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

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,532

EX PARTE JOSE LUIS PARRA-TELLES, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 07-07-07326-CR(1) IN THE 284 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

TH

FROM MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleaded guilty to driving while

intoxicated and sentenced to thirty-five years’ imprisonment. The Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed

his conviction. Parra-Telles v. State, No. 09-08-00064-CR (Tex. App. – Beaumont, February 25,

2009). 

Applicant contends, inter alia, that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance

because counsel failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed, and of his
2

right to petition this Court for discretionary review pro se. 

Appellate counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court, in which he states that he advised

Applicant of his right to petition this Court for discretionary review by way of a letter in which he

also informed Applicant that he was filing an Anders brief, and of Applicant’s right to file a pro se

response. Appellate counsel states that Applicant was advised of the court of appeals’ decision and

sent a copy of the appellate opinion by the court of appeals. However, there is nothing in the record

to indicate when or how Applicant was advised of the court of appeals’ decision and opinion. This

Court has noted that the duty to send the client a copy of the court of appeals's decision “exists after

the court of appeals has granted counsel's motion to withdraw. This informational duty could have

been placed upon the appellate courts themselves, but because counsel is usually better informed

about his former client's whereabouts, it has been placed on his shoulders.” In re Schulman, 252

S.W.3d 403, 412 n.32 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the

opportunity to file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review of the judgment of the Ninth

Court of Appeals in Cause No. 09-08-00064-CR that affirmed his conviction in Case No. 07-07-

07326-CR(1) from the 284th Judicial District Court of Montgomery County. Applicant shall file

his petition for discretionary review with the Ninth Court of Appeals within 30 days of the date on

which this Court’s mandate issues.

Applicant's remaining claims are dismissed. See Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1997).
3

Delivered: April 6, 2011

Do not publish
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 18, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41238 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MANUEL ALBERTO MARTINEZ, also known as James A. Dupont, also known as Albert Longoria, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-01-CV-199 USDC No. B-98-CR-394-ALL

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jeanette Mercado, court-appointed counsel for Manuel Alberto Martinez, former federal prisoner # 88613-080, has filed a motion for leave to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that Martinez’s appeal does not present a nonfrivolous issue. See Dinkins v. Alabama , 526 F.2d 1268, 1269 (5th Cir. 1976). In response to counsel’sNo. 02-41238 -2- motion, Martinez moves for the appointment of substitute counsel and, in the alternative, to dismiss his appeal voluntarily. Our independent review of counsel’s Anders brief, Martinez’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The request for a COA, set forth in counsel’s brief, is DENIED. Martinez’s motion for the appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED. Martinez’s motion to dismiss his appeal voluntarily is DENIED AS
MOOT.
| (1)   |     The Form 10-K report for the year ended June 30, 2009, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 22, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   |     The information contained in the Form 10-K report for the year ended June 30, 2009 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sharps Compliance Corp. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                                                                                                        By: | /s/ BURTON J. KUNIK                                                              |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |  Burton J. KunikChairman of the Board, ChiefExecutive Officer and President |
§ 1071.300 Filing and service of documents. ( a ) Any application for an award or other pleading or document related to an application shall be filed and served on all parties to the proceeding in the same manner as other pleadings in proceedings under part 1081.
( b ) In addition, a copy of each application for fees and expenses shall be served on the General Counsel of the Bureau.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 1998 AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS THEN
ENDED, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             169
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,118
<ALLOWANCES>                                       115
<INVENTORY>                                      1,282
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,622
<PP&E>                                           8,216
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,513
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,969
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,093
<BONDS>                                          3,893
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,661
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,969
<SALES>                                          3,588
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,589
<CGS>                                            2,471
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,152
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  13
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    323
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                323
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       323
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>
# Official Journal L 16I/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 016I |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6218 January 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 016I

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6218 January 2019

---

| Contents | | Corrigenda | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/73 of 17 January 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of electric bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China ( OJ L 16, 18.1.2019 ) | 1 |

Contents

Corrigenda

page

*

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/73 of 17 January 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of electric bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China ( OJ L 16, 18.1.2019 )

( OJ L 16, 18.1.2019 )

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### § 1234.16 [Reserved]
#### MOTTRAM v. UNITED STATES

[59 C. Cls. 302; 271 U. S. 15]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was *affirmed,*the Supreme Court deciding:

Where a lot of goods, among surplus military supplies auctioned by the United States, was grossly overstated as to quantity in the list of things advertised for sale, and the auctioneer, in ignorance of the mistake, accepted a bid for the listed quantity, but informed the bidder that he could not guarantee it, and the sales, according to the catalogue, were subject to errors of description and without warranty, and the bidder had previously inspected the goods and could have ascertained their true amount, *held*that he had no cause of action against the United States for failure to deliver the quantity bid for.

Mr. Justice Butler

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 12, 1926.
42182.

#### ARMSTRONG v. BAILEY et al.

Argued July 5, 1966

Decided September 6, 1966.

*Cowart, Sapp, Alaimo & Gale, G. B. Cowart,*for appellant.

*Bouhan, Lawrence, Williams & Levy, Frank W. Seiler,*for appellees.

Felton, Chief Judge.

