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

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-85,151-06

IN RE RAYMOND ANDREW DEBA, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 08-8-4438-CR IN THE 24TH DISTRICT COURT 

FROM GOLIAD COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file an application for a writ of mandamus pursuant

to the original jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that the 24 District Court of Goliad th

County is not complying with the directives contained in this Court’s September 14, 2016 opinion

granting relief. In that opinion, this Court set aside the judgment in this case and ordered that

Relator be remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Goliad County so that the indictment could be

disposed of in accordance with this Court's opinion in Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App.

2013). The opinion stated that the trial court was to issue any necessary bench warrant within 10

days after the mandate of this Court issued. The mandate in this case issued on October 11, 2016. 

 Relator alleges that he has not been bench-warranted back to Goliad County.
2

Respondent, the Judge of the District Court of Goliad County, shall file a response with this

Court by stating whether Relator has been remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Goliad County

and whetherthe indictment in this case has been disposed of in accordance with this Court’s opinion

in Ex parte Lo. Respondent’s answer shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order. 

This application for leave to file a writ of mandamus will be held in abeyance until Respondent has

submitted his response.

Filed: January 11, 2017

Do not publish
#### Wilcox v. Chizum.

Appeal: less than $100 : no certificate : dismissed.

*Appeal from Gass District Court.*— Hon. C. F. Loofbourow, Judge.

Filed, June 6, 1889.

Action to enjoin the collection of certain taxes. There was a judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appeals.

*B. G. Phelps,*for appellant.

*John W. Scott,*for appellee.

Granger, J.

The pleadings in this case show the amount in controversy to be less than one hundred dollars, and there is no certificate of the trial judge, as provided in section 3173 of the Code. Without such certificate we have no jurisdiction. The appeal is

Dismissed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                    D&E Communications, Inc. and Subsidiaries





                            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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2002 of D&E Communications, Inc. (the "Company") as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, G.
William Ruhl, 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 as of the dates and for the periods referred to in the Report.

                                         /s/ G. William Ruhl
                                -----------------------------------------------
                                Name:  G. William Ruhl
                                Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                Date:  March 31, 2003

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
financial statements for the six months ended June 30, 2000, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (50,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,845
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,845)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,845)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,845)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>


Exhibit 23.2
 
                                          February 17, 1997
 
EXECUTONE Information Systems, Inc.
478 Wheelers Farms Road
Milford, CT 06460
 
                      ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K/A FOR THE
                      FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995
              TO BE FILED FEBRUARY 18, 1997 (FILE NO. 000-11551)
              --------------------------------------------------
 
Gentlemen:
 
     This  firm has  reviewed the information  set forth in  the ninth paragraph
under "Recent Developments"  under Item  1., Business, and  the information  set
forth  in the  first paragraph  under Item 3,  Legal Proceedings,  of the Annual
Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal  year ended December 31, 1995 of  EXECUTONE
Information  Systems, Inc. (the  "Company"). We understand  that the information
set forth  therein as  it  related to  the issue  of  the authorization  of  the
National  Indian Lottery under 25  U.S.C. 2701 et seq.  is based upon the advice
provided to the Company by this firm.
 
     We consent to the summarization of such  advice and the reference to us  in
the prospectus.
 
                                          Very truly yours,



                                          HUNTON & WILLIAMS



<PAGE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-19-00060-CR

David Alan BRUNDAGE,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Uvalde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-10-12665-CR

Honorable Camile Glasscock Dubose, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 22, 2019

DISMISSED

A jury found appellant guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child. The clerk’s record 

contains a trial court certification, signed by the trial court and appellant, stating: “[T]he defendant 

has waived the right of appeal.” Where the State and the appellant agree the appellant will waive 

his right of appeal in exchange for the State’s sentencing recommendation and the trial court 

follows the State’s sentencing recommendation, “[t]here is no valid or compelling reason why 

appellant should not be held to his bargain.” Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2000); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 1.14(a), 44.02. Here, the clerk’s record reflects that 
04-19-00060-CR

- 2 -

prior to sentencing, appellant and the State entered into an agreement whereby the State agreed to 

recommend a sentence of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine and appellant agreed to waive his 

right to appeal. On March 5, 2019, the trial court signed a final judgment sentencing appellant to 

five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Therefore, the record reflects that appellant made a valid 

waiver of his appellate rights. 

