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

NO. 03-10-00374-CV

Scott Dupuie, Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 201ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-FM-09-005485, HONORABLE DARLENE BYRNE, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant Scott Dupuie has filed a motion requesting that this appeal be dismissed.

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

_____________________________________________

 Diane M. Henson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: September 10, 2010
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62753-62754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30878]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA


Proposed Posting of Stockyards

    The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, United 
States Department of Agriculture, has information that the livestock 
market named below is a stockyard as defined in Section 302 of the 
Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. 202), and should be made subject 
to the provisions of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended 
(7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.).
GA-222--B & B Sales Commerce, Georgia

    Pursuant to the authority under Section 302 of the Packers and 
Stockyards Act, notice is hereby given that it is proposed to designate 
the stockyard named above as a posted stockyard subject to the 
provisions of said Act.
    Any person who wishes to submit written data, views or arguments 
concerning the proposed designation may do so by filing them with the 
Director, Livestock
Marketing Division, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
Administration, Room 3408-South Building, U. S. Department of 
Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250 by December 10, 1997.
    All written submissions made pursuant to this notice will be made 
available for public inspection in the office of the Director of the 
Livestock

[[Page 62754]]

Marketing Division during normal business hours.

    Done at Washington, DC this 14th day of November 1997.
Daniel L. Van Ackeren,
Director, Livestock Marketing Division, Packers and Stockyards 
Programs.
[FR Doc. 97-30878 Filed 11-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-EN-P
BE
AEROSPACE, INC.




EXHIBIT
32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS
REQUIRED BY
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 
 In
connection with the Annual Report of BE Aerospace, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas P.
McCaffrey, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify that to the best of my 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.




Date: February 25,
      2010
              By:
              /s/ Thomas P.
      McCaffrey
                    Thomas
      P. McCaffrey
                    Senior
      Vice President and
                    Chief
      Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Keith Campbell, Also Known as Leroy Miller, Appellant.

[721 *489NYS2d 681]

—Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), both rendered February 22, 1999, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, under Indictment No. 13211/93, and attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, under Indictment No. 13274/93, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are modified, on the law, by vacating the sentences imposed thereon; as so modified, the judgments are affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing in accordance herewith.

The defendant’s knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waivers of his right to appeal his convictions encompass his claim that the Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictments based on an unreasonable delay in sentencing (see, *People v Espinal,*277 AD2d 464; *People v Jones,*255 AD2d 456).

However, the defendant was deprived of his right to counsel at sentencing. Accordingly, his sentences must be vacated. Prior to sentencing, the defendant moved to relieve assigned counsel and requested a new attorney. Without making any inquiry into the defendant’s ability to proceed *pro se*and his understanding of the risks in doing so, and in the absence of any request to represent himself, the court nevertheless relieved counsel and directed the defendant to proceed *pro se.*The defendant did not effectively waive his right to counsel and should not have been sentenced without an attorney *(see, People v Smith,*92 NY2d 516; *People v Slaughter,*78 NY2d 485; *People v Sawyer,*57 NY2d 12, *cert denied*459 US 1178; *People v Maxime,*260 AD2d 406).

In light of our determination, it is unnecessary to address the defendant’s remaining contention. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 99(a)

                      INSILCO CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES



                 Schedule II - Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
                                 (In thousands)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                              Additions
                                                                      -------------------------
                                                                       (1)             (2)
                                                                     Charged         Charged
                                                       Balance at     to costs        to other                      Balance
                     Description                       beginning       and           accounts      Deductions     at end of
                                                       of period     expenses       (describe)     (describe)       period
------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ---------- -------------- -----------------------------
<S>                                                   <C>               <C>                       <C>                 <C>  
For the year ended December 31, 1996

   Allowances deducted from assets:

      Accounts receivable (for doubtful
       receivables)                                   $ 11,303          2,298            -        (8,623)(a)          4,978

      Inventory (primarily for obsolescence)             6,154          2,606            -        (2,644)(b)          6,116


For the year ended December 31, 1997

 
   Allowances deducted from assets:

      Accounts receivable (for doubtful
       receivables)                                   $  4,978            701            -        (3,547)(c)          2,132

      Inventory (primarily for obsolescence)             6,116          2,826            -        (3,498)(b)          5,444


For the year ended December 31, 1998

   Allowances deducted from assets:

      Accounts receivable (for doubtful
       receivables)                                   $  2,132          1,460            -          (812)(a)          2,780
 
      Inventory (primarily for obsolescence)             5,444          2,281            -        (3,882)(b)          3,843
</TABLE>



Notes:   (a)  Primarily accounts written off, net of recoveries.
         (b)  Primarily obsolete parts written off.
         (c)  Primarily due to the sale of the Rolodex Business and accounts 
              written off, net of recoveries.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Meghan Leanne Garza, * From the 161st District Court

 of Ector County, Texas

Trial Court No. B-16-0293-CR.

Vs. No. 11-16-00145-CR * December 15, 2016

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the 

appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with 

this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
NUMBER 13-11-00114-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

 

IN RE REIDIE JACKSON

 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Vela and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Relator, Reidie Jackson, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus alleging that the 

Honorable Ben Hardin, presiding judge of the 23rd Judicial District Court of Matagorda 

County, Texas, abused his discretion by rendering an order on January 12, 2001, 

dismissing relator’s suit against the State of Texas for want of jurisdiction.

