alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-18-00516-CR

Moses Eli AVILA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR7607

Honorable Lorina I. Rummel, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 3, 2018

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

The trial court imposed sentence in Cause No. 2017CR7607 on March 20, 2018. Because 

appellant did not file a motion for new trial, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on April 19, 

2018. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was 

due on May 4, 3028. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. On July 16, 2018, appellant filed a “Motion for Leave 

to File Late Notice of Appeal/Continuance.” 

Because the notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed, we lack jurisdiction to 

entertain the appeal. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (holding 
04-18-00516-CR

- 2 -

that if appeal is not timely perfected, court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address merits 

of appeal, and court may take no action other than to dismiss appeal; court may not suspend rules 

to alter time for perfecting appeal); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996);

1

see also Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (explaining that 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure governs 

out-of-time appeals from felony convictions). 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

 1 We also note the trial court’s certification in this appeal states that “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 assessed 

did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial 

court’s certification accurately reflects that the criminal case is a plea-bargain case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). 

Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “The appeal must be dismissed if a certification that 

shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 

25.2(d).
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 10-201.13 

________________________________________________________________________ 

EXTRADITION 

 Instrument Amending the 

Treaty of October 13, 1983 

Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and ITALY 

Signed at Rome May 3, 2006 

with 

Annex 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 ITALY 

 Extradition 

Instrument amending the treaty of October 13, 1983. 

Signed at Rome May 3, 2006; 

Transmitted by the President of the United States of America 

 to the Senate September 28, 2006 (Treaty Doc. 109-14, 

 109th Congress, 2d Session); 

Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

 July 29, 2008 (Senate Executive Report No. 110-12, 

 110th Congress, 2d Session); 

Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate 

 September 23, 2008; 

Ratified by the President December 11, 2008; 

Exchange of Instruments of Ratification at Rome 

 May 28, 2009; 

Entered into force February 1, 2010. 

With annex.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 10-201.21 

________________________________________________________________________ 

EXTRADITION 

 Instrument Amending the Treaty of 

May 29, 1970, and the Supplementary 

Treaties of January 25, 1975, February 9, 1988, 

and March 12, 1996 Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and SPAIN 

Signed at Madrid December 17, 2004 

 with 

Annex 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 SPAIN 

 Extradition 

Instrument amending the treaty of May 29, 1970, and 

 the supplementary treaties of January 25, 1975, 

 February 9, 1988, and March 12, 1996. 

Signed at Madrid December 17, 2004; 

Transmitted by the President of the United States of America 

 to the Senate September 28, 2006 (Treaty Doc. 109-14, 

 109th Congress, 2d Session); 

Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

 July 29, 2008 (Senate Executive Report No. 110-12, 

 110th Congress, 2d Session); 

Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate 

 September 23, 2008; 

Ratified by the President December 11, 2008; 

Exchange of Diplomatic Notes at Madrid 

 October 5, 2005 and August 5, 2009; 

Entered into force February 1, 2010. 

With annex.
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 6
p110224.eng

Health: 1-2 Dermal, Inhalation

Eco: 2 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 320 ppb.)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2-3A

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

 

 

 

 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 11-0224

 

Page 2

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 6
p110224.eng

 

 

 

 

 

Page 3

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 6
p110224.eng

 

 

 

 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 11-0224

 

 

Page 4

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 6
p110224.eng

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 5

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 6
p110224.eng

Page 6

EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 6
<PAGE>

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

I, William Thomas Large, the Chief Executive Officer and the Principal Financial
Officer of Torbay Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, that to the best
of my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the fiscal quarter
ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the  requirements of
Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.  78m
or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated: December 15, 2003



                        By: /s/ William Thomas Large
                            ------------------------------------
                            Name: William Thomas Large
                            Title: Chief Executive Officer and
                                   Principal Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANYS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          52,981
<SECURITIES>                                    16,501
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,936
<ALLOWANCES>                                       231
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,496
<PP&E>                                          63,765
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,957
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 192,976
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,119
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           14,960
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           224
<OTHER-SE>                                     118,461
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   192,976
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,102
<CGS>                                            5,126
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,126
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,151
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (400)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,964
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,964
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (340)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (551)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (33,867)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.26)


</TABLE>
#### Roy GONZALES v. Theresa CREDEUR.

No. 62113.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1978.

In re: Theresa Credeur, applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Lafayette.

Writ denied.

DIXON and CALOGERO, JJ., would grant the writ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANTHONY TUSWEET SMITH,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 385 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of March, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Order entered January 6, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01708-CV

IN RE THE ESTATE OF VERNON LEE DOWNING, DECEASED

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-10-02214-3

ORDER

Before Justices Lang-Miers, Lewis, and Brown

We GRANT appellant’s December 18, 2013 motion for an extension of time to file her 

notice of appeal. The notice of appeal filed on December 18, 2013 is deemed timely for 

jurisdictional purposes.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
<PAGE>   1



                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1

                   APPLIEDTHEORY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                 CALCULATION OF LOSS PER SHARE (UNAUDITED) (1)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                           JUNE 30, 2000
                                                                       -------------------
<S>                                                                   <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding:
Common stock:
       Shares outstanding at beginning of period                               23,282,631
       Weighted average shares issued during three months
       ended June 30, 2000 (1,141,997 shares)                                     558,967
                                                                          ---------------
                                                                               23,841,598
                                                                          ===============

Net loss                                                                  $   (12,908,000)
                                                                          ===============

Loss per share attributable to common stockholders                        $         (0.54)
                                                                          ================
</TABLE>

===============================================================================

(1)  For a discussion of loss per share, see Note D of the Notes to the
     Financial Statements provided in Part I, Item 1 of our Form 10-Q for the
     period ended June 30, 2000.


