alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 1 2

- 00107

- CR

Andrew GONZALEZ

, Appellant

v.

The S TATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007CR4638

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr. , Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 27, 2012

DIS MISSED

Appellant has filed a motion to di smiss this appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 42.2(a). We grant the motion and dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6063

LARRY LEE THOMPSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD F. MOATS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-98- 2110-MJG) Submitted: July 27, 1999 Decided: August 17, 1999 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Larry Lee Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Larry Lee Thompson appeals the district courts order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Thompson v. Moats , No. CA-98-2110-MJG (D. Md. Dec. 23, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
III

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 227

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 19, 2001

Received and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Condemning bigotry and violence against Arab-Americans,

American Muslims, and Americans from South Asia in

the wake of terrorist attacks in New York City, New

York, and Washington, D.C., on September 11, 2001.

Whereas all Americans are united in condemning, in the

strongest possible terms, the terrorists who planned and

carried out the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, and in pursuing all those responsible

for these attacks and their sponsors until they are

brought to justice and punished;
2

HCON 227 RFS

Whereas the Arab-American, South Asian-American, and

American Muslim communities are a vital part of the Nation;

Whereas on September 12, 2001, in a mass for the Nation

and the victims of the terrorist hijackings and attacks,

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the Archbishop of Washington, D.C., reminded all Americans in prayer that ‘‘we

must seek the guilty and not strike out against the innocent or we become like them who are without moral guidance or direction’’;

Whereas the heads of State of several Arab and predominantly Muslim countries have condemned the terrorist attacks on the United States and the senseless loss of innocent lives; and

Whereas vengeful threats and incidents of violence directed at

law-abiding, patriotic Americans of Arab or South Asian

descent, particularly the Sikh community, and adherents

of the Islamic faith have already occurred: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) declares that in the quest to identify, bring

4 to justice, and punish the perpetrators and sponsors

5 of the terrorist attacks on the United States on Sep6 tember 11, 2001, that the civil rights and civil lib7 erties of all American, including Arab-Americans,

8 American Muslims, and Americans from South Asia,

9 should be protected; and
3

HCON 227 RFS

1 (2) condemns any acts of violence or discrimi2 nation against any Americans, including Arab-Amer3 icans, American Muslims, and Americans from

4 South Asia.

Passed the House of Representatives September 15

(legislative day, September 14), 2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 289 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 289

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 1) to close the achievement 
gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is 
left behind, the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall, with 
respect to the title IX that is contained within quotation marks and 
that immediately precedes title X of the bill, make the following 
corrections:
            (1) Insert before such title IX the following:

                      TITLE IX--GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 901. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

    Title IX (20 U.S.C. 7801 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:

            (2) Insert at the end of such title IX closed quotation 
        marks and a period.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 13, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 289

