alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 18

- 00569

- CR Jamie Alysa VRAZEL , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 290th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2018CR2634 Honorable Melisa Skinner , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 24, 2018
DISMISSED
Pursuant to a plea

- bargain agreement, appellant pleaded nolo contendere to possession of a controlled substance in an amount less than one gram, and the trial court placed appellant on deferred adjudication for a period of three years

. On June 26, 2018 , the trial court signed a n amended certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). After appellant filed a notice of appeal, the trial court clerk sent copies of the certification and notice of appeal to this04

- 18

- 00569

- CR

- 2

- court. See id. 25.2(e). The clerk’s record, which inclu des the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification, has been filed. See id. 25.2(d). “In a plea bargain case ... a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal.” Id. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record, which contains a written plea bargain, establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id. The clerk’s record does not include a written motion filed and ruled upon before trial; nor does it indicate that the trial court gave its permission to appeal. See id. The trial court’s certification, therefore, appears to accurately reflect t hat this is a plea

bargain case and that appellant does not have a right to appeal. We must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” Id. 25.2(d). We, therefore, warned Vrazel that this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), unless an amended trial court certification showing that he had the right to appeal was made part of the appellate record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; Daniels
v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order). No such amended trial court certification has been filed. Rather, Vrazel’s appointed counsel has filed a response acknowledging Vrazel does not have a right to appeal. Accordingly, w e dismiss this app eal pursuant to Rule 25.2(d).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1816 

To amend the Trademark Act of 1946 to provide for the registration of 

marks consisting of a flag, coat of arms, or other insignia of the United 

States, or any State or local government, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 12 (legislative day, DECEMBER 11), 2013 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mr. LEE, and Mr. SCHUMER) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Trademark Act of 1946 to provide for the 

registration of marks consisting of a flag, coat of arms, 

or other insignia of the United States, or any State 

or local government, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REGISTRATION OF CERTAIN MARKS OF THE 

4 UNITED STATES AND STATE AND LOCAL GOV5 ERNMENTS. 

6 Section 2(b) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide 

7 for the registration and protection of trademarks used in 

8 commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain interVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:06 Dec 17, 2013 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1816.IS S1816

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1816 IS

1 national conventions, and for other purposes’’, approved 

2 July 6, 1946 (commonly referred to as the ‘‘Trademark 

3 Act of 1946’’; 15 U.S.C. 1052(b)) is amended by inserting 

4 after ‘‘simulation thereof’’ the following: ‘‘, except that 

5 this subsection shall not prevent the United States, or any 

6 State, municipality, county, political subdivision, or other 

7 governmental authority in the United States, from obtain8 ing registration under this Act of any mark that consists 

9 of or comprises its own flag, coat of arms, or other official 

10 insignia’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### In re the ESTATE of Margaret J. CRISSEY, Deceased.

No. 72-748.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 31, 1973.

Stephen W. Toothaker,. of Berryhill, Avery, Schwenke & Williams, Fort Lau-derdale, for appellants, Mable Finlayson, Mollie Edmon, Angus MaeGillivary, Margaret Peterson, Harriet Thompson, Isabelle Fitzpatrick, Irene Walker, Earl Graham and Lester Graham.

William L. Ranaghan, of Sullivan, Cochran Ranaghan & Bailey, Pompano Beach, for appellees, Marie P. Crissey, as Executrix and W. R. Crissey, a beneficiary of the Estate of Margaret J. Crissey, Deceased.

PER CURIAM.

Upon further consideration of the record in this cause we are of the opinion that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The notice of appeal which was filed on July 31, 1972, seeks to review an order of the County Judge’s Court entered on June 28, 1972, dismissing appellant’s amended petition for revocation of will and an order of July 19, 1972, dismissing appellant’s motion for rehearing. The following comment appearing in the Florida Bar Practice Manual No. 8, Florida Probate Practice, Section 18.9, p. 777, aptly sets forth the basis for this court’s determination that it lacks jurisdiction:

> “Neither the Florida probate law nor the Florida guardianship law nor the Rules of Probate and Guardianship Procedure authorize the filing of a petition for rehearing or motion for new trial. The filing of those pleadings is common practice and in a proper case can be granted on authority of State ex rel. Booth v. Byington, 168 So.2d 164 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1964) aff’d [Fla.] 178 So.2d 1. However, *the filing of the petition or motion mill not toll the time for taking an appeal.*Counne v. Saffan, 87 So.2d 586 (Fla.1956). Compare In re Lee’s Estate, 90 So.2d 290 (Fla.1956). The party who files the petition or motion therefore should obtain a ruling on it *before the appeal period expires.*If no ruling is obtained within the time for the taking of an appeal, a party should abandon the petition, file a notice of appeal and pursue the appeal. . . .” (Emphasis added.)

See also In re Estate of Armistead, Fla.App.1970, 240 So.2d 830.

Inasmuch as the petition for rehearing did not have the effect of tolling the time *586for the taking of the instant appeal, the filing of the notice of appeal more than 30 days after the order of June 28, 1972 was untimely and could not vest jurisdiction in this court.

Appeal dismissed.

