alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 26, 2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-17-00885-CR

CARLOS LUIS COMPEAN, Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 56th District Court 

Galveston County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 16-CR-3340 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Appellant appeals his conviction for felony assault causing bodily injury to a 

person with whom he had a dating relationship. Appellant’s appointed counsel 

filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without 

merit. The brief meets the requirement of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why 
2

there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). 

 A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised 

of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford 

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). At appellant’s request, the 

record was provided to him. On July 12, 2018, appellant filed a pro se response to 

counsel’s brief. 

 We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s 

response, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we 

find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing 

to the jurisprudence of the state. We are not to address the merits of each claim 

raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are 

no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 

 Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

 PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Spain. 

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
#### Minot Frazier JELKE, Petitioner, v. Sylvia JELKE, Respondent.

No. 39668.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 10, 1970.

Certiorari denied. 233 So.2d 408.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and BOYD, JJ., concur.
#### Robert H. STONE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chris G. PANOS et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 11467.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Sept. 15, 1970.

Gamm, Greenberg & Kaplan, by Jack H. Kaplan, Shreveport, for defendants-appellants.

Love, Rigby, Dehan & Love, by Claudius E. Whitmeyer, Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before AYRES, BOLIN and PRICE, JJ-

BOLIN, Judge.

Chris G. Panos and Andrew G. Panos executed an authentic act of sale wherein Robert H. Stone purchased an itemized list of equipment and stock located in a place of business known as the “Po-Boy Diner” in Shreveport, Louisiana. The *13stated purchase price was $1,450 cash. While Stone was attempting to remove some of the equipment (10 stools, a back bar assembly and counter), one of the defendants stopped him. He sued defendants for the value of these items. The lower court awarded Stone $720 and defendants appeal.

Defendants admit the contract was freely entered into and that the disputed items were listed in the act of sale. They contend they did not intend to sell the stools, counter and bar since they did not own them because they were attached to the building. Alternatively they contend the amount awarded was excessive.

Appellants cite no law which would relieve them of their obligations under the written contract. The trial court was correct in awarding plaintiff judgment for the fair value of the items defendants refused to deliver under the sales agreement.

Two experts testified to the value of the used stools, counter and bar. Mr. J. H. Hunsicker, Jr., who had sold and appraised cafe equipment for 30 years, fixed the value of the equipment at $720. The trial judge accepted his estimate and we think he was correct.

The judgment is affirmed at appellants’ cost.
#### Dorothy Hebert ARDOIN et al. v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO. et al.

No. 60993.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 5, 1977.

In re: Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Darrell Gregory and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. applying for writ of review, or certiorari, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Lafayette. 350 So.2d 205.

Writ Denied In Part, Granted In Part.

We find no error requiring review by this Court as to any assignment relating to the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendants cast; accordingly, writs are denied as to further review of this judgment, including its modification for limited remand by the Court of Appeal.

However, insofar as the applicants urge that erroneous rulings as to the “locality rule” prevented the defendants from securing a factual determination that the negligence of Dr. James Bozeman also contributed to the injury, we grant the writ to determine whether, for purposes of third-party demands, error was committed by the rulings complained of by Assignments 1, 2, 3 of Docket Nos. 60,992 and 61,008 and by Assignment 2 of Docket No. 61,011 which errors had the effect of depriving the defendants of evidence relevant to a determination of this doctor’s negligence and whether same was a contributory cause of decedent’s death.

