alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,426

EX PARTE REGINALD DONELL RICE, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 366-83058-06 IN THE 366 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM COLLIN COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of a

controlled substance and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed his

conviction. Rice v. State, No. 05-07-00704-CR (Tex. App. – Dallas, August 14, 2008, pet. ref’d).

Applicant contends, inter alia, that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because 

counsel failed to preserve issues regarding his motion to suppress evidence, and failed to object to

the evidence when it was introduced at trial. Applicant also alleges that counsel failed to advise him
2

that the State was seeking to enhance his punishment, and entered a plea of “true” to the

enhancements on Applicant’s behalf, knowing that Applicant intended to plead “not true.”

The trial court obtained an affidavit from trial counsel, and conducted a habeas hearing at

which trial counsel testified. Based on the record, affidavits and testimony, the trial court has

determined that trial counsel’s performance was deficient in that counsel failed to preserve

suppression issues by objecting when the evidence was introduced at trial, by not informing

Applicant of the possible range of punishment in this case, and by pleading “true” to the

enhancements on Applicant’s behalf when it was Applicant’s intent to plead “not true.” The trial

court also finds that such ineffective representation prejudiced Applicant. We find, therefore, that

Applicant is entitled to relief. The judgment in Cause No. 366-83058-06 from the 366 Judicial th

District Court of Collin County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff

of Collin County to answer the charge against him.

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

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: September 29, 2010

Do Not Publish
#### Valerie K. FREEDMAN, Appellant, v. Evelyn Patricia FREEDMAN, Judith Kramer, Eugene Kramer, Roberta Miller and Earl Miller, Appellees.

Nos. 69-1098, 69-1099.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 19, 1970.

Rehearing Denied June 8, 1970.

Sibley, Giblin, Levenson & Ward, Tali-anoff, Waller & Berger, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Dunn & Johnson, Horton & Schwartz, Miami, for appellees.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HEN-DRY and SWANN, JJ.

CARROLL, Judge.

These appeals arose from an action for declaratory judgment filed by the appel-lee Evelyn Patricia Freedman as plaintiff, against the appellant Valerie K. Freedman, and others. References herein to appellee are to the plaintiff Evelyn Patricia Freedman.

The orders appealed from were an order granting default against the appellant Valerie K. Freedman for failure to file a timely answer, and an order denying her motion to vacate the default.

Prior to the time within which the appellant-defendant was required to file her defensive pleading, she had filed another pleading in the cause, a motion challenging (unsuccessfully) validity of substituted service. By virtue of such *545prior pleading the appellant-defendant was entitled to notice before default could be entered against her for failure to timely file a defensive pleading. Rule 1.500(b) FRCP, 31 F.S.A. After plaintiff moved for default, but prior to hearing or action thereon by the court, the appellant-defendant filed her answer. Later the trial court entered the default order, and denied the subsequent motion to vacate.

Rule 1.500(c) FRCP provides: “A party may plead or otherwise defend at any time before default is entered.”

In this case, the default was entered by the court against the appealing defendant after her answer had been filed, in contravention of Rule 1.500(c) FRCP. Accordingly, the orders appealed from are reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceeding not inconsistent herewith.
U.S. Position 

Colombia – Proposed IFC Investment in TCBuen 

May 6, 2010 

The U.S. supports this $150 million IFC investment for the construction of a new container 

terminal in Buenaventura Colombia. It fits well within the Bank Group’s strategy in Colombia of 

expanding infrastructure, growth and trade opportunities along Colombia’s Pacific coast. 

IFC provided significant financial additionality in this project at a time when other private sector 

lenders had to pull back. There are significant potential development impacts of this investment, 

including job creation in the short and long term in a low income area of Colombia, and 

expanding port infrastructure, which will strengthen Colombia’s port sector by increasing 

competition. 

Given the potential significant environmental impact of this project, the United States agrees 

with the project’s “A” categorization. There has been adequate environmental disclosure lead 

time, and there is detailed discussion of the environmental risk mitigation measures in place, 

including mangrove replacement. The extensive community engagement detailed in the project 

document and TCBuen’s engagement in various community development initiatives are most 

welcome. 

The United States encourages port sponsors and operators to position the port as a model of good 

environmental practice in port design and operations, including through environmental 

management training and other services that may be available through various Port Authority 

Associations. 

