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

NO. 03-01-00405-CR

Michael Dale Fry, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 932618, HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant Michael Dale Fry pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child and was 

placed on deferred adjudication community supervision. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 22.021 (West Supp. 

2003). The district court later revoked supervision on the State=s motion, adjudged appellant guilty, and 

sentenced him to twenty years in prison. Appellant contends he is entitled to a new trial because a portion 

of the record cannot be found and because he was not properly admonished. We overrule these 

contentions and affirm.

The reporter=s record from the July 2, 1999, guilty plea proceeding has been lost. 

Appellant timely requested the record and is without fault in its disappearance, and the parties cannot agree 

on a complete record. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(f) (circumstances entitling appellant to new trial due to lost 

record). Thus, he is entitled to a new trial if the lost record is necessary to the resolution of this appeal. Id. 

 Appellant urges that it is, because it would confirm his contention that he was not admonished by the court 

or his attorney that he would be required to register as a sex offender. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 
2

26.13(a)(5), (h) (West Supp. 2003) (required admonishments); see Shankle v. State, 59 S.W.3d 756, 

760-62 (Tex. App.CAustin 2001, pet. granted).

The statutory requirement that defendants be admonished regarding sex offender registration 

did not go into effect until September 1, 1999, after appellant pleaded guilty. See Act of May 5, 1999, 

76th Leg., R.S., ch. 1515, ' 1, 1999 Tex. Gen. Laws 4831-32. Further, a defendant placed on deferred 

adjudication supervision must raise errors relating to the original plea proceeding in an appeal taken when 

supervision is first imposed, rather than raising them for the first time in an appeal following adjudication and 

sentencing. Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); see Nix v. State, 65 

S.W.3d 664, 667-70 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (exceptions to Manuel). For these reasons, appellant=s only 

substantive point of errorCthe failure to give the sex offender admonishmentsCmust fail. Because this point 

of error can be resolved without the reporter=s record from the plea proceeding, the record is not essential 

to the appeal and its loss does not entitle appellant to a new trial.

We overrule the points of error and affirm the judgment of conviction.

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices B. A. Smith, Patterson and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed: February 13, 2003

Do Not Publish
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

134246 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. ROBERT NARDI, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Justices Appellee,

v SC: 134246 COA: 269197 Marquette CC: 03-040723-CK SATELLITE SERVICES, INC.,Defendant/Counter-PlaintiffAppellant,

and

WALLACE D. ST EINHOFF and MICHAEL C. HENRICKSEN, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 17, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s0917 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 24, 2007

Clerk
Exhibit 32.2


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 accompanying Annual Report of Lafayette Square Mid-Atlantic BDC, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Report”), I, Seren Tahiroglu, Chief Financial 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:


(1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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 Company.





Date: March 25, 2022By:/s/ Seren TahirogluSeren TahirogluChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6327

DRYNE PRICE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

JON OZMINT, Director,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. David C. Norton, Chief District

Judge. (8:07-cv-00386-DCN)

Submitted: July 15, 2008 Decided: July 29, 2008

Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dryne Price, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant

Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney

General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Dryne Price seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims

by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Price has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT
35.1



SERVICER
COMPLIANCE STATEMENT



Re:
Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC, in its capacity as Servicer (the “Servicer”) under the Amended and Restated
Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2009, among Daimler Trust, as Titling Trust, Daimler Title Co., as Collateral Agent,
and Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC, as Lender and as Servicer (the “Servicing Agreement”), and under the
2021-B Servicing Supplement, dated as of June 1, 2021, among the same parties (the “Servicing Supplement”) for
the period from June 29, 2021, to December 31, 2021 (the “Reporting Period”)



I,
Brian T. Stevens, certify that:



| | (a) | A
                                         review of the Servicer’s activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance
                                         under the Servicing Agreement and the Servicing Supplement has been made under my supervision.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | To
                                         the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its
                                         obligations under the Servicing Agreement and the Servicing Supplement in all material
                                         respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: March 24, 2022





| | /s/
    Brian T. Stevens                
| | ----------------------------------------
| | Name: Brian T. Stevens                  
| | Title: Vice President
    and Controller
Order entered October 11, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01224-CV

LAKEPOINTE PHARMACY #2, LLC, ET AL., Appellants

V.

