alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 11

- 00735

- CR Sergio Nicholas LORD , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2010

- CR

- 8155 Honorable Mary Roman, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: January 4, 2012
DISMISSED On October 27, 2011, this court issued an order stating this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification that shows appellant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate record within thirty day s. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; see also Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174, 175

- 76 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order). Appellant did not file an amended certification. The clerk’s record does not contain a certification that shows the defendant ha s the right of appeal; to the contrary, the trial court04

- 11

- 00735

- CR

- 2

- certification in the record states “this criminal case is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment

assess ed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the clerk’s record supports the trial court’s certification that defendant has no right of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(a)(2). Accordingly, we d ismiss the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d).

PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
No. 50525.

#### Protests 77046-K, etc., of Limited Editions Club, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided *278February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 49245.

#### Protests 89085-K, etc., of Alliance Distributors, Inc., et al. (New York).

*269Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Home Mortgage Investment
Corp. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Stephen A. Hozie, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best
of my knowledge, that:

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

      (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
           material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
           of the Registrant.

November 9, 2006

                                   /s/ Stephen A. Hozie
                                 --------------------------------
                                 Stephen A. Hozie
                                 Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
                                 Officer
* 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. 97-50114 Summary Calendar

NELSON CASTELLANOS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

K. LOVE, Dr., Boyd Unit; WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas

(W-95-CV-333)

November 20, 1997 Before GARWOOD, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges. *

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-appellant Nelson Castellanos (Castellanos), an

inmate in the Boyd Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

(TDCJ), proceeding pro se, fil ed this suit against defendantsappellees Dr. Kenneth C. Love (Love), a doctor with the TDCJ, and2

Wayne Scott (Scott), Director of the TDCJ. In his complaint,

Castellanos alleged several state and fed eral claims against the

defendants arising from a minor surgery to Castellanos’s finger.

Specifically, Castellanos alleged that Love and Scott denied him

proper medical care in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights,

that defendants r etaliated against him by removing his four-hour

work restriction, and that they committed the state-law tor ts of

civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and

medical negligence.

Scott moved to have Castellanos’s suit dismissed for failure

to state a claim, under Fed. R. Civ . P. 12(b)(6), on the grounds

that respondeat superior was insufficient to incur liability under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Both Scott and Love moved for summary judgment,

arguing that the Eleventh Amendment barred a suit against them in

their official capacity, they were qualifiedly imm une, and they

were not deliberately indifferent. The district court, in its

memorandum order, Castellanos v. Love , No. W-95-CA-333 (W.D. Tex.

Jan. 24, 1997), granted Scott’s motion to dismiss and Love’s motion

for summary judgment.

We detect no error in the district court’s judgment and affirm

the granting of Scott’s motion to dismiss and Love’s motion for

summary judgment. Since the district court, in its discretion,

declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Castellanos’s

st ate-law tort claims, those state claims are dismissed without3

prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (1993), and the judgment below

as to the state law claims is hereby modi fied to so reflect. In

all other respects, the judgment is affirmed without modification.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
Exhibit
10.34


 





 


August
8, 2014 


 


Claude
Brown, Jr.


c/o
Axion International Holdings, Inc.


4005
All American Way


Zanesville, Ohio 43701


 


Re:
Appointment as Chief Executive Officer                        


 


Dear
Claude:


 


This
letter confirms your appointment effective as of August 4, 2014 as chief executive officer of Axion International
Holdings, Inc. as well as its two-wholly owned subsidiari Axion International, Inc. and Axion Recycled Plastics
Incorporated. Your base salary will be payable at the rate of $225,000 per year. But for the above changes, the agreements
you initially signed in connection with your employment will continue to remain in effect.


 


This
letter further confirms that our board is meeting on August 26th at which it will finalize your total
compensation package that will contain the bonus elements we have  been discussing with you. We intend to include all
of the compensatory elements of your compensation in a standard form executive employment agreement we will offer to
you.


 


Please
confirm the above by signing below.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	 
	 	Allen Kronstadt
	 	Chairman of the Compensation committee


 


	ACCEPTED:	 
	 	 
	/s/ Claude
    Brown	 
	Claude Brown, Jr.	 