Having reviewed and fully considered relator’s petition, this Court is of the opinion 

that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief requested and that the petition 

should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

3rd day of March, 2011.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1
                            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 on Form 10-Q of
Datascope Corp. (the "Company") for the Quarter ended September 30, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         o    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
              or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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





November 14, 2002






                         \s\  Lawrence Saper
                         -------------------------------------------------
                         Lawrence Saper
                         Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer



                         \s\  Leonard S. Goodman
                         -------------------------------------------------
                         Leonard S. Goodman
                         Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer


                                       17
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67067-67068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33441]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Office of Arms Control and Nonproliferation Policy; Proposed 
Subseqent Arrangement

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Subsequent arrangement.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 2160), notice is hereby given of a proposed 
``subsequent arrangement'' under the Agreement for Cooperation Between 
the Government of the United States of America and the Government of 
Canada Concerning the Civil Uses of Atomic Energy and the Agreement for 
Cooperation Between the Government of the United States of America and 
the Government of the Argentine Republic Concerning the Civil Uses of 
Atomic Energy.
    The subsequent arrangement to be carried out under the above-
mentioned agreements involves approval of the following: RTD/AR(CA)-1 
for the transfer of 2 kilograms of zirconium alloy metal doped with 9.6 
grams of unirradiated enriched uranium containing 8.9 grams of the 
isotope U-

[[Page 67068]]

235 (93.04 percent enrichment) from Canada to Argentina for use in 
experiments of irradiation growth of zirconium alloy at low 
temperatures.
    In accordance with Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, it has been determined that this subsequent arrangement will 
not be inimical to the common defense and security.
    This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than fifteen 
days after the date of publication of this notice.

    Dated: December 17, 1997.
    For the Department of Energy.
Cherie P. Fitzgerald,
Director, International Policy and Analysis Division, Office of Arms 
Control and Nonproliferation.
[FR Doc. 97-33441 Filed 12-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT

TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with this annual report on Form 10-K of The Wet Seal, Inc. for the period ended January 31, 2004, I, Peter D. Whitford, Chief Executive Officer of The Wet Seal, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. |  | This Form 10-K for the period ended January 31, 2004 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 this Form 10-K for the period ended January 31, 2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of The
Wet Seal, Inc.
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                              
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: March 26, 2004 |  | /s/    PETER D.
WHITFORD     
|                     |  | Peter D. Whitford            
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT** **TO
      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION
      1350)**




In
      connection with the Annual Report of Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-K for the period ended April 24, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, Rexford A.
      Yeisley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350),
      that:




(1)  The
      Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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









/s/
      Rexford A. Yeisley


Rexford A. Yeisley


Chief
      Financial Officer




July
      6,
      2005
#### STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT of Florida, an Agency of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. CONE BROTHERS CONTRACTING COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. L-122.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Nov. 4, 1969.

Wicker, Smith, Psyzka, Blomqvist and Davant, for appellant.

Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings and Evans, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 I, Jack Krings, President, Acting Chief Executive
  Officer and Chief Operating Officer of CPI Corp., a Delaware Corporation,
  certify that:  (1)
  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q
  of CPI Corp.;(2)
  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain
  any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
  necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
  which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
  covered by this report;(3)
  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
  other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
  material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
  flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;(4)
  The registrants other certifying officers and I are
  responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
  procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
  registrant and have:(a)
  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
  caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
  supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
  including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
  those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
  prepared;(b)
  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
  disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
  conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
  procedures, as of the end  of the
  period covered by this report based on such evaluations;(c)
  disclosed in this report any change in the
  registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
  the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal
  quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
  reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
  over financial reporting; and(5)
  The registrants other certifying officers and I
  have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
  financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
  registrants board of directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent
  functions):(a)
  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses
  in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting  which are reasonably likely to adversely
  affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
  financial information; and(b)
  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
  management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
  internal control over financial reporting.  /s/ Jack KringsJack KringsPresident, Acting Chief Executive Officer and Chief
  Operating OfficerDate: September 2, 2004
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6415

DERRICK E. MURPHY,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:09-cv-00302-LO-TRJ)

Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: September 2, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick E. Murphy, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen, 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick E. Murphy seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Murphy has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
3

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

**TRANSATLANTIC HOLDINGS, INC.SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT**

| **Name of Corporation**                |                     | **Jurisdiction ofIncorporation** |                | **% of VotingSecuritiesOwned by itsImmediateParent** |
|----------------------------------------|--------------------------|----------------------------------|---------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
| Transatlantic Reinsurance Company      |      |                             | New York, U.S.A.    |                                                 |      |   | 100 | % |
| Putnam Reinsurance Company             |      |                             | New York, U.S.A.    |                                                 |      |   | 100 | %* |
| Trans Re Zurich                   |      |                             | Zurich, Switzerland |                                                 |      |   | 100 | %* |
| Transatlantic Re (Argentina) S.A. |      |                             | Argentina           |                                                 |      |   | 100 | %* |
| Transatlantic Re (Brasil) Ltda    |      |                             | Brazil              |                                                 |      |   | 100 | %* |
| Transatlantic Polska Sp. z o.o    |      |                             | Warsaw, Poland      |                                                 |      |   | 100 | %* |
|                                        |                     |                             |                |                                                 |   |   |   |   |

* The common stock is owned 100% by Transatlantic Reinsurance Company.