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

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00125-CR

JIMMIE FRANK DITTO APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

Appellant Jimmie Frank Ditto pled guilty to indecency with a child by 

fondling. In accordance with the plea bargain between appellant and the State, 

the trial court sentenced appellant to seven years’ deferred adjudication 

community supervision. Several months later, the State filed a motion to 

adjudicate, alleging, among other things, that appellant had been discharged 

unsuccessfully from sex offender counseling and that appellant had been in 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

contact with children in violation of his community supervision. Appellant pled 

true to these two allegations. The trial court heard evidence about the two 

allegations,

2

adjudicated appellant guilty, and recessed the proceedings for the 

preparation of a presentence investigation report (PSI) requested by appellant.

At the continued hearing, the trial court took judicial notice of the clerk’s 

record and the PSI, which the trial court reviewed before the hearing. After 

hearing argument from the State and appellant’s counsel, the trial court assessed 

appellant’s punishment at eleven years’ confinement.

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to 

withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel 

avers that, in her professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief 

and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. 

Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record 

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See Stafford v. 

State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510–11 & n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). This court 

afforded appellant the opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf, but he did not.

Once an appellant’s court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on 

the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, we 

are obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to see if 

 

2Appellant’s counsel was able to elicit evidence that appellant had suffered 

a stroke about ten years before being placed on deferred adjudication community 

supervision and that, at times, he seemed confused.
3

there is any arguable ground that may be raised on his behalf. See id. at 511. 

Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 

U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree with 

counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in 

the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 

S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Consequently, we grant the motion to 

withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GABRIEL, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: December 30, 2010
Before the First Division,

June 20, 1949

No. 53293.

protests 84813-K, etc. (New York).

#### Herman Meyer Drug Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
# Official Journal L 56/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 56 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6528 February 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 56

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6528 February 2022

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/340 of 28 February 2022 implementing Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 356/2010 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain natural or legal persons, entities or bodies, in view of the situation in Somalia | 1 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/341 of 28 February 2022 implementing Decision 2010/231/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Somalia | 3 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/340 of 28 February 2022 implementing Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 356/2010 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain natural or legal persons, entities or bodies, in view of the situation in Somalia

1

DECISIONS

*

Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/341 of 28 February 2022 implementing Decision 2010/231/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Somalia

3

| 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.
Before the Third Division,

January 26, 1954

No. 57797.

protests 163967-K, etc. (New York).

#### Chekiang Co. and Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the articles in question consist of silent butlers, smoothing irons, and trays in chief value of brass, the same in all material respects as those involved in *Ignaz Strauss*
      *385
      *& Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 342, C. D. 710), *The Fan Co.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 42, C. D. 1261), and *Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(28 Cust. Ct. 280, C. D. 1423), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Situation in and in Relation to Syria

                        On October 14, 2019, by Executive Order 13894, the President declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701*et seq.*) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the situation in and in relation to Syria.                    

The situation in and in relation to Syria, and in particular the actions by the Government of Turkey to conduct a military offensive into northeast Syria, undermines the campaign to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, endangers civilians, and further threatens to undermine the peace, security, and stability in the region, and continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13894 of October 14, 2019, must continue in effect beyond October 14, 2023. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13894 with respect to the situation in and in relation to Syria.

                        This notice shall be published in the                         *Federal Register*                         and transmitted to the Congress.                    

[FR Doc. 2023-22862

Billing code 3395-F4-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                            5,251,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            6,118,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  3,150,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                          0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      13,281,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           17,605,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             17,398,000
<LOANS>                                         116,388,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                         983,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  170,043,000
<DEPOSITS>                                      149,860,000
<SHORT-TERM>                                              0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                 342,000
<LONG-TERM>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                             31,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       19,472,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  170,043,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   5,243,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                   951,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    333,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  6,527,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                3,050,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3,050,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             3,477,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        57,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                        0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                     727,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1,307,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        1,307,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                        821,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                             .34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .32
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                          8.3
<LOANS-NON>                                       1,832,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                        947,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                          0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                           0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  1,038,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       130,000
<RECOVERIES>                                         18,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                   983,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                       0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             983,000


</TABLE>
Before the Second Division,

August 10, 1967

No. P67/271.

#### Novelty Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protest 65/14557 (New York).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of miniature pocketknives similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Paul E. Sernau, Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 514, Abstract 65737), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Kevin Mark SABO, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Beth ARTHUR, The Honorable, Sheriff, Arlington County, Virginia, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 05-6574.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 18, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 25, 2005.

