alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00276-CR

Tiwanda Monique Johnson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 

NO. 61978, THE HONORABLE PAUL L. LEPAK, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Tiwanda Monique Johnson was charged with the offense of burglary 

with the intent to commit aggravated assault. See Tex. Penal Code § 30.02. Johnson pleaded 

guilty, and the trial court placed her on deferred adjudication community supervision for ten

years. The State later moved to revoke Johnson’s community supervision and to adjudicate her 

guilt based on alleged violations of the terms of her community supervision. After Johnson

pleaded true to the allegations in the State’s motion to adjudicate, the trial court adjudicated her

guilty of the offense and assessed punishment at five years’ confinement in the Institutional 

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported 

by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the 

requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record 

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967);
Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 

488 U.S. 75, 86-87 (1988).

Appellant’s counsel has represented to the Court that he has provided copies of 

the motion and brief to appellant; advised appellant of her right to examine the appellate record 

and file a pro se response; and provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the 

appellate record along with the mailing address of this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 

319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766,

Appellant requested access to the appellate record, and pursuant to this Court’s order, the clerk 

of the trial court provided written verification to this Court that the record was provided to 

appellant. See Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 321. Appellant’s deadline to file her pro se response has

passed, and she has not filed a pro se response or requested an extension of time to file a response.

We have conducted an independent review of the record, including appellate 

counsel’s briefs, and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d 

at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel

that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. The trial court’s judgment adjudicating 

guilt is affirmed.

__________________________________________

Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly

Affirmed

Filed: January 31, 2020

Do Not Publish
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the report of Washington Group International, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the one month ended December 28, 2001 and yearended January 3, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Companycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer’s 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 as  of the dates and for the periods presented in the Report. |

 
| March 12,  2003 |   |                                                  |
|-----------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|            |   |                                                  |
|            |   |                                                  |
|            |   | /s/ Stephen  G. Hanks                                 |
|            |   | Stephen G.  Hanks                                     |
|            |   | President  and Chief Executive Officer                |
|            |   |                                                  |
|            |   |                                                  |
|            |   | /s/ George  H. Juetten                                |
|            |   | George H.  Juetten                                    |
|            |   | Executive  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
# L_2005039EN.01004301.xml

| 11.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 39/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 39/43

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 235/2005

of 10 February 2005

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the import of sorghum issued in Regulation (EC) No 2275/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003, on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction from third countries in the duty on sorghum imported into Spain was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2275/2004 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction from third countries in the duty on sorghum imported into Spain was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2275/2004 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 (3), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and on the basis of the tenders notified to make no award. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 (3), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and on the basis of the tenders notified to make no award.

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 a maximum reduction in the duty should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 a maximum reduction in the duty should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 4 to 10 February 2005 in response to the invitation to tender for the reduction in the duty on imported sorghum issued in Regulation (EC) No 2275/2004.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 11 February 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 February 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 396, 31.12.2004, p. 32.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 177, 28.7.1995, p. 4. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

3

---
#### Booker HICKS, Jr. v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50286.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 1, 1978.

*680Richard L. Yarbrough, Gulfport, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Marvin L. White, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, BROOM and BOWLING, JJ.

PATTERSON, Chief Justice,

for the Court:

Booker Hicks, Jr. was convicted of the capital murder of James M. Bostick under the provision of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-19(2)(e) (Supp.1974) and was sentenced to death. Because the case was tried before *Jackson v. State,*337 So.2d 1242 (Miss.1976), his conviction and sentence must be reversed and the cause retried in accordance with its terms.

It is argued on appeal that the written confession of the appellant was erroneously admitted into evidence. The testimony of the state’s witness, Criminal Investigator George Payne, gives rise to this argument because it is uncontradicted. He testified with regard to the confession in part as follows:

> BY MR. YARBROUGH (Defense Attorney):

> Q. You did call him a liar, didn’t you?

> A. Yes, sir, I called him a liar.

> BY MR. NECAISE (District Attorney): Did you call him a liar or did you say he was lying?

> A. I said that he was lying and had been lying to us.

> Q. Said he better tell the truth.

> BY MR. NECAISE: Did you tell him he’d better tell the truth?

> A, Yes, sir. I told him it would be better if he told the truth.

> MY MR. NECAISE: What did you tell him, now — that it would be better to tell the truth or you better tell the truth?

> A. I told him, sir, he was lying to us and it would be better if he would tell the truth. I told him the truth was better than lying.

