alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## T HE 

## A LLEN 

## L AW 

## F IRM 

## Attorneys and Counselors at Law

4144 NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY

SUITE 650 Phone: 214.824.7711

DALLAS, TEXAS 75204- 3255 Facsimile: 214.824.7714

September 26, 2016

Mr. Abel Acosta via U.S. mail and electronic filing

Clerk for Court of Criminal Appeals

P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Statio n

Austin, Texas 7871 1

Re: PETE, EX PARTE ANDREW

CCA Nos.: PD

- 0771

- 16, PD

- 0772

- 16, PD

- 0773

- 16

COA Nos.: 05

- 15

- 01521

- CR, 05

- 15

- 01522

- CR, 05

- 15

- 01523

- CR

Dear Mr. Acosta:

Please be advised my office has been retained to represent Appe llant, Andrew Pete, in the

above referenced cause(s). As such, I would very much appreciate my name being entered as

attorney of record and sending me notice of all pertinent matters regarding this case.

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

Respectfully,

THE ALLEN LAW FIRM

/s/ Scottie D. Allen

SCOTTIE D. ALLEN

SBN: 01058020

LYSETTE R. RIOS

SBN: 24083739

4144 N. Central Expressway, Ste. 65 0

Dallas, Texas 7520 4

Phone: (214) 824

- 7711

Facsimile: (214) 824

- 7714

Email: scottie_d_allen@scottiedallenlaw.com

PD-0771-16,PD-0772-16,PD-0773-16

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 9/26/2016 6:28:24 PM

Accepted 9/27/2016 8:04:49 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2013 (the “Report”) of VII Peaks
Co-Optivist Income BDC II, Inc. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof, I, Gurpreet S. Chandhoke, the Chief Executive Officer and President, hereby certify, to the best of my
knowledge, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | By: | /s/ Gurpreet S. Chandhoke                                                                            
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     | Gurpreet S. Chandhoke                                                                                
| |     | Chairman of the Board of Directors,Chief Executive Officer and President(Principal Executive Officer)
**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 this Amendment No. 2 to the Quarterly Report of New Enterprise Stone & Lime Co., Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended May 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), I, Paul I. Detwiler, III, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(i)           the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)        the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: September 20, 2013

 

 
| /s/ Paul I. Detwiler, III                     |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Paul I. Detwiler, III                         |   |
| *President, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary* |   |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 36 (Thursday, February 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 10806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4006]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service


Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds: Termination; First 
Sealord Surety, Inc.

AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the 
Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is Supplement No. 11 to the Treasury Department Circular 
570; 2011 Revision, published July 1, 2011, at 76 FR 38892.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6850.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the Certificate 
of Authority issued by the Treasury to First Sealord Surety, Inc. (NAIC 
<greek-i>28519) under 31 U.S.C. 9305 to qualify as an acceptable surety 
on Federal bonds is terminated effective today. Federal bond-approving 
officials should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury 
Department Circular 570 (``Circular''), 2011 Revision, to reflect this 
change.
    With respect to any bonds, including continuous bonds, currently in 
force with above listed Company, bond-approving officers should secure 
new bonds with acceptable sureties in those instances where a 
significant amount of liability remains outstanding. In addition, in no 
event, should bonds that are continuous in nature be renewed.
    The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at 
www.fms.treas.gov/c570.
    Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial 
Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West 
Highway, Room 6F01, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

     Dated: February 10, 2012.
Laura Carrico,
Director, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Financial 
Management Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-4006 Filed 2-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  I, Mark Gatto, Co-Chief Executive Officer and Co-President, in connection with the Quarterly Report of CĪON Investment Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Quarterly Report”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 1.   The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2.   The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: November 13, 2012
  /s/ Mark Gatto

Mark Gatto

Co-Chief Executive Officer and Co-President

(Principal Executive Officer)

CĪON Investment Corporation
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-18-00772-CV

In re Madeleine Connor

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

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

Relator Madeleine Connor has filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of

the trial court’s order severing her claims against certain defendants after those claims were

dismissed pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participation Act. See Tex. R. App. P. 52. 1

Mandamus relief may be appropriate if a trial court improperly severs claims into a

separate case. See, e.g., In re State, 355 S.W.3d 611, 614-15 (Tex. 2011) (when severance into eight 2

separate suits was improper, State lacked adequate remedy by appeal because of “enormous

waste of judicial and public resources”); In re City of Austin Police Dep’t, No. 03-98-00661-CV,

