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

NO. 03-10-00203-CR

Willie Wilson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 427TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-DC-09-204129, HONORABLE JIM CORONADO, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant was convicted of drug possession, enhanced by several prior convictions,

and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. Appellant’s appointed attorney has filed a brief

concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. 

Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743-44

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); Anders, 386 U.S. at

743-44; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d

684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). 

Appellant’s attorney sent appellant a copy of the brief and advised him that he had the right to

examine the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Jackson v. State,

485 S.W.2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). No pro se brief has been filed.
We have considered the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. We have reviewed the evidence presented and the procedures that were

observed and find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. We grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of conviction.1

___________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Rose

Affirmed

Filed: March 23, 2011

Do Not Publish

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of 1

his case by the court of criminal appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for

discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See generally Tex. R. App.

P. 68-79 (governing proceedings in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals). Any petition for

discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date

this Court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. The

petition must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the court of criminal

appeals along with the rest of the filings in the cause. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition

for discretionary review should comply with rules 68.4 and 68.5 of the rules of appellate procedure. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4, 68.5. 

2
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 ZAGG Incorporated (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert G. Pedersen
II, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss..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 and 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.


/s/
      ROBERT G. PEDERSEN IIRobert
      G. Pedersen IIChief
      Executive OfficerOctober 15 , 2009
# Socrata_Data

# Data

# Other Locks

# Table 10 Redesign

# Table 10

# This week
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 Health and Human Services

###### Health Resources and Services Administration

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gladys Cate, Office of Special Population Health, Bureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 15-62, Rockville, Maryland 20857; telephone (301) 594-0367.

Dated: January 12, 2012.

Reva Harris,

Acting Director, Division of Policy and Information Coordination.

[FR Doc. 2012-959 Filed 1-18-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 319 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 319

    Honoring Henry Reuss, former United States Representative from 
   Wisconsin, and extending the condolences of Congress on his death.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2002

   Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin (for himself, Mr. Obey, Mr. Kleczka, Mr. 
     Petri, Mr. Kind, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Green of 
     Wisconsin, and Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin) submitted the following 
  concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
    Honoring Henry Reuss, former United States Representative from 
   Wisconsin, and extending the condolences of Congress on his death.