 


AXION
International, Inc., 4005 All American Way, Zanesville, Ohio 43701 USA 


office
740.452.2500   · fax 740.452.5488 ·   e-mail info@axih.com



 







www.AXIH.com
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU LY 10, 2013

NO. 03
- 13
- 00059
- CR

William Dewayne Norris, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBE RTON AND ROSE MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED
-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was error in the judgme nt of
conviction , but that such error does not require the judgment be reversed: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that the judgment of conviction is modified to delete the requirement that William Dewayne Norris pay a ttorney’s fees after his release from incarceration, and we further modify the judgment of conviction to reflect that William Dewayne Norris pleaded “not guilty” to the charged offense . As so modified, the judgment of conviction
is affirmed. It FURTHER a ppearing to the Court that the appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, that no adjudication as to costs is made; and that this decision be certified below for
observance.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4985

_____________________________ KEVIN J ONES , Appellant,
v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Angela M. Cox, Judge. May 10, 2019 P ER C URIAM . A FFIRMED . L EWIS , W ETHERELL , and W INOKUR , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________ Kevin Jones, pro se, Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Virginia Chester Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

BIRMINGHAM 

FLIGHT CENTER, INC. 

Respondent 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0867 

Case No. 2012S0090053 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

Undersigned counsel for Complainant submits this Notice of Appearance in the abovecaptioned matter solely for purposes of Complainant's Interlocutory Appeal as of Right filed 

simultaneously with this notice of appearance. Accordingly, all copies of documents to be 

served on Complainant in connection with its Interlocutory Appeal as of Right should be 

addressed as follows: 

Ryan M. Landers 

Enforcement Division, Southern Team 

1701 Columbia Ave. 

College Park, GA 30337 

Tel: 404-305-5200 

Fax: 404-305-5223 

Respectfully submitted this 17th day of June, 2016. 

Patricia A. MeN all 

Acting Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement 

By: ;;&~ 

Enforcement Division, Southern Team 

1701 Columbia Ave. 

College Park, GA 30337 

Tel: 404-305-5200 

Fax: 404-305-5223 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on June 17, 2016, the foregoing Notice of Appearance was filed with the 

Decisionmaker and the Hearing Docket Clerk via Federal Express as follows: 

Original and One Copy: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

In addition, I certify that on June 17,2016 the foregoing Notice of Appearance was 

served via Federal Express as follows: 

One Copy: 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) 

East Building Ground Floor 

Washington, DC 20590 

Paul R. Borth 

Counsel for Birmingham Flight Center, Inc. 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

[JUN 17. 

Dated
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Martin, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 347]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), rendered November 23, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court’s *Sandoval*ruling was proper. Prior crimes are not automatically excluded from evidence just because they are similar to the crime with which the defendant is charged *(People v Pavao,*59 NY2d 282, 292). Here, the prior crime involved a theft which was highly relevant to the defendant’s credibility and his willingness to place his interests above those of society’s *(People v Natal,*144 AD2d 587, *affd*75 NY2d 379). Such crimes are usually relevant whenever they have been committed *(People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371, 377).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpre*374served for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A1304. ARTURO ACEVES RAMIREZ v. BARTOW COUNTY

SUPERIOR COURT et al.

In August 2012, Arturo Aceves Ramirez pleaded guilty to multiple counts of

aggravated assault and numerous other offenses and he was sentenced to a total term

of 40 years, with the first 35 years to be served in confinement. Over six years after

he was sentenced, Ramirez filed a motion for an out-of-time appeal in May 2019,

arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of his right to

appeal. The trial court summarily denied Ramirez’s motion without an evidentiary

hearing. In an unpublished opinion, we vacated the judgment and remanded the case

in order for the trial court to conduct a hearing because we could not determine from

the record whether the failure to timely pursue an appeal was the result of plea

counsel’s deficient performance. See Ramirez v. State, Case No. A20A0629 (April

8, 2020).

After the trial court failed to conduct a hearing, Ramirez filed a mandamus

petition in this Court seeking to compel the hearing. We subsequently dismissed the

petition because there was no indication thatRamirez had sought to obtain mandamus

relief in the superior court. Ramirez v. Bartow County Superior Court et al., Case No.

A21A1648 (July 1, 2021).

In March 2022, Ramirez attempted to file a writ of mandamus against the

judges of the Superior Court of Bartow County. The trial court did notfile the petition

in light of the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision in Cook v. State, ___ Ga. ___, ___

May 11, 2022
(5) (Case No. S21A1270, decided March 15, 2022). In that case, the Court held that

a trial court lacks authority to grant an out-of-time appeal because “there was and is

no legal authority for motions for out-of-time appeal in trial courts.” Id. (noting that

Cook’s holding applies “to all cases that are currently on direct review or otherwise

not yet final”). Because Ramirez had no right to file a motion for out-of-time appeal,

the trial court reasoned that he was not entitled to a hearing on his motion. The

instant appeal followed. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

While judgments and orders granting or refusing to grant mandamus relief

generally are directly appealable, see OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (7), under the Prison