1999 WL 11224, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 14, 1999, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (not

designated for publication) (Texas courts have a policy against “piecemeal trials,” and mandamus

relief “is appropriate when the trial court improperly severs a single cause of action”). However,

 See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 27.001-.011. 1

See In re State, 355 S.W.3d 611, 614 (Tex. 2011) (severance is proper if controversy 2

involves multiple causes of action, severed claim could be independentlyasserted, and severed claim

is not so interwoven with remaining claim that they involve same facts and issues).
Connor’s claims against the real parties in interest have been dismissed and thus can no longer be

considered interwoven with her remaining claims. Further, Connor has explained that she wishes

to challenge the dismissal of her claims against the real parties in interest, and the severance order

rendered those dismissals final and appealable. See, e.g., Martinez v. Humble Sand & Gravel, Inc.,

875 S.W.2d 311, 313 (Tex. 1994). Thus, Connor has an adequate remedy by appeal. See In re

Rogers, No. 09-11-00644-CV, 2012 WL 112553, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Jan. 12, 2012, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.) (“As to the severed cause, appeal is available and will be an adequate

remedy.”); In re Fantroy, No. 10-09-00008-CV, 2009 WL 91712, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Waco

Jan. 9, 2009, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (“because he has an adequate remedy by appeal of the

judgment and severance order, Fantroy’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied”); In re Clayton,

No. 09-05-00412-CV, 2006 WL 1045175, at *2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Apr. 20, 2006, orig.

proceeding (mem. op.) (once severance signed, interlocutory orders were appealable). We deny the

petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Cindy Olson Bourland, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland

Filed: December 13, 2018

2
### 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. 03-12-00490- CR NO. 03-12-00491- CR

Darius Sh und ale Dohnalik , Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B URNET COUNTY , 33RD J UDICIAL DI STRICT NOS . 354 81 & 380 47, H ONO RAB LE GUILF ORD L. JO NES II I, J UDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Dar ius Shundale Dohnalik pled guilty to the offe nse of attempted burg lary of a habitation with intent to commit assault, and the trial court place d him on defe rre d adjudication community

supervision for e ight year s. In a sepa rate cause , Dohnalik pled guilty to the offe nse of ag g rava ted sexual as s au l t of a child, and the trial court place d him on defe rre d adjudication community supervision for ten y ear s. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate , alleg ing Dohnalik’s multipl e violations of the terms and conditions of his community supervision, including failing to reg ister as a sex offe nder and committin g t h e n ew o ff ense of driving without a valid driver’ s license. After a hear ing—at which Dohnalik pled true to the Stat e’ s al l ega tions in both

cause s—the trial court found the State’s alleg ations to be true, adjudicate d Dohnalik’s guilt for both offe nses, and sentenc ed him to eig ht y ear s’ imprisonment for the attempted burg lary and twenty -five y ear s’ imprisonment for the a g g rava ted sexual assault. Dohnalik appe aled both convic tions.Dohnalik’s court-a ppointed attorney

has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief in eac h cause concluding that the appea ls are frivolous and without merit. The briefs meet the require ments of Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), by prese nting a p rofessional evaluation of the re cords demonstrating why there are no arguable g rounds to be advanc ed. 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); Cur r ie v. State , 516 S.W .2d 684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jack son v. State , 485 S.W .2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W .2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Dohnalik was sent copies of counsel’s briefs and advised of his rig ht to examine the appellate rec ords and to file a pro se brief. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. No pro se br ief ha s been filed and no e x tension of time was re quested.

We have revie wed the rec ords in both cause s and find no reve rsible err or. See Garner v. State , 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 agree with counsel that the a ppeals a re f rivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw fr om both causes is grante d. The judg ments of conviction ar e af firmed.

