alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 21, 2020

NO. 03-20-00341-CR

Carlos Gomez a/k/a Carlos Ulloa, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 147TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES BAKER AND TRIANA

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION-- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, the Court 

dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay 

costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, Mark R. Keller, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Republic Property Trust;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant rolein the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.         Date: August 10, 2006                   By: /s/ Mark R. Keller             Name: Mark R. Keller      Title: Chief Executive Officer (Principal
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Madison BENTLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 74-2295

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 1, 1974.

*958Orma R. Smith, Jr., Corinth, Miss., for defendant-appellant.

H. M. Ray, U. S. Atty., Faltón O. Mason, Jr., Alfred E. Moretón, III, Will R. Ford, Asst. U. S. Attys., Oxford, Miss., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and THORNBERRY and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks reversal of his conviction for violations of the Internal Revenue Service liquor laws, 26 U.S.C. §§ 5601, 5602, 5604, 5691, 7206, and 18 U. S.C. § 2. We have reviewed his assignments of error dealing with peremptory challenges, search and seizure, accomplice instructions, and admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence, and find them to be without merit.

The number of peremptory challenges afforded a defendant is governed by F.R.Cr.P. Rule 24(b) and the discretion of the judge. The rule was complied with here; the judge did not abuse his discretion. *See*United States v. Franklin, 5 Cir., 1973, 471 F.2d 1299.

At the suppression hearing, the trial court found that the still was located outside the Fourth Amendment protected zone of appellant’s co-defendant Cleveland. This finding was not clearly erroneous. Therefore, the search and seizure were valid.

The instructions the trial court gave on accomplice testimony and corroboration have previously been approved by us in United States v. Easterly, 5 Cir., 1971, 444 F.2d 1236, and United States v. Harrelson, 5 Cir., 1973, 477 F.2d 383.

After Cleveland’s credibility was attacked on cross-examination by appellant, Agent Pace testified as to what Cleveland told him after his arrest. Such a procedure was approved in United States v. Bays, 5 Cir., 1971, 448 F.2d 977.

A review of the record taking the view most favorable to the government reveals sufficient evidence to support the conclusion of appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Warner, 5 Cir., 1971, 441 F.2d 821, cert. denied, 404 U.S. 829, 92 S.Ct. 65, 30 L.Ed.2d 58. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1941).

The evidence amply warrants the finding of guilt and the record reveals no error.

Affirmed.
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 Marine Growth Ventures, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to such officer’s knowledge that:





(i)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (subject to the Company's position prevailing in regard to the remaining unresolved SEC comment, as more fully described in the Report); and





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





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.





Dated: May 13, 2011

/s/ Craign HodgkinsCraig Hodgkins, President and Director(Principal Executive Officer)
**Exhibit 10.7**

 

**THIRD EXTENSION OF AMENDED STUDIO LEASE AGREEMENT**

 

**THIS THIRD EXTENSION OF THE AMENDED STUDIO LEASE AGREEMENT** (“Amendment”) is made as of January 1, 2006by and between THE HEARST CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (“Hearst”), andHEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”).

 

**W****ITNESSETH**

 

WHEREAS, Hearst and theCompany entered into a Studio Lease Agreement dated as of August 29, 1997 (the“Studio Lease Agreement”), pursuant to which the Company leased to Hearst theLeased Premises (as defined in the Studio Lease Agreement);

 

WHEREAS,Hearst and the Company entered into an Amendment to Studio Lease Agreementdated as of August 29, 2000 (the “Amended Studio Lease Agreement”);

 

WHEREAS,Hearst and the Company extended the term of the Amended Studio Lease Agreementpursuant to an initial Extension and a subsequent Second Extension of theAmended Studio Lease Agreement; and

 

WHEREAS,Hearst and the Company mutually desire to further extend the term of theAmended Studio Lease Agreement, as set forth hereinafter;

 

NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements containedherein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiencyof which are hereby acknowledged, the Amended Studio Lease Agreement as soamended is hereby extended by substituting the date of December 31, 2006 forthe date of August 31, 2004 in paragraph 2 (Term of Lease) in the Studio LeaseAgreement as so amended.

 

Exceptas expressly set forth herein, all terms and conditions of the Studio LeaseAgreement as so amended shall continue in full force and effect.

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this extension of the Studio LeaseAgreement as so amended as of the date first above written.

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this extension of the Studio LeaseAgreement as so amended as of the date first above written.

 
| THE HEARST CORPORATION   | HEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC. |
|--------------------------|--------------------------------|
|                     |                           |
| By:                      | /s/ Ronald Doerfler            |   | By: | /s/ Jonathan C. Mintzer |   |
|                     |                           |
| Dated: February 24, 2006 | Dated: February 24, 2006       |
|                          |                                |  |  |  |  |

 

----
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer**


**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 SRKP 5, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.


/s/ Richard
              A. RappaportRichard
              A. RappaportPrincipal
              Executive OfficerNovember
                13, 2007
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7504** 

CHARLES R. TURNER , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. GENE JOHNSON, Director of Prisons; KIMBERLY RUNION, Director of V.C.B.R.; THE C.R.C. COMMITTE E , Name s Unknown , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. ( 1:11

- cv - 01086

- CMH

- TCB )

Submitted : February 16, 201 2 Decided: February 22, 2012

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Charles R. Turner, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Charles R. Turner appeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons s tated by the district
court. Turner v. Johnson , No. 1:11

- cv - 01086

- CMH

- TCB (E.D. Va. Oct. 21, 2011)
. See Huftile v. Miccio

- Fonseca , 410 F.3d 1136, 1139

- 40 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994), applies to civilly committed sex off enders). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### SAFECARD SERVICES, INC., Appellant, v. SCHEDULING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Appellee.