FORNEY DEERVAL, LLC, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 422nd Judicial District Court

Kaufman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 90632-422

ORDER

Before the Court is the October 10, 2019 request of Donna Gehl, Official Court Reporter 

for the 422nd Judicial District Court, for an extension of time to January 7, 2020 to file the 

reporters’ record. We GRANT the motion TO THE EXTENT that the reporter’s record shall 

be filed by November 18, 2019. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c).

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
### APPENDIX 9E 2008 INPUT LEV2CERT.D

T2 CERT

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007

0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040

0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051

0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040

0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075

0.100 0.100 0.100 0.125 0.125

0.075 0.075 0.100 0.140 0.140

0.125 0.125 0.125 0.160 0.195

0.040 0.040 0.050 0.100 0.117

0.075 0.075 0.100 0.160 0.195

0.000 0.0 00 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

1.700 1.700 1.700 1.700 1.700

1.700 1.700 1.700 1.700 1.700

1.700 1.700 1.700 1.700 1.700

1.700 1.700 1.700 1.700 1.700

3.400 3.400 3.400 3.400 3.400

3.400 3.400 3.400 3.400 3.400

3.400 3.400 3.400 3.400 3.400

3.400 3.400 3.400 3.400 3.400

1.700 1.700 2.200 4.400 5.000

3.400 3.400 4.400 4.400 5.000

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 .000

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014

0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021

0.029 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.029

0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050

0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050

0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140

0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200

0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400

0.200 0.200 0.400 0.400 0.600

0.200 0.200 0.400 0.400 0.600

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
#### Charles Arthur CRANNELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-551.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 7, 1987.

*759James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Stephen Krosschell, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Carol M. Dittmar, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

THREADGILL, Judge.

The state charged Charles Arthur Cran-nell with discharging a destructive device causing property damage and possession of explosives. He was adjudicated guilty following a jury trial and sentenced to a ten-year minimum mandatory term for discharging a destructive device and two and one-half years for possession of explosives. On appeal we find merit only in his contention that the trial court improperly denied gain time and imposed court costs.

The written judgment reflects that costs were imposed pursuant to sections 27.3455, 943.25(4) and 960.20, Florida Statutes (1985). In addition, the written judgment indicated that Crannell, an indigent, would be denied gain time until the chapter 27.-3455 costs were paid. The imposition of these costs was never orally announced to Crannell at sentencing, nor was he notified that these costs would be imposed.

Crannell correctly contends that the denial of gain time violates the ex post facto clause of both the United States and Florida Constitutions. *State v. Yost,*507 So.2d 1099 (Fla.1987). He also argues that imposition of these costs was error because he received no notice that they would be imposed. We agree. *See Jenkins v. State,*444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984). Accordingly, we strike the costs and portion of the judgment denying gain time without prejudice to the state to proceed against Crannell to impose costs pursuant to *Jenkins.*

DANAHY, C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
#### Robert COCHRANE, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. 4479.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Sept. 8, 1980.

Walter Share, Asst. Public Defender, Brian Shortell, Public Defender, Anchorage, and John Vaeek, Alaska Legal Services Corp., Kodiak, for appellant.

David Mannheimer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Anchorage, and Avrum M. Gross, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.

Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., and CON-NOR, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED, su a sponte:

This petition for bail review is dismissed as moot.

RABINOWITZ, C. J., dissents from this order for the reasons stated in the attached dissenting opinion.

RABINOWITZ, Chief Justice,

dissenting.