The writs are denied as to all other assignments of error urged including the only assignments raised in # 60,993.
II 

Calendar No. 434 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3044 

[Report No. 118–189] 

To redesignate the Mount Evans Wilderness as the ‘‘Mount Blue Sky 

Wilderness’’, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 16, 2023 

Mr. HICKENLOOPER (for himself and Mr. BENNET) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources 

JULY 10, 2024 

Reported by Mr. MANCHIN, without amendment 

A BILL 

To redesignate the Mount Evans Wilderness as the ‘‘Mount 

Blue Sky Wilderness’’, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mount Blue Sky Wil5 derness Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3044 RS

1 SEC. 2. REDESIGNATION OF THE MOUNT EVANS WILDER2 NESS AS THE ‘‘MOUNT BLUE SKY WILDER3 NESS’’. 

4 (a) REDESIGNATION.—Section 102(a)(10) of Public 

5 Law 96–560 (16 U.S.C. 1132 note; 94 Stat. 3267) is 

6 amended by striking ‘‘as the Mount Evans Wilderness;’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘as the ‘Mount Blue Sky Wilderness’;’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the Mount Evans Wilderness shall be deemed 

11 to be a reference to the ‘‘Mount Blue Sky Wilderness’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Calendar No. 434 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3044 

[Report No. 118–189] 

A BILL 

To redesignate the Mount Evans Wilderness as the 

purposes. ‘‘Mount Blue Sky Wilderness’’, and for other 

JULY 10, 2024 

Reported without amendment 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
U.S.Department

of Transportation

Federal Highway

Administration

AUG 3 0 !935

400 Seventh St.. SW.

Washington D. C. 20590

Refer to: HNG-14

Mr. C. Richard Briden

Engineering Manager

P&K Pole Products

-84 Foundry Street

Newark, New Jersey 07105

Dear Mr. Briden:

Thank you for your April 25 letter requesting Federal Highway

Administration's (FHWA) acceptance of your company's aluminum

breakaway bases. Your letter was accompanied by seven test

reports by the Southwest Research Institute dated February or

March 1995, and video documentation, on each test. Additional

information was submitted on June 12 and August 8 in response to

our requests.

Pendulum testing was conducted to assess the breakaway

performance of the bases. Requirements for breakaway supports

are found in the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural

Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals.

Testing guidelines are found in the National Cooperative Highway

Research Program Report 350, "Recommended Procedures for the

Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features." Both have

been adopted by the FHWA.

You requested individual acceptance letters for each base. This

letter is for the hardware tested in PK-108, dated March 1995.

A summary of the test data is shown below, and drawings of the

cast aluminum shoe base for call box supports are enclosed.

Support

Pole Wall Thickness, mm (in)

.&-

Base Designation

P&K Drawing No.

Bolt Circle Diameter, mm (in)

Test Article Mass, kg (wt. Ibs)

Call box Mounting Height, m (ft)

Vehicle Mass, kg (weight, lbs)

TestSpeed.km&(mph)

OccupantImnpSpadnJc(fps)

Estimated 100 km/h Occup. Imp. Speed

Aluminum Shaft

4.77 (0.188)

SE-3G Call Box Support Base

C-98966-2

216 (8.5)

3 9 (86)

1.10 (3.6)

820 (1808) ‘..

35.28 (21.9)

2.8 (9. I) (@0.80 sec.)

2.0 (6.4)
2 

The results of this test and the high-speed extrapolation meet 

the change in velocity and stub height~requirements adopted by 

AASHTO and the FHWA. Therefore, the tested aluminum breakaway 

base described,above is acceptable for use on Federal-aid highway 

projects, within the range of conditions tested, if proposed by a 

State. 

Our acceptance is limited to the breakaway characteristics of the 

system and does not cover its structural features. Presumably, 

youwill supply potential users with sufficient information on 

structural design and installation requirements to ensure proper 

performance. We anticipate that the States will require 

certification from P&K Pole Products that the hardware furnished 

has essentially the same chemistry, mechanical properties, and 

geometry as those used in the tests, and that they will meet the 

FIiWA change .in velocity requirements. 

Sincerely yours, 

Enclosure 

Geometric and Roadside Design Acceptance Letter LS-42 

I'-
#### STATE of Louisiana Through the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAMAR ADVERTISING CO. OF LOUISIANA, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 6275.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Feb. 6, 1978.

Rehearing Denied March 29, 1978.