Litigation Reform Act of 1996, an appeal in a civil action filed by a prisoner must be

initiated by filing an application for discretionary review. See OCGA § 42-12-8;

Jones v. Townsend, 267 Ga. 489, 490 (480 SE2d 24) (1997). Because Ramirez was

incarcerated at the time he attempted to file his petition, hisfailure to comply with the

discretionary review procedures deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal,

which is hereby DISMISSED. See Jones, 267 Ga. at 490-491.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

05/11/2022
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v MICHEL E. MOUNTAIN, Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

20 USCMA 319, 43 CMR 159

No. 23,716

January 29, 1971

*Captain R. O. Kellam,*JAGC, USN, and *Lieutenant George F. Mc-Gunnigle, Jr.,*JAGC, USNR, were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Commander Michael F. Fasanaro, Jr.,*JAGC, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Daeden, Judge:

The appellant was tried by a court-martial without court members. His failure to request, in writing, trial by military judge alone deprived the court-martial of jurisdiction. United States v Dean, 20 USCMA 212, 43 CMR 52 (1970).

Accordingly, the decision of the United States Navy Court of Military Review is reversed, the findings and sentence are set aside, and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. Another trial may be ordered.

Judge Ferguson concurs.

Quinn, Chief Judge

(dissenting) :

I would affirm the decision of the United States Navy Court of Military Review. See my dissent in United States v Dean, 20 USCMA 212, 43 CMR 52 (1970).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6927

WILBERT SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

W. ALLAN SHARRATT, Judge,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (2:06-cv-00159-RAJ)

Submitted: September 26, 2006 Decided: October 2, 2006

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wilbert Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Wilbert Smith appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. Sharratt,

No. 2:06-cv-00159-RAJ (E.D. Va. Apr. 28, 2006). 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wilfredo Rosado, Also Known as Willy, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 414]

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Montgomery County (Aison, J.), rendered December 23, 1994, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

In satisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. As part of the plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal and was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 41⁄2 to 9 years. Initially, we reject defendant’s contention that his waiver of the right to appeal was not knowingly and intelligently made. The transcript of the plea allocution reveals that defendant was fully advised of his rights and understood the implications of his guilty plea. Consequently, we need not address defendant’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Nevertheless, were we to consider this claim, we would find that it is without merit since the record before us reveals that defendant was provided with meaningful representation.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
No. 47935.

#### Protest 971940-G of Tai Wo Tong (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372) certain of the merchandise in question was held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1669 as claimed and other merchandise was held dutiable at 10 percent ad valorem under paragraph 34 as drugs advanced in value or condition. Protest sustained to this extent.
#### Hall Signs, Inc., Respondent, v Aries Striping, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[634 NYS2d 386]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for goods sold and delivered, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated May 10, 1994, as granted the plaintiff leave to renew its motion for partial summary judgment and denied those branches of their cross motion which were to resolve certain issues in the defendants’ favor due to the plaintiffs allegedly willful failure to submit to an examination before trial, prohibit the plaintiff from opposing the defendants’ third affirmative defense, and strike the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

*417The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it refused to impose sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126, as the plaintiff had complied with discovery orders and requests *(see, Ahroni v City of New York,*175 AD2d 789; *Miller v Duffy,*126 AD2d 527).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8407 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8407

To provide for the discharge of parent borrower liability if a student 
  on whose behalf a parent has received certain student loans becomes 
                               disabled.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 15, 2024

Mr. Magaziner (for himself, Mr. Molinaro, Ms. Norton, Mr. Carson, Mrs. 
Dingell, Mr. Tonko, Mr. Mullin, and Mr. Krishnamoorthi) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
                             the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the discharge of parent borrower liability if a student 
  on whose behalf a parent has received certain student loans becomes 
                               disabled.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as ``Domenic and Ed's Law''.

SEC. 2. REPAYMENT OF LOANS TO PARENTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 437(d) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
(20 U.S.C. 1087(d)) is amended by inserting ``or becomes permanently 
and totally disabled (as determined in accordance with regulations of 
the Secretary), or if the student is unable to engage in any 
substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable 
physical or mental impairment that can be expected to result in death, 
has lasted for a continuous period of not less than 60 months, or can 
be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 60 
months,'' after ``dies,''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to any outstanding loan received by a parent before, on, or after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, and without regard to the onset 
date of the disability or impairment.
                                 <all>
```
No. 46188.

#### Protests 39097-K, etc., of Abercrombie & Fitch Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of silk mufflers, ties, and handkerchiefs similar to those the subject of *Bullocks*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 110, C. D. 441). In accordance therewith the-merchandise was held not subject to countervailing duty and the protests were sustained to that extent.