alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Frank Crowley Courts Building, 133 North Riverfront Boulevard, LB-19 Dallas, Texas 75207-4399 (214) 653-3600

SUSAN HAWK

CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

November 23, 2015 

Mr. John Brown, Chief Deputy Clerk 

Court of Criminal Appeals 

P.O. Box 12308 

Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711 

Re: Appellate Cause No. AP-77,047; 

 Trial Court Cause No. F86-85539; 

Kenneth Wayne Thomas v. The State of Texas 

*** DEATH PENALTY CASE *** 

Dear Mr. Brown: 

On July 23, 2014, Kenneth Wayne Thomas was sentenced to death for the capital 

murder of Mildred Finch. An appeal of his conviction is currently pending before the 

Court. 

On December 23, 2014, the Dallas County District Clerk’s Office filed a Clerk’s 

Record regarding the Thomas case. This record is incomplete. On October 16, 2015, the 

undersigned delivered a letter to the District Clerk’s Office requesting that a 

supplemental clerk’s record be prepared containing a copy of the punishment jury charge 

and certain identified motions. On October 21, 2015, the District Clerk’s Office prepared 

a supplemental clerk’s record and transmitted that record to the Court. This supplemental 

record is incomplete. Although it contains the motions identified in my October 16th

letter, it does not contain the punishment charge. The punishment charge was 

subsequently located. On November 2, 2015, the undersigned requested that the District 

Clerk prepare and transmit a second supplemental record (one containing the punishment 

charge) to the Court. 

Today, the undersigned reviewed the District Clerk’s Office online database to 

determine whether the second supplemental record (one containing the punishment 

charge) had been transmitted to the Court. It appears that this record has not yet been 

sent. The undersigned contacted the District Clerk’s Criminal Operations Manager and 

requested yet again that this supplemental record be prepared and sent to the Court. 

This letter is sent simply to keep the Court apprised of the undersigned’s 

continued efforts to ensure that a complete record is transmitted to the Court in this case. 

AP-77,047

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 11/23/2015 2:17:29 PM

Accepted 11/23/2015 2:18:32 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
Frank Crowley Courts Building, 133 North Riverfront Boulevard, LB-19 Dallas, Texas 75207-4399 (214) 653-3600

2

If this second supplemental record is not transmitted by Monday, November 30, 2015, the 

State may request intervention from the Court. 

Should you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me via 

telephone or email. 

 

Sincerely,

Christine Womble

Assistant District Attorney

State Bar No. 24035991

Frank Crowley Courts Building

133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB-19

Dallas, Texas 75207-4399

(214) 653-3625

(214) 653-3643 fax

CWomble@dallascounty.org

cc:

John Tatum (via email)

Michael Mowla (via email)
# C_2012326EN.01039301.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/391 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/391

---

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

TITLE V

CITIZENS' RIGHTS

CITIZENS' RIGHTS

Article 41

Right to good administration

1.   Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union.

2.   This right includes:

| (a) | the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken;

| (b) | the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy;

| (c) | the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions.

3.   Every person has the right to have the Union make good any damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States.

4.   Every person may write to the institutions of the Union in one of the languages of the Treaties and must have an answer in the same language.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

(ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the periodic report of Dynegy Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Holli C. Nichols, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |     |  |                                                                      
|------------------ |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 10, 2006 |  | By: |  | /S/ HOLLI C. NICHOLS                                                 
|                   |  |     |  | Holli C. Nichols Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
NUMBER 13-15-00104-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

WILFREDO PADILLA JR., Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 197th District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Wilfredo Padilla Jr., pro se, has filed a motion to withdraw his appeal 

because he no longer desires to prosecute it. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). Without 

passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to withdraw the appeal and 

pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a), dismiss the appeal. Having 

dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, 
2

and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Delivered and filed the

16th day of April, 2015.
# EUR-Lex - 22004D0007 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 22004D0007

**Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 7/2004 of 6 February 2004 amending Annex V (Free movement of workers) to the EEA Agreement **

*
Official Journal L 116 , 22/04/2004 P. 0052 - 0053 *

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee

No 7/2004

of 6 February 2004

amending Annex V (Free movement of workers) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement", and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Annex V to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 191/1999 of 17 December 1999(1).

(2) Decision No 191/1999 introduced new sectoral adaptations to Annex V (Free movement of workers) and Annex VIII (Right of establishment) concerning Liechtenstein, which are to be amended in accordance with the Agreement on the Participation of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic in the European Economic Area, signed in Luxembourg on 14 October 2003.

