alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-12-00210-CR

MARCY LENA MEJIA, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 336th District Court

Fannin County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR-12-24506

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Marcy Lena Mejia has filed four appeals from separate convictions. The convictions 

stemmed from her plea of guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. In this particular case, pursuant to 

the agreement, Mejia was sentenced to ten years’ confinement, probated for five years. We 

contacted the parties in reference to apparent jurisdictional defects and have received and 

considered their responses on this issue. The procedural posture of this case is identical to that 

discussed in our opinion of this date in Marcy Lena Mejia v. The State of Texas, 06-12-00208-

CR. We addressed the jurisdictional issue in detail in that opinion, and, for the reasons stated 

therein, we likewise conclude that we have no jurisdiction over this appeal. 

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: May 16, 2013

Date Decided: May 17, 2013

Do Not Publish
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 45 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 45

Commending the Ed Block Courage Award Foundation for its work in aiding 
children and families affected by child abuse, and designating November 
                    2007 as National Courage Month.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 17, 2007

    Mr. Cardin (for himself and Mr. Cornyn) submitted the following 
   concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Commending the Ed Block Courage Award Foundation for its work in aiding 
children and families affected by child abuse, and designating November 
                    2007 as National Courage Month.

Whereas the Ed Block Courage Award was established by Sam Lamantia in 1978 in 
        honor of Ed Block, the head athletic trainer of the Baltimore Colts and 
        a respected humanitarian;
Whereas each year in Baltimore, Maryland, the Foundation honors recipients from 
        the National Football League who have been chosen by their teammates as 
        exemplifying sportsmanship and courage;
Whereas the Ed Block Courage Award has become one of the most esteemed honors 
        bestowed upon players in the NFL;
Whereas the Ed Block Courage Award Foundation has grown from a Baltimore-based 
        local charity to the Courage House National Support Network for Kids 
        operated in partnership with 17 NFL teams in their respective cities; 
        and
Whereas Courage Houses are facilities that provide support and care for abused 
        children and their families in these 17 locations across the country: 
        Baltimore, Maryland, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Chicago, Illinois, Miami, 
        Florida, Detroit, Michigan, Dallas, Texas, Westchester County, New York, 
        Oakland, California, Seattle, Washington, Charlotte, North Carolina, 
        Cleveland, Ohio, Atlanta, Georgia, St. Louis, Missouri, Indianapolis, 
        Indiana, Buffalo, New York, San Francisco, California, and Minneapolis, 
        Minnesota: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) National Courage Month provides an opportunity to 
        educate the people of the United States about the positive role 
        that professional athletes can play as inspirations for 
        America's youth; and
            (2) the Ed Block Courage Award Foundation should be 
        recognized for its outstanding contributions toward helping 
        those affected by child abuse.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Asia B. Gregory H., Appellant; Commissioner of Social Services et al., Respondents.

[699 NYS2d 88]

—In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper) of the Family Court, Kings County (Turbow, J.), dated July 22, 1998, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that he had abused and neglected his child, Asia B., and released Asia B. to the mother.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the determination that his daughter is an abused and neglected child is supported by a preponderance of the evidence *(see,*Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; *Matter of Tammie Z.,*66 NY2d 1). The evidence established that the child sustained a laceration to her head requiring stitches as a result of excessive corporal punishment by the appellant *(see,*Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; *Matter of Tonya C.,*220 AD2d 498; *Matter of Danielle YY.,*188 AD2d 894). Further, the appellant disciplined Asia B. by repeatedly hitting her on the head to “let her know I’m her father”, created a “substantial risk of physical injury * * * by other than accidental means which would be likely to cause * * * serious or protracted disfigurement, or protracted impairment of physical or emotional health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [e] [ii]; *see, Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs.,*191 AD2d 634; *Matter of C. Children,*183 AD2d 767).

The father’s remaining contention is without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Altman, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-51004 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MANUEL ORTIZ-LOPEZ, also known as Manuel Ortiz-Lopez, Jr., also known as Manuel Ortiz,
Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-00-CR-681-ALL-H

