alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Malachi F. BULLARD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 37598.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 20, 1965.

M. S. Morgan, Houston, for appellant.

Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Carl E. F. Dally, James C. Brough and Joe Maida, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, seven days in jail and a fine of $100.00.

Highway Patrolman Rogers testified that shortly after midnight on the night in question, while on patrol traveling at approximately 30 miles per hour, he observed an automobile approaching from his rear traveling at a high rate of speed, that he pulled off on the shoulder of the highway until *862the automobile passed and then gave pursuit and brought the automobile which appellant was driving to a halt, but only after appellant’s automobile had forced an automobile which he was meeting to drive into the ditch. He testified that appellant’s breath smelled strongly of alcohol, that appellant mumbled and slurred his words while speaking, had blood shot eyes, staggered and bumped up against the patrol car and expressed the opinion that appellant was intoxicated. On cross and redirect examination he testified that appellant told him he had been some place drinking two beers and at the Sportsman Drive Inn where he had drunk approximately six beers.

Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, admitted drinking three beers on the night in question and said, “I couldn’t of got more, it was closing time”, but denied that he was intoxicated. He testified that after he and Officer Rogers arrived at the Humble jail he was offered a urine test which he refused.

Highway Patrolman Curtis, who was at the Humble jail when Rogers arrived with appellant, testified that appellant spoke with a thick tongue, was very unsteady on his feet, smelled strongly of intoxicants and expressed the opinion that appellant was intoxicated.

The jury resolved the disputed issue of appellant’s intoxication against him, and we shall discuss the contentions advanced by brief and in argument.

He states that the State failed to establish “the place where the appellant was at the time of his arrest.” Officer Rogers testified that appellant’s automobile was being driven on a public highway in Harris County, which is all that was alleged in the Information. There was some discrepancy as to whether it was Airline Drive or Airline Road, but since under the holding of this Court in Pritchett v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 423, 129 S.W.2d 676, it is only necessary to make the general allegation as we have here, that the driving took place on a public highway in a certain county, and nothing further was required to be proven.

Finding the evidence sufficient to support the conviction and no reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000725813
<NAME> LAURENCE E. RICHARD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         3800000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 15731000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                   13773000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              36478000
<PP&E>                                        38121000
<DEPRECIATION>                                18356000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                70123000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          9022000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        530000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    53412000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  70123000
<SALES>                                       39351000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              39351000
<CGS>                                         26510000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 26510000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               7925000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              339000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4577000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1397000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3180000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3180000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .39
        


</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00560-CV

Helen O’Neal, Appellant

v.

Ector County Independent School District and The Comissioner of Education, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-07-000291, HONORABLE W. JEANNE MEURER, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant has filed an agreed motion to dismiss, explaining that she has settled her

dispute with appellees. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2).

___________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Puryear and Henson

Dismissed on Agreed Motion

Filed: February 11, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
PEDIANET.COM, INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT MARCH 31, 2000 AND THE THREE MONTHS
THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           108,886
<SECURITIES>                                       3,750
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 174,387
<PP&E>                                           408,052
<DEPRECIATION>                                   270,707
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   316,533
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            997,517
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              5,280
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                           1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (687,264)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     316,533
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       0
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  63,900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                20,584
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (83,782)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (83,782)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0






</TABLE>
### SERVED : JUL Y 14,201 1 U.S . DlilV\RTMBNTO PTRANSPORTA'nO N

OFFIC EOFHEARING S WASIFINGTON , D C I N TH E MATTERO F DRYTA C CORFORA'JIO N FA A DOCKE T NO . [T O B EASSIGNED ] (Civi l Penalt

y Action ) FDMSNO . FAA-2011-048 0 \ 

## ^>cPARTMeN TO F 'i^ANSPORWlO M :.-vCK£TOPERAT!GN S

\ 

## 20i l JU L\ U P2--\ u

ORDE RREASSIGNIN GPROCEEDIN G I n th e interes t

o f judicia l cfUciency , th e above-caplione dproceedin g i s reassigne dfro m Chie f Administrativ e Law Judg e Ronni e A . Yoder to Administrativ e La

w Judg e Jesly n E . Sullivan . All futur

e pleading s an dothe r

communication s regardin g thi s proceedin g shal l b e ser\'c don th e Judge , th e FA A Hearin g Docket , andth e othe r person s on th e attache dServic e List . S O ORDERED .