Whereas Henry Reuss served as a Member of the United States House of 
        Representatives from 1955 to 1983, becoming one of the leading 
        authorities in Congress on banking and monetary policy;
Whereas Henry Reuss served as chairman of the Committee on Banking, Currency, 
        and Housing of the House of Representatives from 1975 to 1977 and as 
        chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
        House of Representatives from 1977 to 1980;
Whereas Henry Reuss was a strong supporter of conservation, civil rights, and 
        improving the economic status of women;
Whereas Henry Reuss was an early proponent of establishing the Peace Corps;
Whereas Henry Reuss represented the people of the north side of Milwaukee, 
        Wisconsin, in Congress for nearly 3 decades; and
Whereas Henry Reuss believed that the Government should be open, honest, and 
        accountable, as demonstrated by his statement that ``there is no defect 
        of democracy which more democracy cannot cure'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That Congress--
            (1) has learned with profound sorrow of the death of the 
        Honorable Henry Reuss;
            (2) extends its condolences to the Reuss family, especially 
        to his wife Margaret; and
            (3) expresses its profound gratitude to the Honorable Henry 
        Reuss and his family for the service that he rendered to the 
        United States.
    Sec. 2. The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall transmit an 
enrolled copy of this resolution to the family of the Honorable Henry 
Reuss.
                                 <all>
```
J~~~ ED STq T

~

S 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

o ~\~~~ Q WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

z ~il~ft► _ 

G~\

0 

PROI - 

MAR 1 6 2011 OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

.I R Stroble, Manager 

National TRU Program 

Carlsbad Field Office 

U.S. Department of Energy 

P.O. Box 3090 

Carlsbad, NM 88221-3090 

Dear Mr. Stroble: 

"This letter provides the results of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 

unannounced continued compliance inspection at the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project 

(AMWTP) facility in Idaho Falls, ID. On November 17-18, 2010, EPA inspected AMWTP's 

waste characterization (WC) program for contact-handled (CH) transuranic (TRU) waste. As a 

result of this unannounced continued compliance inspection, EPA confirmed that AMWTP 

continues to characterize CH TRU waste consistent with the conditions and limitations from 

EPA's baseline approval granted in October 2006 (EPA Air pocket No. A-98-49; II-A4-66). The 

enclosed report (EPA Air pocket No. A-98-49; II-A4-143) gives the details of the evaluation. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 194.8(b), during this on-site inspection, EPA evaluated samples 

of the following waste characterization activities used to characterize CH TRU debris waste from 

Hanford: 1 

• Acceptable knowledge (AK) 

• Nondestructive assay (NDA) 

• Real-time radiography (RTR) for CH retrievably-stored "1'RU debris waste (S5000) 

• Visual examination (VE for newly generated TRU waste) 

During the inspection, EPA raised an issue concerning AMWTP's use of AK documents 

prepared by the Hanford-Central Characterization Project for the Hanford debris waste managed 

by AMWTP as BN510.1 waste. To address this EPA issue, AMWTP staff revised Hanford 

1Hanford is sending approximately 800 55-gallon drums of debris waste belonging to four waste streams that 

were characterized by Hanford prior to termination of the non-CCP Hanford waste characterization prograni in 

2008. 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
debris waste specific AK documents. This revision incorporated AK for the subject waste stream 

that Hanford generated which EPA approved as part of the baseline approval of August 2008 

(EPA Air pocket No. A-98-49; II-A4-106). 

EPA has determined that the AMWTP implemented CH waste characterization program 

in the configuration observed during this unannounced inspection is consistent with the 

limitations described in the October 2006 baseline inspection report cited above. 

If you have any questions, please contact Rajani Joglekar (202 343-9462) or Ed Feltcorn 

(202 343- 9422). 

Sincerely, 

Tom Peake, Director 

Center for Waste Management and Regulations 

Enclosure 

cc: electronic distribution 

Alton Harris, DOE EM 

Ed Ziemianski, CBFO 

Court Fesmire, CBFO 

Norma Casteneda, CBFO 

Dennis Miehls, CBFO 

Martin Navarrete, CBFO 

Jon Edwards, EPA 

Steve Zappe, NMED 

David Ploetz, WTS 

Allison Pangle, CTAC
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

995 

CA 16-00292 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., PERADOTTO, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ. 

 

EMMA B. SCHUVER, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

PAMELA LODESTRO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTOR 

OF THE ESTATE OF G. MARVIN SCHUVER, DECEASED, 

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, 

ET AL., DEFENDANT. 

 

WRIGHT, WRIGHT AND HAMPTON, JAMESTOWN (JOSEPH M. CALIMERI OF COUNSEL),

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

BRAUTIGAM & BRAUTIGAM, LLP, FREDONIA (DARYL P. BRAUTIGAM OF COUNSEL),

FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County

(Stephen W. Cass, A.J.), entered May 29, 2015. The order, among other

things, denied in part the motion of defendant Pamela Lodestro,

individually, and as executor of the Estate of G. Marvin Schuver, to

dismiss the amended complaint against her. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision

at Supreme Court.

Entered: November 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Guidance for Developing a Quality System Assessment (QSA) Program 

This document can be used to help a company develop a quality manual which addresses all of the 

requirements of the QSA Program. When implementing a quality management system based on the 

QSA Program, the content of the quality manual must reflect the QSA Program requirements, although 

it does not need to match the format. A company must create a quality manual that describes its 

processes and procedures. 

Some important points to remember: 

 A quality manual must describe the company’s processes and procedures as they relate to the QSA 

Program. You can reference existing procedures, work instructions, forms, etc within the quality 

manual. 

 Say “what” you do and “how” you do it. It is not sufficient to simply state that you do something. 

 Write in present tense (what are you doing) instead of future tense (what you will do). 

 Use what you already have in place as long as it meets the QSA Program requirements. You can 

reference existing procedures, work instructions, forms, etc within the quality manual. (see #4) 

 The QSA Program requires 4 documented procedures, at a minimum....7.2.3; 7.2.4; 9.1.2; and 