*230Kevin Mark Sabo, Appellant pro se. Eugene Paul Murphy, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Mark Sabo seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sabo has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Sabo’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sepracor Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, TimothyJ. Barberich, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)   the Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

| Date:  November 8, 2005 |                      |
|------------------------------|---------------------------|
|                         | /s/ TIMOTHY J. BARBERICH  |   |
|                         | Timothy J. Barberich      |
|                         | *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Sepracor Inc. and will beretained by Sepracor Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

----
Before the Second Division,

September 16, 1958

No. 62338.

#### Railway Express Agency, Incorporated *v.*United States,

protest 58/1902 (Boston).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
A little background info on Henry Rosenau

Henry was born on Dec 14th 1950 to Otto and Bessie Rosenau. He lived in the Cariboo area, schooled in

100 Mile House then started working at 16yrs old for the highway Dept, and drove truck for the mines

for a few years. Married his childhood friend in 1969. In 1974 he bought his own truck and went hauling

logs in Houston BC and Cariboo area. In 1982 his first and only child, a daughter was born. In 1988 he

bought a log sort yard and ran it for the next 10 years. When the company he worked for went bankrupt

he sold the eqiuipment to pay his employees and paid his bills in order to make sure  everyone was paid

up in full, even though his company was not paid out by the bankruptcy company.

From there he went to Atlin in search of gold for a summer. Then spent some time in Chile to look for

logging opportunity there. After returning to BC he spent time clearing land and construction work to

get by. Then bought a mini storage in the Okanogan. 2 years later he sold it and went back to

construction work and buying and selling equipment. Between 2003 and 2007 his 3 grandchildren were

born, each of which he made sure to come and meet as soon as they arrived.

He always made time for fishing trips, holidays, special occasions and family gatherings to celebrate

birthdays, Christmas etc. The biggest one was to celebrate his mothers 90th birthday party, where

people from all over BC came to celebrate.  

Henry works lots, but comes to visit his daughter and 3 grandkids when time permitts the travelling

between Quesnel and Terrace BC, an 8 hour drive. He works 2 jobs in the Quesnel area currently. His

mom is nearly 95 now and in very poor health (updated, his mother passed away Nov 3rd from a massive

heart attack while he was in prison awaiting trial) His stepdad is sick with cancer and heart problems and

relied heavily on help, which he will now have none of now that Bessie is gone. Henry’s common law

partner is also fighting cancer and can not work. She relies on Henry to pay the bills and support her

during these hard times, having just lost her mother last year, her brother just last month, and now also

being sick herself.   

If and when permitted, Henry will return to Canada, continue to work full time to provide for his family,

care for the ones who need it and spend as much time with his grandkids and daughter in Terrace as he

can. Please give him that chance.

Thank you

Henry’s family.

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 62-2 Filed 11/08/11 Page 1 of 1
# Official Journal C 253A/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2010.253.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 253A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5321 September 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2010.253.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 253A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5321 September 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 253A/01 | Vacancy for a Director (grade AD 14) of the European Institute for Innovation and Technology (EIT), Budapest — COM/2010/10281 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2010/C 253A/01

Vacancy for a Director (grade AD 14) of the European Institute for Innovation and Technology (EIT), Budapest — COM/2010/10281

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 5 | (FR) |
| --- | --- |
| 9 | |
| 19 | (FR) |
| 23 | (DE/ES/PT) |
| 28 | |
| 48 | |
| 53 | |
| 56 | |
| 57 | |
| 60 | |
| 61 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 62 | |
| 64 | |
| 66 | (BG/RO) |
| 67 | (ES) |
| 70 | (PT) |
| 73 | (FI) |
| 74 | (SV) |
| 91 | |
| 95 | |
| 104 | |
| 110 | |
| 116 | (ET) |
| 119 | |
| 129 | (EL) |
| 137 | (LT/LV/MT) |
| 138 | (BG/CS/LT/PL/RO/SK) |
| 143 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 144 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 146 | (DA/FI/MT) |
| 147 | (FI) |
| 149 | (IT) |
| 150 | (BG/CS/LT/PL/RO/SK) |
| 151 | |
| 155 | |
| 156 | (PL) |
| 157 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |
| 171 | (IT) |
| 178 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 184 | |
| 188 | (DA/DE/EN/FR/SL) |
| 190 | |
| 191 | |
| 192 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 196 | (BG/EN/NL/RO/SL) |
| 201 | |
| 204 | (EN/FR) |
| 219 | |
| 227 | (EN/FR) |
| 236 | |
| 238 | |
| 242 | (BG/LT/LV/MT/PL/RO/SK/SL) |
| 248 | (DA/DE/EN/LT/NL/RO) |
| 249 | |
| 253 | |

