801.doc 

L. Tra 

Declarant 

Case 3:08-cv-04540-MHP Document 33 Filed 08/25/10 Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2638 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2638

To allow the waiver of certain terms contained in a deed of conveyance 
                   to the City of Williams, Arizona.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 2005

  Mr. Renzi introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To allow the waiver of certain terms contained in a deed of conveyance 
                   to the City of Williams, Arizona.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ALLOWANCE TO WAIVE CERTAIN TERMS IN A DEED OF CONVEYANCE.

    Notwithstanding the Federal Airport Act (as in effect on April 3, 
1956) or sections 47125 and 47153 of title 49, United States Code, the 
Secretary of Transportation may waive any term contained in the deed of 
conveyance dated August 13, 1948, by which the United States conveyed 
lands to the City of Williams, Arizona, (H. A. Clark Memorial Field) 
for use by the city for airport purposes.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 61
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 61 appear at 64 FR 54539, Oct. 7, 1999.

§ 61.8 Coordination with United States Customs Service. ( a ) Nothing in this part shall preclude examination of imported materials pursuant to the Customs laws and regulations of the United States as codified at 19 U.S.C. 1305 and 19 CFR 10.121, or the application of the laws and regulations governing the importation or prohibition against importation of certain materials including seditious or salacious materials as set forth at 19 U.S.C. 1305.
( b ) Department authentications of a foreign certificate for entry under HTS Item No. 9817.00.4000 will be reflected by the issuance of an Importation Document. A copy of each Importation Document issued by the Department will be simultaneously furnished the United States Customs Service.
( c ) Customs User Fee: Articles delivered by mail, which are eligible for duty-free entry under the regulations in this part are, additionally, not subjected to the standard Customs User Fee normally imposed by the United States Customs Service, provided there has been a timely filing with the appropriate United States Customs Service office of the documentation required by the regulations in this part.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Daniel A. Coccoluto,certify that:

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Omtool, Ltd.;

2. Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

**b)[Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained inSEC Releases 33-8760, 34-47986 and 33-8618.]**

c) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’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; and

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date:August 2, 2007
|        |   | By:    |   | /s/ Daniel A. Coccoluto |   |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |   |   |   | Daniel A. Coccoluto     |
|   |   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Motion GRANTED and Order filed March 2, 2020. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00172-CV

____________

IN RE CURTIS BURTON, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

270th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-50245

ORDER

February 28, 2020, relator Curtis Burton filed a petition for writ of mandamus 

in this court. Relator asks this court to order the Honorable Dedra Davis, Judge of 

the 270th District Court, in Harris County, Texas, to set aside her February 11, 2020

order denying relator’s motion to disqualify counsel entered in trial court number 

2015-50245, styled Burton v. Meridian Capital International Fund, et al.
2

Relator has also filed a motion for temporary stay of proceedings below. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10. On February 28, 2020, relator asked this court to 

stay proceedings in the trial court pending a decision on the petition for writ of 

mandamus.

It appears from the facts stated in the petition and motion that relator’s request 

for relief requires further consideration and that relator will be prejudiced unless 

immediate temporary relief is granted. We therefore GRANT relator’s motion and 

issue the following order:

We ORDER all proceedings in trial court cause number 2015-50245, Burton 

v. Meridian Capital International Fund, et al., STAYED until a final decision by 

this court on relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, or until further order of this 

court.

In addition, the court requests real parties in interest Meridian Capital 

International Fund and Meridian Capital CIS Fund to file a response to the petition 

for writ of mandamus on or before March 17, 2020. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.4.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Hassan.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-18-00009-CV

____________________

MIDANI, HINKLE & COLE, LLP, DAVID HUTCHINS, MARK O. 

MIDANI AND HOWRY, BREEN & HERMAN, LLP, Appellant

V.

ELIZABETH SMITH, Appellee

_______________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 172nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. E-197,802 

________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

Midani, Hinkle & Cole, LLP and Mark O. Midani, Appellants, filed a motion 

to vacate or, in the alternative, to stay the trial court’s order of contempt, requiring 

payment of costs, because the trial court signed the order after the underlying 

judgment was superseded. 

The appellee, Elizabeth Smith, requested post-judgment discovery from Mark 

O. Midani. Midani objected on the ground that the judgment would be superseded. 
2

Smith moved to compel post-judgment discovery responses. On February 13, 2018, 

the trial court ordered Midani and Midani, Hinkle and Cole, LLP to respond to 

Smith’s post-judgment discovery by February 21, 2018, unless a valid supersedeas 

bond was made by that date. A supersedeas bond was signed on February 21, 2018 

and filed on February 23, 2018. On February 28, 2018, Midani filed a motion to stay 

execution. On March 6, 2018, the trial court held Midani and Midani, Hinkle and 

Cole, LLP in contempt and ordered them to pay to Smith’s counsel $2,250.00 by 

March 16, 2018 as costs related to the motion to compel. 

