alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 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 an 

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 TEX. R. APP. 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 this 
04-18-00569-CR

- 2 -

court. See id. 25.2(e). The clerk’s record, which includes 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 that this is a pleabargain 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 TEX. R. APP. 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, we dismiss this appeal 

pursuant to Rule 25.2(d).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header

Census.govNewsroomReleasesCensus 2000

# Newsroom Archive

Skip left menu navigation                          - About the Newsroom
                          - Facts for Features
                          - **News Releases**
                          - Press Kits
                          - Tip Sheets

### Release Information

**CB00-CN.62**
**Contact:**  Patricia Woodward202-482-4883Karen Cowles202-482-1523

## FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2000

## Commerce Secretary Sends Veto Message on Legislation to Change Census Confidentiality Law  

Last night, Commerce Secretary Norman Y. Mineta sent a letter to Members of Congress expressing "strong opposition to any attempt to force the disclosure of personal census information currently protected by the confidentiality provisions of Title 13."  Secretary Mineta further writes: "The adoption of these changes with no public debate runs the very serious risk of undermining the public's confidence in the privacy of census information."

The language may be attached to any one of a number of last-minute, must-pass bills which the Congress will consider as early as today. The amendment would allow an arm of Congress, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to acquire confidential census data collected in monthly surveys, including the Current Population Survey and the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

"I will recommend a Presidential veto of the legislation." Mineta wrote in his letter to Congress.

U.S. Census Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt has publicly expressed his opposition to the CBO legislation, saying that no amendment to Title 13 should be considered by the Congress without public discussion, congressional testimony and a deliberative process which fully debates the consequences of such a change.

CONNECT WITH US**********

                            - Information Quality
                            - Data Linkage Infrastructure
                            - Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                            - Accessibility
                            - FOIA
                            - Inspector General
                            - No FEAR Act
                            - U.S. Department of Commerce
                            - USA.gov

----

Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy

Is this page helpful?
YesNo

NO THANKS

255 characters maximum255 characters maximum reached

Thank you for your feedback.Comments or suggestions? 

PIO@census.gov
260 La. 407

#### Naulis J. BROUSSARD v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY.

No. 52042.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 11, 1972.

In re: Naulis J. Broussard applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Iberia. 254 So.2d 709.

Writ denied. We can find no error of law.
* 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, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50680

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICARDO MORALES HERRERA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CR-21-2

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

Before REAVLEY, GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ricardo Morales Herrera appeals his 125-month sentence for

aiding and abetting a carjacking and possession of a firearm in

relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2,

924(c)(1), and 2119. He asserts that his trial counsel was

ineffective for failing to move the district court for a mental

competency hearing prior to sentencing.

Generally, this court does not review claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel on direct appeal unless the record is

sufficiently developed to allow us to fairly evaluate the merits
No. 04-50680

-2-

of the issue. See United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 313-14

(5th Cir. 1987). In this case, the trial record is adequate to

determine that counsel’s representation was not constitutionally

defective.

At the time Herrera was sentenced, 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a)

(2004) provided that, at any time

prior to the sentencing of the defendant, the defendant

or the attorney for the Government may file a motion

for a hearing to determine the mental competency of the

defendant. The court shall grant the motion, or shall

order such a hearing on its own motion, if there is

reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may

presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect

rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that

he is unable to understand the nature and consequences

of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in

his defense.

The record shows that counsel alerted the district court to

Herrera’s questionable mental capacity at the outset of the

sentencing hearing. As a result, the district court investigated

the matter and questioned Herrera. The court implicitly applied

the standard in 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a) and determined that Herrera

was able understand the nature and consequences of the

proceedings against him and assist properly in his defense. 

In light of the circumstances, counsel’s failure to

explicitly move the court for a competency hearing under

18 U.S.C. § 4241 was not outside the wide range of professionally

competent assistance. Herrera has failed to establish that

counsel’s performance was deficient under Strickland v.
No. 04-50680

-3-

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-90 (1984). Accordingly, he has

failed to show that counsel was ineffective. See id. at 697.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.25

FIRST AMENDMENT        TO THE        COUNTRYWIDE CREDIT INDUSTRIES, INC.        STOCK OPTION FINANCING PLAN AS AMENDED AND RESTATED

Countrywide Credit Industries, Inc. (the "Company") established the Countrywide Credit Industries, Inc. Stock Option Financing Plan (the "Plan") to
retain and encourage the performance of key employees and directors. Paragraph (c) of Section 5 provides for the setting of the interest rate by the Board of Directors. The Company
desires to amend paragraph (c) of Section 5 to provide for an interest rate equal to the "applicable federal rate."

The
Board of Directors has approved this First Amendment to the Plan at its meeting held on July 13, 1994.

1.     Paragraph (c)
of Section 5 is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

"(c)
Interest. The Promissory Note shall bear interest at a rate equal to the applicable federal rate as defined in section 1274(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended, as in effect for the month in which the loan is made. Loans with four-year terms shall bear interest at the published mid-term rate, and loans with
ten-year terms shall bear interest at the published long-term rate."

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this First Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer as of this 25th day of July, 1994.

| |  | Countrywide Credit Industries, Inc.
| |  | -----------------------------------
| |  | By:                                

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





The Board of Directors
CPC International Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Forms S-8 (No. 2-48849, 2-92248 and 33-49847) and on Forms S-3 (No. 33-30813,
33-28989, 33-40759, 33-52213 and 33-65171) of CPC International Inc. of our
report dated February 5, 1996, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
CPC International Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1995 and 1994, and
the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three year period ended

December 31, 1995 which report appears in the December 31, 1995 annual report
on Form 10-K of CPC International Inc.



