alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 30, 2015

No. 04-15-00396-CR

Roy ALVAREZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR6084

Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 368 

U.S. 738 (1967). This court previously issued an order setting a deadline for appellant to file a 

pro se brief if appellant desired to file such a brief. On November 25, 2015, appellant filed a 

motion requesting access to the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 321 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2014). Appellant’s motion to access the record is GRANTED. The clerk of this 

court is instructed to send a paper copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record for this appeal 

to appellant with this order.

If, after reviewing the record, appellant desires to file a pro se brief, he must do so within 

thirty days from the date of this order. If the appellant files a pro se brief, the State may file a 

responsive brief no later than thirty days after the date the appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this 

court.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 30th day of November, 2015.
___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
§ 1753.47 Plans and specifications (P&S). ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) Prior to the preparation of P&S for the construction project: ( i ) A review shall be made of the outside plant requirements, and the Loan Design (LD) shall be revised to reflect any needed changes (See § 1753.3).
( ii ) Deviations from the approved LD (7 CFR part 1737) must be approved by RUS (See § 1753.3).
( 2 ) The standard RUS specifications required for construction of outside plant facilities are: ( i ) RUS Form 515a (Bulletin 345-150)—Specifications and Drawings for Construction of Direct Buried Plant.
( ii ) RUS Form 515c (Bulletin 345-151)—Specifications and Drawings for Conduit and Manhole Construction.
( iii ) RUS Form 515d (Bulletin 345-152)—Specifications and Drawings for Underground Cable Installation.
( iv ) RUS Form 515f (Bulletin 345-153)—Specifications and Drawings for Construction of Pole Lines and Aerial Cables.
( v ) RUS Form 515g (Bulletin 345-154)—Specifications and Drawings for Service Entrance and Station Protector Installation.
( b ) *Preparation of plans and specifications.* Each set of plans and specifications shall include: ( 1 ) RUS Contract Form 515, “Telephone System Construction Contract (Labor and Materials).”
( 2 ) The specifications described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section as specified by the borrower in the RUS Contract Form 515.
( 3 ) Description of special assembly units and guide drawings, if any.
( 4 ) Key, detail, and cable layout maps.
( 5 ) RUS Contract Form 787, “Supplement A to Construction Contract, RUS Contract Form 515,” when the borrower proposes to provide any materials to the contractor. The borrower shall not order materials for a contractor without RUS approval. In such cases the borrower must attach Form 787 and a “List of Owner's Materials on Hand” and/or a “List of Materials Ordered by Owner but Not Delivered” to contract Form 515 (See § 1753.48(f) of this part). Any materials furnished under Supplement A shall be listed in RUS Bulletin 344-2 unless special RUS approval has been received by the borrower to use unlisted materials.
( c ) *Submission of plans and specifications to RUS.* ( 1 ) If the project does not exceed $500,000 or 25% of the loan, whichever is less, the borrower shall furnish GFR one set of P&S. The borrower may then proceed with procurement in accordance with § 1753.48.
( 2 ) If the project exceeds $500,000 or 25% of the loan, whichever is less, RUS approval of P&S is required. Two sets of P&S shall be furnished to GFR. RUS will return one set to the borrower upon notice of approval. The borrower may then proceed with procurement in accordance with § 1753.48.
[54 FR 39267, Sept. 25, 1989. Redesignated at 55 FR 39397, Sept. 27, 1990, 55 FR 53488, Dec. 31, 1990, as amended at 64 FR 16609, Apr. 6, 1999]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          16,213
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             100
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 6,485
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     92,050
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          92,050
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            92,050
<LOANS>                                        404,001
<ALLOWANCE>                                      5,850
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 528,273
<DEPOSITS>                                     461,298
<SHORT-TERM>                                     2,598
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,241
<LONG-TERM>                                     11,292
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,677
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,167
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 528,273
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 34,271
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,505
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   382
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                40,158
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              20,276
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 863
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           19,019
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,111
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (4)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 11,031
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,812
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       9,812
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,777
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.22
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.23
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,890
<LOANS-PAST>                                     9,532
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 12,422
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,500
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,531
<RECOVERIES>                                       770
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                5,850
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             5,850
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Suzanne Rieser, Appellant, v Robert L. Rieser, Respondent.