Ronni e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La

w J Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFDM S NO
. FAA-20n-048 0 (Civi l Penalt yAction ) 

### SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA Li

& ON ECOP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0

Wilbu rWrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 ' 

### ON ECOP Y Ti m Rader , Vice-Prcsidcnt/Financ c Dryta cCorporation , Responden t 538 3 Gle n Alde n Driv e Richmond , V A2323 1 TEL ; 804-222-309 4 FAX : 804-226-233 0 Geral d A . Ellis , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counsel , ASO- 7 Souther n Regio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n P.O
. Bo x2063 6 Atlant a G A3032 0 TEL : 404-305-520 0 

### FAX ; 404-305-522 3 Th e Honorabl e Jesly n E . Sullivan , Adminislialiv e La wJudg e U.S
. Departmen t o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 , Roo m El2-32 0 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue , S.E
. Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 2 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa S b yU.S
. Mail . Fo rservic

e i n perso n o rb

yexpedite d courier , us

e Ih e followin g address : Federa l Aviatio n Administration , 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu rWrigh t Building—Suil e 2W1000 , Washington , DC 20591 ; Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-^JO
. - 2 -
May 15, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NATIONWIDE BANK, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00782-CV V.

HUMBLE PARK PLACE, LTD. AND KENNETH R. HENRY, Appellees

________________________________

Today the Court heard the parties’ joint motion to set aside the default 

judgment signed by the court below on March 8, 2013 and remand to the trial court 

for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement. Having 

considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the judgment 

VACATED AND REMAND the cause to the trial court for rendition of judgment 

in accordance with the parties’ agreement.

We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
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 Public Media Works, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending August 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Garrett Cecchini certify in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer, 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.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto signed as of October 17, 2011.





/s/ Garrett CecchiniGarrett CecchiniChief Executive Officer




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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS EXHIBIT CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001108630
<NAME>                        COMMUNICATE.COM INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                                   0
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             (30,836)
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               310
<OTHER-SE>                                        (31,146)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             0
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     (13,651)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (13,651)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (14,451)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (14,451)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.002)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.002)



</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS WITH REGARD TO
HEALTHWATCH, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                            TAUBER & BALSER, P.C.
                         Certified Public Accountants
                          3340 Peachtree Road, N.E.
                                  Suite 250
                               Atlanta, GA 30326

     We hereby consent to the use of our report, dated September 26, 2000
accompanying the consolidated financial statements of HealthWatch, Inc. as of
June 30, 2000 and 1999, included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
and to the incorporation by reference of the aforementioned financial statements
in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 for the 1983 Incentive Stock Option
Plan, Employee Stock Purchase Plan of 1987,Stock Option Plan of 1989 and Stock
Option Plan of 1993, Registration Statement Nos. 33-36833, 33-22729, 33-36832
and 33-75470, respectively, Registration Statements on Form S-8 for the 1995
Stock Option Plan and 1995 Stock Grant and Salary Deferral Plan Registration
Statement Nos. 033-65151 and 333-35297 and S-3 Registration Statements for
Selling Shareholders Nos. 33-88032, 333-19393, 333-21929 and 333-26913.



/s/ Tauber & Balser, P.C.
-------------------------
TAUBER & BALSER, P.C.
Atlanta, Georgia
September 28, 2000
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 11




                      THE LANGER BIOMECHANICS GROUP, INC.
                               AND SUBSIDIARIES
                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE AMOUNTS

For the years ended February 28, 1997, February 29, 1996 and February 28, 1995

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                1997        1996         1995
                                                                             ----------  -----------  -----------
<S>                                                                          <C>         <C>          <C>
Primary:
Net income (loss)..........................................................  $  303,047  $  (432,985) $  (637,159)
                                                                             ----------  -----------  -----------
Weighted average number of common shares...................................   2,583,344    2,568,458    2,547,281
Assumed number of shares issued from common share equivalents..............      83,076           --           --
                                                                             ----------  -----------  -----------
Weighted average number of common and common equivalent shares.............   2,666,420    2,568,458    2,547,281
                                                                             ----------  -----------  -----------
Net income (loss) per share:
Primary....................................................................  $     0.11  $     (0.17) $     (0.25)
                                                                             ----------  -----------  -----------
Fully Diluted:
Net income (loss)..........................................................  $  303,047  $  (432,985) $  (637,159)
                                                                             ----------  -----------  -----------
Weighted average number of common shares...................................   2,583,344    2,568,458    2,547,281
Assumed number of shares issued from common share equivalents..............      83,076           --           --
                                                                             ----------  -----------  -----------
Weighted average number of common and common equivalent shares.............   2,666,420    2,568,458    2,547,281
                                                                             ----------  -----------  -----------
Net income (loss) per share:
Fully Diluted..............................................................  $     0.11  $     (0.17) $     (0.25)
                                                                             ----------  -----------  -----------
</TABLE>





