alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-16-00207- CR

Torrance Ray Evans, Jr., Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 27TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 747 40, H ONO RAB LE JO HN GAUNTT, JUDGE P RESIDING

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

nce Ray Evans, J r. appea ls from his open plea of g uilty to the felony offe nse of ag g rava ted robber y . See Tex. Penal Code § 29.03. After a hear ing, the trial court assessed punishment at 10 y ear s’ imprisonment. The trial cour t cer tified Evans’s r ight of

appea l.
Evans’s court-a

ppointed at t o rn ey has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief addressing th i s ap p ea l and concluding that this appea l is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the require ments of Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) , b y p rese nting a profe ssional evalua tion of the rec ord in this cause demonstrating why there are no arg uable appellate
g rounds to be advanc ed. See id. ; see also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); High v. State , 573 S.W .2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W .2d 684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jack

son v. State , 485 S.W .2d 553, 553 (Tex

. C ri m. App. 1972); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W .2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel sent a copy of the brief t o Evans, advisedhim of his rig ht to examine the appellate rec ord in this cause and to file a pro se brief, and supplied

Evans with a form motion for pro s e ac ce s s t o the appellate record. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly v. State , 436 S.W .3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Evans did not file a pro se brief and did not request an e x tension of time to do so.

We have revie wed the rec ord in this cause and find no reve rsible err or. See Garner
v. Stat e , 300 S.W .3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v . State , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We ag ree with counsel that this appea l is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is g rante d. The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

J eff Rose, Chief J ustice
Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Goodwin a nd Bour land Affir med Filed: Nove mber 17, 2016 Do Not Publish

2
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

[on
DepoMed letterhead] 


Exhibit 10.2  


  
 

    Notice to Investors in DepoMed, Inc.
  Private Placement of Common Stock Units
  
    June 8, 2001    



Ladies
and Gentlemen: 


    Reference
is made to the Subscription Agreement (the "Subscription Agreement") to purchase Common Stock Units
("Units") of DepoMed, Inc. (the "Company") distributed to potential investors in the pending
private placement of Units (the "Private Placement"). 



    Please
be advised that the Company has agreed to the following modifications to the Subscription Agreement at the request of Fahnestock & Co. Inc., the placement agent
in the Private Placement ("Fahnestock"): 



	1.
	All
Subscription Agreements must be executed and delivered to Fahnestock no later than Monday, June 11, 2001.



	2.
	The
Stock Purchase Price (as defined in the Subscription Agreement) applicable to the First Closing will be based on the one-to-ten trading day period which
immediately precedes the date all Subscription Agreements are accepted by the Company and which is mutually agreed to by the Company and Fahnestock.



	3.
	The
Warrant will be revised to extend the Expiration Date (as defined in the Warrant) to five (5) years from the date of issuance, rather than four (4) years, and to
include a cashless exercise feature.



	4.
	Section C(7)
of the Subscription Agreement is hereby supplemented to include the following representation and warranty on the part of the Company: 





"The
Memorandum and any of the documents or instruments attached thereto as Exhibits or incorporated therein by reference, when taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements contained therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading." 





    The
Company's acceptance of any and all Subscription Agreements is subject to the terms set forth above. 


    In
addition, the Company has agreed to appoint to the Board of Directors of the Company a nominee designated by OrbiMed Advisors LLC, an investor in the Private Placement and the
Company's largest shareholder, and to grant Board observer rights to another significant investor in the Private Placement. 



	 	 	DEPOMED, INC.
	

 	
 	

By:	

/s/ John F. Hamilton
 John F. Hamilton
 Chief Financial Officer











QuickLinks


Notice to Investors in DepoMed, Inc. Private Placement of Common Stock Units June 8, 2001
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 Western Power Equipment Corp, a Delaware
coporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Repost"), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)  the Report of the Company filed today pursuant to Section 13(a) of the
     Securities Exchange Act o f1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), fully
     complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; 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/ Mark J. Wright
-------------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance
November 12, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          89,955
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  655,874
<ALLOWANCES>                                    74,140
<INVENTORY>                                     37,440
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               815,123
<PP&E>                                       9,739,854
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,028,653
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,146,678
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,287,996
<BONDS>                                      1,130,211
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     81,866
<COMMON>                                     1,400,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     249,032
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,146,678
<SALES>                                        781,082
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               781,082
<CGS>                                          251,166
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  540,118
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,818
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                216,146
<INCOME-TAX>                                    87,849
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            128,297
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   128,297
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           6,987
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  169,227
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (3,790)
<INVENTORY>                                    137,608
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               343,054
<PP&E>                                         459,703
<DEPRECIATION>                                (284,997)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 579,690
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          205,782
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,323
<OTHER-SE>                                     186,732
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   579,690
<SALES>                                        586,669
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               586,669
<CGS>                                          411,946
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  411,946
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,780
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 42,975
<INCOME-TAX>                                    15,291
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             27,684
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,684
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.29
        