                                       39
#### Tony TRAMONTANA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-377.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 17, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 18, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24

- 6283

JOHN RICHARD NEWSOME , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. REGINALD FLOYD; K. JEFFORDS; C. SPAZIANI , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. R. Bryan Harwell, Senior District Judge. ( 4:23

- cv - 03968

- RBH )

Submitted : J uly 25 , 2024 Decided: July 30, 2024

Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
John Richard Newsome, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6283 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/30/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
John Richard Newsome appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Newsome ’s amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § § 1915(e)(2)(B) , 1915A(b). Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Newsome ’s informal brief s , we
find no reversible error. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) ( “ The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief. ” )

. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court ’s judgment

. Newsome v. Floyd , No. 4:23

- cv - 03968

- RBH (D.S.C.
Mar. 18, 2024) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 24-6283 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/30/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION



By signing below, each of the undersigned officers hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, (i) this report (as amended) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in this report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Starcraft Corporation.



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely for purposes of compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed filed for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78r), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act
of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.



Signed this 16th day of December, 2004



|                             |  |                             
|---------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|/s/    JEFFREY P.
BEITZEL    |  | /s/    JOSEPH E. KATONA,
III
|Jeffrey P. Beitzel           |  | Joseph E. Katona, III       
|Co-Chief Executive Officer   |  | Chief Financial Officer     
|                             | 
|/s/    MICHAEL H.
SCHOEFFLER |  |                             
|Michael H. Schoeffler        |  |                             
|Co-Chief Executive Officer   |  |                             



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Starcraft Corporation and will be retained by the corporation and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.
#### CITY OF ORLANDO, a municipality, Petitioner, v. ABC LIQUORS, INC, a Florida corporation, Respondent.

No. 41330.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 27, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 249 So.2d 95.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Michael ROBINSON v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM.

6 Div. 274.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Oct. 4, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 15, 1977.

Ferris S. Ritchey, Jr., Birmingham, for appellant.

W. O. MacMahon, III, Birmingham, for appellee.

HARRIS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of knowingly and unlawfully exhibiting an obscene motion picture film entitled “Pleasure Cruise,” which portrayed, in color and sound, males and females engaged in “actual sexual intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation, and homosexual acts,” in violation of Ordinance No. 67-2, Section 3 of the City of Birmingham. A jury in fixing his punishment assessed a fine of $300.00, to which the Court added a term of hard labor for 180 days.

We have today affirmed the conviction of appellant for violating the same ordinance *535in exhibiting an obscene motion picture film entitled “Referral Service,” which case is styled *“Michael Robinson v. City of Birmingham,*6 Div. 363 [Ala.Cr.App., 353 So.2d 528].”

The 6 Div. 363 case was written by Judge Leigh M. Clark, Supernumerary Circuit Judge. If we change the division number, the name of the obscene film, and the punishment meted out to appellant, the issues raised in the present case are identical to those raised and resolved by Judge Clark in 6 Div. 363, Ala.Cr.App., 353 So.2d 528.

We are in complete agreement that the opinion written by Judge Clark in his usual excellent, eloquent, and scholarly manner should be, and hereby is, adopted as the law of the present case. Judge Clark’s resourcefulness and style of writing are the despair of emulation, and to attempt to add anything to his opinion would be fruitless and futile. His opinion is classic, exhausting the gifts of rhetoric, and enriches the literature of the law as well as its substance, This case is affirmed on authority of the case written by Judge Clark.

AFFIRMED.

Certiorari denied, Ala., 353 So.2d 535.

All the Judges concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3640 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3640

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
      at 155 South Main Street in Mount Clemens, Michigan, as the 
        ``Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Jefferson Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 23, 2024

  Mr. Peters (for himself and Ms. Stabenow) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
      at 155 South Main Street in Mount Clemens, Michigan, as the 
        ``Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Jefferson Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER JEFFERSON POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 155 South Main Street in Mount Clemens, Michigan, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Jefferson 
Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lieutenant 
Colonel Alexander Jefferson Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
From: Nizich, Sharon [mailto:Nizich.Sharon@epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 10:52 AM

To: Cassidy Mike

Cc: Holloway, Thomas C. (Tom)

Subject: Responses to your previous questions

Hello MikePlease find attached some responses to questions we received that you state are needed before you can 

send in your official comments to the docket. Thanks.

Sharon Nizich

US EPA

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division/SPPD

RTP NC 27711

(919) 541 2825
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 5270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2740]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
[Declaration of Disaster Loan Area #2918]


New York; Declaration of Disaster Loan Area, (Amendment #2)

    In accordance with a notice from the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, dated January 14, 1997, the above-numbered Declaration is 
hereby amended to include Tompkins County in the State of New York as a 
disaster area due to damages caused by severe thunderstorms, high 
winds, rain and flooding which occurred November 8-15, 1996.
    In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small 
businesses located in the contiguous counties of Cayuga and Cortland in 
the State of New York may be filed until the specified date at the 
previously designated location.
    All other information remains the same, i.e., the termination date 
for filing applications for physical damage is February 7, 1997, and 
for loans for economic injury the deadline is September 9, 1997.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008)

    Dated: January 23, 1997.
Bernard Kulik,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-2740 Filed 2-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P