> BY MR. NECAISE: That’s all. We don’t have anything further.

This testimony, plus much additional evidence to the same effect, places grave doubt upon the voluntariness of the confession. *See Miller v. State,*243 So.2d 558 (Miss.1971); *Robinson v. State,*247 Miss. 609,157 So.2d 49 (1963); *Matthews v. State,*102 Miss. 549, 59 So. 842 (1912); and *Mitchell v. State,*24 So. 312 (Miss.1898).

Moreover, although it may be doubtful that Detective Hargrove was present when the first confession was made to Investigator Payne, the record reveals that he was present during a great part of Hicks’ interrogation and his testimony was not offered as it should have been. *See Agee v. State,*185 So.2d 671 (Miss.1966), and its progeny, including *Curry v. State,*328 So.2d 328 (Miss.1976); *Booker v. State,*326 So.2d 791 (Miss.1976); *White v. State,*306 So.2d 299 (Miss.1975); *Younger v. State,*301 So.2d 300 (Miss.1974); *Bounds v. State,*271 So.2d 435 (Miss.1973); *Rowell v. State,*239 So.2d 917 (Miss.1970); and *Stevens v. State,*228 So.2d 888 (Miss.1969). The mere statement by Payne that Hargrove was “at the F.B.I. Academy in Washington receiving some training,” without more, does not negate his availability as a witness. *Compare Curry,*supra.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

INZER and SMITH, P. JJ., ROBERTSON, SUGG, WALKER, BROOM, LEE and BOWLING, JJ., concur.
#### TICONIC NAT. BANK OF WATERVILLE, ME., et al. v. SPRAGUE et al.

No. 3192.

Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Jan. 15, 1937.

F. Harold Dubord, of Waterville, Me., for appellants.

Harvey D. Eaton, of Waterville, Me., for appellees.

Before BINGHAM, WILSON, and MORTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We are of the opinion that the decree of the District Court is correct except in so far as it allows'interest; that in allowing interest from July 30, 1935 (the date of the bringing of the bill of complaint), the court erred.

The decree of the District Court is modified by striking therefrom the words “with interest from July 30, 1935,” and so modified is affirmed, with costs to the appellees in this court.
#### John Charles KUHAR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-357.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 8, 1971.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; Humes T. Lasher, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1 - Chief Executive Officer Certification (Section 906)

                        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 of RPM Advantage, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report").

I, David R. Pressler, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

               (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/ David R. Pressler
--------------------------
    David R. Pressler
    CEO President and Director


Date  April 25, 2011
      -----------------
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 23, 2022

No. 04-22-00113-CV

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellant

v.

Ernest VALDEZ,

Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-CI-12244

Honorable Aaron Haas, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The reporter’s record in this case was originally due on March 26, 2020. On April 7, 

2022, this court notified Ms. Blanca Espericueta, the court reporter responsible for preparing the 

record, that the record was late. Ms. Espericueta was instructed to file a notification of late 

record no later than ten days from the date of our notification if the reporter’s record had not 

been filed because the fee for its preparation had not been paid. Otherwise, Ms. Espericueta was 

instructed to file the reporter’s record no later than thirty days from the date of our notification. 

On April 18, 2022, Ms. Espericueta filed a notification of late record stating that, due to her 

additional duties, she needed additional time in which to file the record. Ms. Espericueta 

estimated the record would be complete within thirty to sixty days. We granted the request in 

part and ordered Ms. Espericueta to file the reporter’s record no later than May 9, 2022.

On May 17, 2022, Ms. Espericueta filed another notification of late record requesting a 

forty-five-day extension until June 23, 2022. The request is GRANTED, and Ms. Espericueta is 

ORDERED to file the reporter’s record no later than June 23, 2022. Further requests for an 

extension of time are disfavored.

If the reporter’s record is not filed with this court by June 23, 2022, any requests for 

additional time to file the record must be accompanied by a signed, written status report. The 

report must comply with the following requirements:

• describe the transcript by day with the date, description, page counts, and remarks for 

each day;
• list the page counts for the total number of pages, the number of pages edited, proofread, 

and formatted into the required electronic form (including bookmarks); and

• describe any problems the court reporter reasonably believes may delay the completion of 

the record beyond the requested date.

• The report may describe any unusual aspects of the record.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 23rd day of May, 2022.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
#### Rebecca Hull HART v. Charles R. HEATH.

No. 45357.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 12, 1969.

William Liston, Winona, for appellant.

