alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 12

- 15

- 00102

- CR

ON APPEAL FROM THE 217 TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS

CAUSE NO. 2014

- 0700

DAVID CHARLES DAILEY § § IN THE 12 TH COURT OF APPEALS

§ OF

vs. § §

STATE OF TEXAS § TYLER, TEXAS

FOURTH MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

Now comes David Charles Dailey, Appellant in the above styled and

numbered cause, and moves this Court to grant an extension of time to file

appellant's brief, pursuant to Rule 38.6 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,

and for good cause shows the following:

1. This case is on appeal from the 217 th District Court of Angelina

County, Texas.

2. The case below was styled the STATE OF TEXAS vs. David Charles

Dailey , and numbered 201 4- 0700 . Appellant was convicted in Count I of Possession

of a Controlled Substance and in Count II of Tampering with of Fabricating

Physical Evidence

.

4. Appellant was assessed a sentence of T en (10 ) years in Texas

Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Divisio n in Count I and Fifteen (15)

years in Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division in Count II on

April 15, 2015

.

5. Notice of appeal was given on April 16, 2015

. ACCEPTED
12-15-00102-CR
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS
12/30/2015 5:28:20 PM

Pam Estes
CLERK6. The clerk's record was filed on August 13, 2015 ; the reporter's record

w as filed on May 7, 2015

.

7. The appellate brief i s presently due on October 14, 2015

.

8. Appellant requests an extension of time of thirty (30) days from the

current due date.

9. Three extension s to file the brief ha s been received in this cause.

10. Defe ndant is currently incarcerated.

11. Appellant relies on the following facts as good cause for the requested

extension:

Counsel has in the past three days completed and submitted two separate

briefs for this Court in Cause No. 12

- 15

- 00279

- CV and in Cause No. 12

- 15

- 00275

-

C V and would like an additional 20 days to finalize this brief.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED , Appellant prays that this

Court grant this Motion to Extend T ime to File Appellant's Brief, and for such other

and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

Respectfully submitted:

/s/John D. Reeves

____________________ John D. Reeves Attorney at Law

1007 Grant Lufkin, Tex as 75901 Phone (936) 632

- 160 Fax: (936) 632

- 1640 tessabellus@yahoo.com

SBOT # 16723000 Counsel for AppellantCERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Pursuant to Tex. R. App. 10.1 (5), certify that I, the undersigned conferred with opposing counsel who is not oppose d to an extension.

/s/John D. Reeves

___________________________ John D. Reeves

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Appellant’s Motion to Extend Time to file Appellant’s Brief on t his 3 0 th day of December

, 2015 forwarded to State’s Attorney, April Ayers

- Perez, Angelina County, by electronic service at aprerez@angelinacounty.net.

/s/John D. Reeves

__________________________ John D. Reeves Attorney for Appellant,

D avid Charles Dailey
#### In the Matter of Jefferson County et al., Petitioners, v New York State Public Employment Relations Board et al., Respondents.

[613 NYS2d 73]

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petitions dismissed. Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, transferred to our Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g), petitioners Jefferson County (County), Jefferson Community College (College) and the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000 (CSEA) seek to annul a determination of respondent New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) that granted the application of respondent Jefferson County Community College Education Support Personnel Association (Association) to decertify CSEA as the representative of certain noninstructional employees of the College and directed that an election be held in which the CSEA and the Association could participate.

PERB is the agency responsible for implementing the Taylor Law *(see,*Civil Service Law § 205). The scope of judicial review of PERB’s interpretation of the Civil Service Law is limited. Unless the determination is affected by an error of law or is arbitrary and capricious, it will be upheld *(see, Matter of Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd.,*48 NY2d 398, 404; *Matter of University of State of N. Y. v Newman,*180 AD2d 396, 398). We conclude that PERB’s determination is based upon a proper interpretation of the Public Employees’ Fair Employment Act (Civil Service Law art 14) and is consistent with prior decisions that a county-sponsored community college is a separate legal entity and a joint employer with the sponsoring county *(see, Matter of Genesee Community Coll. [County of Genesee],*24 PERB ¶ 3017; *Matter of Niagara County Community Coll. [County of Niagara],*23 PERB ¶ 4052; Dutchess Community Coll., 17 PERB ¶ 3010). PERB properly fragmented those employees of the multi-employer unit from the existing county-wide single-employer bargaining unit represented by CSEA. Thus, no evidentiary hearing is necessary. (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Jefferson *1002County, Gilbert, J.) Present—Pine, J. P., Balio, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
# Ms. Theresa Leland

### Deputy Administrator, DLA Strategic Materials

### 

### 

As Deputy Administrator of the Defense Logistics Agency Strategic Materials (DLA-SM), Ms. Leland serves as the principal advisor and consultant to the Administrator, supporting general oversight, management and control of all DLA-SM operations, including inventory management, environment management, market analysis and sales, supply chain assessments, requirements determination, critical material acquisitions, audit, development of legislation and congressional reporting.  These activities are in support of the DOD National Defense Stockpile (NDS), a program charged with the mission of reducing U.S. dependence upon foreign sources of strategic and critical materials during times of national emergency.

