alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismissed and Opinion Filed July 7, 2016 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-00770-CR No. 05-16-00771-CR No. 05-16-00772-CR No. 05-16-00773-CR EX PARTE MICHAEL WHALEY, Relator Original Proceeding from the 282nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F91-45041, F92-36477. F92-36482, F93-01488 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Stoddart Opinion by Justice Francis Relator was convicted in 1993 for aggravated robbery, engaging in organized criminal activity, and aggravated assault. The Eastland Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on direct appeal. See Whaley v. State , No. 11-93-00127-CR (Tex. A pp.—Eastland Dec. 9, 1993, no pet.). In this original proceeding, relator comp lains that his sentences were excessive and his convictions the result of ineff ective assistance of counsel and pr osecutorial misconduct. He asks this Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing u nder article 11.07(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2 Although relator styles the petiti on as a “Notice of Appeal,” the substance of the petition is a collateral at tack on his underlying convictions. 1 Such an attack falls within the scope of a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus under ar ticle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 11.07 (West 2015). Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings. Id ; In re McAfee , 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding); Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim . App. 1991) (orig. pro ceeding) (by granting writ of mandamus to vacate judgment of convicti on, court of appeals usurped exclusive authority of court of criminal appeals to grant post-conviction relief). Accordingly, we DISMISS this proceeding for want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 160770F.U05

1 Sentence was imposed in these cases on June 9, 1993. Relator has already had one direct appeal from his convictions and nothing in his latest filing indicates that the trial court issued any new, appealable orders. To the extent relator seeks to again directly appeal the 1993 convictions, such an appeal is untimely. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.2(a)(1). /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE
#### Charles R. MORLAN, Appellant, v. June M. MORLAN, Appellee.

No. S-1092.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

June 20, 1986.

*498Lawrence Z. Ostrovsky, Birch, Horton, Bittner, Pestinger & Anderson, Anchorage, for appellant.

John T. Hansen, Anchorage, for appellee.

OPINION

Before RABINOWITZ, C.J., and BURKE, MATTHEWS, COMPTON and MOORE, JJ.

MATTHEWS, Justice.

As a part of the property division in this divorce case, the trial court awarded the appellee, June Morían, the entire amount of her husband Charles’s pension administered by the Alaska Teamster Employer Pension Trust. The trial court restrained Charles from doing anything to defeat June’s rights to receive pension benefits. In context, this means that Charles is restrained from working as a teamster in Alaska, the occupation that he has long pursued, because if he does, pension payments will be suspended. Charles contends that this aspect of the trial court’s order is unjust and therefore violates AS 25.24.-160Í4).1

Because of complexities like this, pension rights should generally be awarded to the employee spouse if there is other marital property of appropriate worth which can be awarded to the non-employee spouse. *In re Marriage of Gillmore,*29 Cal.3d 418, 174 Cal.Rptr. 493, 629 P.2d 1, 7 (1981). In the present case, this was not possible because the value of the pension exceeded the value of all the other marital assets. When pension rights have been awarded to the non-employee spouse it is harsh to require the employee spouse to retire so that the other can receive them. In recognition of this, other courts have given the employee spouse the option of not retiring and periodically paying the non-employee spouse sums equal to the pension benefits which otherwise would have been received. *Gillmore,*174 Cal.Rptr. at 499-501, 629 P.2d at 6-8; *Wallace v. Wallace,*677 P.2d 966, 967 (Hawaii App. 1984). In our view, it was clearly unjust to deprive Charles of such an option in this case.

The judgment is vacated and the case is REMANDED with instructions to the superior court to enter a modified judgment in accordance with the views expressed herein.

1

. Formerly AS 25.24.160(6), this provision was renumbered "(4)" by amendment effective October 1, 1985, am § 3 ch 40 SLA 1985. Alaska Statute 25.24.160 states in relevant part:

> In a judgment in an action for divorce or action declaring a marriage void or at any time after judgment, the court may provide (4) for the division between the parties of their property, whether joint or separate, acquired only during coverture, in the manner as may be just....
EXHIBIT
32


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 Chartwell International Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), we, Imre Eszenyi, Acting
President and Chairman of the Board and Paul Biberkraut, Chief Financial and
Administrative Officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of our 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.





Dated:
      November 20, 2009
              /s/
      Imre EszenyiImre
      EszenyiActing
      President and Chairman of the Board
                (Principal
      Executive Officer)Dated:
      November 20, 2009
              /s/
      Paul BiberkrautPaul
      BiberkrautChief
      Financial and Administrative Officer
                (Principal
      Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
                Officer)
GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY 

Department of Env~ronmental Quality Post Office Box 97 

Sacaton, Anzona 85247 

(520) 562-2234 . Fax (520) 562-2245 

July 1 1,2007 

Wayne Nastri 

Regional Administrator RECEIVED 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IX 

75 Hawthorne Street JuL 2 7 2007 

San Francisco, CA 941 05-3901 

Air D~disror.~, AIR - Lf. 

Attn: Andrew Steckel U.S. EPA, REGION 9 

Re: Submittal of the GRIC Air Quality Program Plan for Federal Enforceability under Section 

11 0 of the Clean Air Act, 40 C.F.R., Part 5 1, Appendix V and the Tribal Authority Rule 

(TAR) 

Dear Mr. Nastri 

The Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) is pleased to submit the GRIC Air Quality 

Management Program Plan for your review and approval. Please find attached, the support 

documentation necessary to evaluate the GRIC Air Quality Management Program Plan for 

federal enforceability under Section 1 10 of the Clean Air Act, 40 C.F.R., Part 5 1, Appendix V 

and the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR). 

GRIC has been working closely with EPA Region IX personnel to ensure that the support 

documentation included in this submittal fulfills the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

GRIC followed the check list (enclosed) and Section 1 10 of the CAA and feels that this packet is 

complete with the exception of the GRIC jurisdictional letter requested as part of the TAS 

submittal, MOA's for Criminal Enforcement and delegation of NESHAPs and MACT standards, 

and an updated emissions inventory. The GRIC Law Office is currently drafting the 

jurisdictional letter and is working with EPA Counsel on the MOAs. GRIC expects to complete 

the letter and MOAs within the next few days. The GRIC DEQ has been working with an 

environmental consultant to update the GRIC 1997 Emissions Inventory which will be submitted 

upon completion. 

The GRIC DEQ will continue working with EPA Region IX personnel to complete the GRIC Title V 

submittal packet by the end of August 2007. 

If you have any questions or need addifiand dau~entation ple~e cantact paniel Blair at (520) 562- 

2234 ext 24 1. -. 

Margaret Cook, - <.- -. 1- 

- ---.. ., -- -. C - -_ .. .