Enforcement of a judgment must be suspended if the judgment is superseded. 

Tex. R. App. P. 24.1(f). A party may seek appellate review of the trial court’s 

determination whether to permit suspension of enforcement by filing a motion with 

the appellate court. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.4(a)(1). The appellate court may issue

temporary orders necessary to preserve the parties’ rights. See Tex. R. App. P. 

24.4(c).

The Court finds that the judgment has been superseded. Therefore, all 

enforcement must cease. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.1(f). It is, therefore, ORDERED 

that the trial court’s order of March 6, 2018, which held Appellants in contempt and 

required them to pay $2,250.00 to Smith’s attorney, and the trial court’s order of 
3

February 13, 2018, which compelled Appellants to respond to post-judgment 

discovery, are STAYED until our mandate issues or until further order of this Court. 

ORDER ENTERED March 14, 2018.

 PER CURIAM

 

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                          81,741
<SECURITIES>                                     9,745
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,871
<ALLOWANCES>                                       839
<INVENTORY>                                        269
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               100,711
<PP&E>                                           8,062
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,931
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 117,365
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,034
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            42
<OTHER-SE>                                     105,908
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   117,365
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,787
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,872
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,536)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (517)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,053)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,053)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.62)


</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL AL'FARO,

Petitioner,

v.

VINCE CULLEN, acting warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-4295 SI (pr)

ORDER SUBSTITUTING

RESPONDENT

The respondent listed on the petition for writ of habeas corpus in this action is an attorney

who represented petitioner at some point in his state court criminal case. The rules governing

relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 require a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state

court to name the "state officer who has custody" of him. See Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases In The United States District Courts; Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891,

894 (9th Cir. 1996). This person typically is the warden of the facility in which the petitioner

is incarcerated. See Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). To

correct petitioner's mistake in naming an improper respondent, the court now sua sponte

substitutes Vince Cullen, the acting warden of San Quentin State Prison, in as respondent in

place of Pat Valencia. Valencia is dismissed from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 14, 2010 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04295-SI Document 13 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 1
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

ELLEN M. PALMER,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,

Defendant(s).

_____________________________________/

No. C 08-03385 JSW (MEJ)

NOTICE OF REFERENCE

The above-captioned case was referred to Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James to prepare a

report and recommendation on Plaintiff's pending Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. (Dkt. #48.)

Accordingly, the Court shall conduct a hearing on March 25, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom B,

15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7,

Defendants shall file any opposition to Plaintiff's motion by February 18, 2010, and Plaintiff shall

file any reply by March 4, 2010. Plaintiff shall also submit a chambers copy of her original motion

and supporting documents, with appropriate exhibit dividers/markers.

When filing papers that require the Court to take any action (e.g. motions, meet and confer

letters, administrative requests), the parties shall, in addition to filing papers electronically, lodge

with chambers a printed copy of the papers by noon of the next court day following the day the

papers are filed electronically. These printed copies shall be marked “Chambers Copy” and shall be

submitted to the Clerk’s Office, in an envelope clearly marked with "Magistrate Judge James," the

case number and “E-Filing Chambers Copy.” Parties shall not file a paper copy of any document

with the Clerk’s Office that has already been filed electronically. 

Please contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Brenda Tolbert, at (415) 522-4708 with any

questions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2010 _______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:08-cv-03385-JSW Document 53 Filed 02/03/10 Page 1 of 1
§ 313.6 Notice-and-comment procedures. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, any proposed Peace Corps guidance document determined to be “significant” within the meaning of § 313.4 shall be subject to the following notice-and-comment procedures. The Agency shall publish a notification in the Federal Register announcing that a draft of the proposed guidance document is publicly available, shall post the draft guidance document on its website, shall invite public comment on the draft document for a minimum of 30 days, and shall prepare and post a public response to major concerns raised in the comments, as appropriate, on its website, either before or when the guidance document is finalized and issued.
( b ) The requirements of paragraph (a) of this section will not apply to any significant guidance document or categories of significant guidance documents for which the Agency finds, in consultation with OMB/OIRA, that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
#### § 230.03 The Guarantee.

Subject to these terms and conditions, the United States of America, acting through USAID, guarantees to Noteholders the Borrower's repayment of 100 percent of principal and interest due on Eligible Notes. Under this Guarantee, USAID agrees to pay to any Noteholder compensation in Dollars equal to such Noteholder's Loss of Investment under its Eligible Note; provided, however, that no such payment shall be made to any Noteholder for any such loss arising out of fraud or misrepresentation for which such Noteholder is responsible or of which it had knowledge at the time it became such Noteholder. This Guarantee shall apply to each Eligible Note registered on the Note Register required to be maintained by the Fiscal Agent.