John E. Shaw, Crawley, Brooks & Guy-ton, Kosciusko, for appellee.

RODGERS, Justice.

The instruction complained of by the appellant in this case is clearly erroneous, and would ordinarily be considered a reversible error. However, under the facts shown in the record in this case the testimony is so overwhelmingly in favor of the defendant, and the verdict of the jury, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. *See*Miss.Sup.Ct. Rule 11 (1967).

Affirmed.

GILLESPIE, P. J., and JONES, BRADY and INZER, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>          0001078420
<NAME>         ADVANCED GLASSFIBER YARNS LLC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                               <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                            3891                  24,073
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,588                  42,922
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (2208)                 (39,957)
<INVENTORY>                                     24,403                  28,096
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                61,981                  91,775
<PP&E>                                         167,810                 158,029
<DEPRECIATION>                                (22,205)                  (8896)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 439,119                 479,224
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,965                  83,359
<BONDS>                                        330,928                 355,684
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,965                  18,672
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   439,119                 479,224
<SALES>                                        139,181                 123,587
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               139,181                 123,587
<CGS>                                          101,903                  87,553
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  101,903                  87,553
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,133                  13,810
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,166                  18,148
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5979                    4076
<INCOME-TAX>                                       132                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               5847                    4076
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                    3616
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5847                     460
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
                                                                    ------------



                 LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF SHILOH INDUSTRIES, INC.


                  The following is a list of the subsidiaries of Shiloh
Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"). The common stock
of all the corporations listed below is wholly owned, directly or indirectly, by
the Corporation. If indented, the corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of
the corporation under which it is listed unless otherwise noted.

NAME OF CORPORATION                                      STATE OF INCORPORATION
-------------------                                      ----------------------

Shiloh Corporation                                                Ohio

        The Sectional Die Company                                 Ohio

                 Sectional Stamping, Inc.                         Ohio

Valley City Steel Company (1)                                     Ohio

        Medina Blanking, Inc. (2)                                 Ohio

        Liverpool Coil Processing,                                Ohio
        Incorporated

Greenfield Die & Manufacturing
Corporation                                                       Ohio

The Corporation also owns an 80% equity interest in Shiloh of Michigan, L.L.C.,
a Michigan limited liability company.


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

(1)     Valley City Steel Company is 50% owned by the Corporation and 50% owned
        by Shiloh Corporation.

(2)     Medina Blanking, Inc. is 22% owned by the Corporation, 22% owned by
        Shiloh Corporation and 56% owned by Valley City Steel Company.
#### George WINSTON and Ruth Winston, Petitioners, v. Ruth M. ABELOW, Respondent.

No. 39676.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 24, 1970.

Certiorari denied. 232 So.2d 762.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
#### Sam PETRULLI et al., Petitioners, v. APPROVED DRY WALL CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Respondents. Neal MAZZER et al., Petitioners, v. APPROVED DRY WALL CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Respondents.

Nos. 44530, 44538.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 23, 1974.

Rehearing Denied April 10, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 284 So.2d 27.

ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-76526, 33-80454, 33-88302, 333-2818,  333-07457,
333-62517, 333-62983,  333-64139,  333-68161, 333-49004, 333-61412,  333-76826),
the  Registration  Statement on Form S-3 (No.  333-39453)  and the  Registration
Statement on Form S-4 (No.  333-37393) of Rural/Metro  Corporation of our report
dated September 30, 2002 relating to the financial statements,  which appears in
this Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Phoenix, Arizona
October 4, 2002
**PDDM MODIFICATION APPROVAL**

**Discipline:**	 _____________

**Section / Subsection(s):**	Chapter __/Subsection ____

**Reason for modification:**	_______________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

**Expected consequences:**	_______________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

**Modification Text:**

Completed Coordination:

**Certification:**I certify the following:

Above coordination was completed and all comments / concerns have been addressed and resolved in a manner satisfactory to all applicable parties.  Comments and resolutions are on file with the FLH Discipline Champion.

All research and development documentation needed to support the above modification(s) is on file with the certifying FLH Discipline Champion.

	Click to enter date.	

	FLH Discipline Champion	Date

****

**Approval:**The above described modification(s) is approved for immediate implementation:

	Click to enter date.	

	Chief of Engineering, Eastern Federal Lands	Date

	Click to enter date.	

	Chief of Engineering, Central Federal Lands	Date

	Click to enter date.	

	Chief of Engineering, Western Federal Lands	Date

	Click to enter date.	

	Director, Office of Program Development	Date