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make technical 
           corrections in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 1.
```
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Juan Carlos Alvarez-Ramirez, Appellant

No. 06-23-00204-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 290th District Court of 

Bexar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

2022CR9625). Panel consists of Chief 

Justice Stevens and Justices van Cleef and 

Rambin. Memorandum Opinion delivered 

by Justice van Cleef. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the 

judgments of the court below. Therefore, we modify (1) the judgment as to count II to reflect 

“22.011(a)(2)(B) PC” as the “Statute for Offense,” (2) the judgment as to count III to reflect 

“22.011(a)(2)(A) PC” as the “Statute for Offense,” and (3) the judgment as to count IV to reflect 

“43.25(b) PC” as the “Statute for Offense” and “2nd degree felony” as the “Degree of Offense.” 

We affirm the trial court’s judgment as to count I, without modification, and we affirm the

judgments as to counts II, III, and IV, as modified.

We further order that the appellant, Juan Carlos Alvarez-Ramirez, pay all costs of this 

appeal.

RENDERED JULY 24, 2024

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Jeffery W. Sprick, certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Mueller Group, Inc.;

2.                 Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                 Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         [Reserved]

(c)          Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(d)         Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)         Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: February2, 2006
|        | /s/ JEFFERY W.  SPRICK         |
|--------|--------------------------------|
|   | Name: Jeffery W. Sprick        |
|   | Title: Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, David J. Keefe, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and 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 maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: May 7, 2008



|    |  |                                     
|--- |  | ------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ David J. Keefe                  
|    |  | David J. Keefe                      
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer and Director
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
    News
    
        Commentaries

    Features

    Photos

    Art

    Air Force TV

    Radio

    Week in Photos

    Coronavirus Disease 2019

    Air Force Art Collection





    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Adjunct Professors

    Fact Sheets

    Commander's Call Topics    
        CCT Archive

    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

    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 2021

    Focus on Priorities

    Empowered Airmen

    State Licensure Portability

    CSAF Leadership Library    
        CSAF Leadership Library Bookshelf

    2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List





    AF Sites
    
        Social Media Sites

    Site Registration





    AF Content Management





    Careers





    Contact Us  
 Home
  News
  Photos
 Air Force Photos Search
 Search
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Full Size (0.24 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 Quick Links
                            Join the Air ForceSite MapQuestionsContact UsRSSFOIAIGAF SitesAccessibilityEEOLink DisclaimerStrategic APRSuicide PreventionSAPRUSA.govNo FEAR ActOSI Tip Line
                    Connect
                    Official United States Air Force Website
                        Subscribe to USAF News and Information
          Submit
NO. 07-05-0213-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	JUNE 23, 2005

	______________________________

	LARRY DEE AMES, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

			_________________________________

	FROM THE 69TH DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAM COUNTY;

	NO. 3652; HONORABLE RON ENNS, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellant, Larry Dee Ames, attempts to appeal his conviction for the felony offense of driving while intoxicated.  Finding we have no jurisdiction to consider the appeal, we dismiss.  

	Appellant was found guilty by a jury and sentenced December 13, 2004.  He filed a motion for new trial and motion in arrest of judgment together with his notice of appeal on April 21, 2005.  In a criminal case appeal is perfected by a timely notice of appeal.  Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b), 26.2(a).  A notice of appeal is timely if filed within 30 days of the date sentence is imposed or suspended, unless a motion for new trial is filed within the same period.  Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a), 21.4(a).  The timely filing of a motion for new trial permits the notice of appeal to be filed within 90 days of the day sentence is imposed.  Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(2).  Either deadline for the notice of appeal may be extended if a motion to extend the time to file the notice is filed within 15 days after the deadline.  Tex. R. App. P. 26.3.  If an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals lacks jurisdiction and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal.  Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996).  No motion for extension of time has been filed in this case.

