alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1517 WEST FRONT STREET SUITE 354 TYLER, TX 75702 TEL: 903-593-8471 FAX: 903-593-2193

Serving Anderson, Angelina, Cherokee, Gregg, Henderson, Houston, Nacogdoches, Rains, Rusk, Sabine, San Augustine, Shelby, Smith, Trinity, Upshur, Van 

Zandt and Wood Counties

www.12thcoa.courts.state.tx.us

CHIEF JUSTICE

JAMES T. WORTHEN

JUSTICES

BRIAN HOYLE

GREG NEELEY

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

CLERK

CATHY S. LUSK

CHIEF STAFF ATTORNEY

MARGARET HUSSEY

May 19, 2015

Ms. Lois Rogers

District Clerk, Smith County

Courthouse, Suite 204

100 North Broadway Avenue

Tyler, TX 75702-7201

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Case Number: 12-14-00179-CR

Trial Court Case Number: 241-0488-14

Style: Earnest Mark Browning

v.

The State of Texas

Pursuant to Rule 18.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, enclosed herewith is the 

Mandate issued in the above cause. When the District or County Clerk has executed the 

Mandate in accordance with the opinion of this Court, the Clerk is requested to fill in the 

information below and to return the attached copy to this office.

Very truly yours,

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By:_____________________________

Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk

C

C

:

Mr. Aaron Rediker (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Mr. Austin R. Jackson (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Mandate executed on __20TH _ day of _____MAY___________, 2015.

Brief explanation of action taken: _____SCANNED______________________________________

________________LINDA RHYMES________________________________District/County Clerk

FILE COPY

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 5/20/2015 9:39:17 AM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
No. 57502.

#### Edward Remus & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 194584-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

The protest was dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario ROMERO-CORTEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-30279.

D.C. No. CR-00-00181-RHW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.1

Decided June 21, 2001.

Before'O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM2

Mario Romero-Cortez appeals the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being an alien found in the United States after deportation. Romero-Cortez contends that in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the district court erred in imposing a sentence in excess of the two-year maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) based upon a prior felony to which he did not admit, and which was not submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He *542also contends that *Apprendi*renders inapplicable *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a sentencing factor and not a separate offense), because he did not admit to an aggravated felony at his change of plea hearing. His arguments are foreclosed by this court’s recent decision in *United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda,*234 F.3d 411 (9th Cir.2000), *as amended*(Feb. 8, 2001). *United States v. Castillo-Rivera,*244 F.3d 1020, 1024-25 (9th Cir.2001). We deny his request to stay these proceedings.

AFFIRMED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Anthony WHITES, a/k/a Marcus D. Whites, a/k/a Anthony Chavalier Whites, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-7938.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2005.

Decided: July 19, 2005.

*102Kenneth M. Mathews, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan S. Gasser, Acting United States Attorney, Stacey D. Haynes, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Whites, a/k/a Marcus D. Whites, a/k/a Anthony Chavalier Whites, appeals the district court’s order granting the Government’s motion to reduce his sentence under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the Government’s Rule 35(b) motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. *See United States v. Pridgen,*64 F.3d 147, 149-50 (4th Cir.1995).

Moreover, Whites’ challenge to his original sentence under the Supreme Court’s decision in *United States v. Booker,*- U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), is without merit. A final judgment is one where the judgment of conviction has been rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for petitioning the Supreme Court for certiorari has expired. *Allen v. Hardy,*478 U.S. 255, 258 n. 1, 106 S.Ct. 2878, 92 L.Ed.2d 199 (1986). A later modification to a sentence does not affect the date on which the judgment of conviction became final. *See United States v. Sanders,*247 F.3d 139, 143 (4th Cir.2001). This court affirmed Whites’ conviction on July 3, 2003. Whites’ conviction became final ninety days later, when the time period for filing his writ of certiorari expired. Whites cannot now resurrect his direct appeal simply because the district court resentenced him pursuant to a Rule 35(b) proceeding. Moreover, his resentencing was not based on the sentencing guidelines. Thus, Whites’ *Booker*challenge fails, and, to the extent he challenges the amount of the reduction he received, this court lacks jurisdiction to review that determination. *See Pridgen,*64 F.3d at 149-50.

Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 96 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 96

Expressing the sense of Congress that a postage stamp should be issued 
                       honoring Oskar Schindler.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 14, 1998

 Mr. Lautenberg (for himself and Mr. Specter) submitted the following 
     concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of Congress that a postage stamp should be issued 
                       honoring Oskar Schindler.

