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

- 17

- 00088

- CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE:
MICHAEL KENNEDY,

RELATOR §
§
§ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Relator, Michael Kennedy, has filed this original proceeding, in whi ch he presents multiple arguments that all arise out of his criminal conviction in trial court cause number 29326

. Relator’s conviction has been final for several years, and cause number 29326 is not currently pending in the trial court. See Kennedy v. St ate , No. 12

– 11

– 00041

– CR, 2012 WL 3201924, at *8 (Tex. App.

– Tyler Aug. 8, 2012, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (affirming judgment on punishment); see also Kennedy v. State , No. 12

– 08

– 00246

– CR, 2009 WL 4829989, at *3

– 4 (Tex. App.

– Tyl er Dec. 16, 2009, pet. stricken) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (affirming judgment of conviction). Thus, Relator’s petition for writ of
mandamus constitutes a collateral attack on his conviction. Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has authority to grant post

- conviction relief from final felony convictions

. 1 See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see also In re Briscoe
, 230 S.W.3d 196, 196

- 97 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceedin g); In re McAfee , 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.

—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). Accordingly , we dismiss Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction

.

1 On February 15, 2017, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued an abuse of writ order aga inst Relator, in which it found that he (1) filed seven applications regarding his conviction, (2) “continues to raise issues that have been presented and rejected in previous applications or that should have been presented in previous applications[,]” and (3) “[b]ecause of his repetitive claims, ... [his] claims are barred from review under Article 11.07, § 4, and are waived and abandoned by his abuse of the writ.” Ex Parte Michael Allyn Kennedy , No. WR

- 75,385

- 24 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 15, 2017).2

Opinion delivered March 31, 2017. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle , J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)3 

## COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MARCH 31 , 2017

NO. 12

- 17

- 00088

- CR

MICHAEL KENNEDY, Relator V.

HON. MARK A

. CALHOON ,

Respondent

O RIGINAL P ROCEEDING

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Michael Kennedy; who is the relator in Cause No. 29326, pending on the docket of the 3rd
Judicial District Court of Anderson County , Texas. Said peti tion for writ of mandamus having
been filed herein on March 29, 2017, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that it lacks jurisdiction, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction

.

By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3710 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3710

   To amend the Securities Act of 1933 with respect to small company 
               capital formation, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 31, 2024

  Mr. Budd (for himself and Mr. Braun) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Securities Act of 1933 with respect to small company 
               capital formation, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Regulation A+ Improvement Act of 
2024''.

SEC. 2. JOBS ACT-RELATED EXEMPTION.

    Section 3(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77c(b)) is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``$50,000,000'' and 
        inserting ``$150,000,000, adjusted for inflation by the 
        Commission every 2 years to the nearest $10,000 to reflect the 
        change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers 
        published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics''; and
            (2) in paragraph (5)--
                    (A) by striking ``such amount as'' and inserting: 
                ``such amount, in addition to the adjustment for 
                inflation provided for under such paragraph (2)(A), 
                as''; and
                    (B) by striking ``such amount, it'' and inserting 
                ``such amount, in addition to the adjustment for 
                inflation provided for under such paragraph (2)(A), 
                it''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Donnie W. PARKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-921.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 7, 1977.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and Stephen 0. Rushing, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard G. Pippinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, but this case is remanded for resen-tencing of appellant. The present sentence does not specifically set forth the period of credit time to be allowed as required by Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1975), *Smith v. State,*310 So.2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Moreover, the sentence imprisons appellant “at hard labor” for which there is no statutory authority. *Speller v. State,*305 So.2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). The appellant does not have to be present at resentencing.