I dissent from the order dismissing the case as moot. The issue presented by this case is the constitutionality of the following provision from the bail statute, AS 12.30.-040(b):

> Notwithstanding the provisions of [sub-part] (a) of this section, if the offense a person has been convicted of is first degree murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, or rape ..., he may not be released on bail either before sentencing or pending appeal.

This court’s order is partially due to the oral decision made by United States District Court Judge James Fitzgerald in *Walker v. Huston,*No. A79-395 Civil (D. Alaska, May 29, 1980), which found the above statute violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. In my opinion, this decision is correct and represents the current state of the law on the subject.

What concerns me is that the *Walker*decision, being an unpublished oral decision, probably has been insufficiently publicized to protect defendants whose attorneys may not be aware of the decision. For this reason, I believe that this court should decide the bail issue in this case in accord with the rationale of the United States District Court and publish such opinion.

Further, I think this court’s order disregards prior case law in which we have decided cases presented to us in substantially the same stance. In *State v. Wassillie,*606 P.2d 1279 (Alaska 1980), we expressly noted that we were reviewing the bail issue despite mootness because of the important recurring issues involved. 606 P.2d at 1280-81. Thus, I conclude that the order in this case is inconsistent with *Wassillie.*
# Europos Sąjungos C 123A/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0960 |
| --- | --- |
| Europos Sąjungos
  oficialusis leidinys | C 123A |
| | |
| Leidimas lietuvių kalba | Informacija ir pranešimai | 63 metai2020m. balandžio 16d. |

ISSN 1977-0960

Europos Sąjungos

oficialusis leidinys

C 123A

Leidimas lietuvių kalba

Informacija ir pranešimai

63 metai2020m. balandžio 16d.

---

| Turinys | Puslapis |
| --- | --- |
| | Klaidų ištaisymas |
| 2020/C 123 A/01 | Pranešimo apie viešuosius konkursus – EPSO/AD/375/20 – danų kalbos (DA) teisininkai lingvistai (AD 7), EPSO/AD/376/20 – graikų kalbos (EL) teisininkai lingvistai (AD 7), EPSO/AD/377/20 – prancūzų kalbos (FR) teisininkai lingvistai (AD 7), EPSO/AD/378/20 – kroatų kalbos (HR) teisininkai lingvistai (AD 7), EPSO/AD/379/20 – lenkų kalbos (PL) teisininkai lingvistai (AD 7) – klaidų ištaisymas ( OL C 72 A, 2020 3 5 ) | 1 |

Turinys

Puslapis

Klaidų ištaisymas

2020/C 123 A/01

Pranešimo apie viešuosius konkursus – EPSO/AD/375/20 – danų kalbos (DA) teisininkai lingvistai (AD 7), EPSO/AD/376/20 – graikų kalbos (EL) teisininkai lingvistai (AD 7), EPSO/AD/377/20 – prancūzų kalbos (FR) teisininkai lingvistai (AD 7), EPSO/AD/378/20 – kroatų kalbos (HR) teisininkai lingvistai (AD 7), EPSO/AD/379/20 – lenkų kalbos (PL) teisininkai lingvistai (AD 7) – klaidų ištaisymas ( OL C 72 A, 2020 3 5 )

( OL C 72 A, 2020 3 5 )

1

---

| LT | |
| --- | --- |

LT

---

Klaidų ištaisymas

| 16.4.2020 | LT | Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys | CA 123/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2020

LT

Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys

CA 123/1

---

Pranešimo apie viešuosius konkursus – EPSO/AD/375/20 – danų kalbos (DA) teisininkai lingvistai (AD 7), EPSO/AD/376/20 – graikų kalbos (EL) teisininkai lingvistai (AD 7), EPSO/AD/377/20 – prancūzų kalbos (FR) teisininkai lingvistai (AD 7), EPSO/AD/378/20 – kroatų kalbos (HR) teisininkai lingvistai (AD 7), EPSO/AD/379/20 – lenkų kalbos (PL) teisininkai lingvistai (AD 7) – klaidų ištaisymas

