alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### pleaded laches, appellant was required to overcome the rebuttable

presumption of prejudice. NRS 34.800(2).

First, appellant claimed that he had good cause to overcome the procedural bars because counsel failed to file a direct appeal from his judgment of conviction. Appellant failed to demonstrate good cause because he knew in 1994 that counsel did not file a direct appeal. He could have raised this claim in his 1994 petition and failed to demonstrate good cause for the entire length of his delay. Hathaway v. State, 

### 119 Nev. 248, 254-55, 71 P.3d 503, 507-08 (2003). Therefore, the district court did not err in denying this claim.

Second, relying in part on Martinez v. Ryan, 

### 566 U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), appellant argued that he had good cause because he was not appointed counsel in the first post-conviction proceedings. We conclude that this argument lacked merit. The appointment of counsel was discretionary in the first post-conviction proceedings, see 

### NRS 34.750(1), and appellant failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion. Further, this court has recently held that Martinez 

### does not apply to Nevada's statutory post-conviction procedures. See Brown v. McDaniel, 

### Nev. , P.3d (Adv. Op. No. 60, August 7, 2014). Thus, the failure to appoint post-conviction counsel and the decision in Martinez 

### would not provide good cause for this late and successive petition.

Finally, appellant claimed that he was actually innocent of the deadly weapon enhancement. Appellant previously raised this exact claim in a motion to modify or correct. See Luna v. State, 

### Docket No. 45591 (Order of Affirmance, December 21, 2005). This court rejected that claim; therefore, this claim is barred by the doctrine of law of the case. See Hall v. State, 

### 91 Nev. 314, 315-16, 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1995).

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 

### 2

(01 I947AJ. Based on the forgoing, we conclude that appellant failed to demonstrate good cause and prejudice to overcome the procedural bars, and he failed to overcome the presumption of prejudice to the State. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying the petition as procedurally barred, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Hardesty

Douglas J.

CHERRY, J., concurring:

Although I would extend the equitable rule recognized in 

### Martinez to this case because appellant was convicted of murder and is facing a severe sentence, 

### see Brown v. McDaniel, 130 Nev. , P.3d (Adv. Op. No. 60, August 7, 2014) (Cherry, J., dissenting), I concur in the judgment on appeal in this case because the State pleaded laches under NRS 34.800(2) and appellant failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice to the State.

cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge Juan Manuel Luna Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 3
(0) 1947A
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 346 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 346

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of 
investigations and studies by the Committee on the District of Columbia 
        in the second session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 1994

Mr. Stark submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of 
investigations and studies by the Committee on the District of Columbia 
        in the second session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

    Resolved, That (a) for expenses of investigations and studies by 
the Committee on the District of Columbia (hereinafter in this 
resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including expenses for--
            (1) procurement of consultant services under section 202(i) 
        of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946; and
            (2) provision of assistance for members of professional 
        staff in obtaining specialized training under section 202(j) of 
        such Act;
there shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House not more 
than $342,035.
    (b) Not more than $8,000 of the amount specified in subsection (a) 
may be used for consultant services referred to in paragraph (1) of 
such subsection and not more than $1,000 of such amount may be used for 
specialized training referred to in paragraph (2) of such subsection.
    Sec. 2. Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers 
authorized by the Committee, signed by the chairman of the Committee, 
and approved by the Committee on House Administration.
    Sec. 3. Amounts shall be available under this resolution for 
investigations and studies carried out during the period beginning at 
noon on January 3, 1994, and ending immediately before noon on January 
3, 1995.
    Sec. 4. Amounts made available under this resolution shall be 
expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on 
House Administration.

                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 306 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 306

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     November 10, 1993.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and they are hereby, elected 
to the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Foreign Affairs: Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois.
    Committee on Science, Space, and Technology: Bobby L. Rush, Illinois.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
## NUMBER 13

- 2 1

- 00 061

- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

GABRIEL MIRANDA JR., DECEASED,

MARIA FUENTES, GABRIEL MIRANDA SR.,

ALEXANDRA SUZANNE DELEON, REUBEN

ANTONIO DELEON III, AND JON HIDALGO DOE

, Appellant s

,

v.

NORMA JEAN FARLEY

, Appellee.