SCHEB, Acting C. J., and OTT and RYDER, JJ., concur.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. R OSHAUN NAKIA POR TER , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-50084

D.C . No. 8:12-c r-00097-JLS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Jose phine L. Staton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July 26, 2016 ** B e fore : SC HR O EDER , C ANB Y, a n d C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. R osha un Na kia Porte r a ppe a ls from the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt a n d c ha lle nge s the 240-m onth se nte nc e im pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for c o nspira c y

to e nga ge in se x tra ffic k ing, in viola t ion of 18 U.S.C . § 1594(c ). W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED AUG 02 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Porte r c o nte nds tha t his se nte nc e is substa

ntive ly unre a sona

ble be c a use the distric t c o urt fa ile d to gra nt a downwa

rd de p arture unde r U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b), whic h a uthoriz e s the distric t c ourt to depa rt whe n the de fe nda

nt’ s c rim ina l history c ate gory ove rstate s the se riousne ss of his c rim ina l history . Our re vie w of a distric t c ourt’ s de c ision whe t

he r to de pa

rt unde r se c tion 4A1.3 is lim ite d to de te rm ining whe the r the c ourt im

pose d a substa ntive ly unre a sona

ble se nte nc e . Se eUnite d State s v . Ellis , 641 F.3d 411, 421-22 (9th C ir. 2011). Thedistric t c ourt did not a buse i ts disc re tion in im

posing Porte r’ s se nte nc e . Se eGall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The

within-Guide line s se nte nc e is substa ntive ly re a sona ble in light of the

18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) se nte nc ing fa c tors a nd the tota lity

of the c irc um s ta nc e s , inc luding Porte r’ s c rim ina l history and the viole nt na

ture of the offe nse . Se e Gall , 552 U.S. a t 51. AFFIRM E D.

1 5 - 5 0 0 8 4 2
#### Elvin WATSON v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY et al.

No. 8415.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

April 22, 1971.

Chester Francipane of Price & Franci-pane, Metairie, for appellant.

Joseph L. Waitz of Waitz & St. Martin, Houma, Emile Turner of Bernard, Michelot & Cassisa, New Orleans, for appellees.

Before LOTTINGER, SARTAIN and TURNER, JJ.

MOTION TO DISMISS

SARTAIN, Judge.

On joint motion of plaintiff and defendants, through their undersigned counsel of record, and on suggesting to this Honorable Court that the above entitled and numbered cause has been compromised and settled to the satisfaction of all parties concerned; and on further suggesting that this matter should be dismissed with prejudice, at plaintiff’s costs;

It Is Ordered, Adjudged And Decreed that the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same is hereby dismissed, with prejudice, at plaintiff’s costs.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


            PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                  SECTION 1350
                           (furnished but not filed)


In connection with the Quarterly Report of ViaVid Broadcasting Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brian
Kathler, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 results of operations of the
Company.



/s/ Brian Kathler
-------------------------------
Brian Kathler
Chief Financial Officer
November 11, 2004
A vision of a future intermodal sy

How research can lead to safe, m

& sustainable networks

National Conference on 

Intermodal Transportation

October 12, 2012
Future Network Vision

Transportation Networks that provide • Safety, where deaths and serious 

injuries are rare events;

• Efficiency, where travel times are 

assured;

• Conservation of resources, where 

infrastructure conditions and system operations minimize the need for new materials and energy

October 12, 2012 National Conference on Intermodal Transportation
October 12, 2012 

Key Processes

• Focus on high-risk, high payoff 

research

• Merit review is used to enhance the 

quality of research processes and results

• Research stakeholders are 

involved throughout 

• Commitment to successful project 

handoff

National Conference on Intermodal Transportation 
October 12, 2012 

Partner Collaboration

• Research stakeholders are 

involved throughout 

– From scoping of focus areas through 

communication of research results 

• Stakeholders include

– Academic– Government (federal, state, and local)– Industry (businesses, associations)– International

National Conference on Intermodal Transportation 
October 12, 2012

Breadth with Depth

• All projects begin with initial stage 

investigations

– Reference searches, scanning trips, 

convening workshops, etc. 