10.1.4. It is easiest to reference the documented procedures within the quality manual and include 

them as attachments. When attached, the documented procedures can be revised as necessary 

without having to reissue the entire quality manual. If the documented procedures are included 

within the body of the quality manual, then the entire manual must be reissued when the procedures 

are revised. 

 It is best to include the plant’s name, the document's name, and the document's revision status on 

every page. 

 Include the plant’s physical location and the program contact’s information either within the letter 

requesting service or in the quality manual. 

 If the products produced under the QSA Program will fluctuate, then the QSA Program should not 

be included within the scope of the program. Instead, they should be outlined an attachment to the 

quality manual. This facilitates any additions or deletions to the product list without having to revise 

the quality manual.
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-15-00131-CR

IME OKON EKWERE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 232nd District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1446601).

The cause heard today by the Court is an appeal from the judgment signed by the 

court below on January 12, 2015. After inspecting the record of the court below, it is the 

opinion of this Court that it has no jurisdiction over the appeal. It is therefore 

CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED, and ORDERED that the appeal be dismissed.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered April 14, 2015.

Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Chief Justice Radack and Justices

Brown and Lloyd.
IA 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 106 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to prohibit 

the use of slavery and involuntary servitude as a punishment for a crime. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 16, 2020 

Mr. HALL submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to prohibit the use of slavery and involuntary 

servitude as a punishment for a crime. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States: 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 106 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE — 

2 ‘‘Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude may be 

3 imposed as a punishment for a crime.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Appellate case name: Ex Parte Julio Gialito Aruizu

Appellate case number: 01-15-00250-CR

Trial court case number: 1943590

Trial court: County Criminal Court at Law No. 7 of Harris County

Appellant, Julio Gialito Aruizu, has perfected an appeal from the trial court’s order

denying his application for a writ of habeas corpus. We abate the appeal and remand the cause to 

the trial court for further proceedings.

Although the trial court signed a judgment denying appellant’s requested relief, no 

findings of fact or conclusions of law are included in the order or with the clerk’s record filed in 

this Court, as article 11.072, § 7(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires.

1 We, 

therefore, remand the cause for the trial court to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of 

law, separate and apart from any docket sheet notations in this case, in conjunction with the trial 

court’s denial of appellant’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. See Ex parte Villanueva, 252 

S.W.3d 391, 396 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (quoting TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.072, 

§ 7(a) (West Supp. 2014)) (“‘If the court determines from the face of an application or 

documents attached to the application that the applicant is manifestly entitled to no relief, the 

court shall enter a written order denying the application as frivolous.’”; otherwise trial court is 

required to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law along with written order); Ex parte 

Zantos-Cuebas, 429 S.W3d 83, 91–92 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.) 

(remanding case for entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law after holding that trial court 

erred in denying application as frivolous). We direct the trial court to make the appropriate 

findings and conclusions.

The trial court clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial 

court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law in conjunction with the denial of appellant’s 

application for a writ of habeas corpus, and any other findings and recommendations the trial 

 

1 The clerk’s record filed in this Court includes only the “State’s Proposed Findings of Fact 

and Conclusions of Law,” filed on February 13, 2015.
court deems appropriate. The supplemental clerk’s record shall be filed with this Court no later 

than 30 days from the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c)(2).

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active 

docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the supplemental clerk’s 

record is filed with the Clerk of this Court. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: April 14, 2015
April 7, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

BARRE MORRIS, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00252-CV V.

VICTORIA BARRIENTES O’NEAL, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Victoria 

Barrientes O’Neal, signed March 6, 2014, was heard on the transcript of the record. 

We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the 

judgment of the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellant, Barre Morris, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

Order 

April 14, 2015

150565-6(56)

MICHIGAN INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 150565

v COA: 315837

Chippewa CC: 12-012243-CK

CHANNEL ROAD CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

d/b/a CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., OF

DRUMMOND ISLAND,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY and

FRANKENMUTH MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

MARK WENGER and CYNTHIA WENGER,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

MICHIGAN INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 150566

v COA: 315859

Chippewa CC: 12-012243-CK

CHANNEL ROAD CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

d/b/a CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., OF

DRUMMOND ISLAND,

Defendant,

and
2

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 April 14, 2015

CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY and

FRANKENMUTH MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

MARK WENGER and CYNTHIA WENGER,

Defendants-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the National Association of Home 

Builders and Home Builders Association of Michigan to participate as amicus curiae is 

GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on April 1, 2015, is accepted for filing.

Clerk