Whereas during the Nazi occupation of Poland, Oskar Schindler personally risked 
        his life and that of his wife to provide food and medical care and saved 
        the lives of over 1,000 Jews from death, many of whom later made their 
        homes in the United States;
Whereas Oskar Schindler also rescued about 100 Jewish men and women from the 
        Golezow concentration camp, who lay trapped and partly frozen in 2 
        sealed train cars stranded near Brunnlitz;
Whereas millions of Americans have been made aware of the story of Schindler's 
        bravery;
Whereas on April 28, 1962, Oskar Schindler was named a ``Righteous Gentile'' by 
        Yad Vashem; and
Whereas Oskar Schindler is a true hero and humanitarian deserving of honor by 
        the United States Government: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that the Postal Service should issue a 
stamp honoring the life of Oskar Schindler.
                                 <all>
```
```

EXHIBIT 99-1

SERVICER'S OFFICER CERTIFICATE

The undersigned Officer certifies the following for the 2005 fiscal year.

1.    I have reviewed the activities and performance of Long Beach Acceptance
      Corp. (the "Servicer") during the preceding fiscal year under the terms of
      the applicable Sale and Servicing Agreement and Insurance and Indemnity
      Agreement and to the best of this Officer's knowledge, the Servicer has
      fulfilled all of its duties, responsibilities or obligations under these
      Agreements throughout such year.

2.    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, no Special Event,
      Default of Event of Default (each as defined in the Agreements) has
      occurred.

