alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 7, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00674-CR

GERARDO MENDIOLA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1367615

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant appeals his conviction for possession of less than one gram of 

cocaine. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation 

of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 

See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
2

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised 

of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford 

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than 

60 days have passed and no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the 

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in 

the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief 

or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for 

review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Busby, and Brown.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 96-60785

Summary Calendar

_____________________________________

EUGENE W. COSSEY,

Petitioner,

VERSUS

SEA-LAND SERVICES, INC., and

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

______________________________________________________

 Petition for Review of the Decision and

Order of the Benefits Review Board

(95-1593)

______________________________________________________

June 3, 1997

Before DAVIS, EMILIO GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Our review of the record persuades us that:

1) the Benefits Review Board correctly found that the

Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact were based on

substantial record evidence; and

2) the Benefits Review Board committed no legal error in

arriving at its award.
2

AFFIRMED.
TONY MARSHALL BARBER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D13-3315

CORRECTED PAGES: pg 1

CORRECTION IS UNDERLINED IN RED

MAILED: April 13, 2015

BY: NMS

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 9, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Baker County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Steven L. Seliger, and Colleen Dierdre 

Mullen, Assistant Public Defenders, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Matthew Pavese, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

CLARK, ROWE, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
# C_2004106EN.01001803.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/18

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that Court of 23 October 2003 in the case of Antje Köhler against Finanzamt Düsseldorf Nord

(Case C-58/04)

(2004/C 106/33)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) of 23 October 2003, received at the Court Registry on 11 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Antje Köhler against Finanzamt Düsseldorf Nord on the following question:

Are stops made by a ship in ports of non-member countries, at which passengers may disembark the vessel only for a short period, for example for sightseeing purposes, but at which they may not begin or end their journey, ‘stops in a third territory’ within the meaning of Article 8(1)(c) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1)?

1

---

(1)  OJ L 145, p. 1.

1

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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-25-1999
<CASH>                                          21,604
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,967
<ALLOWANCES>                                       219
<INVENTORY>                                     47,672
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                99,035
<PP&E>                                         168,453
<DEPRECIATION>                                  99,117
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 312,454
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          107,038
<BONDS>                                        193,904
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (30,837)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   312,454
<SALES>                                        856,872
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               856,872
<CGS>                                          630,444
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  630,444
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               191,272
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,236
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,431)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,300)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,131)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    492
<CHANGES>                                          543
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,166)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT
  W I T N E S S E T H
     SEVERANCE BENEFITS




---



##### 



2




---



##### 



3




---



##### 



PAYMENT LIMITATION
  RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
  4




---



##### 



MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT
  SEVERABILITY
  5




---



##### 



STRICT ADHERENCE
  ASSIGNMENT
  OTHER RIGHTS
  NOTICES
  6




---



##### 



ERISA; NON-PROPERTY INTEREST
  GOVERNING LAW
  7




---



##### 



COUNTERPARTS; FACSIMILE SIGNATURES, EXECUTION AND DELIVERY
  TAXES
   8




---



##### 



SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS ALLIANCE, INC.By:
    /s/ Courtney C. SmithCourtney C. SmithPresident & Chief Executive OfficerHOLDERBy:
    /s/ Daniel J. RohanDaniel J. Rohan 9
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 of ReachLocal, Inc.
(the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ross G. Landsbaum, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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/ Ross G. LandsbaumRoss G. LandsbaumChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)Date: November 4, 2010
CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Douglas Lake Minerals Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB (Amendment No. 2) for the quarter ending February 28, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Antonia Bold-de-Haughton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his 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 result of operations of the Company.



|Date:  November 2, 2006 | /s/ Antonia Bold-de-Haughton
Antonia Bold-de-Haughton
Chief Financial Officer
|----------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Douglas Lake Minerals Inc. and will be retained by Douglas Lake Minerals Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-12-00787-CV

RAMIRO R. ARMENDARIZ

v.

STATE FARM LLOYDS AND DANIEL LONGORIA

On Appeal from the

445th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2011-DCL-05958-I

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Each party shall bear their own costs 

relating to this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 9, 2015
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Kentucky First Federal Bancorp (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period
ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R. Clay Hulette, the Treasurer 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
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.

|/s/R. Clay Hulette                               | 
|------------------------------------------------ | 
|R. Clay Hulette                                 
|Vice President and Chief Financial
      Officer
|February 14, 2008                               

---
<PAGE>
 
                                   EXHIBIT 24.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
     (Form S-8 Nos. 2-33676, 2-56821, 2-60398, 2-77219, 2-77575, 2-83637, 2-
     97935, 33-17831, 33-23601, 33-23603, 33-30927, and 33-54496) pertaining to
     employee benefit plans of Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing Company of our
     report dated February 5,1997, with respect to the consolidated financial
     statements and schedule of Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing Company included in
     the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.



                                              ERNST & YOUNG LLP

     Providence, Rhode Island
     March 24, 1997
#### Joseph SANTINA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Delmar LARSON, Sheriff, Salt Lake County, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 15870.

Supreme Court of Utah.

March 20, 1979.

D. Gilbert Athay, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.

Robert B. Hansen, Atty. Gen., Earl F. Dorius, Asst. Atty. Gen., Theodore Q. Cannon, Salt Lake County Atty., for defendant and respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff appeals from the denial of a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. In an extradition proceeding, the Governor of Illinois requested the Utah Governor to deliver the petitioner to stand trial on an Illinois felony narcotic charge. Mr. Santina had jumped bail and fled the State of Illinois.

The only question on appeal is proof of Santina's identity.

