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

NO. 03-19-00043-CR

Warren Andrew Confer, Appellant 

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 368TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 02-677-K368, HONORABLE BURT CARNES, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Warren Andrew Confer filed a notice of appeal of his August 28, 2003 judgment of

conviction for engaging in organized criminal activity. See Tex. Pen. Code § 71.02. The record

reflects that Confer is attempting a second appeal of that conviction, which we affirmed in 2005.

Confer v. State, No. 03-03-00546-CR, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 2820, at *13 (Tex. App.—Austin

Apr. 14, 2005, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Our mandate in that appeal

issued December 20, 2005. Confer subsequently filed an application for postconviction writ of

habeas corpus, which the Court of Criminal Appeals denied November 21, 2018. See Tex. Code

Crim Proc. art. 11.07, § 3. Confer then filed this notice of appeal January 16, 2019.

Confer’s 2019 notice of appeal as to his 2003 conviction for engaging in organized

criminal activity is untimely, and he is not entitled to a second appeal of that same conviction.

Under the circumstances, we lack jurisdiction to dispose of this purported appeal in any manner
other than by dismissing it for want of jurisdiction. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 526 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1996) (dismissing purported appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on untimely notice of

appeal); see also Hines v. State, 70 S.W. 955, 957 (Tex. Crim. App. 1903) (“[O]nly one appeal can be

made from a verdict and judgment of conviction in any case.”); McDonald v. State, 401 S.W.3d 360,

361-63 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2013, pet. ref’d) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction defendant’s

subsequent appeal of conviction that had previously been affirmed); see also Parrett v. State,

No. 03-14-00273-CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 5788, at *1-2 n.2 (Tex. App.—Austin May 30, 2014,

no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (same).

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________

Jeff Rose, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Kelly and Smith

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: February 22, 2019

Do Not Publish

2
#### Toni Gordon HOFFPAUIR v. Damon I. HOFFPAUIR.

No. 86-C-2549.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1987.

In re Hoffpauir, Damon I.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 86-49; Parish of Acadia, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “E”, No. 52159.

Prior report: La.App., 498 So.2d 1125.

Denied.

COLE and LEMMON, JJ., concur for reasons assigned in companion writ.
EXHIBIT 31.2

        CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
               SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
        ----------------------------------------------------

     I, Howard Gelfand hereby certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Rotoblock
Corporation.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this quarterly report.

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
material respects our financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

4. The other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) and we have:

a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
    material information relating to Rotoblock Corporation, including
    its subsidiaries, if any, is made known to us by others within
    those entities, particularly during the period in which this
    quarterly report is being prepared;

b)  evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and
    procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
    filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)  presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
    effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
    our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.  The other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to our auditors and the audit committee of our
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)  that there were no significant deficiencies in the design or
    operation of internal controls which could adversely affect our
    ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
    and have further advised our auditors that there we are not aware
    of any material weaknesses in our internal controls; and

b)  that there was no fraud, whether or not material, that involved
    our management or other employees who have a significant role in
    our internal controls; and

6.  The other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly
that there were no significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation.

                                   Rotoblock Corporation, Registrant

Dated: March 14, 2005              /s/ Howard Gelfand
                                   -------------------------------------
                                   By: Howard Gelfand, Chief Financial
                                   Officer, Principal Accounting Officer,
                                   Secretary, Treasurer and Director
IV

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 70

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 4, 2000

Referred to the Committee on Government Reform

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Requesting that the United States Postal Service issue a

commemorative postage stamp honoring the national veterans service organizations of the United States.

Whereas United States service personnel have fought, bled,

and died in every war, conflict, police action, and military

intervention in which the United States has engaged during this century and throughout the Nation’s history;

Whereas throughout history, veterans service organizations

have ably represented the interests of veterans in Congress and State legislatures across the Nation, and established networks of trained service officers who, at no

charge, have helped millions of veterans and their families secure the education, disability compensation, and

health care benefits they are rightfully entitled to receive

as a result of the military service performed by those veterans; and

Whereas veterans service organizations have been deeply involved in countless local community service projects and
2

SCON 70 RFH

have been constant reminders of the American ideals of

duty, honor, and national service: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That the Congress requests that—

3 (1) the United States Postal Service issue a se4 ries of commemorative postage stamps honoring the

5 legacy and the continuing contributions of veterans

6 service organizations to the United States; and

7 (2) the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee

8 recommend to the Postmaster General that such a

9 series of commemorative postage stamps be issued.

Passed the Senate October 3 (legislative day, September 22), 2000.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.
#### Richard SIDER v. ROBIN TEMPORARY SERVICE, et al.

No. 88-C-0156.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 12, 1988.

In re Sider, Richard; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 87-CA-0328; Parish of St. James, 23rd Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 15937. ';■''

*147Prior report: La.App., 515 So.2d 1123.