• Assure leverage of the most recent, 

relevant and advanced research from all fields

• Not all initial stage investigations 

lead to (or are expected to lead to) research investments

National Conference on Intermodal Transportation 
October 12, 2012 

Focus Areas

• Connected highway and vehicle systems• Breakthrough concepts in material science • Human behavior and travel choices• New technology and advanced policies for 

energy and resource conservation

• Technology for assessing performance

Cross cutting

• Nanoscale research• Information sciences

National Conference on Intermodal Transportation 
October 12, 2012 

Program Status

• 100+ Initial stage investigations

– Video decoding, feature extraction– Adaptive materials

• Six solicitations resulting in

– 50 projects awarded; 37 ongoing– $43M federal, $17M match

• 7th closed October 4

– Topics: Novel binders, lowpowered, wireless sensors

National Conference on Intermodal Transportation 
Program Results

Safety Mobility Conservation

ConnectedSystemsMaterialsHumanBehaviorAssessingPerformance

October 12, 2012 National Conference on Intermodal Transportation
October 12, 2012

EAR Program Payoff

• Pointing the way to new 

technology, applications

• Connecting with new partners• Growing scientific capacity and 

pushing disciplinary frontiers

– Building tools that accelerate 

discovery, allow for new measurements, concepts

• Encouraging original ideas

National Conference on Intermodal Transportation 
October 12, 2012

EAR Program websitewww.fhwa.dot.gov/advancedresearch

Thank You

National Conference on Intermodal Transportation
Exhibit 32.2

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 annual report of Cygne Designs, Inc. (the  Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending January 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Roy E. Green, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 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 results of
operations of the Company.



By:

/s/ Roy E. GreenRoy E. GreenSenior Vice President-Chief Financial OfficerMay 30, 2006
#### E. O. MARCOUX, Appellant, v. Harry Louis DAVIS, Appellee.

No. 69-475.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Jan. 13, 1970.

Edward C. Vining, Jr., and R. M. MacArthur, Miami, for appellant.

Manners & Amoon, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, defendant in the trial court, appeals an adverse money judgment which required him to pay damages for alleged injury to a boat mold and to respond in damages to the appellee for an alleged unjust enrichment.

*486At a time material hereto, the boat mold was in the control and possession of the appellant who, at that time, was a co-owner in the chattel. During this period it was accidently damaged. The mold was thereafter delivered to the appellee’s representative who receipted for same as follows :

> “Everything on this list has been picked up by me and is in acceptable condition 4/3-67”.

The mold was then used by the appellee, after which he brought the instant action which resulted in damages being awarded both for a compensatory loss and unjust enrichment. The compensatory damages were awarded for the alleged injury occasioned to the chattel while it was in the possession of the appellant, prior to delivery to the appellee and prior to the execution of the bill of sale.

We find that the trial court erred in awarding these damages because (1) the appellee, through his representative, accepted the chattel in its then condition [§ 672.2-608, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; 28 Fla.Jur., Sales, §§ 103, 117; 46 Am.Jur., Sales, §§ 215, 252], and (2) a cotenant generally is not liable for negligent damages done to the chattel jointly owned. Hyer’s Exrs. v. Caro’s Ex’x, 1878, 17 Fla. 332; 8 Fla.Jur., Cotenancy, § 10. We find no basis in the pleadings or in the record to warrant the recovery of damages against the appellant for unjust enrichment and the final judgment, in this regard, be and the same is hereby reversed.

The appellant’s point on the dismissal of his counterclaim in the trial court, for alleged abuse of process and malicious prosecution, is found to be without merit. Warriner v. Burdines, Inc., Fla.1957, 93 So.2d 108; Gallucci v. Milavic, Fla.1958, 100 So.2d 375, 68 A.L.R.2d 1164; Cline v. Flagler Sales Corp., Fla.App.1968, 207 So.2d 709; 1 Am.Jur.2d, Abuse of Process, § 4.

Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final judgment here under review be and the same is hereby reversed, with directions to dismiss the complaint, the counterclaim, and the cause in the trial court.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.
#### VOLKSWAGENWERKE, A. G., Appellant, v. Sandra S. McMILLAN, Appellee.

No. JJ-194.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 13, 1978.

J. Richard Caldwell, Jr. of Pitts, Eubanks, Ross & Rumberger, P. A., Orlando, for appellant.

Arnold R. Ginsberg of Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, Miami, and Guy N. Perenich of Muscarella, Perenich & Carroll, P. A., Clear-water, for appellee.