— In a habeas corpus proceeding to determine custody of the infant issue of the parties, the petitioner mother appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated February 26, 1979, which, after a hearing, *inter alia,*awarded custody to the respondent father. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, the petitioner is awarded custody of the infant, with the same liberal visitation rights afforded to the father as had been granted to the mother, and the proceeding is remitted to Special Term for entry of an appropriate judgment. Robert and Suzanne Rieser were married in 1970 and have one child of the marriage, Roy, born June 26, 1976. On April 24, 1978 the parties signed a separation agreement, which gave custody of Roy to the mother with liberal visitation rights to the father. Within one month of the signing of the agreement, the father did not return Roy to the mother after visitation. This proceeding ensued. The parties stipulated that the mother would be given custody pending a final determination. Following an eight-day hearing, psychiatric evaluations of the parents and the child, and other professional evaluations of the father’s sister and brother-in-law, as well as of the mother’s parents, the trial court awarded custody to the father on condition that he continue to reside with his sister and brother-in-law. The court observed that "both parents are almost equally unfit”, the father primarily because of a history of narcotic addiction, the mother because of "psychotic behavior patterns”. The availability of the father’s sister and brother-in-law and the home which they could provide tipped the scales in the father’s favor in the eyes of the trial court. We are not so persuaded. We believe that "what will best promote [the child’s] welfare and happiness” (see Domestic Relations Law, § 70; *Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln,*24 NY2d 270), is custody in the mother. There is nothing in the father’s background nor in his conduct during his marriage to suggest that he is capable of offering stability over a long term. With respect to the mother, no psychotic behavior was discerned by the three professionals, including one psychiatrist, who interviewed her and who recommended that she be the custodial parent. We do not agree with the conclusion of the fourth professional, also a psychiatrist, that the mother is psychotic. We do not think it is appropriate to detail here the rather sordid experiences that comprise each parent’s background. What is important to report is that the mother’s plans for her child include a babysitter to take care of him for a few hours after school, neighboring mothers who will assist in Roy’s after school care when that is necessary, and her own mother who is available in an emergency. We do not agree that this plan is "palpably inadequate” as found by the trial court. Damiani, J. P., O’Connor, Lazer and Rabin, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
32.1







CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Report of China Runji Cement Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended November 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Shouren Zhao, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to section 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; and2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.











/s/Shouren
Zhao


Shouren
Zhao


Chief
Executive Officer





January
14, 2009
#### § 160.92 Meaning of word “gallon.”

The word “gallon,” when used on or impressed into any container of spirits of turpentine, or when used in an invoice referring to spirits of turpentine in containers of 10 gallons content or less, shall mean a United States standard gallon of 231 cubic inches of turpentine, regardless of any other definitive terms used therewith: *Provided,* That this shall not apply to the meaning of the words “imperial gallon”, when placed on containers intended for foreign shipment. For the purpose of these regulations a measured gallon of turpentine, or any indicated multiple or fractional part thereof, shall be such quantity when measured at a temperature of not more than 75 °Fahrenheit, and a weighed gallon shall be construed to mean 7.2 pounds of turpentine.
# Fourth Court of **Appeals San Antonio, Texas**  MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 14

- 00094

- CR Joshua Joel LALUZ , Appellant

v. The STATE of TexasAppellee The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013CR1397A Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Delivered and Filed: April 9, 2014
DISMISSED Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Joshua Joel Laluz pleaded guilty to the offense of human trafficking of a person under the age of eighteen for the purpose of prostitution. As part of his plea

- bargain, appellant signed a separate “Waiver of Appeal.” The trial court imposed sentence and signed a certificate stating that this “ is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal ” and “ the defendant has waived the right of appeal. ” See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). After appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, the clerk sent copies of the certification and notice of appeal to this court. See T E X
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(e). The clerk ’ s record, which includes04

- 14

- 00094

- CR
the plea bargain agreement and the trial court ’ s Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification, has been filed. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d). The clerk ’ s record establishes the punishment assessed by the trial court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(a)(2). After reviewing the cl erk ’ s record, the trial court ’ s certification therefore appears to accurately reflect that this is a plea bargain case and L aluz does not have a right to appeal. See
Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court of appeals s hould review clerk ’ s record to determine whether trial court ’ s certification is accurate). This court must dismiss an appeal “ if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record. ” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d). On February 14, 2014 , we gave appellant notice that the appeal would be dismissed unless written consent to appeal and an amended certification showing appellant has the right to appeal were signed by the trial judge and made part of the appellate record by March 17, 2014. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order), disp. on merits , No. 04

- 03

- 00176

- CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio July 2, 2003, pet. ref ’ d) (not designated for publication). Neither written permission to appeal nor an amended certification showing appellant has the right to appeal has been filed. We therefore dismiss this
appe al.
PER CURIAM Do Not Publish

- 2

-
Order filed, May 30, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00046-CR

____________

ERIC DEMOND DOUGLAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1122749

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due May 22, 2013. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. 

The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not 

been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Wong Lee, the substitute court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
CFV Va A ACZ)|
fj - | help keep
:

Tae alr
elean

Ride. your bike.
oc walk +o school.
Teo many cars
equals lots of
\ air pollution.



A a ae a ee ~

wheal wen, neve?