(3) Commission Decision 2003/8/EC of 23 December 2002 implementing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 as regards the clearance of vacancies and applications for employment(2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The text of point 7 (Commission Decision 93/569/EC) of Annex V to the Agreement shall be replaced with the following:

"32003 D 0008: Commission Decision 2003/8/EC of 23 December 2002 implementing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 as regards the clearance of vacancies and applications for employment (OJ L 5, 10.1.2003, p. 16)."

Article 2

The texts of Decision 2003/8/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 7 February 2004, provided that all the notifications pursuant to Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee(3).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 6 February 2004.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

P. Westerlund

(1) OJ L 74, 15.3.2001, p. 29.

(2) OJ L 5, 10.1.2003, p. 16.

(3) No constitutional requirements indicated.
<PAGE>
                                                                   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 this Quarterly Report of Goody's Family Clothing, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 2, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Edward
R. Carlin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 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/ Edward R. Carlin
--------------------------------------
Edward R. Carlin
Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
August 20, 2003


                                       24
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART SEVEN

GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS

GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 347

(ex Article 297 TEC)

(ex Article 297 TEC)

Member States shall consult each other with a view to taking together the steps needed to prevent the functioning of the internal market being affected by measures which a Member State may be called upon to take in the event of serious internal disturbances affecting the maintenance of law and order, in the event of war, serious international tension constituting a threat of war, or in order to carry out obligations it has accepted for the purpose of maintaining peace and international security.

---
BARKETT, Circuit Judge, specially concurring:

I concur because I believe this case is controlled by our precedent in United States v.

Burke, 113 F.3d 211 (11th Cir. 1997). However, I share some of the same reservations expressed

by Judge Hill.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15E0026. TINA MARIE SANDERS v. U.S. BANK, N.A.

The Petitioner, Tina Marie Sanders, has moved this Court to stay the “Final

Judgment and Writ of Possession” issued by the Superior Court of Gwinnett County

on April 8, 2015. For the following reasons, we deny the motion. 

ThisCourt’sRule 40 (b) emergency powers are limited and intended to be used

sparingly. Rule 40 (b) provides, in relevant part, that we may only issue “such orders

or give direction to the trial court as may be necessary to preserve jurisdiction of an

appeal or to prevent the contested issue from becoming moot.” In this case, Sanders

has an existing appellate remedy.

“[A]ppeals from decisions of the superior courts reviewing decisions of lower

courts by certiorari or de novo proceedings shall be by application for discretionary

appeal. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1), (b).” (Citation omitted.) Bullock v. Sand, 260 Ga.

App. 874, 875 (581 SE2d 333) (2003). See also Dean's Catering v. Sturm &

Associates, 231 Ga. App. 202, 202-203 (498 SE2d 786) (1998) (An appeal from a

decision of the superior court reviewing de novo a decision of the magistrate court

and, thereafter, granting summary judgment and a writ of possession is subject to the

discretionary appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1).). Further, the proper and

timely filing of an application for discretionary appeal acts as a supersedeas. See

OCGA § 5-6-35 (h) (“The filing of an application for appealshall act as a supersedeas

to the extent that a notice of appeal acts as supersedeas.”).

Because the petitioner has appellate remedies available to her, it is unnecessary

to invoke this Court’s emergency powers. Therefore, the motion is hereby DENIED.

April 13, 2015
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

04/13/2015
180 P.3d 1047

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

#### Flores v. Rawlings Co., LLC

28124

03/27/2008

Denied

117 Hawai'i 153, 177 P.3d 341
#### HECTOR GONZALEZ *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 18865)

O’Connell, C. J., and Foti and Spear, Js.1

Argued November 29, 1999

officially released June 20, 2000

*Sandra J. Crowell,*special public defender, for the appellant (petitioner).

*Frederick W. Fawcett,*supervisory assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, was *Jonathan C. Benedict,*state’s attorney, for the appellee (respondent).

1

 The listing of judges reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument.

*Opinion*

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, Hector Gonzalez, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner had been convicted of capital felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54b (8) and attempt to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 and 53a-54a. Our Supreme Court affirmed his conviction in *State*v. *Gonzalez,*206 Conn. 213, 537 A.2d 460 (1988).

The petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court raising the same issues that he had raised on direct appeal. That *372court’s dismissal of the petition was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The petitioner next filed the present petition. After an evidentiary hearing, the habeas court denied relief and also denied the petitioner’s request for certification to appeal to this court. The habeas court found, inter aha, that the petitioner was totally lacking in credibility and that his testimony was inconsistent and at times contradictory.

On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly (1) denied his petition for certification to this court, (2) dismissed his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and (3) failed to conclude that the Connecticut constitution requires a canvass of a defendant who elects not to testify.