Denied.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Theundersigned officer of WII Components, Inc. (the “Company”) herebycertifies that the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2007 to which this certification is beingfurnished as an exhibit (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided solelypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) ofRegulation S-K (“Item 601(b)(32)”) promulgated under the Securities Act of1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and the Exchange Act. In accordancewith clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall notbe deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, orotherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not bedeemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Actor the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specificallyincorporates it by reference.

 
| **Date: November 13, 2007** | ** **                                               |
|-----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                        | /s/ Dale B. Herbst                                       |   |
|                        | Name: Dale B. Herbst                                     |
|                        | Title: Chief Financial Officer,  Treasurer and Secretary |

 

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                          5
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1998

<CASH>                             384,453
<SECURITIES>                       4,894,393
<RECEIVABLES>                      3,224,779
<ALLOWANCES>                       49,474
<INVENTORY>                        2,613,560
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   6,563,816
<PP&E>                             4,767,627
<DEPRECIATION>                     505,507
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     27,072,392
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              7,450,942
<BONDS>                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        9,805,010
<COMMON>                           19,955
<OTHER-SE>                         4,167,294
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       27,072,392
<SALES>                            23,282,452
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   4,723,905
<CGS>                              18,130,295
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      47,690,480
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 380,023
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (21,259,315)
<INCOME-TAX>                       36,338
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (21,129,109)
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                       (21,295,653)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      (1.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (1.19)

        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1
                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      I, Edwin C. Quattlebaum, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer, President and
Co-Chairman of the Board of Directors of MetaMorphix, Inc. (the "Registrant"),
certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the quarterly
report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 of the Registrant (the
"Report"):

            (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/ Edwin C. Quattlebaum, Ph.D.


                                  Edwin C. Quattlebaum, Ph.D.
              CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PRESIDENT AND CO-CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF
                                         DIRECTORS OF
                                       METAMORPHIX, INC.

Date:  October 3, 2006
**Page & Paragraph Number**  **(e.g, 1.3.2.1) Commenter Name,** 

**Phone Number & Organization**  **Comment & Rationale Recommended Change/Proposed Rewrite**  

# Comment Form for Advisory Circular (AC) 90-106A **Enhanced Flight Vision Systems Date of Review & Comment:** 

_________________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 151 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.151
                                      Agreed to October 18, 2000        

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
             the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 2348) entitled ``An Act to 
authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to provide cost sharing for the 
endangered fish recovery implementation programs for the Upper Colorado 
and San Juan River Basins.'', the Clerk of the House of Representatives 
shall make the following correction:
        Strike section 4 and insert:

``SEC. 4. EFFECT ON RECLAMATION LAW.

    ``Specifically with regard to the acreage limitation provisions of 
Federal reclamation law, any action taken pursuant to or in furtherance 
of this title will not--
        ``(1) be considered in determining whether a district as 
    defined in section 202(2) of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (43 
    U.S.C. 390bb) has discharged its obligation to repay the 
    construction cost of project facilities used to make irrigation 
    water available for delivery to land in the district;
        ``(2) serve as the basis for reinstating acreage limitation 
    provisions in a district that has completed payment of its 
    construction obligations; or
        ``(3) serve as the basis for increasing the construction 
    repayment obligation of the district and thereby extending the 
    period during which the acreage limitation provisions will 
    apply.''.
  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.

  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 171 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 171

     Expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should 
renegotiate the Extradition Treaty Between the United States of America 
                     and the United Mexican States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 2, 1999

 Mr. Torricelli submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should 
renegotiate the Extradition Treaty Between the United States of America 
                     and the United Mexican States.

Whereas, under the Extradition Treaty Between the United States of America and 
        the United Mexican States, Mexico refused to extradite murder suspect 
        and United States citizen Jose Luis Del Toro to the United States until 
        the State of Florida agreed not to exercise its right to seek capital 
        punishment in its criminal prosecution of him;
Whereas under the Extradition Treaty Mexico has refused to extradite other 
        suspects of capital crimes; and
Whereas the Extradition Treaty interferes with the justice system of the United 
        States and encourages criminals to flee to Mexico: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,

SECTION 1. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE RENEGOTIATION OF THE 
              UNITED STATES-MEXICAN EXTRADITION TREATY.

    It is the sense of the Senate that the President should renegotiate 
the Extradition Treaty Between the United States of America and the 
United Mexican States, signed in Mexico City in 1978 (31 U.S.T. 5059), 
so that the possibility of capital punishment will not interfere with 
the timely extradition of criminal suspects from Mexico to the United 
States.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project Nos. 12925-002 and 14078-000]

                    The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed filed on February 1, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,[1]                                          for proposed projects to be located on the Mississippi River, in Bolivar County, Mississippi, and Desha County, Arkansas. The applications were filed by FFP Project 39, LLC for Project No. 12925-002, and Northland Power Mississippi River LLC for Project No. 14078-000.                

                    On January 17, 2012, at 9 a.m. (eastern time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.[2]                                          The priority established by this drawing will be used to determine which applicant, among those with identical filing times, will be considered to have the first-filed application.                

The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing.

Dated: January 10, 2012.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary. 

# Footnotes

1.                             Under the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, any document received after regular business hours is considered filed at 8:30 a.m. on the next regular business day. 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(2) (2011).                    
        Back to Citation      

2.                             18 CFR 4.37 (2011).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2012-701 Filed 1-13-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Wallace S. PUGH.

No. 88-KH-0330.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 26, 1988.

In re Pugh, Wallace S.; applying for supervisory/remedial and habeas corpus writs; Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 83-0297.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          36,888
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  751,793
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,683,639
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,309
<PP&E>                                       2,152,361
<DEPRECIATION>                                 596,473
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,111,517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,553,271
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,625
<OTHER-SE>                                   (461,379)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,111,517
<SALES>                                        524,983
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               524,983
<CGS>                                          310,268
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  310,268
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               624,784
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               410,069
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              98,871
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (508,940)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (508,940)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (508,940)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Don HOWARD v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 58162.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 16, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1988.

Milford A. Weaver, Lucedale, Thomas J. Lowe, Jr., Jackson, for appellant.

Edwin Lloyd Pittman, Atty. Gen. by John R. Henry, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., and ROBERTSON and ANDERSON, JJ.

AFFIRMED.

ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS, P.J., and PRATHER, SULLIVAN, GRIFFIN and ZUCCARO, JJ., concur.