On appeal from the 398 th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas

.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras

We handed down our opinion and judgment in this appeal on January 6, 2022. On

January 13, 2023, t he Texas Supreme Court granted appellee’s petition for review without

regard to the merits , vacated our January 6, 2022 judgment, and remanded the cause to2 this Court “ for consideration of the parties’ request that the court withdraw its opinion and

to dismiss the appeal and underlying lawsuit in accordance with the parties’ settlement

agreement .” The parties have now filed a “Joint Motion to Withdraw Court’s January 6,

2022, Opinion and Dismiss the Appeal W ith Prejudice, Pursuant to the Parties’

Agreement.”

Having reviewed the joint motion, we find that it has merit and should be granted.

Accordingly

, the motion is granted. W e hereby withdraw our opinion dated January 6,

2022 , and we substitute this memorandum opinion in its place

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

42.1(c ). T o effectuate the parties’ settlement agreement, we hereby dismiss the appeal

.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A), 1 4 3.2(f )

. In accordance with the parties’ agreement,

each party will bear its own costs. Cf. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(d).

DORI CONTRERAS

Chief Justice

D elivered and filed on the

16th day of March, 2023.

1 The settlement agreement has not been filed with the clerk of this Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

42.1(a)(2)(A) (“In accordance with an agreement signed by the parties or their attorneys and filed with the

clerk, the court may

. . . render judgment effectuating the parties’ agreement.”). However, the agreement is

described in the parties’ joint motion

. Accordingly, in order to expedite the resolution of the case , we

suspend Rule 42.1(a)(2)(A) insofar as it requires the agreement to be filed with the clerk , and we proceed

to render judgment

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 2.
#### Cossart vs. Spence.

A collector has no legal authority to receive payment of taxes, and execute a receipt therefor, before the assessment of the property.

*Appeal from Olarh Circuit Court in Chamcery.*

Hon. LeN. B. GreeN, Circuit Judge.

Gallagher, for appellant.

FlaNagot, for appellee.

Mr. Chief Justice ENGlish

delivered the opinion of tbe Court.

On the 16th January, 1858, Sol. Spence, sheriff and collector of Ciarle county, having received of Joseph Cossart, in money and otherwise, a sum equal to the amount of his taxes for the years 1856 'and 1857, executed to him the following receipt:

> “Received of Joseph Cossart, his state and county tax in *fall*for-the years 1856 and 1857.

> “ State tax-, County tax-.

> “16th day of January, 1858.

> SOLO. SPENCE, *Sheriff”*

At the time this receipt was given, the property of Cossart had not been assessed for the year 1857.

On the 8th of April, 1858, Sol. Spence departed this life, and Thomas F. Spence was appointed, and qualified as his successor in the office of sheriff and collector. Ascertaining that a number of tax payers had not been assessed for the year 1857, and among them Cossart, he made out and returned an additional assessment list, including the property of Cossart, upon *375which a supplemental tax book was issued to him, with a warrant attached, for the collection of the taxes therein charged.

He demanded of Cossart the amount of taxes charged upon real estate assessed to him, which he refused to pay, and Spence proceeded to advertise the property for sale, etc.

Cossart filed a bill to injoin the sale, on the ground that the receipt of Sol. Spence was a discharge of the taxes. The court granted a temporary injunction, which was dissolved on the final hearing, the bill dismissed, and he appealed.

The property of Cossart not having been assessed for the year 1857, at the time the receipt was g'iyen to him, Sol. Spence had no legal authority to receive of him payment of the taxes, or to execute ' to him a receipt therefor. 1 The collector derives his authority to collect taxes from the assessment, the tax book, and warrant attached, and a payment to him before the assessment is a mere personal and unofficial transaction between him and the tax payer, and no legal discharge of taxes subsequently assessed.

The agreement between the parties ‘placing the whole case upon the validity of the receipt, the decree of the court below must be affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                5
<MULTIPLIER>                             1,000

<S>
                                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     APR-28-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                          JAN-27-2001
<CASH>                                                     28,884
<SECURITIES>                                                8,857
<RECEIVABLES>                                               3,623
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  262
<INVENTORY>                                                10,665
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           58,223
<PP&E>                                                     18,135
<DEPRECIATION>                                              5,435
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            113,798
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      13,284
<BONDS>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                      858
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                                 81,215
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              113,798
<SALES>                                                    35,538
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           35,538
<CGS>                                                      31,233
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              31,233
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            4,801
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            322
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (31)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  320
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          (351)
<DISCONTINUED>                                               (611)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 (962)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                  (.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                (.59)


</TABLE>
# Administrator

## Robin Carnahan

Download full resolution [JPG - 968 KB]

Robin Carnahan currently serves as the Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA).