	By letter dated June 16, 2005, we advised appellant the notice of appeal  appeared untimely and directed him to explain why the appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  He responded, asserting the appeal should not be dismissed because “appellant has obtained the consent of all parties involved in the trial of this Cause.”  Texas courts have consistently held jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent.  See, e.g., Stine v. State, 908 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995), citing Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 279 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993).  Appellant offers no authority to the contrary.  We find the absence of a timely notice of appeal deprives this court of jurisdiction.  Lacking jurisdiction, the only action we may take is dismissal.  We therefore dismiss this appeal.

						James T. Campbell

						        Justice

Do not publish.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF
PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)
  (1)
    
    such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Odimo Incorporated for the fiscal quarter ended
March 31, 2011, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Odimo Incorporated
for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2011, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Odimo Incorporated at the dates and for the
periods indicated.
  Date: May 16, 2011
    /s/ Amerisa KornblumAmerisa KornblumChief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellant, v. Marvin Miles WIRE, Appellee.

No. 0-81-360.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Oct. 30, 1981.

Earl E. Goerke, Dist. Atty., Canadian County, Stan Chatman, Mike Hoover, Asst. Dist. Attys., El Reno, for appellant.

Gary E. Miller, Yukon, for appellee.

OPINION

BRETT, Presiding Judge:

This is an appeal by the State from an order of the District Court of Canadian *352County, sustaining a motion to quash the information in Canadian County Case No. CRM-80-1439. The State purports to be appealing under Rule 6 of the Rules of this Court; but that procedure was not the appropriate avenue for the State to follow.

The appellee was charged with being drunk in a public place. Because the case was a misdemeanor, there was no preliminary examination. The appellee entered his plea of not guilty on November 26, 1980, and a pre-trial hearing was set. In the course of the hearing the special judge sustained the appellee’s motion to quash the information. The State then gave notice of its intention to appeal the judge’s ruling.

Rule 6 of the Rules of this Court is specifically designed to give the State an opportunity to seek relief from a ruling by a magistrate. The role of a magistrate in a criminal case is generally performed by a special judge, but not everything a special judge does is in the role of a magistrate. See Laws 1978, ch. 87, § 3 (now 20 O.S. Supp.1980, § 123). A special judge is also empowered to hear misdemeanors; and when one does so, he or she is acting as a judge of the district court, not as a magistrate. Accordingly, Rule 6 is not applicable in such a situation.

The State has sought to appeal under Rule 6, and under the circumstances of this case, a Rule 6 appeal will not lie. This appeal must therefore be dismissed.

BUSSEY and CORNISH, JJ., concur.
#### John PETRAKIS, Appellant, v. Evangelina PETRAKIS, Appellee.

No. 87-2445.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 21, 1988.

Paul G. Fletcher and Timothy W. Harrington, Homestead, for appellant.

Rory S. Stein, Cooper City, for appellee.

Before BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ., and WARREN H. COBB, Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The husband, John Petrakis, appeals from a final dissolution of marriage judgment. We affirm, except for the trial court’s award of the full use and occupancy of the marital home to the wife “so long as [she] desires to reside therein.” Counsel for appellee concedes this occupancy term should have a specific terminus such as death or remarriage. We agree and remand to the trial court for such modification of the judgment, which is otherwised AFFIRMED.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 21

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the primary author and the

official home of ‘‘Yankee Doodle’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 6, 2001

Mr. MCNULTY submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Government Reform

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the primary

author and the official home of ‘‘Yankee Doodle’’.

Whereas the song ‘‘Yankee Doodle’’ is humorous, patriotic,

and dates back to the colonial period of America;

Whereas ‘‘Yankee Doodle’’ was popular from its inception,

spreading throughout New England and the Middle Atlantic States, where it was sung at parades, in taverns,

and beside campfires;

Whereas the British soldiers, known as Redcoats, began singing the song at the beginning of the American Revolution

as a means of deriding the rag-tag Continental Army;

Whereas, after the Battle of Lexington, ‘‘Yankee Doodle’’ became an anthem and a source of pride among the rough-
2

•HCON 21 IH

hewn Americans who were taking on the polished British

Redcoats;

Whereas, while the tune of ‘‘Yankee Doodle’’ originated in

Europe as a common air, many claims as to the authorship of the lyrics have been made;

Whereas, despite the other claims, Dr. Richard Shuckburgh,

a British Army surgeon who served on America’s frontier

for most of his adult life, is today generally considered

to be the primary author of the lyrics to ‘‘Yankee Doodle’’; and

Whereas Dr. Shuckburgh is believed to have written almost

all, if not all, of the lyrics for ‘‘Yankee Doodle’’ at Fort

Crailo in the present-day city of Rensselaer, New York,

after viewing the provincial forces gathered there during

the 1750’s for an attack on Fort Ticonderoga: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that—

3 (1) Dr. Richard Shuckburgh should be recog4 nized and honored as the primary author of ‘‘Yankee

5 Doodle’’; and

6 (2) Fort Crailo, located in the city of

7 Rensselaer, New York, should be recognized as the

8 ‘‘Home of Yankee Doodle’’.

Æ