- - - - - - - - - - June 15, 2001 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Manuel Ortiz-Lopez appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Ortiz argues that his sentence should not have exceeded the two-year maximum sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Ortiz acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224No. 00-51004 - 2 - (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). Ortiz’s argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , 523 U.S. at 235. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is granted.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                  LANCASTER COLONY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                     SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                     STATE OF       PERCENT OF
                       NAME                                      SEGMENT           INCORPORATION     OWNERSHIP
                       ----                                      -------           -------------    ----------
<S>                                                        <C>                     <C>              <C>
Colony Printing & Labeling, Inc......................      Glassware & Candles        Indiana          100%
Dee Zee, Inc.........................................          Automotive              Ohio            100%
E. O. Brody Company..................................      Glassware & Candles         Ohio            100%
Fostoria Glass, LLC..................................      Glassware & Candles         Ohio            100%
Indiana Glass Company................................      Glassware & Candles        Indiana          100%
Jackson Plastics Operations, Inc.....................          Automotive              Ohio            100%
Koneta, Inc..........................................          Automotive              Ohio            100%
LaGrange Molded Products, Inc........................          Automotive            Delaware          100%
Lancaster Colony Commercial Products, Inc............      Glassware & Candles         Ohio            100%
Lancaster Glass Corporation..........................      Glassware & Candles         Ohio            100%
T. Marzetti Company..................................        Specialty Foods           Ohio            100%
Marzetti Frozen Pasta, Inc (FKA Reames Foods, Inc.)..        Specialty Foods           Iowa            100%
New York Frozen Foods, Inc...........................        Specialty Foods           Ohio            100%
Pretty Products, Inc.................................          Automotive              Ohio            100%
Sister Schubert's Homemade Rolls, Inc................        Specialty Foods          Alabama          100%
The Quality Bakery Company, Inc......................        Specialty Foods           Ohio            100%
Waycross Molded Products, Inc........................          Automotive              Ohio            100%
</TABLE>

All subsidiaries conduct their business under the names shown.
§ 4206.5 Amount of credit in plans using the modified presumptive method. ( a ) *General.* In a plan that uses the modified presumptive method described in section 4211(c)(2) of ERISA, the credit shall equal the sum of the unamortized old liabilities determined under paragraph (b) of this section, multiplied by the fractions described or determined under paragraph (c) of this section. When an employer's prior partial withdrawal liability has been reduced or waived, this credit shall be adjusted in accordance with § 4206.8.
( b ) *Unamortized old liabilities.* The amounts described in this paragraph shall be determined as of the end of the plan year preceding the withdrawal for which the credit is being calculated, and are the employer's proportional shares, if any, of— ( 1 ) The plan's unfunded vested benefits as of the end of the last plan year ending before September 26, 1980, reduced as if those obligations were being fully amortized in level annual installments over 15 years beginning with the first plan year ending on or after such date; and
( 2 ) The aggregate post-1980 change amount determined under section 4211(c)(2)(C) of ERISA as if the employer had completely withdrawn in the year of the prior partial withdrawal, reduced as if those obligations were being fully amortized in level annual installments over the 5-year period beginning with the plan year in which the prior partial withdrawal occurred.
( c ) *Employer's allocable share of old liabilities.* The sum of the amounts determined under paragraph (b) are multiplied by the two fractions described in this paragraph in order to determine the amount of old liabilities that was previously assessed against the employer. ( 1 ) The first fraction is the fraction determined under section 4206(a)(2) of ERISA for the prior partial withdrawal.
( 2 ) The second fraction is a fraction, the numerator of which is the amount of the liability assessed against the employer for the prior partial withdrawal, and the denominator of which is the product of— ( i ) The amount of unfunded vested benefits allocable to the employer as if it had completely withdrawn as of the date of the prior partial withdrawal (determined without regard to any adjustments), multiplied by—
( ii ) The fraction determined under section 4206(a)(2) of ERISA for the prior partial withdrawal.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1584

GREGORY SHAWN MERCER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

E. A. VEGA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00346-LO-TCB)

Submitted: November 19, 2019 Decided: November 21, 2019

Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Shawn Mercer, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Shawn Mercer appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Mercer’s motion for clarification 

and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Mercer v. Vega, No. 1:18-cv-00346-

LO-TCB (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 24 & entered Apr. 25, 2019; May 24, 2019). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 7 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 7

Providing for the reappointment of Roger W. Sant as a citizen regent of 
          the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 8, 2007

   Mr. Leahy (for himself, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Dodd) introduced the 
 following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the 
                 Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for the reappointment of Roger W. Sant as a citizen regent of 
          the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the 
Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other 
than Members of Congress, occurring because of the expiration of the 
term of Roger W. Sant of Washington, D.C., is filled by the 
reappointment of Roger W. Sant, for a term of 6 years, effective 
October 25, 2007.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 30 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 30

  Urging all sides to the current political crisis in Ukraine to act 
 responsibly and use dialogue to resolve the crisis and ensure a free 
 and transparent democratic system in Ukraine based on the rule of law.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 2, 2007