~ we were

)

—
)
°

~.*e FY

Bowes
¢
~*,°,
.

aS

\
\
\
A
¢
/
\
|
‘
A
WXD PO2_ CX “O> Q
\
er
ne } In
4 Wie Kee MH 2 By wy tuo ae Arogevl
, By 0 wat Sheenjy O ‘hI UP asa S mY /
/ “axisnv9 gt i Pat AHL VI Saue “NW> HS¥aLL (vl tO y
Hiegi sitim fy WaHMTM No avai sul annea9 NO
\ Sainveied Sivan, an L917 NMOL $1 FOVEAYD Y

oy AW “NAS PON LE NAN em NN GS Ph


don't leave ihe Water fy wy rm ng
wht le You brush Your





Always wash fruits and vegetable,
before You €a+ them to clean off dirt.
sc —

00 CTO WRF GO)







do's

PROCES ERE E HEE E EEE DORE HOOD

(a) Always turn the T.V. off

when you're finished
watching it.

Use sponges or washable
cloth instead of paper
towels to clean up messes.

/3.\, Save all your newspapers,

cans, and bottles. Help
your parents recycle them.

refrigerator door open.
Get what you want quickly
and shut the door.

Don't leave the water
running when you brush
your teeth.

Don't ever think you're
not important to our Earth.
You are!

Fill in the blanks to find out how you
can help protect the environment.

| can draw and color on
remember to turn

room, This saves

the ground and put it in the

that | help
ride my bicycle, | don't
I can

Hoy ainyjod=~ wpAres'g eGoqunB/yvoy-g Ady Aipppe/o/ABvoun "ET yo"Z OMA/YIOT"| >SYIMSNY

sides of my paper. | must
the lights when | leave an empty
. Lean also

En
cans, bottles, and newspapers. When |
the air. | am important!

A
save the environment!

up litter on
can, Itis important



oe

<

\

NN

es
N
a

‘TI

o-

SNE EN

UP

he fi

©

(

leaye. the.
the TV
ing it

Ou

Urn off the lights when vo
om— and always turn
a you're Faished watch

f


ecycle-3:

f ) Ca ns
bottles and
paper, okay!

Save them at home and

Eo School and hel
Zp ; our pare
act recycle i pamets





AVGNNS

AVGUNLYS

Avalud

AVasSanHL

AVdsiINngam

Avasant

AVGNOW

UD? YSsOJj BYj U! {1 MOIY
pun say!| dn paxaig

yoo} Au
paysnag | ajiy Buiuuns
JajOM ayy BAd9| 4,UPIG

yspjd pun sspj6 ‘suo>
‘sedod 9)2A4301 padjay

sadod Aw
JO sapis Yoq pasy

41 Buiyoyom poysiuy |
UsYM Al HO peusny

“SOul] YUD/G ayj UO Waly o}/AA

éspeep poof asowl jo yuiyj MOA uD “yjDJ OYJ 10} Op NOK peep pooh y>ne
APIsaq ADIs D Ng “YJIDZ ayy 40} Op Nod sBuryy poob ay |jp yo 490.44 daay

Ang AidAq ying ous yo aun Bunjp,
#### Harry Hart *et al. v.*Hyman B. Stern *et al.*

*Opinion filed April 17, 1899.*

This case is controlled by the decision in *Rosenberg*v. *Stern,*177 Ill. 437.

*Hart*v. *Stern,*78 Ill. App. 491, affirmed.

Appeal from the Branch Appellate Court for the First District;—heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Elbridge Hanecy, Judge, presiding.

Hofheimer & Pflaum, and Moran, Kraus & Mayer, for appellants.

Francis W. Walker, and Flower, Smith & Musgrave, for appellees.

Per Curiam:

The record in this case is the same as the one in *Rosenberg*v. *Stern,*177 1Ill. 437, and the decision of that case is conclusive of the questions raised and argued in this.

The judgment of the Appellate Court will accordingly be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
Order entered November 24, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00833-CR

KOBEY WAYNE KELLY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13-16775-V

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Spansion Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i.) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 26, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                  |  |                                                     
|----------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 8, 2006 |  | /s/ Dario Sacomani                                  
|                  |  | Dario Sacomani                                      
|                  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
MEMORANDUM DATE: December 1, 2014 TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR–2013-0602 FROM: Melanie King, Office of Ai r Quality Planning and Standards SUBJECT: November 18, 2014 Meeting and Tribal C onsultation with Fort Mojave Indian Tribe Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY A meeting was held between EPA and the atte ndee(s) listed below on November 18, 2014, to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan Supplementa l Proposal for Existing Power Plants in Indian Country and U.S. Territories. The Clean Power Pl an Supplemental Proposal was issued on October 28, 2014, and published in the Federal Register on November 4, 2014. ATTENDEES Fort Mojave Indian Tribe  Luke Johnson Calpine  Barbara McBride  Mitchell Weinberg EPA  William Niebling, OAR  Greg Green, OAR/OAQPS  Laura McKelvey, OAR/OAQPS  Melanie King, OAR/OAQPS  Mary Johnson, OAR/OAQPS (by phone)  Amy Zimpfer, Region 9  Anita Lee, Region 9  Colleen McKaughan, Region 9  Laura Farris, Region 8