alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-83,846-01
IN RE JOSE RAUL G RANAD OS, Relator
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF M ANDAM US CAUSE NO. 12-09-0208-C RA IN THE 218th DIST RICT COURT

F ROM ATASCOSA COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R
Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ o f m an damus pursuant to the orig inal jurisdiction of this Court. I n it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habea s corpus in the 218t h District C o u rt o f Atascosa C ounty , that more than 35 day s have elapsed, and that the application has not y et bee n forwa rded to this Court. I n thes e circumstances, additional fac ts are neede d. Respondent, the District Clerk of Atascosa County , is order ed to file a response , which may be made by submitt ing the rec ord on such habea s corpus application, submitt ing a copy of a timely filed orde r which desig nates iss ues t o be investiga ted ( see McCree v. Hampton , 824 S.W .2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), or stating that2

Relator has not filed an application for a wr i t o f h ab eas corpus in Atascosa County
. Should the response include an order desig nating issues, proof of the date the district attorne y ’s o ff i ce was
serve d with the habea s application shall also be submitted with the response. T his application for leave to file a writ of mandamus shall be held in abey ance until Respondent has su b m i t t ed the appropr iate re sponse. Such re sponse shall be submitted within 30 day s of the date of this order.
Filed: September

23, 2015 Do not publish
SNODGRASS

Certified Public
Accountants and Consultants

EXHIBIT 99.1

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board of Directors

First West Virginia Bancorp, Inc.

We have reviewed the accompanying
consolidated balance sheet of First West Virginia Bancorp, Inc. and its subsidiary as of September 30, 2008, and the related consolidated statements of income for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2008 and 2007,
and the consolidated statement of changes in stockholders equity and the consolidated statement of cash flows for the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2008 and 2007. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of
the Companys management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). A
review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit
conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We have previously audited, in accordance with the standards of
the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2007, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders equity, and cash flows for the year then
ended (not presented herein); and in our report dated February 26, 2008 we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ S. R. Snodgrass, A.C.
|Wheeling, West Virginia  
|November 14, 2008        

S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.

980 National Road Wheeling, WV 26003-6400 Phone: 304-233-5030 Facsimile: 304-233-3062
#### JIM OWENS COMPANY, INC. v. Frank UDDO.

No. 5576.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

June 19, 1973.

Greenberg, Cohen *&*Dallam, Roger I. Dallam, Gretna, for plaintiff-appellant.

Peter J. Compagno, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.

Before GULOTTA, STOULIG and BOUTALL, JJ.

*380GULOTTA, Judge.

This is a suit for the balance allegedly due, i. e., the sum of $150.00, for the installation of carpet in the premises owned by defendant. From a judgment of dismissal plaintiff appeals.

The facts are that plaintiff, a carpet contractor entered into a written agreement with defendant for the installation of carpet at a charge of $15.00 per hour. After completion of the work, plaintiff billed defendant the sum of $285.00. Defendant objected to the evcessiveness of the charge and sent plaintiff a check in the amount of $185.00.1 Plaintiff submitted a corrected invoice on August 30, 1971 in the sum of $335.00 less credit for the $185.00 payment on the account. The balance due, as claimed by plaintiff, was never paid. Plaintiff filed a lien and privilege on defendant’s home. This suit followed.

There is no dispute on the installation of the carpet or that the contract price for installation is $15.00 per hour. The only question before us is the factual issue of how many hours plaintiff's employees work on the job.

The plaintiff argues that although he was not on the job, his daily journal shows that his employees worked a total of 22 hours.2 Neither employee who worked on the job testified.

The defendant, on the other hand, stated that he was present during the time the carpet was being installed, and the plaintiff's employees were only on the job for a total of twelve hours.

The trial judge heard the testimony and accepted the testimony of defendant in determining that twelve hours were spent in installing the carpet. This case involves a question of credibility of witnesses. The trial judge resolved this question in defendant’s favor.3 We find no error.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. Costs are to be paid by plaintiff-appellant.

Affirmed.

1

. Twelve hours work at $15.00 an hour totals $180.00, plus $5.00 delivery charge, totaling $185.00.