   Mr. Dodd submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Urging all sides to the current political crisis in Ukraine to act 
 responsibly and use dialogue to resolve the crisis and ensure a free 
 and transparent democratic system in Ukraine based on the rule of law.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That Congress--
            (1) acknowledges and welcomes the strong relationship 
        formed between the United States and Ukraine since the 
        restoration of Ukraine's independence in 1991;
            (2) urges all sides to the current political crisis in 
        Ukraine to act responsibly and use dialogue to resolve the 
        crisis;
            (3) urges all sides to adhere to the rule of law and 
        resolve disputes in a peaceful manner consistent with Ukraine's 
        democratic values and national interest, in keeping with its 
        commitments as a member of the Organization for Security and 
        Cooperation in Europe (OSCE);
            (4) expresses strong and continuing support for the efforts 
        of the Ukrainian people to establish a full democracy, the rule 
        of law, and respect for human rights;
            (5) pledges its continued assistance to the strengthening 
        of a free and transparent democratic system in Ukraine based on 
        the rule of law and the continued development of a free market 
        economy in Ukraine; and
            (6) reaffirms its commitment to Ukraine's independence, 
        sovereignty and territorial integrity, and assumption of 
        Ukraine's rightful place as a full member of the international 
        community of democracies.
                                 <all>
```
Court of Appeals, State of Michigan

ORDER

People of MI v Michael Scott Barber

Docket No. 339452

LC No. 2017-015214-FC

Jane M. Beckering

Presiding Judge

Christopher M. Murray

Karen M. Fort Hood

Judges

The motion for reconsideration is GRANTED, and this Court's opinion issued March 12, 

2020 is hereby VACATED. A new opinion is attached to this order. 

_______________________________

Presiding Judge
#### § 4219.14 Amount of liability for 20-year-limitation amounts.

An employer that is liable for 20-year-limitation amounts shall be liable to the plan for an amount equal to the present value of all initial withdrawal liability payments for which the employer was not liable pursuant to section 4219(c)(1)(B) of ERISA. The present value of such payments shall be determined as of the end of the plan year preceding the plan year in which the employer withdrew, using the assumptions that were used to determine the employer's payment schedule for initial withdrawal liability pursuant to section 4219(c)(1)(A)(ii) of ERISA. Any liability for 20-year-limitation amounts determined under this section shall be limited by section 4225 of ERISA to the extent that section would have been limiting had the employer's initial withdrawal liability been determined without regard to the 20-year limitation.
Exhibit
      32





**CONTINENTAL
      BEVERAGE AND NUTRITION, INC.**





**Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Continental Beverage and Nutrition,
      Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB of the period ended November 30, 2006
      as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, David
      Sackler, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: (1)
      the
      quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the
      quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: January 15, 2007/s/ David
              SacklerChief
              Executive Officer and Financial Officer
(80 South. 133)

#### PREISS v. STATE.

(3 Div. 319.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 19, 1918.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; A. B. Poster, Judge.

George Preiss appeals from an adverse ruling in a prosecution against him.

Reversed and remanded.

Goodwyn & McIntyre, of Montgomery, for appellant.

P. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMPORD. J.

This case is reversed on the authority of Kreutner v. State, 80 South. 125.

Reversed and remanded.
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. WAREHOUSE UNION LOCAL 6, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S *&*WAREHOUSEMEN’S UNION, Respondent.

No. 21336.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

May 12, 1967.

Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Mar*2cel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Warren M. Davison, Solomon I. Hirsh, Attys., NLRB, Washington, D. C., Roy 0. Hoffman, Director, NLRB, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

Aubrey Grossman, San Francisco, Cal., St. Sure, Moore & Corbett, Oakland, Cal., for appellee.

Before CHAMBERS, MERRILL and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Labor Board seeks to enforce its order against respondent union pursuant to section 10(e) of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 160(e).1 The union is charged with violating §§ 8(b) (4) (i) (B) and 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act (secondary boycott) in its relations with an employer, Hershey Chocolate Corporation, and Encinal Terminals, serving Hershey as an independent contractor.

Respondent does not question the fact that it engaged in conduct prohibited by the secondary boycott sections. Rather, it attacks these sections, and would have us declare them unconstitutional because the garment industry is exempted from coverage while other similarly situated industries enjoy no exemption.

As there is no equal protection clause in the Fifth Amendment, respondent must show that limitation of the secondary boycott exemption to the garment industry is such a gross discrimination as to constitute a denial of due process under the Fifth Amendment. It has failed to do so. While it is not easy to see why the exemption granted to the garment industry was not extended to other similarly situated industries, this is not the sort of area where a court is competent to question the plenary power of Congress. Brown v. Local No. 17, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, 180 F.Supp. 294 (N.D.Calif.).2 In any case, as respondent does not claim that the warehouse industry operates under conditions similar to those found in the garment industry, it is clear that respondent is not discriminated against by the garment industry exemption.

Affirmed.

1

. The N.L.R.B. order is reported at 153 N.L.R.B. 1051.

2

. See decisions holding that industry exemptions from § 8(e) (hot cargo) of the Act do not violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Employing Lithographers of Greater Miami v. N. L. R. B„ 5 Cir., 301 F.2d 20; N. L. R. B. v. Amalgamated Lithographers, 9 Cir., 309 F.2d 31, cert. denied 372 U.S. 943, 83 S. Ct. 936, 9 L.Ed.2d 968; Truck Drivers Union Local 413, etc. v. N. L. R. B., 118 U.S.App.D.C. 149, 334 F.2d 539.