s/ Michael J. Pankey
--------------------------------
         Michael J. Pankey
         Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Date: March 30, 2006
```
No. 65246.

#### M. E. Heymes & Company *v.*United States,

protests 265989-K, etc. (Laredo).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *The Best Foods, Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 163, C.A.D. 751), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 10.15

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE
$200,000.00

         FOR VALUE RECEIVED,  AVID SPORTSWEAR & GOLF CORP., a Nevada corporation
(hereinafter  referred  to as  "Maker")  promises  to pay to the order of DANIEL
PAETZ, the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00),  at 7290 Waterview
Point,  Noblesville,  IN 46060 or at such other  place as the holder  hereof may
direct in writing,  with interest  thereon at the rate of the prime rate of Bank
One,  N.A.  until  default  and then at twelve per centum  (12%) per annum after
maturity until paid, with  attorneys' fees and costs of collection,  and without
relief from valuation and appraisement laws. Interest shall accrue until January
31, 2000.  Principal shall be paid from any proceeds from the Private  Placement
Memorandum issued in December, 1999 by Maker. If this Note is not repaid in full
on or before  January 31, 2000,  then the  principal  shall be paid on or before
August 1, 2000,  interest shall be paid on the 1st day of February,  2000 and on
the 1st day of each month  thereafter,  and Maker shall cause stock  warrants of
Maker of 100,000 shares at exercise  price of $.50 per share  exercisable at any
time on or before August 1, 2003, to be delivered to holder.

         The Maker and endorser waive demand,  presentment,  protest,  notice of
protest and notice of  nonpayment  or  dishonor  of this Note,  and each of them
consents  to  extension  of the time of payment  of this Note.  This Note may be
prepaid in whole or in part at any time and from time to time without premium or
penalty. This Note shall be governed by the laws of the State of Indiana.

         No delay or omission on the part of the holder  hereof in the  exercise
of any right or  remedy  shall  operate  as a waiver  thereof,  and no single or
partial  exercise  by the holder  hereof of any right or remedy  shall  preclude
other or further exercise thereof or any other right or remedy.

         Signed this 23rd day of December, 1999.

                                   AVID SPORTSWEAR & GOLF CORP., a
                                   Nevada corporation



                                   By:
                                      ------------------------------------------

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

                                   Address:      Avid Sportswear & Golf Corp.
                                                 22 South Links Avenue
                                                 Suite 204
                                                 Sarasota, Florida 34236
No. 57039.

petition 6912-R (New York).

#### Nanking Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

At the trial one of the partners of the petitioner testified that the merchandise was purchased in November 1948 and shipped in April 1949,-, that between the time of the purchase and the entry of the merchandise, he had talked with a number of importers regarding the proper value of the involved, merchandise; that he was unable to find anyone who was paying more for the merchandise than petitioner had paid; that he did not hear of any higher prices, because prices were going down; and that he was not able to get prices direct from Shanghai until the latter part of 1949, at which time the price was 50 percent lower. On the record presented it was held that there was no intent to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
# Official Journal C 400/24 N

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 400 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6024 November 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 400

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6024 November 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 400/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2017/C 400/02 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  2
  ) | 9 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 400/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

2017/C 400/02

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  2
  )

2

9

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 400/03 | State aid — United Kingdom — State aid SA.44896 (2017/C) (ex 2017/NN) — Potential State aid scheme regarding UK Group Financing Exemption — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (
  1
  ) | 10 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2017/C 400/03

State aid — United Kingdom — State aid SA.44896 (2017/C) (ex 2017/NN) — Potential State aid scheme regarding UK Group Financing Exemption — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (
  1
  )

1

10

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |
| | (2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

(2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty.

2

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

EN
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

ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ESEQUIEL MENDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOLDEN ALASKA SEAFOODS, INC., 

et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C05-2036JLR

ORDER

This matter comes before the court upon Plaintiff’s motion for dismissal (Dkt. #

4). The decision whether to grant or deny the Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal is

within the sound discretion of the court. Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679

F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982). Courts generally allow dismissal unless a defendant will

suffer “some plain legal prejudice” as a result of the dismissal. Id. In their response,

Defendants argue that they will suffer prejudice from dismissal as they have “spent many

hours combing through boxes of documents” and may face the prospect of a second suit. 

Defts.’ Resp. at 2. These are not sufficient reasons to justify denying Plaintiff’s motion

to dismiss. Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 96 (9th Cir. 1996); In re

Lowenschuss, 67 F.3d 1394, 1400 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Case 2:05-cv-02036-JLR Document 12 Filed 02/01/06 Page 1 of 2
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

ORDER – 2

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED, and this matter is DISMISSED without prejudice

and without costs.

Dated this 1st day of February, 2006.

A 

JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02036-JLR Document 12 Filed 02/01/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 110 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 110

  To permit an individual with a disability with access to the Senate 
         floor to bring necessary supporting aids and services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 30, 1997

    Mr. Wyden (for himself and Mr. Warner) submitted the following 
     resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  To permit an individual with a disability with access to the Senate 
         floor to bring necessary supporting aids and services.

    Resolved, That an individual with a disability who has or is 
granted the privilege of the Senate floor under rule XXIII of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate may bring necessary supporting aids and 
services (including service dogs, wheelchairs, and interpreters) on the 
Senate floor, unless the Senate Sergeant at Arms determines that the 
use of such supporting aids and services would place a significant 
difficulty or expense on the operations of the Senate in accordance 
with paragraph 2 of rule 4 of the Rules for Regulation of the Senate 
Wing of the United States Capitol.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE TREADCO,
INC. QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               26,783,780
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,403,140
<INVENTORY>                                 28,885,807
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            63,548,802
<PP&E>                                      53,897,003
<DEPRECIATION>                              20,931,457
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             110,186,126
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       35,399,301
<BONDS>                                     14,958,063
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,723
<OTHER-SE>                                  59,677,614
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               110,186,126
<SALES>                                    136,735,094
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           136,735,094
<CGS>                                      134,404,060
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              134,404,060
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (70,273)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,141,380
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             839,519
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,561,788
<INCOME-TAX>                                   668,019
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            893,769
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   893,769
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
        

</TABLE>
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 D0 39 8 . J EROME MCI NTOSH v . THE STATE.

J ero m e M cIn t o s h pl ed g u i l ty t o m u rd er an d o t her cri m es an d was s en t en ced to
l i fe i n p ri so n

. He s u b seq uen t l y fi l ed a m o t i on t o v acat e a v o id j u d gm en t an d sen t en ce, wh i ch t h e t r i al co u rt d en i ed o n Oct o b er 3

, 20 1 8

. M cIn t o s h fi l ed an ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal fro m th at d en i al in t h i s Co u rt o n M arch 2 2

, 20 1 9

. W e l a c k ju ri s d i ct i o n

. U n d er o u r Co n s t i t u t i o n , t h e Su p rem e Co u rt has ap pel l at e ju ri s d ict i o n o v e r

“ [a] l l cas es i n w h i ch a s en t en ce o f deat h was im p o s ed o r co u l d b e i m

p o s ed .” Ga.

Co n s t

. of 19 8 3

, A rt

. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (8 ). Becau s e a p en al t y o f d e a t h can b e i m p o s ed fo r t h e cri m e o f m u rd er, ju ri s d i ct i on i s p ro p er i n t h e S u p r em e Co u rt

. See

OCGA § 1 6-5 -1 (a), (e) (1 ); Nea l v. S t a t e , 29 0 Ga. 56 3

, 5 7 2 (7 2 2 SE2 d 76 5 ) (2 0 1 2 ) (Hu ns t ei n , C. J

., co n cu rri n g ); s ee al s o St a te v. Th o r n t o n , 2 5 3 Ga. 5 2 4

, 5 2 4 (1 ) (3 2 2

SE2 d 71 1 ) (1 9 84 ) (d irect i n g t h i s Co u rt t o t ran s fer “ a l l cas es i n w h i ch ei t h er a

s en t en ce o f d eat h o r o f li fe i m p ri s o n m en t h as b een i m

p o s ed u po n co n v ict i o n o f

m u rd er”). Th e Su p rem e Co u rt ’ s ju ri s d i ct i o n o v er m urd er cas es i n cl ud es ap p eal s fo rm

o rd ers res o l v i n g p os t -ju d g m en t m o t io n s i n s uch cas es

. See, e.g

. , Si mp s o n v. S t a t e , 2 9 2

Ga. 7 6 4 (7 4 0 SE2 d 1 2 4 ) (2 0 1 3). Acco rd in g l y , t hi s ap p eal i s h ereb y TRANSFERRED

t o t he Su p rem e Co u rt fo r d i s po s i t i o n

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. April 09, 2019

04/09/2019