                                               /S/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
                                               -------------------------
                                                  (KPMG Peat Marwick LLP)



New York, New York
March 19, 1996





                                       19
#### STATE of Louisiana v. William A. WINGERTER and Lucille Wingerter.

No. 59823.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 20, 1977.

Ronald S. Ruiz, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty;, Larry Simmons, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             309
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      115
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   430
<PP&E>                                              25
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     607
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              255
<BONDS>                                            168
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,411
<OTHER-SE>                                    (13,317)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       607
<SALES>                                            143
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   143
<CGS>                                               38
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      171
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (4)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (24)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (24)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (24)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Albert Lee THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. P-485.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 22, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2013015EN.01000801.xml

| 18.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6740 — BayWa/Cefetra)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 15/03

On 19 December 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6740. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6740. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### Johnny Leroy PROCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-182.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Sept. 20, 1968.

Joseph G. Spicola, Jr., Public Defender, and Richard C. Edwards, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

An information was filed in the Criminal Court of Record in and for Hills-borough County charging defendant, Johnny Leroy Prock, with robbery. Following his arraignment, at which he was represented by counsel, he entered a plea of guilty upon advise and counselling of his attorney. Defendant, with his counsel, appeared before the trial judge on July 19, 1965 and was sentenced to twenty years in the Florida State Penitentiary.

On February 14, 1968, appellant filed a motion to vacate and set aside the judgment pursuant to Rule 1.850 CrPR, 33 F.S.A., which motion was denied without a hearing. On April 15, 1968, appellant in proper person filed his notice of appeal and the public defender was again appointed to represent him.

The appeal is based upon defendant’s allegation that he was coerced into pleading guilty by police officers and that he was not adequately represented by counsel. The record, however, refutes these charges. It is eminently clear that defendant was warned by the trial judge of the conse-sequences of his guilty plea and that he was told of his right to trial by jury. In addition, he advised the trial court that he knew of his rights, that he had been neither threatened nor promised anything in exchange for a guilty plea, and that he was pleading guilty because he was, in fact, guilty.

There is nothing in the record to support the allegation that defendant was coerced into pleading guilty or to substantiate the charge that he was not adequately represented by counsel. The trial *71court, therefore, properly denied appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief. Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 834.

LILES, C. J., and ALLEN and MANN, JJ., concur.
#### Melva B. LaFORE and Jack H. LaFore, Appellants, v. Peter J. DEMER and Helen M. Demer, d/b/a Demer’s Pizza & Hoagie Kitchen, Appellees.

No. 71-936.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 10, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1
                           Subsidiaries of TNPC, Inc.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Name                                                           Jurisdiction
----                                                           ------------
<S>                                                            <C>
TNPC Holdings, Inc.                                             Delaware
The New Power Company                                           Delaware
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2001 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2001

   To require that textile and apparel articles acquired for use by 
    executive agencies be manufactured from articles, materials, or 
   supplies entirely grown, produced, or manufactured in the United 
                                States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 6, 2014

   Mr. Brown introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require that textile and apparel articles acquired for use by 
    executive agencies be manufactured from articles, materials, or 
   supplies entirely grown, produced, or manufactured in the United 
                                States.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Wear American Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO PROCURE TEXTILE AND APPAREL ARTICLES 
              MANUFACTURED ENTIRELY OF DOMESTIC COMPONENTS.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Federal Acquisition Regulation Council shall 
amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation to require Federal agencies to 
procure textiles and apparel articles, including components for such 
articles, that are manufactured in the United States wholly from 
articles, materials, or supplies mined, produced, or manufactured in 
the United States. The Federal Acquisition Regulation, as so amended, 
shall provide that the requirement applicable to textiles and apparel 
articles is subject to the same exceptions applicable to other 
articles, materials, and supplies under paragraphs (1) and (2) of 
section 8302(a) of title 41, United States Code.
    (b) Training.--The head of each Federal agency shall ensure that 
each member of the acquisition workforce of the agency who participates 
substantially in the agency's acquisition of textiles and apparel 
articles on a regular basis receives training on the requirements 
implemented pursuant to subsection (a) not later than 180 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2012394EN.01001701.xml

| 20.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 394/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 394/17

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

19 December 2012

2012/C 394/04

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3302 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 112,36 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4608 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,81610 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,6662 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2096 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,3755 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,254 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 286,81 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6963 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0736 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4755 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3682 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2667 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3126 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3092 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5889 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6212 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 426,11 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,2696 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,2902 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5355 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 836,19 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0618 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 54,493 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,7900 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,717 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,7678 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,8993 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,5690 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3302

JPY

Japanese yen

112,36

DKK

Danish krone

7,4608

GBP

Pound sterling

0,81610

SEK

Swedish krona

8,6662

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2096

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,3755

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,254

HUF

Hungarian forint

286,81

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6963

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0736

RON

Romanian leu

4,4755

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3682

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2667

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3126

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3092

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5889

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6212

KRW

South Korean won

1 426,11

ZAR

South African rand

11,2696

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,2902

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5355

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 836,19

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0618

PHP

Philippine peso

54,493

RUB

Russian rouble

40,7900

THB

Thai baht

40,717

BRL

Brazilian real

2,7678

MXN

Mexican peso

16,8993

INR

Indian rupee

72,5690

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
No. 11021.

#### Boor *v.*French, Executor.

Decided October 19, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Erie county.

*Mr. John F. McCrystal,*for plaintiff in error.

*Air. AJalcolm Kelly*and *Mr. George C. Beis,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Summers, Davis and Price, JJ., concur.