OWEN, C. J., and WALDEN and MA-GER, JJ., concur.
#### Aldon Keith KENTNER, Petitioner, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY and the Seacoast Transportation Company, Respondents.

No. 44038.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 16, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 12, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 278 So.2d 637.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, ADKINS and McCAIN, JJ., dissent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-1996
<CASH>                                          22,062
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,744
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (528)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                81,970
<PP&E>                                          12,959
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (7,173)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 221,877
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,490
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           120
<OTHER-SE>                                     178,842
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   221,877
<SALES>                                        244,042
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               244,042
<CGS>                                          177,050
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  182,412
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,498
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  51
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,673
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,358
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,315
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,315
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Order filed May 9, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-01081-CV

____________

VICTORIA V. OCHSNER, Appellant

V.

PRESTON A. OCHSNER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 247th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2001-54131

ORDER

On March 5, 2013, this court ordered Phyllis Gonzales, the official court 

reporter, to file the record of the October 26, 2011 hearing in this appeal by April 

5, 2013. As of today, no record has been filed. 

Therefore, we order Phyllis Gonzales, the official court reporter, to file the 

record of the October 26, 2011 hearing in this appeal within 20 days of the date of 

this order. The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that 
the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). If Phyllis 

Gonzales does not timely file the record as ordered, we may issue an order 

directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure 

to file the record.

If the omitted hearing was not recorded, or the appellant has not made 

payment arrangements, the court reporter is directed to file written communication

with this court stating that the hearing was not recorded or payment arrangements 

were not made.

PER CURIAM
Table 10.  Percent Distribution by Type of Unit for the United States and 
                  for Inside and Outside MAs:  Fourth Quarter 1996 and 1995

(Percent distribution may not add to total, due to rounding)

Fourth quarter 1996

                                              United   Inside     Outside
                                              States     MAs        MAs

All housing units.........................       100      100        100

    Year-round vacant.....................       8.7      8.3       10.3
      For rent............................       2.6      2.7        1.9
      For sale only.......................       1.0      1.0        1.1
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy..       0.7      0.7        0.6
      Held off market.....................       4.5      3.9        6.7
        For occasional use................       1.5      1.2        2.8
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere....       0.8      0.7        0.9
        For other reasons.................       2.2      1.9        3.1

    Seasonal vacant.......................       2.9      1.7        7.4

    Occupied..............................      88.4     90.0       82.3


Fourth quarter 1995
                                              United     Inside     Outside
                                              States       MAs        MAs

All housing units.........................       100        100        100

    Year-round vacant.....................       8.4        8.0       10.1
      For rent............................       2.6        2.8        1.9
      For sale only.......................       0.9        0.9        1.0
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy..       0.7        0.7        0.7
      Held off market.....................       4.2        3.6        6.5
        For occasional use................       1.5        1.1        2.8
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere....       0.7        0.7        0.7
        For other reasons.................       2.0        1.8        3.0

    Seasonal vacant.......................       2.7        1.6        7.1

    Occupied..............................      88.8       90.5       82.8
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 223 (Friday, November 19, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 70811]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2010-28347]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 70811]]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Part 301

[Docket No. APHIS-2009-0079]

Karnal Bunt; Regulated Areas in Arizona, California, and Texas

Correction

    In rule document 2010-28347 beginning on page 68942 in the issue of 
Wednesday, November 10, 2010, make the following corrections:

Sec.  301.89-3  [Corrected]

    1. On page 68945, in Sec.  301.89-3 paragraph (g), in the first 
column, under the California heading, in the 13th line, ``114.647877'' 
should read ``-114.647877''.
    a. In the second column, in the 20th line from the top, 
``114.603889'' should read ``-114.603889''.
    b. In the 29th line from the bottom, ``D10-11'' should read ``D-10-
11''.
    c. In the 26th line from the bottom, ``D10-11'' should read ``D-10-
11''.
    d. In the 21st line from the bottom, ``114.623143'' should read ``-
114.623143''.
    e. In the first line from the bottom, ``114.961526'' should read 
``-114.961526''.

[FR Doc. C1-2010-28347 Filed 11-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Robert S. Cubbin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 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.



By:     /s/ Robert S. Cubbin
    -----------------------------------

Robert S. Cubbin
Chief Executive Officer
November 7, 2005
Exhibit 32.1



Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer and Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Midwest Air Group, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation (the Company), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Timothy E. Hoeksema

Timothy E. Hoeksema

Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer





/s/ Curtis E. Sawyer

Curtis E. Sawyer

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer





Date: October 27, 2005







A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

GROVER SELLERS 

ATTOINLYGLNKRAL 

ark, Tax Amerror-colloato~, 

Clo*, me mmrlft 

ting the mxlmm ularior aa 

vhloh I ha+. roquortod lafomatloa aa abow 

rlll Thor k tarti al tot&l noelv.4 la 4ny 

one par or the rata of par br tha montht’ 

Art1010 3902 Vwnan’m AImOUt Civil M8tutom, 

prowler la part aa foilovrr 
- 388 

Hon. ?.x.vilkln.Ba, P8g. 2 

%lmevor uy dlmtrlot, rounty, or proolaot 

offlmor r&l1 nquin Lk unloo. of dmputlmm, 

urimtaatm, or 01m-k. la tho perfo-• of hi. 

dut1.., ho Itill apply to tb Colas Camlm.lanmr.’ 