5

(FR)

9

19

(FR)

23

(DE/ES/PT)

28

48

53

56

57

60

61

(DE/EN/FR)

62

64

66

(BG/RO)

67

(ES)

70

(PT)

73

(FI)

74

(SV)

91

95

104

110

116

(ET)

119

129

(EL)

137

(LT/LV/MT)

138

(BG/CS/LT/PL/RO/SK)

143

(DE/EN/FR)

144

(DE/EN/FR)

146

(DA/FI/MT)

147

(FI)

149

(IT)

150

(BG/CS/LT/PL/RO/SK)

151

155

156

(PL)

157

163

164

171

(IT)

178

(DE/EN/FR)

184

188

(DA/DE/EN/FR/SL)

190

191

192

(DE/EN/FR)

196

(BG/EN/NL/RO/SL)

201

204

(EN/FR)

219

227

(EN/FR)

236

238

242

(BG/LT/LV/MT/PL/RO/SK/SL)

248

(DA/DE/EN/LT/NL/RO)

249

253

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

EN
#### Anthony UMEKWE, Appellant, v. GOLDEN YEARS MANOR, Appellee.

No. 00-2898.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted June 7, 2001.

Decided June 15, 2001.

Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Umekwe, an African-American male, appeals from the district court’s1 grant of summary judgment in favor of Golden Years Manor in his Title VII action. After de novo review, *see Palesch v. Mo. Comm’n on Human Rights,*238 F.3d 560, 565-66 (8th Cir.2000), we conclude the district court’s judgment was correct for the reasons stated in its opinion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Garnett Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
APPENDIX E (2)

Comparison of age structure of the principal plant communities. Mean interval between classes was calculated as the

mean of the intervals between two consecutive P. contorta age classes at least one of which antedates 1850. Community

3 = P. contorta/Carex - Stipa; 4 = P. contorta/Carex - Lupinus; 8 = A. magnifica var. shastensis - T. mertensiana/Carex -

Lupinus; 7 = A. lasiocarpa/Haplopappus/Aster - Elymus; 10 = T. mertensiana/Vaccinum; 11 = Mixed

Conifer/Arctostaphylos.

*Only plots with multiple age classes.

http://www.nps.gov/crla/lodgepole/lodgepoleae2.htm

Date: 29-May-2001

CRATER LAKE

Report: Lodgepole Pine—History and Management

Mean Mean

Stand Age

Mean Age of

Latest Class

Mean No.

Classes

Per Plot

Mean Interval

Between Classes*

(Years)

3 175 131 2.4 60

4 115 96 1.7 48

8 122 109 1.6 40

7 112 98 1.5 48

10 128 115 1.4 27

11 151 141 1.7 25

Mean Stand Age

3>4, 3>7, 3>8 (p = .01)

3>10 (p = .05)

11>4, 11>7, 11>8 (p = .05)

Mean Age of Latest Class

3>4, 3>7 (p = .01)

3>8 (p = .05)

8>4, 8>7 (p = .01)

11>4, 11>8, 11>7 (p = .01)

11>10 (p = .05)

Mean Class Interval

Not significantly different

Mean No. Classes Per Plot

3>8 (p = .01)

3>4, 3>10, 3>7 (p = .05)

11>10 (p = .05)

<<< PREVIOUS CONTENTS NEXT >>>

Crater Lake NP: Lodgepole Pine: History and Management Page 1 of 1

http://web.archive.org/web/20081009013824/http://www.nps.gov/archive/crla/lodgepole/lodgepoleae2.htm 11/29/2011
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

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JAMES ERNEST DICKERSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROL PORTER, 

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5306RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Dismiss [Dkt. #10].

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court rules as follows:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #10] is GRANTED. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) this

dismissal is without prejudice.

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing

pro se.

Dated this 6th day of February, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05306-RBL Document 11 Filed 02/06/07 Page 1 of 1