(
  Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys C 72 A, 2020 m. kovo 5 d.
  )

(2020/C 123 A/01)

1 puslapis:

yra:

„Galutinis registracijos terminas – 2020 m. balandžio 7 d. 12.00 (vidurdienis) Briuselio laiku.“,

turi būti:

turi būti:

„Galutinis registracijos terminas – 2020 m. gegužės 5 d. 12.00 (vidurdienis) Briuselio laiku.“

6 puslapis:

yra:

yra:

„Paraišką pateikite EPSO interneto svetainėje http://jobs.eu-careers.eu iki

2020 m. balandžio 7 d. 12.00 (vidurdienis) Briuselio laiku.“,

turi būti:

turi būti:

„Paraišką pateikite EPSO interneto svetainėje http://jobs.eu-careers.eu iki

2020 m. gegužės 5 d. 12.00 (vidurdienis) Briuselio laiku.“

---
107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 320

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding

scleroderma.

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 320

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas scleroderma is a debilitating and potentially fatal

autoimmune disease with a broad range of symptoms

which may be either localized or systemic;

Whereas scleroderma may attack vital internal organs, including the heart, esophagus, lungs, and kidneys, and

may do so without causing any external symptoms;
2

•HCON 320 EH

Whereas more than 300,000 people in the United States suffer from scleroderma;

Whereas the symptoms of scleroderma include hardening and

thickening of the skin, swelling, disfigurement of the

hands, spasms of blood vessels causing severe discomfort

in the fingers and toes, weight loss, joint pain, difficulty

swallowing, extreme fatigue, and ulcerations on the fingertips which are slow to heal;

Whereas people with advanced scleroderma may be unable to

perform even the simplest tasks;

Whereas 80 percent of the people suffering from scleroderma

are women between the ages of 25 and 55;

Whereas scleroderma is the 5th leading cause of death among

all autoimmune diseases for women who are 65 years old

or younger;

Whereas the wide range of symptoms and localized and systemic variations of scleroderma make it difficult to diagnose;

Whereas the average diagnosis of scleroderma is made 5

years after the onset of symptoms;

Whereas the cause of scleroderma is still unknown and there

is no known cure; and

Whereas the estimated annual direct and indirect costs of

scleroderma in the United States are $1,500,000,000:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—
3

•HCON 320 EH

1 (1) private organizations and health care pro2 viders should be recognized for their efforts to pro3 mote awareness of and research on scleroderma;

4 (2) the people of the United States, including

5 the medical community, should make themselves

6 aware of the symptoms of scleroderma and con7 tribute to the fight against scleroderma;

8 (3) the National Institutes of Health should

9 continue to take a leadership role in research efforts

10 regarding the fight against scleroderma and should

11 allow for broad dissemination of the information

12 learned from such research; and

13 (4) the Centers for Disease Control and Preven14 tion should consider additional methods to improve

15 disease surveillance of scleroderma.

Passed the House of Representatives September 10,

2002.

Attest:

Clerk.
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC.**

** **

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Polypore International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 2, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Robert B. Toth, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, 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 results of operations of the Company.

** **

** **
| Date: May 6, 2011 | /s/ Robert B. Toth                      |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                   | Robert B. Toth                          |
|                   | President and Chief   Executive Officer |

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 26, 2009 

d1019 

Order 

 

October 26, 2009 

138100(62) 

LORRAINE HAYES, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138100 

 COA: 280049 

Wayne CC: 06-610484-NO 

KIMBERLY LANGFORD, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s July 7, 2009 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

 CORRIGAN, J., would grant the motion for reconsideration for the reasons set forth 

in Justice Markman’s dissenting statement in this case, 483 Mich 1125 (2009). 

 MARKMAN, J., would grant the motion for reconsideration and, on reconsideration, 

would vacate this Court’s order of July 7, 2009, and reverse the Court of Appeals for the 

reasons set forth in his dissenting statement in this case, 483 Mich 1125 (2009).