1. In an action against one of two joint tortfeasors it was error for the court to instruct the jury that it would have to find, in order to find in favor of the plaintiff, that the acts of negligence on the part of the defendant were *“a sole and proximate cause”*of plaintiff’s injuries and damages. *Brooks v. Carver,*55 Ga. App. 362 (2) (190 SE 389); *Chandler v. Brittain,*48 Ga. App. 361, 362 (172 SE 745). The cóurt first used the expression “the sole and proximate cause” but withdrew it and substituted “a sole and proximate cause.” The two expressions mean the same thing since the idea of “sole”, included in the expressions, produces the same legal consequence. The evidence authorized a finding that the concurring negligence of both tortfeasors, the one sued and the one not sued, combined to produce the plaintiff’s injuries and the charge excluded such a finding. That the proper and correct charge was elsewhere given does not nullify the error when the erroneous charge was not called to the attention of the jury and corrected or withdrawn.

2. The evidence authorized the charge on accident as between the parties to the case even if another’s negligence could have been found to cause the damages sued for. *Boatright v. Sosebee,*108 Ga. App. 19 (132 SE2d 155).

3. It is not a good exception to a charge which states a correct principle of law applicable to a case that it does not include another applicable principle.

The court erred in overruling the amended motion for a new trial because of the error shown in the first headnote.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Frankum and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-1985

_____________________________

J.C., Father of J.K.C., J.J.E.C.,

J.A.C., and J.I.C., Minor 

Children,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILIES,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.

Mary Polson, Judge.

September 5, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, ROBERTS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Ryan Thomas Truskoski of Ryan Thomas Truskoski, P.A., 

Orlando, for Appellant.

Sarah J. Rumph, Appellate Counsel, Children’s Legal Services, 

Department of Children and Families, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
# C_2022001EN.01000201.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 1/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 1/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

31 December 2021

(2022/C 1/02)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1326 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 130,38 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4364 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84028 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,2503 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0331 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 147,60 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,9888 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,858 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 369,19 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5969 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9490 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 15,2335 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5615 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4393 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8333 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6579 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5279 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 346,38 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 18,0625 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1947 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5156 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 100,42 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7184 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,763 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 85,3004 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,653 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,3101 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,1438 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 84,2292 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1326

JPY

Japanese yen

130,38

DKK

Danish krone

7,4364

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84028

SEK

Swedish krona

10,2503

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0331

ISK

Iceland króna

147,60

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,9888

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,858

HUF

Hungarian forint

369,19

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5969

RON

Romanian leu

4,9490

TRY

Turkish lira

15,2335

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5615

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4393

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8333

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6579

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5279

KRW

South Korean won

1 346,38

ZAR

South African rand

18,0625

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1947

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5156

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 100,42

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7184

PHP

Philippine peso

57,763

RUB

Russian rouble

85,3004

THB

Thai baht

37,653

BRL

Brazilian real

6,3101

MXN

Mexican peso

23,1438

INR

Indian rupee

84,2292

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2587 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 555 South 3rd Street Lobby in Memphis, 

Tennessee, as the ‘‘Kenneth T. Whalum, Sr. Post Office 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2587 EH

1 SECTION 1. KENNETH T. WHALUM, SR. POST OFFICE BUILD2 ING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 555 South 3rd Street Lobby in 

5 Memphis, Tennessee, shall be known and designated as 

6 the ‘‘Kenneth T. Whalum, Sr. Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Kenneth T. Whalum, 

11 Sr. Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 10, 

2007. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2587 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostWhalum, Sr. Post Office Building’’. in Memphis, Tennessee, as the ‘‘Kenneth T. al Service located at 555 South 3rd Street Lobby
§ 1227.7 Appeal to the Director. ( a ) *Opportunity to appeal.* A respondent may submit an appeal to the Director within thirty (30) calendar days after the date a final suspension order has been signed. If the Director signed the final suspension order as the suspension official, the respondent has no appeal right under this section. The appeal shall be accompanied by a written brief specifically identifying the respondent's objections to the final suspension order and the supporting reasons for such objections.
( b ) *Decision on appeal.* The Director shall issue a written final decision on an appeal of a final suspension order based on the record submitted by the suspending official, together with any material submitted with an appeal. The Director may affirm, vacate or amend the suspension, or remand to the suspending official for further proceedings, in the discretion of the Director. If the Director does not take action on an appeal prior to the effective date of the order, the order shall take effect as if it had been affirmed by the Director, on the date specified in the order.
( c ) *Final agency action.* The written final decision of the Director on an appeal of a final suspension order shall be the final agency action. If the Director does not take action on an appeal prior to the effective date of the order, the order shall be the final agency action.
( d ) *Exhaustion of administrative remedies.* In order to fulfill the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies, a respondent must appeal a final suspension order to the Director as provided in this section prior to seeking judicial review of such order.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 18, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41238

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MANUEL ALBERTO MARTINEZ, also known as James A. Dupont,

also known as Albert Longoria,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-01-CV-199

USDC No. B-98-CR-394-ALL

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jeanette Mercado, court-appointed counsel for Manuel Alberto

Martinez, former federal prisoner # 88613-080, has filed a motion

for leave to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that Martinez’s appeal

does not present a nonfrivolous issue. See Dinkins v. Alabama,

526 F.2d 1268, 1269 (5th Cir. 1976). In response to counsel’s
No. 02-41238

-2-

motion, Martinez moves for the appointment of substitute counsel

and, in the alternative, to dismiss his appeal voluntarily.

Our independent review of counsel’s Anders brief, Martinez’s

response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for

appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The request

for a COA, set forth in counsel’s brief, is DENIED. Martinez’s

motion for the appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED. 

Martinez’s motion to dismiss his appeal voluntarily is DENIED AS

MOOT.