No. 86-2940.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 24, 1987.

Barry I. Tillis, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Buchbinder & Elegant and Allan Jay Atlas, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and BASKIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *B.R. Fries Assocs., Inc. v. Meagher,*448 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA), *review denied,*453 So.2d 1364 (Fla.1984); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(b); *see Kash N’ Karry Wholesale Supermarkets, Inc. v. Garcia,*221 So.2d 786 (Fla. 2d DCA), *cert. denied,*229 So.2d 869 (Fla.1969).
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

|   | CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO |
|--------|---------------------------|

|   | 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, |
|--------|-------------------------|

|   | AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY |
|--------|------------------------|

|   | SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MailTec, Inc.., on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Jeff A. Hanks, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer  of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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. 

 

 

 

| Date: February 14, 2008 | /s/Jeff A. Hanks |
|-------------------------|------------------|

Jeff A. Hanks

Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting                                                                        Officer
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            
            
            U.S. Air Force
                    U.S. Air Force
        Search
                    Search AF.mil:
                        Search
                Search AF.mil:
                    Search
    Home





    News
    
        Commentaries

    Features

    Photos

    Art

    Air Force TV

    Radio

    Week in Photos





    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Adjunct Professors

    Fact Sheets

    Commander's Call Topics    
        CCT Archive

    CSAF Reading List    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    2015 CSAF Reading List

    2014 CSAF Reading List

    2013 CSAF Reading List

    2012 CSAF Reading List

    2011 CSAF Reading List

    2010 CSAF Reading List

    2009 CSAF Reading List

    2008 CSAF Reading List

    2007 CSAF Reading List

    2006 CSAF Reading List

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    The Book

    Speeches Archive    
        Former AF Top 3 Viewpoints and Speeches

    Air Force Warrior Games 2019

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Desert Storm 25th Anniversary

    DoD Warrior Games

    Portraits in Courage    
        Portraits In Courage Vol. I

    Portraits In Courage Vol. II

    Portraits In Courage Vol. III

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IV

    Portraits In Courage Vol. V

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VI

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VIII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IX

    Portraits In Courage Vol. X

    Chapman MoH

    The Air Force We Need

    Events 2020





    AF Sites
    
        Social Media Sites

    Site Registration





    AF Content Management





    Careers  
 Home
  News
  Photos
 Air Force Photos Search
 Search
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Full Size (0.52 MB)
 
 AFC16 B-21 AIR FORCE AFA
 Photo Gallery
 Quick Links
                            Join the Air ForceSite MapQuestionsContact UsRSSFOIAIGAF SitesAccessibilityEEOLink DisclaimerStrategic APRSuicide PreventionSAPRUSA.govNo FEAR Act
                    Connect
                    Official United States Air Force Website
                        Subscribe to USAF News and Information
          Submit
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             103
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          91,070
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,379
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  88,695
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         60,786
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,545
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    88,695
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,326
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,462
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,168
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,756
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (679)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (679)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (679)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.44)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       4,269,825
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  262,862
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,532,687
<PP&E>                                      13,225,807
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,038,840
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,845,711
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          687,809
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,157,902
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,845,711
<SALES>                                      4,472,653
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,765,095
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,341,869
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                423,226
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            423,226
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   423,226
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    14.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    14.22
        

</TABLE>
#### Harry Eugene TEMEN, Appellant, v. Bernard BARRY, Sheriff of El Paso County, Appellee.

No. 84SA74.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Dec. 17, 1984.

David F. Vela, Colo. State Public Defender, Michael A. Warren, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for petitioner-appellant.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. For-man, Sol. Gen., Peter Stapp, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent-appellee.

ERICKSON, Chief Justice.

The appellant, Harry Eugene Temen, appeals a district court order discharging a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

The appellant was arrested in El Paso County, Colorado in 1983 and held for extradition to the state of Texas. He filed for a writ of habeas corpus in the El Paso County District Court. Prior to the habeas corpus hearing, appellant filed discovery motions pursuant to Crim.P. 16 requesting, *inter alia,*a list of witnesses the prosecution intended to call at the hearing. The district court denied the request.

The appellant claims on appeal that he was entitled to discovery under Crim.P. 16 and that the district court erred *746in denying his discovery motions. We disagree. Crim.P. 54(b)(2) expressly precludes the application of the rules of criminal procedure to extradition proceedings and the rendition of fugitives.1 The rationale behind Crim.P. 54(b)(2) is clear. Allowing full discovery in extradition proceedings would defeat the limited purpose of the habeas corpus hearing. *See, e.g., Denbow v. Williams,*672 P.2d 1011 (Colo.1983).

Because habeas corpus is a summary proceeding unrelated to the guilt or innocence of the accused, a petitioner’s right to discovery is extremely limited. *Hithe v. Nelson,*172 Colo. 179, 471 P.2d 596 (1970). In *Hithe,*we held that a court may only authorize discovery under the rules of civil procedure if an appellant clearly shows that the information that he seeks to discover will be relevant to the very narrow issues involved in the habeas corpus hearing. 172 Colo. at 183, 471 P.2d at 598. Here, the appellant made no such showing. He did not show that the requested information was material to the narrow issues before the court, or even that the information was unavailable to him.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s request for discovery. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court.

1

. Crim.P. 54(b)(2) provides:

> These Rules are not applicable to extradition and rendition of fugitives; forfeiture of property for violation of a statute or the collection of fines and penalties; nor to any other special proceedings where a statutory procedure inconsistent with these Rules is provided.