Finally, the U.S. Government intends to follow closely the CAO complaint brought against the 

project and other large development projects in Buenaventura.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32840]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Intent to File Application for New License

December 11, 1997.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been 
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of filing: Notice of Intent to File Application for New 
License.
    b. Project No.: 719.
    c. Date filed: October 14, 1997.
    d. Submitted By: Trinity Conservancy, Inc.
    e. Name of Project: Trinity Power Project.
    f. Location: On Phelps and James Creeks in Chelan County, 
Washington.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 15 of the Federal Power Act, 18 CFR 
16.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Expiration date of original license: November 1, 2002.
    i. The facilities under this license consist of small diversion 
dams on Phelps and James Creeks and flumes and penstocks leading to a 
powerhouse with a total installed capacity of 240 kilowatts.
    j. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.7, information on the project is available 
by contacting: Reid L. Brown, President, Trinity Conservancy, Inc., 
3139 E. Lake Sammamish, Issaquah, WA 98029.
    k. FERC contact: Hector M. Perez, (202) 219-2843.
    l. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.9(b)(1) each application for a new license 
and any competing license applications must be filed with the 
Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing 
license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by 
November 1, 2000.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32840 Filed 12-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### T. W. GANUS v. Russell L. CUOCO and the Board of Levee Commissioners of the Orleans Levee District.

No. 9551.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

July 26, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 12, 1978.

D. A. McGovern, III, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

Reuter & Reuter, Arthur C. Reuter, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before SAMUEL, LEMMON and BEER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This matter was originally before us in *Ganus v. Cuoco et al.,*351 So.2d 224.

Subsequent to the denial of an application for rehearing in this court and the denial of application for writs in the Supreme Court of Louisiana, the matter was remanded to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Honorable Oliver P. Carriere set the matter down for a contradictory proceeding prior to framing an injunction in accordance with the mandate set forth in our original opinion. Thus, the matter came on for adjudication following a contradictory proceeding before Judge Car-riere on January 27, 1978. On that date, the court issued a preliminary injunction which forms the basis for this appeal by Russell L. Cuoco.

Our review of the entire record and, particularly, the specific wording of the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Carriere causes us to conclude that the judgment of the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans is neither manifestly in error nor an abuse of the trial court’s wide discretion.

*969Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, at appellant’s cost.

AFFIRMED.
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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Preferred Financial Resources, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Roger W. Sherman, President 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 result of operations of the
Company.

March 18, 2004


Bernard Ware
-----------------------
Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CHRISTOPHER CRAIG

,

Defendant Below

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below

, Appellee. §

§ No. 419 , 2019

§

§ Court Below

– Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ Cr. ID No. 1206022379 (N)

§

§

§

§

Submitted: May 8, 2020

Decided: July 29 , 2020

Before VALIHURA

, VAUGHN , and TRAYNOR

, Justices

.

O RDER

After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record below

, we

conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of and for the

reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its August 29, 2019 order denying the

appellant’s first motion for postconviction relief filed under Superior Court Criminal

Rule 6 1 (“Rule 61”)

. 1 The motion was procedurally barred and did not satisfy the

pleading requirements of Rule 61(i)(5).

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.

Justice

1 State v. Craig , 2019 WL 4131121 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 29, 2019).
257 La. 607

#### PELLETS, INC. v. MILLERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 51084.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 4, 1971.

In re: Millers Mutual Fire Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Morehouse. 241 So.2d 550.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we find no error of law in its judgment.

DIXON, J., recused.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

 

The undersigned officer of Courier Corporation (the“Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Qfor the quarterly period ended June 28, 2003 to which this certification isattached (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, andthat the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| *   August 12, 2003* |   | By:                                                |  * s/Robert P.  Story, Jr.* |   |
|---------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Date                      |   |                                               | Robert  P. Story, Jr.                 |
|                      |   | Senior Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer |
|                           |        |                                                    |                                       |        |  |  |

 

 

This certification shall not be deemed “filed” for any purpose, nor shallit be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing, under theSecurities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

----
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2412 

To extend the authorization of the Illinois and Michigan Canal National 

Heritage Area. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 8, 2021 

Mr. KINZINGER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To extend the authorization of the Illinois and Michigan 

Canal National Heritage Area. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION EXTENSION OF THE ILLINOIS 

4 AND MICHIGAN CANAL NATIONAL HERITAGE 

5 AREA. 

6 The Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage 

7 Area Act of 1984 (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; Public Law 

8 98–398) is amended— 

9 (1) in section 125(a), by striking 

10 ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$20,000,000’’; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2412 IH

1 (2) in section 126, by striking ‘‘15’’ and insert2 ing ‘‘30’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Naamon JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-466.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 17, 1970.

Lee R. Horton, Public Defender, and Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Public Defender, Winter Haven, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Morton J. Hanlon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals an order denying him relief under CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A. Appellant’s motion to vacate reads as follows:

> “Comes Now Naamon Jones in Per Se. moves that this Honorable Court Vacate his Judgment and Sentence Pursuant to the Allowances of Criminal Procedure Rule #1.850. Petitioner Alleges, that he was given 6 months for Contempt of Court for making frivolous accusation, on or about November 16, 1968. and ask that he be granted a hearing.”