                                     1
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7278

SHAIDON BLAKE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. ROBERT L. GREEN, Secretary, Public Safety & Correctional Services , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. ( 8:20

- cv - 03563

- PWG )

Submitted : March 24, 2022 Decided: April 27, 2022

Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Shaidon Blake , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Shaidon Blake appeals the district court’s order denying his request for injunctive
relief . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s order

. Blake v. Green , No. 8:20

- cv - 03563

- PWG (D. Md. July 15, 2021)

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions ar e adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.
AFFIRMED
#### Mae WALKER, Appellant, v. E. L. WALKER, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 22, 1959.

*805T. E. Mahan, Williamsburg, for appellant.

B. B. Snyder, Williamsburg, for appellee.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

E. L. Walker sought a divorce from his wife, Mae and a restoration of property. Mae counterclaimed, asking that she be awarded a divorce. The court entered judgment denying a divorce to either party, but directing that Mae restore to her husband a small tract of land the title to which was in Mae’s name. Mae has moved for an appeal, complaining only of the restoration provision of the judgment and of the failure of the court to award her a reasonable allowance for an attorney’s fee.

Without granting a divorce, the court had no authority to direct a restoration of property. KRS 403.050(2); Noel v. Noel, 307 Ky. 122, 210 S.W.2d 137; Gentry v. Gentry, Ky., 318 S.W.2d 870, 872. The portion of the judgment directing a restoration therefore is erroneous.

The judgment is silent on the matter of allowance of an attorney’s fee for the wife. In the absence of a finding that she is in fault and has ample estate, she is entitled to such an allowance. KRS 453-120. Upon remand of the case, the circuit court is directed to make a finding concerning the facts upon which the allowance of a fee depends, and if the wife is found to be entitled to an allowance, then to fix a reasonable fee taking into consideration the pecuniary ability of the husband to pay and other relevant factors. See King v. King, 218 Ky. 9, 290 S.W. 725; Bobbitt v. Bobbitt, 297 Ky. 28, 178 S.W.2d 986; Andrews v. Andrews, 301 Ky. 94, 190 S.W.2d 1019.

The motion for an appeal is sustained and the judgment is reversed, with directions to delete from the judgment the provision for restoration of property and to make a determination with respect to the allowance of an attorney’s fee for the wife.
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 1 4

- 00 108

- CR

DAN DANIEL, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 87 th District Court Freestone County, Texas Trial Court No. 13

- 022

- CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 16, 2014, Dan Daniel filed a pro se notice of appeal of his conviction for
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Daniel’s imposition of sentence was on
October 29, 2013, and the judgment of conviction was signed the same day. Daniel’s

notice of appeal is untimely, and we have no jurisdiction of an untimely appeal. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2(a)(1); Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (no
appellate jurisdiction where notice of appeal is untimely).
Daniel also signed a waiver of h is right to appeal in this case, and the trial court’sDaniel v. State Page 2

certification of defendant’s right to appeal in this case indicates that Daniel waived his
right to appeal. This appeal is therefore dismissed. 1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d); Chavez v.

State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals ... must dismiss a

prohibited appeal without further a ction, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”); Davis

v. State , 205 S.W.3d 606, 607 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2006, no pet.).

REX D. DAVIS Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis , and Justice Scoggins Dismissed Opinion delivered and filed April 24, 2014 Do not publish [C R25 ]

1 A motion for rehearing may be filed within 15 days after the judgment or order of this Court is rendered. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.1. If the appellant desires to have the decision of this Court reviewed by filing a petition for discretionary review, that petition must be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals within 30 days after either the day the court of appeals’ judgment was r endered or the day the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by the court of appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2(a).