alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-85,680-02

EX PARTE TERRIO LA JOE HOLIDAY, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1383178-A IN THE 179TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of burglary of a

habitation and sentenced to sixty years’ imprisonment. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed

his conviction. Holiday v. State, No. 14-14-00467-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 12,

2015) (not designated for publication). 

Applicant contends that his appellate counsel failed to timely advise him of his right to file

a petition for discretionary review (PDR) and that he was denied his right to do so because of a

breakdown in the system.
2

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). In these

circumstances, additional facts are needed. Pursuant to Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294

(Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court

shall order appellate counsel to respond to Applicant’s claims. The trial court may use any means

set out in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d).

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether Applicant’s

appellate counsel timely advise Applicant that he had a right to file a PDR. The trial court shall also

determine whether Applicant was denied his right to file a PDR because of a breakdown in the

system. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and conclusions of law that it deems

relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must

be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court.

Filed: December 7, 2016

Do not publish
EXHIBIT 32




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Dennis P. Calvert, Chief Executive Officer of BioLargo, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report of BioLargo, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of BioLargo, Inc.





Dated: August 15, 2011



By:

/s/ DENNIS P. CALVERTDennis P. Calvert

President and Chief Executive Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to BioLargo, Inc. and will be retained by BioLargo, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




I, Charles K. Dargan II, Chief Financial Officer of BioLargo, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that the Quarterly Report of BioLargo, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of BioLargo, Inc.





Dated: August 15, 2011



By:

/s/ CHARLES K. DARGAN IICharles K. Dargan IIChief Financial Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to BioLargo, Inc. and will be retained by BioLargo, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
Form S-8 related to certain restricted shares and stock options filed on
September 29, 1994; Form S-8 related to the Non-Employee Trustee Share Plan
filed on May 15, 1997; Form S-8 related to the Employee Share Purchase Plan
filed on May 15, 1997; Form S-8 related to changes to First Amended and Restated
Employee Share Option and Restricted Share Plan and Non-Employee Trustee Share
Option Plan filed on May 15, 1997; Form S-3 related to Shelf Registration filed
November 20, 1997; Form S-3 related to the Dividend Reinvestment Plan filed on
April 11, 1995, as amended; Form S-8 related to the registration of common
shares issuable under the Colonial Properties Trust 401(k)/Profit-Sharing Plan
filed on October 15, 1996; Form S-8 related to the second amended and restated
employee share option and restricted share plan filed on July 31, 1998; Form S-3
related to the dividend reinvestment share plan filed October 23, 2000; Form S-3
related to the registration of common shares issuable under the Colonial Realty
Limited Partnership Executive Unit Purchase Program filed on February 6, 2001;
Form S-3 related to the registration of common shares issuable under the
Colonial Properties Trust Dividend Reinvestment and Share Purchase Plan filed on
October 30, 2002; Form S-3 related to the Shelf Registration filed on May 9,
2003; and Form S-4 related to the Cornerstone Merger filed on February 9,
2005, as amended, of Colonial Properties Trust of our report dated March 16,
2005 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedules,
management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting,
which appears in this Form 10-K.




/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Birmingham, Alabama
March 16, 2005
##### 



TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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/ R.H. DillonPrint Name: R.H. DillonTitle: Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 16, 2007/S/ James F. LairdPrint Name: James F. LairdTitle: Chief Financial OfficerDate: March 16, 2007
#### Phyllis Carroll, Respondent, v William Carroll, Appellant.

— Motion for counsel fees denied. Memorandum: A motion for counsel fees on appeal must be made to the court of original instance *(see,*Scheinkman, Practice Commentary, McKinneys Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, Domestic Relations Law C237:6; *Gutman v Gutman,*24 AD2d 758). Present— Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and Pine, JJ.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5732]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

            SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

  The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were 
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:

           By Mr. MANCHIN:
       S. Res. 534. A resolution congratulating the Navy Dental 
     Corps on its 100th anniversary; to the Committee on Armed 
     Services.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2012080EN.01001502.xml

| 17.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2012 — Dow Chemical v Commission

(Case T-77/08) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for chloroprene rubber - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Price-fixing - Market-sharing - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Joint venture - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation)

2012/C 80/22

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: The Dow Chemical Company (Midland, Michigan, United States) (represented by: D. Schroeder and T. Graf, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by X. Lewis and V. Bottka, subsequently by V. Bottka and V. Di Bucci, and lastly by V. Bottka, P. Van Nuffel and L. Malferrari, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

APPLICATION for, principally, annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5910 final of 5 December 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.629 — Chloroprene Rubber), as amended by Commission Decision C(2008) 2974 final of 23 June 2008, in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders The Dow Chemical Company to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders The Dow Chemical Company to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.

1

---
# Geography - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Local Development Districts Local Development Districts (LDDs) — also known as Area Development Districts (ADDs), Council of Governments (COGs),&#160;or Regional Planning and Development Commissions —&#160; are multi-county planning organizations facilitating community-based, regionally driven,&#160;economic development.&#160; There are 74 LDDs in the Appalachian Region. Guided by community leaders, elected officials, business representatives and others, ARC relies on LDDs to lead [&#8230;]The post Local Development Districts appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Congressional Districts in Appalachia This map displays the 57 congressional districts and the district representatives of the 118th U.S. Congress in the Appalachian Region.The post Congressional Districts in Appalachia appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Subregions in Appalachia This map shows the Appalachian Region divided into five subregions: northern, north central, central, south central, and southern Appalachia.The post Subregions in Appalachia appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
# C_2019025EN.01005502.xml

| 21.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/55

---

Action brought on 16 November 2018 — Twitter v EUIPO — Hachette Filipacchi Presse (PERISCOPE)