It patently appears from a reading of appellant’s motion that it is entirely deficient in that it does not state any grounds for relief under CrPR 1.850. This being true, the appellant was not entitled to a hearing on his motion and the trial court was eminently correct in denying the appellant’s motion without a hearing. Harper v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 168 So.2d 325.

Affirmed.

HOBSON, C. J., and LILES and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
EX-4.1





 Exhibit 4.1 

SPECIMEN ORDINARY SHARE CERTIFICATE 
  

					
	CERTIFICATE NUMBER	  	SHARES	  	                  
			
		  	CUSIP	  	:                 

 PERIMETER SOLUTIONS SA 

INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG 

ORDINARY SHARES 
 THIS
CERTIFIES THAT [NAME OF HOLDER] 
 IS INSCRIBED IN THE SHARE REGISTER OF THE COMPANY AS HOLDER OF 

[NUMBER OF SHARES] ORDINARY SHARES 

OF USD 1.- NOMINAL VALUE 

PERIMETER SOLUTIONS SA 
 a public limited
liability company (société anonyme) governed by the laws of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, having its registered office at 12E, rue Guillaume Kroll, L-1882 Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg and registered with the Luxembourg Trade and Companies Register (Registre de Commerce et des Sociétés, Luxembourg) under number B 256.548 (the “Company”) by showing the number of shares registered in the
name of its owner in the shareholders’ register of the Company. 
 In accordance with the laws of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, only
the registration in the share register of the Company evidences the ownership of shares. 
  

									
	  
	  		  	  

					
	Dated	  	:                                      
                               	  		  	Dated	  	:                                      
                               
					
	Name	  	:                                      
                               	  		  	Name	  	:                                      
                               
					
	Title	  	: Director	  		  	Title	  	: Director
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 23, 2009

s0316 

# Order

March 23, 2009

137670

ALICE BUCKLEY and DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND ECON OMIC GROWTH, Appellees,

v SC: 137670 COA: 277028 Wayne CC: 06-630481-AE PROFESSIONAL PLAZA CLINIC CORPORATION, Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 2, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter Benjamin REYTY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-50360.

D.C. No. CR-00-00902-JTM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 15, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Peter Benjamin Revty appeals his conviction and forty-one month sentence imposed following his conditional guilty plea to one count of importation of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. Revty’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and has moved to withdraw as counsel of record. Revty has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Counsel mentions two potential issues for review, the first challenging the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 in *803light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). This contention is foreclosed by our decisions upholding these statutes despite *Apprendi. See United States v. Varela-Rivera,*279 F.3d 1174, 1175 n. 1 (9th Cir.2002), and *United States v. Men-dozar-Paz,*286 F.3d 1104,1109-10 (9th Cir. 2002).

Counsel next mentions the potential issue of whether Revty was wrongly denied a timely preliminary hearing in violation of Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Because the transcript reveals that on the day of his scheduled preliminary hearing, Revty explicitly agreed to a fourteen day continuance, there was no Rule 5 violation. *See*Fed.R.Crim.P. 5(c) (allowing continuances for good cause with defendant’s consent). Moreover, the subsequent return of an indictment established probable cause and rendered any preliminary hearing unnecessary. *See Austin v. United States,*408 F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir.1969). Accordingly, the absence of Revty’s preliminary hearing did not result in error. *Id.*

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83-84, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988) discloses no other issues requiring further review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
254 La. 769

#### Robert E. PIPER v. John R. NEYREY.

No. 49965.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 1, 1969.

In re: John R. Neyrey applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson.

Writ refused. On- the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in the judgment.
<PART I.  ITEM 6(a) EXHIBITS                       EXHIBIT 11

<TABLE>
CPI CORP. COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
<CAPTION>
                                             12 Weeks Ended
                                          ---------------------
                                        (in thousands of dollars)
                                          April 27,    April 29,
                                             1996         1995
                                          ---------    ---------
<S>                                       <C>          <C>
Primary:
  Net loss applicable to common shares:
      From continuing operations          $ (2,120)    $   (433)
      From discontinued operations             -           (241)
                                          ---------    ---------
        Net loss                          $ (2,120)    $   (674)
                                          =========    =========
Shares (in thousands of shares):
    Weighted average number of
    common shares outstanding               17,217       17,165
  Shares issuable under employee
    stock plans - weighted average              38           34
  Dilutive effect of exercise of
    certain stock options                       11          -
  Less:  Treasury stock - weighted
    average                                 (3,303)      (3,302)
                                          ---------    ---------
  Weighted average number of common
    and common equivalent shares
    outstanding                             13,963       13,897
                                          =========    =========
Net loss per common and
    common equivalent shares:
      From continuing operations          $  (0.15)    $  (0.03)
      From discontinued operations             -          (0.02)
                                          ---------    ---------
        Net loss                          $  (0.15)    $  (0.05)
                                          =========    =========
</TABLE>