J eff Rose, J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton and Rose Affir med Filed: January

30, 2013 Do Not Publish

2
Order entered September 1 5 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 00356
- CR JASON DANIEL SEWELL, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Tria l Court Cause No. 219
- 82792
- 2013



### O RDER Appellant’s September 10, 2015 motion to abate the appeal is before the Court. In his motion, appellant notes that in transcribing a videotaped interview played at trial, the court reporter reported numerous small portions of the interview as “inaudible.” Appellant seeks an abatement and a hearing in the trial court to allow the trial court to determine whether the reporter’s record “may be improved by additional examination of the tape” and, if not, to explore “add itional alternatives.” The videotape itself is admitted into evidence as State’s Exhibit One and is included within the record on appeal. Because the videotape is before the Court, and because a comparison of the videotape and the reporter’s record show s many of the “inaudible” portions are in fact comprehensible upon a careful review of the videotape, the Court DENIES appellant’s motion. To the extent theparties need to quote or refer to comprehensible portions of the reporter’s record that have been

recorded as “inaudible,” they are instructed to provide both appropriate citations to the reporter’s record and to the corresponding timestamp on State’s Exhibit One so that the Court may verify the parties’ assertions regarding what was said.
We EXTEND th e time to file appellant’s brief until FOURTEEN DAYS from the date of this order.
/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.33 MB)

Tags:Native American Program, Chris Begay

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of NORTHERNEXPLORATIONS,LTD. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, KENNETHJ.YONIKA, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(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 result of operations of the Company.
|   

|\s\ Kenneth J. Yonika
|---------------------

Kenneth J. Yonika, CPA President

Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer

|August 20, 2010
|---------------

---
#### Jerry BASS, Petitioner, v. LEE WAY MOTOR FREIGHT, INC., and Pepsico, Inc., Respondents.

No. 74822.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Jan. 22, 1991.

*1139Keller, Fernald & Keller by E.W. Keller, Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

Turner, Turner *&*Braun by Charles G. Braun, Oklahoma City, for respondent Pep-siCo, Inc.

HODGES, Vice Chief Justice.

The facts in this workers’ compensation case are not disputed. Claimant injured his back on February 13, 1983, while working for his employer, Lee Way Motor Freight. He was awarded permanent partial disability benefits on June 8, 1983.

Claimant wished to reopen his case for a change' of condition for the worse. On December 4, 1984, claimant mistakenly filed a new form 3 claim for compensation rather than a form 9 motion for hearing. The form 3 erroneously reflected a March 18, 1983, injury date with an aggravation of that injury on June 15, 1984, and failed to mention the prior adjudication of claimant’s injury. PepsiCo, Inc., was later added to the claim as the guarantor of the workers’ compensation liabilities of the now defunct Lee Way and a motion to set for hearing was filed on January 10, 1985. About this time, however, the Workers’ Compensation Court stayed all hearings involving the litigation of PepsiCo’s guaranty agreement, awaiting this Court’s decision in *Lum v. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc.,*757 P.2d 810 (Okla.1987).

It was not until a deposition on November 16, 1989, that counsel for claimant and counsel for PepsiCo first learned that claimant had suffered only one injury, the February 13, 1983, injury for which claimant had been awarded benefits. That injury had merely worsened. On November 30, 1989, claimant filed a motion to reopen on change of condition. At the hearing, PepsiCo successfully asserted the statute of limitations as a defense to reopening on a change of condition for the worse.

On appeal, both parties agree that claimant had until July 4, 1987, to reopen his prior claim for compensation. Claimant argues that the claim was reopened by the December 4, 1984, form 3 filing. PepsiCo insists the claim was time barred. The case turns on whether the second form 3 operated to toll the running of the statute of limitations. Under the facts of this case, we believe it did.

Strict rules of pleading and practice do not apply to proceedings in the Workers’ Compensation Court. *Blue Bell, Inc. v. McKay,*573 P.2d 709 (Okla.1978). This rule includes attempts to reopen a claim for change of condition for the worse. *See, e.g., Durant Milling Co. v. Manners,*664 *1140P.2d 1074 (Okla.Ct.App.1983) (failure of original claim to specify the extent of claimant’s injury did not result in statute of limitations barring reopening of claim for change of condition for worse).

Although claimant filed the wrong form, PepsiCo was sufficiently notified that claimant was seeking compensation. Pep-siCo suffered no harm from claimant’s timely filing of a second form 3. ORDER OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COURT VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED TO TRIAL TRIBUNAL FOR HEARING.

OPALA, C.J., and LAVENDER, DOOLIN, HARGRAVE, ALMA WILSON and SUMMERS, JJ., concur.

SIMMS, J., dissents.

KAUGER, J., recused.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.29 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 12, 2020.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1359

Lower Tribunal No. 17-17363

________________

Jerry Valdez,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the 

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Cristina Miranda, Judge.

Jerry Valdez, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, C.J., and GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.