As Administrator, she is working to empower GSA career professionals and build on the agency’s efforts to deliver the best value in real estate, acquisition, and technology services to the government and American people.

Prior to joining GSA, Carnahan served in executive and leadership roles in business, academia and government, including as the Secretary of State of Missouri (2005-2013), and founded and led the State and Local Government Practice at 18F, a tech consultancy, inside GSA (2016–2020). She’s a nationally recognized government technology leader and in 2017 was named one of the federal government’s “Top Women in Tech.” Most recently, Carnahan was a Fellow at Georgetown University’s Beeck Center where she co-founded the State Software Collaborative.

As Secretary of State, Carnahan also served as the state’s Chief Election Official and State Securities Regulator and was responsible for providing in-person and online services to hundreds of thousands of customers. An essential part of her job was leading the office’s technology modernization efforts across 7 operating divisions. She frequently speaks, writes and testifies about government innovation through smarter use of technology.

While previously at GSA, Carnahan helped federal, state and local government agencies improve customer facing digital services and cut costs. She focused on training and empowering non-technical executives on ways to reduce risk and deliver better results for the public by more effectively budgeting, procuring, implementing, and overseeing digital modernization projects.

Carnahan holds a bachelor’s degree in Economics from William Jewell College and a J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law.

Return to Leadership Directory | Return to Office of the Administrator  | Twitter: @GSACarnahan

Print PageEmail Page

Top
#### Eddie ROBINSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 41955.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 5, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 256 So.2d 91.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), S. James Miller, Jr., Chief ExecutiveOfficer of ImageWare Systems, Inc. (the ***“Company”***), hereby certifies that, to thebest of my knowledge:

 

1.                The Company’s annual report on Form10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 (the ***“Report”***) fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of theCompany at the end of the periods covered by the Report and the results ofoperations of the Company for the periods covered by the Report.

 
| Dated:   March  31, 2005 |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                         |   |   |
| /s/ S.  James Miller                         |   |   |   |
| S.  James Miller, Jr.                        |   |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer                     |   |   |
|                                              |        |        |  |

 

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ImageWareSystems, Inc. and will be retained by ImageWare Systems, Inc. and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          28,958
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                19,600
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    136,867
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          18,519
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            18,635
<LOANS>                                        311,137<F1>
<ALLOWANCE>                                      5,306
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 539,366
<DEPOSITS>                                     417,154
<SHORT-TERM>                                    49,857
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              7,025
<LONG-TERM>                                      8,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            55
<OTHER-SE>                                      57,275
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 539,366
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 26,486
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               10,098
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   762
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                37,346
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              16,543
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,410
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           17,936
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      465
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  38
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 13,888
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,059
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       8,059
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,400
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.98
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.93
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,208
<LOANS-PAST>                                       747
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   140
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,587
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      998
<RECOVERIES>                                       252
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                5,306
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             5,306
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
<FN>
<F1>New of allowance for loan losses of $5,306.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 296

Requiring each Member of the House of Representatives to hold at least

12 town meetings per year in the district of the Member.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 4, 1993

Mr. SANTORUM submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on House Administration

RESOLUTION

Requiring each Member of the House of Representatives

to hold at least 12 town meetings per year in the district

of the Member.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. TOWN MEETING REQUIREMENT.

3 Each Member of the House of Representatives shall

4 hold at least 12 town meetings each calendar year in the

5 district of the Member. If a Member does not comply with

6 the preceding sentence, in a calendar year, the amount

7 made available to the Member from the Official Mail Al8 lowance for the next calendar year shall be reduced by

9 two-thirds.
2

•HRES 296 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

2 As used in this resolution, the term ‘‘Member of the

3 House of Representatives’’ means a Representative in, or

4 a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.

Æ
Order entered September 8 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 14 - 00212 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 00213 - CR JOE POLANCO, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 401 - 81063 - 2011 , 401 - 80435 - 2012



### O RDER The clerk’s record in cause no. 05

- 14

- 00212

- CR (trial court no. 401

- 81063

- 2011) does not contain a copy of appellant’s notice of appeal. The clerk’s record in cause no. 05

- 14

- 00213

- CR (tr ial court no. 401

- 80435

- 2012) does not contain a copy of the trial court’s judgment revoking community supervision or appellant’s notice of appeal. Accordingly, we ORDER the Collin County District Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this orde r, supplemental clerk’s records containing the items identified above. We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the Collin County District Clerk and to counsel for all parties. /s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE