alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PDR No. ____________________

Court of Appeals Nos. 13-13-00618-CR & 13-13-619-CR

JAMES ROBERT MONTOYA § IN THE TEXAS COURT OF 

§

v. § CRIMINAL APPEALS

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS § AT AUSTIN, TEXAS

PETITIONER’S CORRECTED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

PRO SE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

Now comes JAMES ROBERT MONTOYA, Petitioner in the above styled and

numbered cause, and moves this Court for a 90-day extension to file his Petition for

Discretionary Review, and would show as follows:

1. Petitioner has been convicted for the offenses of Aggravated Sexual

Assault and Aggravated Kidnapping, and has been assessed sentences of 30 years

and10 years respectively, sentences to run concurrently.

2. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals issued an unpublished decision

in this case on October 17, 2014. James Robert Montoya v. State of Texas, 13-13-

00618-CR & 13-13-619-CR-CR (Tex.App.- Corpus Christi-Edinburg, March 12,

2015). The PDR in this case is due on or before April 13, 2015.

3. The undersigned counsel is appointed and will not be continuing his

1

PD-0316-15 & PD-0317-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 3/23/2015 12:45:09 PM

Accepted 3/25/2015 1:31:23 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
representation in this matter. Mr. Montoya has been advised of his right to retain

counsel, or to proceed pro se in this court in seeking a Petition for Discretionary

Review.

4. In order for Mr. Montoya to either retain counsel, or to obtain the record

and other necessary documents in which to prepare a PDR, the undersigned counsel

requests this Court extend the deadline to file the PDR in this case by 90 days from

the current due date.

5. Mr. Montoya’s personal information for the purposes of notices by this

Court is as follows:

Mr. James Robert Montoya

# TDCJ # 01893457 

TDCJ Byrd Unit

21 FM 247

Huntsville, TX 77320

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner prays that this

Court grant this Motion, and grant an additional 90 days to file a PDR in this case

Respectfully submitted,

Law Office of Alexander L. Calhoun

4301 W. William Cannon Dr., Ste. B-150, # 260

Austin, TX 78749

Tele: 512/ 420-8850

Fax: 512/ 233 - 5946

Cell: 512/ 731-3159

2
Email: alcalhoun@earthlink.net

BY:_/s/ Alexander L Calhoun

Alexander L. Calhoun

State Bar No.: 00787187

Attorney for James Robert Montoya

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 23, 2015, a copy of the above and foregoing motion

has been served upon the Travis County District Attorney's Office, at the following

address:

Travis County District Attorney

Capitol Station

P.O. Box 1748

Austin, TX 78767

 and by United States Mail to the State Prosecution Attorney by U.S. Mail at the

following address:

State Prosecuting Attorney

P.O. Box 13046

Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711

by United States Mail.

 /s/ Alexander L Calhoun 

Alexander L. Calhoun

3
Exhibit 34.2




Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





The Board of Directors


Citibank, N.A.:





We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Appendix I, that the Agency and Trust division of Citibank, N.A. (or “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) automobile loan or lease-backed securities and student loan-backed securities issued on or after January 1, 2006 for which the Company provides trustee and paying agent services (the “Platform”), except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi)-1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform, as of and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2010.  Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance based on our examination.





Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States)and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria.  Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.  Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.





In our opinion, management’s assessment that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2010 is fairly stated, in all material respects.





(Signed) KPMG LLP





Chicago, Illinois


February 28, 2011
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Annual report on drug use amongadult and juvenile arrestees [electronic resource].**
 
1998 | 1999
 
SuDoc Number:J 28.15/2-3:
Item Number:0717-J-01 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000545735
 
February 6, 2020
#### *In Re:*Application of the University of Jacksonville, a corporation, not for profit, for an order approving course of study of law.

178 So. 149.

Division A.

Opinion Filed January 8, 1938.

*589Terrell, J.

The University of Jacksonville filed its petition in this Court praying for an order approving its course of study in law. A rule *nisi*was issued directed to the State Board of Law Examiners and the State Bar Association commanding them to show cause why the pe-tition should not be granted.

The State Board of Law Examiners and the State Bar Association appeared, moved to quash the rule *nisi*and on the issue thus made, the cause was heard March 26, 1937, in connection with the petition of the State Bar Association and others to approve and adopt rules proposed by them for the regulation of the bar.

The petitioner apparently relied on Section 4181, Compiled General Laws of 1927 for the relief sought. The petition must be and is hereby denied because, (1) this Court is not authorized to approve the course of study of any law school and, (2) while we are authorized under Section 4180, Compiled General Laws of 1927, to prescribe courses of study to be pursued by applicants for admission to the bar the course so prescribed is the identical one that law-schools are required by Section 4181, Compiled General *590Laws, to maintain. Such a course has been prescribed' as the law directs and is available to petitioner on requisition to the Clerk of this Court.