Sanders, Downing, Kean & Cazdessus by R. Gordon Kean, Jr., Baton Rouge, Plauche, Smith, Hebert & Nieset by Reid K. Hebert, Lake Charles, for defendants-appellants.

Jonathan C. Harris, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before GUIDRY, FORET and JOHNSON, JJ.

FORET, Judge.

For the reasons stated in the companion case of *State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Highways v. National Advertising Company,*356 So.2d 557 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1978), in which a separate decision has been rendered by us on this date, the judgment appealed herein is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to the appellants in these consolidated cases, each appellant to bear costs equal to the proportion which the number of signs in issue owned by it bears to the total number of signs in issue owned by all the appellants.

AFFIRMED.
254 La. 637

#### Billy HEYSE, for and on behalf of Rufus Wayne Heyse v. The FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK et al.

No. 50018.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 22, 1969.

In re: Billy Heyse, for and on behalf of Rufus Wayne Heyse applying for writs of review and certiorari.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Lewis S. Doherty, III, Judge of the Nineteenth Judicial District, Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 10th day of November, 1969, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through its attorney shall show cause, in this court, on the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
|**Exhibit 32.2**
|----------------




**Certification of Principal Financial Officer**


**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350**


**(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003)**





I, Andrew P. Kaplan, Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President, Finance and Administration (principal financial officer) of Audible, Inc. (the Registrant), certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 of the Registrant (the Report):





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




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







/s/ Andrew P. KaplanName:
Andrew P. KaplanDate:
November 12, 2004
#### Lowell E. ROBERTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-320.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 17, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 14, 1970.

Barksdale, Tucker & Worley, Pensacola, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and J. Christian Meffert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

From a careful consideration of the record, briefs, and argument of counsel, *183we fail to find reversible error. Therefore, the judgment and sentence are hereby affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
127 STAT. 532 PUBLIC LAW 113–39—SEPT. 30, 2013 

Public Law 113–39 

113th Congress 

An Act 

Making continuing appropriations for military pay in the event of a Government 

shutdown. 

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 ‘‘Pay Our Military Act’’. 

SEC. 2. CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 

FORCES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—There are hereby appropriated for fiscal year 

2014, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 

for any period during which interim or full-year appropriations 

for fiscal year 2014 are not in effect— 

(1) such sums as are necessary to provide pay and allowances to members of the Armed Forces (as defined in section 

101(a)(4) of title 10, United States Code), including reserve 

components thereof, who perform active service during such 

period; 

(2) such sums as are necessary to provide pay and allowances to the civilian personnel of the Department of Defense 

(and the Department of Homeland Security in the case of 

the Coast Guard) whom the Secretary concerned determines 

are providing support to members of the Armed Forces 

described in paragraph (1); and 

(3) such sums as are necessary to provide pay and allowances to contractors of the Department of Defense (and the 

Department of Homeland Security in the case of the Coast 

Guard) whom the Secretary concerned determines are providing 

support to members of the Armed Forces described in paragraph 

(1). 

(b) SECRETARY CONCERNED DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

‘‘Secretary concerned’’ means— 

(1) the Secretary of Defense with respect to matters concerning the Department of Defense; and 

(2) the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to 

matters concerning the Coast Guard. 

SEC. 3. TERMINATION. 

Appropriations and funds made available and authority granted 

pursuant to this Act shall be available until whichever of the 

following first occurs: (1) the enactment into law of an appropriation 

(including a continuing appropriation) for any purpose for which 

amounts are made available in section 2; (2) the enactment into 

Pay Our Military 

Act. 

Sept. 30, 2013 

[H.R. 3210] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
PUBLIC LAW 113–39—SEPT. 30, 2013 127 STAT. 533 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3210: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 159 (2013): 

Sept. 28, considered and passed House. 

Sept. 30, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

law of the applicable regular or continuing appropriations resolution 

or other Act without any appropriation for such purpose; or (3) 

January 1, 2015. 