2

.July 26, 1971 — supervisor and helper 4 hours

July 27, 1971 — supervisor and helper 8 hours

August 7, 1971 — supervisor 8 hours

August 11, 1971 — supervisor 2 hours

TOTAL 22 hours

3

.Ebert v. Macaluso, 248 So.2d 355 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1971).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                   1,350,476,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      77,255,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            58,192,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                            23,982,000
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>              5,512,854,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                   3,327,552,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                     3,241,547,000
<LOANS>                                 26,552,685,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                326,982,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          39,786,581,000
<DEPOSITS>                              28,427,211,000
<SHORT-TERM>                             7,436,790,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                        402,762,000
<LONG-TERM>                                388,377,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   140,012,000
<OTHER-SE>                               2,991,429,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>          39,786,581,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                          1,052,670,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                          270,094,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                            41,813,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                         1,364,577,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                         512,712,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         659,714,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                      704,863,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                               44,682,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              38,000
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                            522,799,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            402,288,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                 402,288,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               265,369,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.17
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.09
<LOANS-NON>                                159,103,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                99,575,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                             5,849,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                           315,412,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                               54,463,000
<RECOVERIES>                                15,817,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                          326,982,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                       326,982,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                    326,982,000


</TABLE>
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier: 20**  **12**

**- NM** 
**- 227** 

**- AD** 

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-51004 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RENE HERNANDEZ-GARAY, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. P-01-CR-38-ALL

-------------------- November 8, 2002 Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Appellant Rene Hernandez-Garay (Hernandez) pleaded guilty, conditionally, to possession with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and was sentenced to a 33- month term of imprisonment. He appeals, challenging the denial of his pre-trial motion to suppress. He contends solely that the Border Patrol agents did not have reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle he was driving.No. 01-51004 -2- “In reviewing the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress, the trial court's factual findings are reviewed for clear error, and its legal conclusions, including whether there was reasonable suspicion for a stop, are reviewed de novo.” United States v. Espinosa-Alvarado , 302 F.3d 304, 305 n.1 (5th Cir. 2002). This court recently addressed the same facts and legal arguments, based upon the same lower court rulings and testimony,in the case of Hernandez’s co-defendant, Cesar Adrian EspinosaAlvarado (Espinosa). Id . at 306-07. There, we determined that the Border Patrol agents had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle in which Hernandez was the driver and Espinosa was the passenger and that the district court did not err in denying Espinosa’s motion to suppress. Espinosa , 302 F.3d at 306-07; see United States v. Arvizu , 122 S. Ct. 744, 750-51 (2002). There is no factual or legal basis for reaching a different result in the instant case. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
#### Robert L. TAVEL, Appellant, *v.*The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-1285.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 25, 1972.

Robert L. Tavel, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HENDRY and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the *48appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of this appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection

          - [Docket No. CFPB-2018-0018]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

# ACTION:

Notice and request for comment.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection published a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         on May 14, 2018 concerning a request for comments on the proposed revision of a currently approved collection of an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The information collection title in the notice was incorrect.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, (Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552, (202) 435-9575, or email:                         *CFPB_PRA@cfpb.gov.*                         If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact                         *CFPB_Accessibility@cfpb.gov.*

## Correction

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of May 14, 2018 in FR Doc. 2018-10221 on page 22254, in the third column, and on page 22255, in the first column, correct “Compliant” to read: “Complaint.”                    

Dated: June 12, 2018.

Darrin A. King,

Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

[FR Doc. 2018-12908 Filed 6-14-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

THERESA MASON, § § No. 37, 2014 Respondent Below, § Appellant, § Court Below: § § Family Court of the

v. § State of Delaware, in and for § New Castle County DIVISION OF FAMILY SERVICES, § § File No. 13-08-10TN § Petition No. 13-27308 Petitioner Below, § Appellee. §