(Case T-682/18)

(2019/C 25/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Twitter, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor and J. Schmitt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hachette Filipacchi Presse SA (Levallois Perret, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark PERISCOPE — Application for registration No 13 837 794

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2018 in Case R 2315/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it held that (a) the earlier French mark no. 3 366 460 had been genuinely used for ‘software and computer programs’ in class 9, and (b) that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue for goods and services in classes 9, 41, 42 and 45; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it held that (a) the earlier French mark no. 3 366 460 had been genuinely used for ‘software and computer programs’ in class 9, and (b) that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue for goods and services in classes 9, 41, 42 and 45;

| — | order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and the other party before the Board of Appeal if it joins the proceedings as intervener. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and the other party before the Board of Appeal if it joins the proceedings as intervener.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of the Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of the Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009.

---
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 of Medical Connections
Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates
indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of
               operation of the Company.

          3.   A signed original of this written statement required by Section
               906 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.



Date:  May 14, 2007

                                                    By: /s/ BRIAN QUILLEN
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Brian Quillen
                                                        Chief Financial Officer
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 20

- 00037

- CR

D ERRICK W

ALTON

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 362nd District Court

of Denton County ( F17

- 2959

- 431 )

February 1 7 , 2022

Opinion by Justice Walker

( p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in the trial court’s judgme nt. The judgment is modified to delete the $2,000

General F ine and the $15.00 Time Payment Fee from the Bill of Costs . It is ordered

that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as modified.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Brian Walker

Justice Brian Walker
# City of Galax - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Mount Rogers Planning District Commission Executive Director Aaron Sizemore Email &#x61;&#x73;&#x69;&#x7a;&#x65;&#x6d;&#x6f;&#x72;&#x65;&#x40;&#x6d;&#114;&#112;&#100;&#99;&#46;&#111;&#114;gThe post Mount Rogers Planning District Commission appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
O R E G O N

N

E

VA

D

A

C A L I F O R N I A

80

5

5

5

5

Marin

San Francisco

Curry

Alameda

Contra

Costa

Del

Norte

Humboldt

Lake

Mendocino

Monterey

Napa

San

Mateo

Santa

Clara

Santa

Cruz

Solano

Sonoma

Trinity

USDA APHIS

2150 Centre Ave

Fort Collins, Co 80526

Data Source:

USDA, PPQ

These data, and all the information contained therein, have been collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), or by its cooperators on APHIS’ behalf, for restricted government purposes only and is

the sole property of APHIS. See full disclaimer: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/help/data-disclaimer

FEDERAL QUARANTINE STATUS

Phytophthora ramorum

P. ramorum Quarantine

P. ramorum Partial County Quarantine

0 30 60

Miles

0 30 60

Kilometers

Date Created:

4/7/2022

Document Path: C:\Users\mjmeroni\OneDrive - USDA\Documents\GIS\California\PRam\Maps\PPQ PRam CA Map.aprx

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 California Teale Albers FtUS

Oregon:

Curry (Partial)

California:

Alameda

Contra Costa

Del Norte

Humboldt

Lake

Marin

Mendocino

Monterey

Napa

San Francisco

San Mateo

Santa Clara

Santa Cruz

Solano

Sonoma

Trinity

Quarantined

Counties

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                              44,989
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       87,514
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1,740
<INVENTORY>                                        148,845
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   311,413
<PP&E>                                             527,999
<DEPRECIATION>                                     145,508
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     719,530
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              144,645
<BONDS>                                            430,499
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           101,100
<OTHER-SE>                                         (26,489)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       719,530
<SALES>                                            886,017
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   886,017
<CGS>                                              821,021
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      821,021
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   100,949
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  40,265
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (76,218)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (30,487)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (45,731)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       (940)
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (46,671)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
#### State v. Petelo

21314

04/08/1999

Affirmed
### JUDGMENT 

## Court of Appeals First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 15

- 00405

- CV
FRANK MILLER , Appellant

V.
ASCENTIUM CAPITAL LL C , Appellee Appeal from the 270th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2012

- 75468 ).
This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on October 13 , 2014. Appellant, Frank Miller , did not timely file a brief. After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. It is therefore CONSIDERED , ADJUDGED , and ORDERED that the appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution

.
The Court orders that the appellant, Frank Miller, pay all appellate costs.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.
Judgment rendered November 10 , 2015.
Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Llo yd.
# C_2012032EN.01001802.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2011 — Konsum Nord v Commission

(Case T-244/08) (1)

1

(State aid - Land sale price - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Private investor test - Determination of market price)

2012/C 32/33

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Konsum Nord ekonomisk förening (Umeå, Sweden) (represented by: U. Öberg and I. Otken Eriksson, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. Giolito, P. Dejmek and J. Enegren, then by C. Giolito and L. Parpala, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/366/EC of 30 January 2008 on State aid C 35/06 (ex NN 37/06) implemented by Sweden for Konsum Jämtland Ekonomisk Förening (OJ 2008 L 126, p. 3).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision 2008/366/EC of 30 January 2008 on State aid C 35/06 (ex NN 37/06) implemented by Sweden for Konsum Jämtland Ekonomisk Förening; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2008/366/EC of 30 January 2008 on State aid C 35/06 (ex NN 37/06) implemented by Sweden for Konsum Jämtland Ekonomisk Förening;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Konsum Nord ekonomisk förening. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Konsum Nord ekonomisk förening.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.

1

---