Approved September 30, 2013. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
#### In the Matter of the use by the trial courts of the STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS (In negligence cases).

No. 36286.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 25, 1970.

PER CURIAM:

On consideration of the report of the Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions (negligence cases) dated July 1, 1969, and the recommendations of that Committee in respect to certain amendments of and additions to the instructions which were published as Florida Standard Jury Instructions, pursuant to this Court’s order of April 19, 1967 (see 198 So.2d 319), it is ordered by the Court:

1. The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions and The Florida Bar be and they are authorized forthwith to publish and distribute the amendments of and additions to Florida Standard Jury Instructions submitted with the Committee’s report.

2. The Court refers to The Florida Bar’s Rules Committee, with the Court’s approval, the recommendation of the Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions that the Rule of Civil Procedure entitled “Use of Florida Standard Jury Instructions,” adopted April 19, 1967 (198 So.2d 319-20), which was thereafter designated Form 1.949 (198 So.2d 320) and thereafter redesignated Form 1.985, be reclassified and renumbered as a rule rather than as a form.

3. The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions is continued as a Committee of this Court for the purpose of reviewing errors and inaccuracies in the published instructions and recommend*381ing to this Court additions and revisions that experience may prove beneficial.

Ft is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ„ concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5195-5196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2639]


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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 96-ACE-23]


Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; York, NE

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking, extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces an extension of the comment period on a 
Direct final rule; request for comments which proposes to establish 
Class E airspace at York, NE. This action is taken because the Direct 
Final rule, request for comments published in the Federal Register, 
January 6, 1997, did not give sufficient time for comments.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 11, 1997.


[[Page 5196]]


ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager, 
Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, ACE-530, Federal Aviation 
Administration, Docket No. 96-ACE-23, 601 E. 12th St., Kansas City, MO 
64106; telephone (816) 426-3408.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Randolph, (816) 426-3408.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Airspace Docket No. 96-ACE-23, published on January 6, 1997 (62 FR 
607) proposed to establish Class E airspace at York, NE. This action 
will extend the comment period closing date on that airspace docket 
from January 6, 1997, to February 11, 1977, to allow for a 35 day 
comment period instead of existing 18-day abbreviated comment period.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Extension of Comment Period

    The comment period closing date on Airspace Docket No. 96-ACE-23 is 
hereby extended to February 11, 1997.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.

    Issued in Kansas City, MO, on January 23, 1997.
Herman J. Lyons, Jr.,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.
[FR Doc. 97-2639 Filed 2-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### Donald E. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Geraldine J. WILLIAMS, Appellee.

No. 70-704.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 10, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52370]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26514]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Region III--National Advisory Council; Public Meeting

    The Small Business Administration--Region III--Washington National 
Advisory Council, located in the geographical area of Washington, DC, 
will hold a public meeting from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, on Thursday, 
October 23, 1997, and from 8:00 am until 11:00 am, on Friday, October 
24, at the Scottsdale Plaza Resort, 7200 North Scottsdale Road, 
Scottsdale, AZ, to discuss such business as may be presented by 
members, the staff of the U.S. Small Business Administration, and 
others attending. For further information, write or call Toi Tolson, at 
the U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, S.W., 
Washington, DC 20416, telephone (202) 205-7648.

    Dated: October 1, 1997.
Eugene Carlson,
Associate Administrator, Office of Communications & Public Liaisons.
[FR Doc. 97-26514 Filed 10-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
#### Eugene McArthur BURNEY, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 70-688.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 25, 1970.

Habeas corpus denied.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Annual Report of ProxyMed, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Kevin M. McNamara, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 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 result of operations of the Company. /s/ KEVIN M. MCNAMARA

Kevin M. McNamara
Chairman of the Board and
Interim Chief Executive Officer
March 30, 2005
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ProxyMed,
Inc. and will be retained by ProxyMed, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.