SMITH, Judge.

An interlocutory appeal from an order sustaining jurisdiction of a foreign manufacturer under Section 48.181, Florida Statutes (1975). Plaintiff’s proof on the jurisdictional issues was supplied by an affidavit of one of her attorneys of record. That affidavit, though largely hearsay and otherwise inappropriate, *Hubbard v. Hubbard,*233 So.2d 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), apparently was not objected to. We give it, therefore, the probative effect it naturally commands. It is insufficient fti its generality to support the essential jurisdictional findings. The order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings on the motion.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and BOOTH, J., concur.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.04D    
  


 
 

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMUNITIES, INC. RETIREMENT PLAN
  
  AMENDMENT NO. 2    
  


        The California Coastal Communities, Inc. Retirement Plan ("Plan"), which was executed December 21, 2001, and which has been amended for EGTRRA, is
hereby further amended. This amendment is intended as good faith compliance with Revenue Rulings 2001-62 (applicable mortality table) and 2002-27 (definition of compensation),
and is to be construed in accordance with guidance issued thereunder. 


1.    Effective
December 31, 2002, the following is added at the end of Section 6.3.3 of the Plan: 



Effective
for distributions with Annuity Starting Dates on or after December 31, 2002, and notwithstanding any other Plan provisions to the contrary, the applicable mortality table used for
purposes of adjusting any benefit or limitation under Code Section 415(b)(2)(B), (C), or (D) as set forth in the Plan and the applicable mortality table used for purposes of satisfying
the requirements of Code Section 417(e) as set forth in the Plan is the table prescribed in Revenue Ruling 2001-62. 




2.    Effective
for Plan Years and Limitation Years beginning on and after January 1, 1998, the following paragraph is added at the end of the definition of "Compensation" in
Section 1.16 of the Plan: 



For
purposes of the definitions of "Compensation" in the Plan, amounts under Code Section 125 include any amounts not available to a Participant in cash in lieu of group health coverage because
the Participant is unable to certify that he or she has other health coverage. An amount will be treated as an amount under Code Section 125 only if the employer does not request or collect
information regarding the Participant's other health coverage as part of the enrollment process for the health plan. 




        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No. 2 is executed this 30th day of December, 2002. 



	 	 	California Coastal Communities, Inc.
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  SANDRA G. SCIUTTO      












QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.04D


CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMUNITIES, INC. RETIREMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Varian, Inc. for the period ended
December 28, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this certification (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Varian, Inc.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Dated: February 4, 2008              
|                                     
|/s/ GARRY W. ROGERSON                
|Garry W. Rogerson                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written
statement as required by Section 906 has been provided to Varian, Inc. and will be retained by Varian, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of Virginia BLUE et al., Appellants.

No. II-212.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 24, 1978.

Linsey Moore of Johnson, Moore & Roberts, Jacksonville, for appellants.

Earl G. Nicholson, Palatka, for appellee Bi-Racial Committee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the final judgment of the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Putnam County, entered March 24, 1978, the petition for writ of certiorari or for writ of prohibition directed to the proceedings of the circuit court on December 5, 1977 is

DENIED.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and SMITH, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60877-60881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28688]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary
[Transmittal No. 97-28]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification; Republication

    Editorial Note: FR Doc. 97-28688 which was originally published 
in the issue of Thursday, October 30, 1997, on page 58709 is being 
republished in its entirety because of editorial errors.

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Assistance Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of P.L. 104-164 dated 21 July 
1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. J. Hurd, DSAA/COMPT/CPD, (703) 604-6575.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 97-28, with attached transmittal, policy 
justification, and sensitivity of technology.

    Dated: October 24, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-M
      

[[Page 60878]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13NO97.016



[[Page 60879]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13NO97.017



[[Page 60880]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13NO97.018



[[Page 60881]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13NO97.019



    Editorial Note: FR Doc. 97-28688 which was originally published 
in the issue of Thursday, October 30, 1997, on page 58709 is being 
republished in its entirety because of editorial errors.

[FR Doc. 97-28688 Filed 10-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-C