Ms. Leland was promoted to the Deputy Administrator position in July 2022.  She previously served for 7 years as Chief of the Environmental Management Division, DLA-SM, in the Material Management Directorate.  In that position, she had full program management for the quality assurance, environmental, occupational health and safety, and radiological programs for all DLA-SM strategic and critical materials, and facilities, nationwide. Prior to her assignment at DLA, she served as an Environmental Protection Specialist with the National Institute of Health (NIH), where she developed and managed the NIH Environmental Management System (NEMS).  She served in a cross-organizational capacity, chairing committees representing the administrative and scientific components of all 27 NIH institutes and Centers.  She led these committees in implementing environmental improvement and cost savings goals, NIH-wide.

Ms. Leland possesses an MS degree in Environmental Science from Johns Hopkins University and a BS degree in Biology from Villanova University.  She has over 20 years of federal experience.
#### The CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Dr. James Donaldson MOODY, Appellee.

No. 77-2031.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 14, 1978.

*171Gary M. Ketchum of Fowler, White, Gil-len, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.

Robert W. Olsen, Orlando, for appellee.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

Appellant suffered a Summary Judgment and has appealed. Because we find there were factual issues raised in the answer precluding the entry of the Summary Judgment we must reverse. *Holl v. Talcott,*191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966); *Kash ‘N’ Karry Wholesale Supermarkets, Inc. v. Garcia,*221 So.2d 786 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); *Egan*v. *Washington General Insurance Corporation,*240 So.2d 875 (Fla.4th DCA 1970).

REVERSED.

CROSS and LETTS, JJ., concur.
# United States Court **of Appeals** 

**f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 10436

**Veletta Coleman,**

Plaintiff

— Appellant

**,**

versus

**Miguel Cardona**

**, Secretary**  **, U.S. Department of**  **Education,**

Defendant

— Appellee

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:19

- CV

- 2417

Before **King, Costa,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges

**.**

**Per Curiam :**  *

**AFFIRMED**

. See **5 TH**  **C IR** 

**. R.**  **47.6**

.

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  **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 **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  **47.5.4.** United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### FILED

August 23, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk Case: 21-10436 Document: 00515989829 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/23/2021
No. 9333.

#### MacBride *v.*MacBride.

(Decided April 24, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Scioto county.

*Mr. W. R. Sprague*and *Mr. F. S. Monnett,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Bannon & Bannon*and *Mr. J. W. Ban-non,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

.Shauck, C. J., Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-94,933-02

EX PARTE MILAT MUKIMIYAN, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 11-430-K26 B IN THE 26TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY

Per curiam. YEARY, J., filled a dissenting opinion in which KEELand SLAUGHTER, JJ., 

joined.

O P I N I O N

Applicant was convicted of fraudulent use of identifying information and sentenced to one

year imprisonment in county jail. He did not appeal his conviction. Applicant filed this application

for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this

Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because they failed to

advise him of the deportation consequences of his guilty plea, as required by Padilla v. Kentucky,

559 U.S. 356 (2010). Based on the record, the trial court has determined that Applicant’s plea was

involuntary because trial counsel’s performance was deficient and Applicant was prejudiced. The
2

State agrees that Applicant is entitled to relief under Padilla.

Relief is granted. The judgment in cause number 11-430-K26 in the 26th District Court of

Williamson County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of

Williamson County to answer the charges as set out in the information. The trial court shall issue

any necessary bench warrant within ten days from the date of this Court’s mandate.

Copies ofthis opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: September 27, 2023

Do not publish
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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Global Earth Energy, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ending February 28, 2010, I, Edmund J. Gorman, Chief Financial Officer of Global Earth Energy, Inc., hereby 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 and belief, that:

1.

Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending February 28, 2010, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending February 28, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Global Earth Energy, Inc.

Dated: April 19, 2010.

/s/ Edmund J. Gorman

/s/ Edmund J. Gorman

Chief Financial Officer

Global Earth Energy, Inc.
Exhibit 32.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Jagged Peak, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify
that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the 13-week period ended March 30, 2007, (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |                        
|------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 10, 2007
|                   | 
|By:                |  | /s/ Paul B. Demirdjian 
|                   |  | Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1316 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1316

  To authorize the Small Business Administration to provide emergency 
     relief to shellfish growers affected by toxic red tide losses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 27, 2005

 Mrs. Snowe (for herself, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Collins, Mr. Chafee, and Mr. 
     Kennedy) introduced the following bill; which was read twice, 
              considered, read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize the Small Business Administration to provide emergency 
     relief to shellfish growers affected by toxic red tide losses.