Court of him Count 

deputlmm, or 88818 La 

for .ut&rlt to l p ht muoh 

tm, or elm&m, &Lg W 

l vom . 

tobB r R 

llort~on thm nubor a..&& the pomltloa 

lou,.aa thouowlttobopald. 8ald.p. 

plloatlaa .h.ll b. l oomp.alod br . mtatamt rhov3 

th. prokblo rmoolptr rra rum, 0w1..1aQm, 

owtlon to bm oollootod b wld off100 

th. flroal~wraad tho probrblo d I mburmmwatm 

vhloh .h.ll lnoludo all ularlo. ti oxpoa... of 

r a id 0r r 1 B0.; nd uld oourt l b.11 ma. if@ order 

ruthorlrlag tb .ppolatm.nt of muoh dmputl.., 

gmlptm mad 010&a mad fir thm oapabmmtlon 

pruor P bul uul dotomlnm thm wbor to k l pid tha ulthla tho llmltatlana honln 

c 

int8du in th.di.ontlanot ule oou?tm 

proper1 provlbod that in no oemo rhrllam g ammlmmlonorm~ Court or 888bmr 

to lnfluenoo trm 8ppOla 

thmnof 8ttapt 

honln8ftor rot out. Tim oupautloa vhloh may 

bm .llrrd to thm doputlom urlot8nto or olork. 

8bovo~84 for thmlr morriomm rbllboa rearonrblo .mr aot to oroord tho folloriry uount.: 

0 

. . . . 

DoCLm pmr -8 other umlmtantm 

olerk. not to .x00.0 Pl@itO.n H&r& 

Dollhan pmruimm maoh. Pmrldod that nothlng in 

thlm Aot rim11 bm oonatruul mm rqmllng or slfooting aootion 2 or H. 8. MO. 694, Cbaptor 315, Aot. 

1935, tortpfourth Lmglmlatww, pmgo 724." 

Thm tangoing provlmlon of Art1010 3902, 18 appl+?abl. 

to Hill COue~ a. uld oount h.. l 

ta nt. l OOOrtllng to th. 1940 l dmml m.u.. 

g jJoPu~tlont~f3~~ l a.nha.;- 
389 

II lo vlthl8 the dlmontla of aho 0L881080rm' 

Cart to dotomAn. tb amomt o&or#rutlr allow6 mob 

Uf~a#&p8rr 

c 

or oh*. 

T 

tlawuoh~k 

s0n1 0n l tr o ll 

lo., "‘18t8nt.,~ 20s thur 

msm8bloudumnotaaoeo4tb,~tr 

8oatlmod in Art1010 )90& 

Aftor ouwfklly l oaslUorly tlw lart quostlan prownonodh~~ lottor, wo l m umblo to @otomlaa tha Wornfnth.ov.at~rtl.llrutmIropidom~ 

thlB qaest1& plowo ful 

%a 

atao 8U th8 rut8 

' thl.qumtlmmd~o*ill Tfurther ooaddorrtlm. 

#84to~vethl8mtorour 

AUI rr
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-60526

Summary Calendar

Flaviane Almeida-Goncalves, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A200 023 579

Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Flaviane Almeida-Gonclaves, a native and citizen of Brazil, timely 

petitions us for a review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

upholding the denial of her motion to reopen. She first argues that the Board

erred in holding that the motion is time and number barred because it 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 6, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60526 Document: 00516383178 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2022
No. 21-60526

2

contained new evidence, in the form of allegations of continued harassment, 

that was not received until after the first motion. Second, she argues that she 

has proven a prima facie case of asylum, withholding of removal, and 

Convention Against Torture protection. Third, she asserts that the Board 

and Immigration Judge should have granted sua sponte relief.

We review the denial of a motion to reconsider under an abuse-ofdiscretion standard. Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 226 (5th Cir. 2019). 

Under this standard, Almeida-Gonclaves must identify either a “change in 

the law, a misapplication of the law, or an aspect of the case that the BIA 

overlooked.” Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 301 (5th Cir. 2005)). The BIA's 

decision will stand unless it was “capricious, racially invidious [or] utterly 

without foundation in the evidence.” Id. at 304 (quoting Pritchett v. INS, 993 

F.2d 80, 83 (5th Cir. 1993)).

The country condition argument was not presented to the 

Immigration Judge. Matter of Jimenez-Santillano, 21 I. & N. Dec. 567, 570 n. 

2 (BIA 1996). Because the argument is unexhausted, we lack jurisdiction to 

consider it. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 195 & n.14 (5th Cir. 2004). 

Accordingly, there is no basis to analyze the prima facie case in the motion. 

See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). 

We lack jurisdiction to consider how or with what process sua sponte 

authority is used by the Immigration Judge or Board. Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 

904, 911-12 (5th Cir. 2019); see Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir. 

2006).

DISMISSED.

Case: 21-60526 Document: 00516383178 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2022