</TABLE>
#### JAR CORPORATION, etc., Petitioner, v. W. Wirt CULBERTSON, etc., et al., Respondents.

No. 41134.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 14, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 246 So.2d 144.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Mary Jo HAMELERS.

No. 62565.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: State of Louisiana, through Harry F. Connick, District Attorney, Parish of Orleans applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.
#### Vaughn Gilbert JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. R-332.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 13, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   Exhibit 21.1

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


1.  Mental Health Outcomes, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

2.  Horizon Mental Health Management, Inc., a Texas corporation formerly known
    as Horizon Mental Health Services, Inc., is the successor by merger to
    Horizon Mental Health Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation formerly known
    as Horizon Health Management Company.*

3.  HHG Colorado, Inc., a Colorado corporation, d/b/a Mountain Crest Hospital,
    Inc.

4.  HHMC Partners, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

5.  Florida Professional Psychological Services, Inc., a Florida corporation,
    d/b/a Professional Psychological Services, Inc.

6.  Geriatric Medical Care, Inc., a Tennessee corporation.

7.  Clay Care, Inc., a Texas corporation.
____________________________________

    * Horizon Mental Health Management, Inc., a Delaware corporation, was
      formerly known as Horizon Mental Health Services, Inc. and Horizon
      Health Group, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-30270

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESSIE ALFRED,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:10-CR-77-1

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jessie Alfred appeals the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to 

conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base (crack). 

He contends that his 1997 state conviction for crack cocaine possession was 

wrongly used to increase his criminal history score because the state offense 

was part of the federal offense.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 3, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-30270 Document: 00512792174 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2014
No. 14-30270

The state offense could properly be treated as criminal history if the 

criminal conduct was “not part of the instant offense.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(1); 

see also § 4A1.1(a), (d), & comment. (n.4). The critical inquiry is whether the 

prior conduct is “relevant conduct” as defined by § 1B1.3 of the Guidelines. 

United States v. Yerena-Magana, 478 F.3d 683, 687 88 (5th Cir. 2007); see

United States v. Thomas, 973 F.2d 1152, 1158 (5th Cir. 1992). Relevant 

conduct includes conduct that was “part of the same course of conduct or 

common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction.” § 1B1.3(a)(2); see United 

States v. Benns, 740 F.3d 370, 373 (5th Cir. 2014).

We review the district court’s factual finding of relevant conduct for clear 

error. See United States v. Wall, 180 F.3d 641, 644 (5th Cir. 1999). “A factual 

finding is not clearly erroneous as long as it is plausible in light of the record 

as a whole.” United States v. Rhine, 583 F.3d 878, 885 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted).

Although Alfred’s state offense occurred within the alleged dates of the 

federal conspiracy, the state offense was not relevant conduct because it 

occurred prior to Alfred’s actual participation in the federal conspiracy. See

§ 1B1.3, comment. (n.2(B)) (“A defendant’s relevant conduct does not include 

the conduct of members of a conspiracy prior to the defendant’s joining the 

conspiracy, even if the defendant knows of that conduct.”). In addition, the 

state offense involved an accomplice who was not part of the federal conspiracy, 

and the state offense involved crack cocaine while Alfred’s federal sentence was 

based only on powder cocaine. The district court’s finding that the state offense 

was not part of the federal offense was at least plausible and thus not clearly 

erroneous. See Rhine, 583 F.3d at 885; Wall, 180 F.3d at 644-45.

The judgment is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 14-30270 Document: 00512792174 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/03/2014
EXHIBIT 32.02

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350**

**OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of General Employment Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

 

|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section a 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 the operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Date:  February 6, 2009 | /s/ Kent M. Yauch                                                                   |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    | Kent M. Yauch                                                                       |
|                    | Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (Principal financial officer) |
# Official Journal C 200A/2007

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 200A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5028 August 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 200A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5028 August 2007

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2007/C 200A/01 | Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — sixth supplement to the 25th complete edition | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2007/C 200A/01

Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — sixth supplement to the 25th complete edition

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 887

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for the exclusion

of immigrants infected with the HIV virus.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 16, 1993

Mr. DUNCAN for himself, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. ZELIFF, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr.

SANTORUM, Mr. SUNDQUIST, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. BARTLETT of

Maryland, and Mr. BAKER of Louisiana) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide

for the exclusion of immigrants infected with the HIV virus.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF IMMIGRANTS INFECTED WITH

4 THE HIV VIRUS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 212(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Im6 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.

7 1182(a)(1)(A)(i)), as amended by section 601(a) of the

8 Immigration Act of 1990, is amended by inserting ‘‘or,

9 in the case of an alien who is an immigrant, to be infected
2

•HR 887 IH

1 with the human immunodeficiency virus’’ after ‘‘to have

2 a communicable disease of public health significance’’.

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

4 subsection (a) shall apply to individuals seeking admission

5 as immigrants on or after January 1, 1993, or, if later,

6 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### Homer KNIZLEY v. STATE.

No. 38977.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 2, 1969.

Habeas Corpus denied without opinion.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 285

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Attorney

General and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation should

cooperate with the United States Postal Service and the Polly Klaas

Search Center to disseminate information regarding the kidnapping of

Polly Klaas.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 26, 1993

Ms. WOOLSEY submitted the following resolution; which was referred jointly

to the Committees on the Judiciary and Post Office and Civil Service

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

the Attorney General and the Director of the Federal

Bureau of Investigation should cooperate with the United

States Postal Service and the Polly Klaas Search Center

to disseminate information regarding the kidnapping of

Polly Klaas.

Whereas Polly Klaas was abducted at knifepoint by a stranger who entered her home in Petaluma, California, late at

night on October 1, 1993, while her mother was sleeping

in the adjacent room;

Whereas hundreds of generous volunteers have donated their

time, energy, and funds to the search for Polly by establishing the Polly Klaas Search Center, which has distrib-
2

•HRES 285 IH

uted over 7,000,000 flyers with pictures of Polly and her

suspected abductor nationwide;

Whereas the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the

Petaluma Police Department have also dedicated substantial resources and worked tirelessly on the search for

Polly;

Whereas despite the continuing work of the community and

law enforcement agencies, efforts to locate Polly have not

yet succeeded;

Whereas abducted children are often recovered as a direct result of photographs that are distributed nationwide;

Whereas the United States Postal Service is not permitted to

offer free postage for mailings concerning kidnapped children; and

Whereas the Polly Klaas Search Center is currently facing severe financial difficulties due to the high cost of postage:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that the Attorney General and the Director

3 of the Federal Bureau of Investigation should cooperate

4 with the United States Postal Service and the Polly Klaas

5 Search Center to use nationwide mailings to disseminate

6 as quickly as possible information concerning the kidnap7 ping of Polly Klaas.

8 SEC. 2. The community of Petaluma, California, the

9 Petaluma Police Department, and the Federal Bureau of

10 Investigation are commended for their hard work on the

11 Polly Klaas kidnapping case.
3

•HRES 285 IH

Æ
#### Mrs. Cecil N. HANKINS v. THE PENN MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO.

No. 45402.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 22, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, 1969.

Zachary & Weldy, Hattiesburg, William E. Andrews, Purvis, for appellant.

Jesse W. Shanks, Purvis, Watkins & Eager, William E. Suddath, Jr., Jackson, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA-2013 -0332 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM009AD

601 - 0617, R02 --- 11/14/12 601 - 0617, R01 --- 11/12/12 601 - 0617 --- 7/31/12 604 - 34 - 065, R01 --- 10/15/12 604 - 34 - 065 --- 7/31/12 605 - 34 - 027, R01 --- 10/15/12 605 - 34 - 027 --- 7/31/12

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket



### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
#### Elias J. ROBERTSON, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. Loree ATKINSON, Appellee.

No. S-67.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 2, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 7, 1973.

Roger M. Sherman, Beggs, Lane, Daniel, Gaines & Davis, Pensacola, for appellants.

Donald H. Partington, Pensacola, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court appealed from is affirmed. See Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla.1959).

RAWLS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K. and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.