    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 the ``Red Tide Emergency Relief Act of 
2005''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that--
            (1) shellfish growers, known as ``aquaculturists'', from 
        the Schoodic Peninsula in Maine to Buzzards Bay in 
        Massachusetts have suffered substantial economic injury due to 
        the worst occurrence of toxic algae bloom, known as ``Red 
        Tide'', along the New England Coast since 1972;
            (2) toxins produced by the Red Tide algae contaminate 
        shellfish like clams and mussels, making them unsafe for people 
        and animals to eat, forcing the extended closure of shellfish 
        beds along contaminated areas;
            (3) hundreds of shellfish growers have been affected by the 
        Red Tide, and losses industrywide are estimated at $3 million a 
        week;
            (4) shellfish growers are currently considered to be 
        agricultural enterprises, and are therefore ineligible for 
        economic injury disaster loans available to other small 
        business concerns through the Small Business Administration;
            (5) shellfish growers are only eligible for emergency loans 
        through the Farm Service Agency of the Department of 
        Agriculture under limited circumstances; and
            (6) the Small Business Act should be amended to make 
        shellfish growers eligible for emergency small business 
        assistance, as a complement to assistance otherwise offered 
        through Federal programs.

SEC. 3. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE DISASTER ASSISTANCE TO AQUACULTURE 
              ENTERPRISES.

    Section 18(b)(1) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 647(b)(1)) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``aquaculture,''; and
            (2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end ``, other 
        than aquaculture''.
                                 <all>
```
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 22, 2023

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D 2 2

- 1 621

Lower Tribunal No. F20

- 1 4 9 81

________________

Larry Stanley,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An appeal conducted pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738

(1967), from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Ramiro C. Areces

, Judge.

Larry Stanley , in proper person.

Ashley Moody , Attorney General

, for appellee.

Before SCA LE S

, L INDS E Y an d MILLE R , JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 23


G. BRAD BECKSTEAD
---------------------------
Certified Public Accountant

                                                  330 E. Warm Springs
                                                 Las Vegas, NV  89119
                                                         702.528.1984
                                                  425.928.2877 (efax)

August 9, 2001

To Whom It May Concern:

The firm of G. Brad Beckstead, CPA, consents to the inclusion of my report
of August 9, 2001, on the Financial Statements of General Telephony.com,
Inc. for the six months ending June 30, 2001, in any filings which are
necessary now or in the near future to be filed with the US Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Signed,

/s/ G. Brad Beckstead
----------------------
G. Brad Beckstead, CPA



<PAGE>
```

[110th Congress Public Law 423]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ423.110]

[[Page 122 STAT. 4818]]

Public Law 110-423
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To provide that Federal employees receiving their pay by electronic 
 funds transfer shall be given the option of receiving their pay stubs 
         electronically. <<NOTE: Oct. 15, 2008 -  [H.R. 6073]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 31 USC 3332 note.>> ELECTRONIC PAY STUBS.

    (a) In General.--The Office of Personnel Management shall take such 
measures as may be appropriate to ensure that all employees who receive 
their pay by electronic funds transfer shall be given the option of 
receiving their pay stubs electronically.
    (b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
            (1) the term ``electronic funds transfer'' has the meaning 
        given such term by section 3332 of title 31, United States Code;
            (2) the term ``employee'' means an individual employed in or 
        under an Executive agency; and
            (3) the term ``Executive agency'' has the meaning given such 
        term by section 105 of title 5, United States Code.

    Approved October 15, 2008.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 6073:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 110-780 (Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008):
            July 29, 30, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 30, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             656
<SECURITIES>                                    14,106
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,623
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,385
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              795
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,590
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,385
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,445
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   541
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   146
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,758
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,758
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,758
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Johnny Lee BRICE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1119.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 29, 1977.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and Douglas A. Wallace, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

GRIMES, Judge.

Appellant was charged with sexual battery committed by threat of force or vio*637lence likely to cause serious personal injury.1 The jury was instructed on 1) the offense charged, 2) the attempt to commit the offense charged, and 3) sexual battery by force and violence not likely to cause serious personal injury.2 He was convicted of the latter offense.

Appellant made a timely request for an instruction on the offenses of assault3 and battery.4 The court declined to charge or give a proposed jury verdict on either of these offenses. In *DeLaine v. State,*262 So.2d 655 (Fla.1972), the supreme court stated that assault and battery and bare assault were lesser included offenses of the crime of rape. The crimes of assault and battery continue to be necessarily lesser included offenses under the new sexual battery statute. Therefore, it was error to refuse to charge on these offenses.

The failure to instruct on a necessarily lesser included offense when requested by the defendant cannot be harmless error. *Lomax v. State,*345 So.2d 719 (Fla.1977); *State v. Terry,*336 So.2d 65 (Fla.1976). Since appellant was convicted of the least serious offense upon which the jury was charged, the “two steps removed” rationale of *DeLaine v. State, supra,*is inapplicable.

The judgment and sentence must be reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.

BOARDMAN, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.

1

. § 794.01 l(4)(b), Fla.Stat. (1973).

2

. § 794.011(5), Fla.Stat. (1975).

3

. § 784.011, Fla.Stat. (1975).

4

. § 784.03, Fla.Stat. (1975).
No. 9677.

#### The State of Ohio *v.*Green et al.

(Decided March 13, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Erie county.

*452
      *Mr. Roy H.*Williams, prosecuting attorney, for plaintiff in error.

' *Mr. H. L. Peeke,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed on authority of *Swank*v. *The State,*3 Ohio St., 429.

Shattck,' C. J., Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.