Submitted: September 17, 2014 Decided: September 18, 2014
Before STRINE , Chief Justice, RIDGELY and VALIHURA , Justices.
O R D E R
This 18 th day of September 2014, the Court, having considere d this matter on the briefs of the parties, and having con cluded that the same should
be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons ass igned by the Family Court in its decision of December 30, 2013; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgm ent of the Family Court be, and the same hereby is, AFF IRMED.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice
Case 7:15-cv-09304-VB Document 5 Filed 12/02/15 Page 1 of 18
Case 7:15-cv-09304-VB Document 5 Filed 12/02/15 Page 2 of 18
Case 7:15-cv-09304-VB Document 5 Filed 12/02/15 Page 3 of 18
Case 7:15-cv-09304-VB Document 5 Filed 12/02/15 Page 4 of 18
Case 7:15-cv-09304-VB Document 5 Filed 12/02/15 Page 5 of 18
Case 7:15-cv-09304-VB Document 5 Filed 12/02/15 Page 6 of 18
Case 7:15-cv-09304-VB Document 5 Filed 12/02/15 Page 7 of 18
Case 7:15-cv-09304-VB Document 5 Filed 12/02/15 Page 8 of 18
Case 7:15-cv-09304-VB Document 5 Filed 12/02/15 Page 9 of 18
Case 7:15-cv-09304-VB Document 5 Filed 12/02/15 Page 10 of 18
Case 7:15-cv-09304-VB Document 5 Filed 12/02/15 Page 11 of 18
Case 7:15-cv-09304-VB Document 5 Filed 12/02/15 Page 12 of 18
Case 7:15-cv-09304-VB Document 5 Filed 12/02/15 Page 13 of 18
Case 7:15-cv-09304-VB Document 5 Filed 12/02/15 Page 14 of 18
Case 7:15-cv-09304-VB Document 5 Filed 12/02/15 Page 15 of 18
Case 7:15-cv-09304-VB Document 5 Filed 12/02/15 Page 16 of 18
Case 7:15-cv-09304-VB Document 5 Filed 12/02/15 Page 17 of 18
Case 7:15-cv-09304-VB Document 5 Filed 12/02/15 Page 18 of 18
#### James Richard McDONALD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-442.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 29, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
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



Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Adept Technology, Inc. (the Company), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on his knowledge:



| |  | the annual report of the Company on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
| | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: September 27, 2004



|                                                                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                         
|/S/    ROBERT H.
BUCHER                                                                                  
|Robert H. Bucher Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of Adept Technology, Inc.



|                                                                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                    
|/S/    ROBERT R.
STRICKLAND                                                                         
|Robert R. Strickland Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Adept Technology, Inc.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                             CYRK, INC. SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name of Subsidiary                  Jurisdiction of Incorporation      Ownership
-----------------                   -----------------------------      ---------

<S>                                 <C>                                <C>
Cyrk Europe Limited                 United Kingdom                     100% owned by Cyrk, Inc.
Cyrk.Com, Inc.                      Delaware                           100% owned by Cyrk, Inc.
Cyrk Far East, Inc.                 British Virgin Islands             100% owned by Cyrk, Inc.
Cyrk (H.K.) Limited                 Hong Kong                          100% owned by Cyrk Far East, Inc.
Cyrk Marketing Services, Inc.       Canada                             100% owned by Cyrk, Inc.
Cyrk/Tonkin Europe LTD              United Kingdom                     100% owned by Cyrk, Inc
Simon Marketing, Inc.               Delaware                           100% owned by Cyrk, Inc.
Simon Marketing (Hong Kong)
     Limited                        Hong Kong                          100% owned by Simon Marketing, Inc.
Simon Ventures, Inc.                California                         100% owned by Simon Marketing, Inc.
Simon Marketing Consulting
     (Canada) Limited               Canada                             100% owned by Simon Ventures, Inc.
Simon Marketing International
     GmbH                           Germany                            100% owned by Simon Ventures International LTD
Simon Marketing International
     Limited                        United Kingdom                     100% owned by Simon Marketing International GmbH
Simon Marketing International
     Services Limited               United Kingdom                     100% owned by Simon Ventures International LTD
Simon Marketing East Limited        Hong Kong                          100% owned by Simon Marketing (H.K.) LTD
Simon Ventures International        United Kingdom                     100% owned by Simon Ventures, Inc.
     Limited
</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Lajuan Cecile Bailey v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-12-00200-CR

Trial court case number: 1298261

Trial court: 174th District Court of Harris County

A supplemental clerk’s record that complies with our Order of Abatement has been filed. 

Accordingly, the appeal is reinstated. 

The clerk’s record reflects that appellant is indigent for purposes of appellate costs. The 

clerk’s record has been filed. The court reporter is directed to file in this Court, within 30 days 

of the date of this order and at no cost to appellant, the reporter’s record in the appeal. 

Appellant’s brief must filed within 30 days after the reporter’s record is filed. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Radack

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: October 11, 2012