At the extradition hearing, Santina appeared with counsel and urged only that because the fingerprint and the photo claimed to be that of Santina were not authenticated, that the identity was not established by the attacked documents, nor *138could it be. Other accompanying documents bore the same name as that of the petitioner and in such a ease there is a presumption that the person named in the extradition papers is the person sought.

It would follow that the fingerprints and photographs were not necessary since the presumption of being the same person persists unless rebutted — which rebuttal falls upon the named person; otherwise, a prima facie case is established by the State’s showing the extradition papers to bear the same name as the accused *(Mora v. Larson,*540 P.2d 540 (Utah 1975), *Scott v. Beckstead,*13 Utah 2d 428, 375 P.2d 767 (1962).

After the argument as to the photographs, the trial court asked Santina if he wished to introduce any evidence. Santina said he did not, and that “I will submit it.” He proffered no evidence as to his “non-identity,” — which certainly did not satisfy the rule that such “non-identity” must be shown by clear and convincing evidence to destroy the prima facie case. Consequently the requirements to justify extradition were satisfied. *(Scott v. Beckstead,*supra,*Stolz v. Miller,*543 P.2d 513 (Colo.1976), *Smith v. State,*89 Idaho 70, 403 P.2d 221, *Dominquez v. Bray,*532 P.2d 950 (Colo.1975).

Santina cites *Madsen v. Larsen,*527 P.2d 227 (Utah 1974) as being dispositive here. The fallacy of such contention is that in that case Madsen sought to show “non-identity” by mentioning four similar names in the vicinity, and was denied his request for a hearing. This Court reversed, concluding that under *those*circumstances an eviden-tiary hearing was justified.

There is no merit to this appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Wise Metals Group LLC (the Company) for the quarter ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Kenneth Stastny, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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: February 4, 2009



By:

/s/ Kenneth StastnyKenneth StastnyChief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement, 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.
IIA 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 28 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2019 

Received; read the first time 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 

2019, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 (division 

4 C of Public Law 115–245) is further amended by 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HJ 28 RDS 

1 striking the date specified in section 105(3) and inserting 

2 ‘‘February 28, 2019’’. 

3 This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Further 

4 Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 23, 

2019. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
April 9, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

INIUBONG EBONG, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00070-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EX REL: MICHAEL J. PISKANIN, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

HONORABLE KELLY L. BANACH AND 

HONORABLE WILLIAM H. PLATT AND 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY JAMES B. 

MARTIN, ESQ., AND TAMMY 

FERGUSON, AS FACILITY MANAGER 

AND WARDEN SCI BENNER, 

 Respondents 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 44 MM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 8th day of April, 2015, the Application for Leave to File Original 

Process is GRANTED, the “Application for Emergency Relief” is DENIED, and the 

Prothonotary is DIRECTED to strike the jurists’ names form the caption.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 GLOBAL CASH ACCESS, INC.
CERTIFICATION I, Harry C. Hagerty, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Global Cash Access, Inc.;  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 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 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; andc)
    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.  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
functions):  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;
andb)
    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. Dated: May 13, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Harry C. HagertyHarry C. HagertyChief Financial Officer
IIB 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1088 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 21, 2019 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Society of the First Infantry Division to 

make modifications to the First Division Monument located on Federal Land in President’s Park in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

HR 1088 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘First Infantry Rec3 ognition of Sacrifice in Theater Act’’ or the ‘‘FIRST Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION TO FIRST DIVISION MONUMENT. 

5 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Society of the First In6 fantry Division (an organization described in section 

7 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and ex8 empt from taxation under section 501(a) of that code), 

9 may make modifications (including construction of addi10 tional plaques and stone plinths on which to put the 

11 plaques) to the First Division Monument located on Fed12 eral land in President’s Park in the District of Columbia 

13 that was set aside for memorial purposes of the First In14 fantry Division, in order to honor the members of the 

15 First Infantry Division who paid the ultimate sacrifice 

16 during United States operations, including Operation 

17 Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom and New Dawn, 

18 and Operation Enduring Freedom. The First Infantry Di19 vision at the Department of the Army shall collaborate 

20 with the Department of Defense to provide to the Society 

21 of the First Infantry Division the list of names to be 

22 added. 

23 (b) NON-APPLICATION OF COMMEMORATIVE WORKS

24 ACT.—Subsection (b) of section 8903 of title 40, United 

25 States Code (commonly known as the ‘‘Commemorative 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

HR 1088 RFS

1 Works Act’’), shall not apply to actions taken under sub2 section (a) of this section. 

3 (c) FUNDING.—Federal funds may not be used to pay 

4 any expense of the activities of the Society of the First 

5 Infantry Division which are authorized by this section. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 20, 

2019. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Marketing and Regulatory Programs – Agricultural Marketing Service – Specialty Crops Program – Specialty Crops Inspection Division 1 of 1

 Inspection Aid No. 60

Frozen Peas Determination of Tenderness and Maturity July 2016

Single Sampling Plan and Scoring Guide 1

 

1 Test 100 peas in increments of 25 peas from each sample. Do not use the multiple plan when testing has begun on the single plan and vice versa.

Grade Score Points Percentage of Salt in 

Solution

Percent Peas with Skins Removed that Sink in 100 

Peas

A

40 13% 0%

39 13% Over 0% to 2%

38 13% Over 2% to 4%

37 13% Over 4% to 7%

36 13% Over 7% to 10%

B

35 15% 0% to 3%

34 15% Over 3% to 6%

33 15% Over 6% to 9%

32 15% Over 9% to 12%

C

31 16% 0% to 4%

30 16% Over 4% to 8%

29 16% Over 8% to 12%

28 16% Over 12 % to 16%

SSTD 27 or less 16% Over 16%