If petitioner desires to secure for its graduates like privileges as are granted to graduates of law schools under Section 4181, *supra,*it is necessary that it make showing -to the State Board of Law Examiners that it has maintained the course of study prescribed by this Court, that it offers library facilities to its students equivalent to those offered by law schools complying with Section 4181, *supra,*that it has a faculty of equivalent qualification to the faculty of said law schools and that its equipment and facilities for preparation for the bar are in other respects equal to that offered by *“A”*grade law schools in this country.

For a full discussion of our views on this and cognate questions see *Ex parte*Florida State Bar Association, *et al.,*opinion filed this date.

It is so ordered.

Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield and Brown, J. J., concur.

Chapman, J., disqualified.
Exhibit 99.6





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The Cash Store Financial Services Inc. (the “Company”) is filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, its annual report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011 (the “Report”).





I, Gordon Reykdal, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(i)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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





By:

/s/ Gordon J. ReykdalName:

Gordon J. ReykdalTitle:

Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerDate:

November 18, 2011
#### UNITED STATES, Appellant v FRANK GENELLA, Private, U. S. Army, Appellee

10 USCMA 168, 27 CMR 242

No. 12,190

Decided January 30, 1959

*Lieutenant Colonel James G. McConaughy, Major Thomas J. Nichols,*and *First Lieutenant Wade H. Sides, Jr.,*were on the brief for Appellant, United States.

*Colonel James Garnett, Major Edward Fenig,*and *First Lieutenant James H. Garner*were on the brief for Appellee, Accused.

Opinion of the Court

George W. Latimer, Judge;

The accused was charged with a wartime desertion, but the convening authority ordered the case to be treated as noncapital. On arraignment, he entered a plea of guilty to desertion from January 3, 1944, until his apprehension April 4, 1958, in contravention of Arti*169cle of War 58. He was sentenced to dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and confinement at hard labor for twenty-five years. Subsequently, the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as provided for dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and confinement at hard labor for six months, and suspended the execution of the punitive discharge. The board of review affirmed, and thereafter The Judge Advocate General of the Army certified the following question to this Court under the provisions of Article 67(b)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 867:

> “Was the board of review correct in determining under the facts of this case that the accused was not prejudiced by the instruction of the law officer that if the general court-martial did not adjudge a punitive discharge it might not adjudge confinement in excess of six months?”

The board of review, in its opinion, noted that the law officer’s instruction on sentence was erroneous under the decisions of this Court in United States v Varnadore, 9 USCMA 471, 26 CMR 251, and United States v Holt, 9 USCMA 476, 26 CMR 256, but held the error harmless under all the circumstances. In light of our recent holding in United States v Horowitz, 10 USCMA 120, 27 CMR 194, the question need give us no pause. Here, as in *Horowitz,*there was no indication that the court-martial was considering a sentence to confinement without the imposition of a punitive discharge. Moreover, in the case at bar, accused confessed his guilt of an offense punishable by imprisonment for life, together with accessories, and the court-martial, after deliberating just eleven minutes, adjudged a sentence including twenty-five years’ confinement. Manifestly, the posture of the record in this case is even stronger than in *Horo-wite,*supra, in compelling the conclusion that the instruction in question had no impact on the sentence. Hence, accused suffered no prejudice from the error. See also United States v Smith, 10 USCMA 153, 27 CMR 227.

Accordingly, the certified question is answered in the affirmative, and the decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge FeRGU-son concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7015
DEMETRIC GRAY PEARSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STUART O. SIMMS, Secretary, D.P.S.C.S.; JOSEPH P. SACCHET, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA03-3-8-PJM) Submitted: September 11, 2003 Decided: September 24, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Demetric Gray Pearson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, David Phelps Kennedy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Demetric Gray Pearson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for appointment of counsel and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. He renewed his motion for appointment of counsel in this court. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Pearson’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Pearson v. Simms , No. CA-03- 3-8-PJM (D. Md. filed June 23, 2003 & entered June 24, 2003). 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
#### James Harden, *Respondent, v.*Lathrop Gardner Pope and others, *Appellants.*

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to abide event.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION 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 on Form 10-Q of Aeolus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard P. Burgoon, Jr., Chief Executive Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (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 Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ RICHARD P. BURGOON, JR.Richard P. Burgoon, Jr.Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)February 8, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8445 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8445

  To amend title 38, United States Code, and the Servicemembers Civil 
Relief Act to provide for the eligibility of United States citizens who 
serve in the Israeli Defense Forces for certain protections relating to 
                             such service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 17, 2024

 Mr. Reschenthaler (for himself and Mr. Miller of Ohio) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, and the Servicemembers Civil 
Relief Act to provide for the eligibility of United States citizens who 
serve in the Israeli Defense Forces for certain protections relating to 
                             such service.