“Faced with the habeas court’s denial of certification to appeal, a petitioner’s first burden is to demonstrate that the habeas court’s ruling constituted an abuse of discretion. ... If the petitioner succeeds in surmounting that hurdle, the petitioner must then demonstrate that the judgment of the habeas court should be reversed on its merits.” (Citations omitted.) *Simms*v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 612, 646 A.2d 126 (1994).

After a thorough review of the record and briefs and having heard from the parties at oral argument, we conclude that the petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing that he has been denied a state or federal constitutional right and, further, has failed to sustain his burden of persuasion that the denial of certification to appeal from the denial of his habeas corpus petition was a clear abuse of discretion or that an injustice has been done. See id.; *Simms*v. *Warden,*229 Conn. 178, 189, 640 A.2d 601 (1994); *Walker*v. *Commissioner of Correction,*38 Conn. App. 99, 100, 659 A.2d 195, cert. denied, 234 Conn. 920, 661 A.2d 100 (1995); *373see also *Lozada*v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430, 431-32, 111 S. Ct 860, 112 L. Ed. 2d 956 (1991).

The appeal is dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Form 10-Q of Autocam Corporation (the "Company") for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2006, as delivered on the date hereof (the
"Report"), we, John C. Kennedy, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and Warren Veltman, Chief Financial 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:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: November 14, 2006                 /s/ John C. Kennedy
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        John C. Kennedy
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
                                        (Principal Executive Officer)


                                        /s/ Warren A. Veltman
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Warren A. Veltman
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        (Principal Financial and
                                        Accounting Officer)
U. S. Department of Agriculture 

Farm Service Agency

NOTICE OF SALE OF WHEAT

FOR RELEASE AT 1:30 P.M. CT July 27, 2017

USDA’s Farm Service Agency today announced the sale of Hard Red Winter (HRW) Wheat. 

The HRW Wheat was sold under Announcement SMAC3, Invitation No. 5 dated July 17, 2017.

Lot 

Number 

Warehouse 

Location Purchaser Bushels Sold 

Bid Price 

(per Bushel) 

CCC 

Revenue Commodity 

Type 

2 Paoli, CO Paoli Coop 

Elevator 

 

14,579.03 $3.43 $ 50,006.07 HRW 

Wheat 

3 Craigmont, ID CHS Primeland 

Elevators 

 

31,192.75 $3.76 $117,234.83 HRW Wheat 

4 Osborne, KS Midway Co-op 

Association 

 

1,670.75 $4.10 $ 6,850.08 HRW Wheat 

7 Oshkosh, NE Oshkosh Grain, 

Inc. 

 

9,500.00 $3.00 $ 28,500.00 HRW Wheat 

8 Sidney, NE 

Crossroads 

Cooperative 

Association 

 

14,766.62 $3.50 $ 51,683.17 HRW Wheat 

9 Venango, NE The Scoular 

Company 

 

5,000.00 $3.36 $ 16,800.00 HRW Wheat 

11 Almota, WA PNWFC 

Elevator 

 

21,500.00 $4.11 $ 88,365.00 HRW Wheat 

Totals 98,209.15 $359,439.15
# C_2012326EN.01039301.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/391 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/391

---

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

TITLE V

CITIZENS' RIGHTS

CITIZENS' RIGHTS

Article 42

Right of access to documents

Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, has a right of access to documents of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, whatever their medium.

---
Order entered April 28, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00225-CV

MICHELLE JAHNER, Appellant

V.

ASHLYN JAHNER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 219-55510-2014

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY appellant’s Motion to Extend Time 

to File Notice of Appeal.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
#### In the Matter of Linda Nankervis, Appellant, v Gary Nankervis, Respondent.

—In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner wife appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), entered September 19, 1989, which denied her objections to an order of the same court (Silverman, H.E.), dated May 24, 1989, which denied her application for leave to enter a judgment against the husband for arrears in child support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In reviewing a determination made by the Family Court, great deference should be given to the decision of the Hearing Examiner " 'who [was] in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and the evidence proffered’ ” *(Matter of Alamo v Alamo,*168 AD2d 493, 494; *Matter of Drago v Drago,*138 AD2d 704; *Matter of McCarthy v Braiman,*125 AD2d 572). Upon our review of the record, we cannot say that the findings of the Hearing Examiner were unsupported by the credible evidence, and that a different determination is warranted *(see, Matter of McCarthy v Braiman, supra).*Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Family Court’s determination.

We have examined the appellant’s remaining contention and find that it is without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
# C_2016203EN.01005001.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/50

---

Article 200

The Community shall establish all appropriate forms of cooperation with the Council of Europe.

---