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

SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS SERVING IN THE ISRAELI 
              DEFENSE FORCE FOR BENEFITS UNDER USERRA AND THE SCRA.

    (a) USERRA.--
            (1) In general.--Subchapter IV of chapter 43 of title 38, 
        United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
        following new section:
``Sec. 4336. Treatment of service in Israeli Defense Forces
    ``(a) In General.--For purposes of this chapter, to the extent 
practicable, the service of a citizen of the United States in the 
Israeli Defense Forces shall be treated in the same manner as service 
in the uniformed services.
    ``(b) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations 
as may be necessary to implement this section.''.
            (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
        beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the 
        item relating to section 4335 the following new item:

``4336. Treatment of service in Israeli Defense Forces.''.
    (b) SCRA.--Section 104 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 
U.S.C. 3914) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``A citizen'' and inserting ``(a) In 
        General.--A citizen''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(b) Service in IDF.--A citizen of the United States who is 
serving with the Israeli Defense Forces is entitled to the relief and 
protections provided under this Act if that service is similar to 
military service as defined in this Act. The relief and protections 
provided to such citizen shall terminate on the date of discharge or 
release from such service.''.
    (c) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section shall apply 
with respect to service performed on or after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
December 6, 1960

No. 64962.

Suit 5047.

#### Perryman, Mojonier, a/c R. Sewelson Co. *v.*United States.

C.D. 2170. (Appeal dismissed October 10, 1960.)
No. 51085.

#### Protests 84794-K, etc., of Johnson Bros. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of oat-meals or oatmeal saucers and chowder cups or puree cups the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Copeland & Thompson, Inc.*v. *United States*(12 Cust. Ct. 85, C. D. 833) and *Johnson Bros.*v. *United States*(15 id. 113, C. D. 955). In accordance therewith the merchandise was held dutiable as claimed.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-16-0000675 20-JAN-2017 08:47 AM
Eva Muszynski

703-405-9858 e.muszynski@umiami.edu Good Morning,

My name is Eva Muszynski and I am here today to tell you how carbon pollution has affected my life, and why I support the EPA's Clean Power
Plan.

Growing up in Northern Virginia, I spend time each summer sailing on the Potomac River just south of city. I have seen the transformation of the DC skyline from being able to see the details of the starch white capitol buildings from miles away to what I now see every weekend: a hazy outline of what I know is the capitol that looks as if it is caught in a perpetual shadow of darkness. But the darkness is not a cloud but the carbon pollution that looms overhead from the over 100 unregulated power plants in the Virginia,

Although I have seen how carbon pollution can transform a city skyline, what has struck me the most, is the visible effects on coral reefs caused by global warming I have seen within my lifetime.

One of my favorite childhood memories was on a family vacation in the Florida Keys. We stayed in a small house on the beach with a coral reef relatively close to shore. The first few days we were there, it would take my dad holding my hand, as I would float with a mask on my face and snorkel in mouth, for me to feel comfortable entering the underwater world. By the end of the week, I refused to leave the water for hours, fascinated with the vibrant fish that darted to and fro, colorful coral feeding on particles of nutrients floating by, and the occasional barracuda that would stare me down. My love for the ocean flourished on this trip at the age of 8 and has only been magnified since.

I am now at the University of Miami studying Marine Science and Biology and have the pleasure Scuba diving practically every weekend. After returning to the same coral reef this past semester I was devastated to find that what had been healthy coral is now bleached, dying coral disserted from the plethora of life previously there.fIigher sea temperatlares frorn global wai

- ming liave caused major coral

bleaching events orn reefs 1 have been visiting for years. Some coral are able to recover, but too cften the coi'al dies, and the entire ecosystezn for whiclz it forms the base, virtually disappears.

From the fish that we catch on these reefs that provide the lively hoods for manv coastal commtinities, to the plankton that prov.ides 75% of the oxygen on earth, we need these reefs to sustain life and our economy, and cannot afford to loose them to global warming.

My future children will never get to see the reefs that have already disappear in my lifetime, but I urge all of our leaders to support the clean power plan and these first ever limits carbon pollution so that future generations have a chance to see how incredible the undersea world is, before global warming causes them all to disappear.

Thank you.
#### George W. Purdy, *Respondent, v.*Mary N. Bean, *Appellant.*

— Judgment of County Court affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Pratt, J.