We must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of 

appeal has not been made part of the record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). We ordered that this appeal 

would be dismissed unless an amended trial court certification showing appellant has the right to 

appeal was made part of the appellate record by May 13, 2019. Appellant did not file a response 

to this court’s order, and an amended trial court certification showing appellant has the right to 

appeal has not been made part of the appellate record. 

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See id. 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
*Circuit Judge of the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

 

** Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-51233

 

KEITH BROWNE,

Plaintiff - Appellee-Cross-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS,

Defendant - Appellant-Cross-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(SA-97-CV-1245) 

 

January 14, 2000

Before POLITZ, GIBSON* and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

AFFIRMED. See 5th Cir. R. 47.6.**
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Public Media Works, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarter ending August 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Al Hayes certify in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer and principal financial 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 ofSection 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 allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto signed as ofOctober 15, 2008. 

/s/ AlHayes                                                

**Al Hayes**

**Chief Executive Officer and principal**

**financial 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 andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request**.
EXHIBIT 21
                                        
                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
                                        
                                        





                                                  Jurisdiction of
          Name                                    Organization

          AST Europe Limited                      United Kingdom
          AST Research (Far East) Limited         Hong Kong
          AST Computer (China) Limited            People''s Republic of China
          AST Research France S.A.R.L.            France
          AST Research Deutschland GmbH           Germany
          AST Taiwan Ltd.                         Taiwan
          AST Research (Japan) K.K.               Japan
          AST Research (Switzerland) S.A.         Switzerland
          AST Australia Pty. Limited              Australia
          AST Research Italia S.p.A.              Italy
          AST Canada Inc.                         Canada
          AST Middle East Limited                 United Arab Emirates (Dubai)
          AST Middle East, Inc.                   United States of America
          AST de Mexico S.A. de C.V.              Mexico
          AST Benelux N.V.                        Belgium
          AST Research Spain, S.L.                Spain
          AST Singapore Pte. Ltd.                 Singapore
          AST Sweden AB                           Sweden
          AST Denmark A/S                         Denmark
          AST Finland OY                          Finland
          AST Holdings Ireland Limited            Ireland
          AST Ireland Limited                     Ireland
          AST Distribution Ireland Limited        Ireland
          AST New Zealand Limited                 New Zealand
          AST Norway AS                           Norway
          AST Korea Ltd.                          Korea
          AST Computer and Services (M) Sdn. Bhd. Malaysia
          AST Computer Netherlands B.V.           The Netherlands
          AST Innovations, Inc.                   United States
September 4, 2015

Mr. Daniel Mackin

330 Jewel Street

Apartment C

New Orleans

, LA 70124

Dear Mr. Mackin :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

part 21, subpart H; § § 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103(b), 91.109,

91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and

91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regula tions (14 CFR). It explains why we

can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your exemption request filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2495 , but we are unable

to process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the requirements of

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of

the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemptio n.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i at e f orpubl i c at i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T A R M A N D O A L V A R E Z - C O R O N A , e t a l. P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N os . 08- 72268 09- 70495 A ge nc yN os . A 075- 731- 667

A 075- 731- 668 A 075- 731- 669 A 075- 731- 670 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i ons f

orR e vi e w of

O r de r s of

the B o ar do f I m m ig r atio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T A L L M A N , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. In th ese co n so l i d at edp et i t i o n s, A rm an d o A l v arez-C o ro n a an dh i s fam i l y, n at i v es an dci t i zen s o f M ex i co , seekrev i ew o f th e B o ardo f Im m i g rat i o n A p p eal s’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de r s de ny i ng the i rm ot i on t o r e ope n r e m ova lpr oc e e di ngs and de ny i ng 

# FI LED OC T 25 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 72268 2 th e irm o tio n to r e c o n s id e r . W e h av e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e vi e w f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the de ni a lof m ot i ons t o r e ope n and r e c ons i de r , and r e vi e w de novo c l a i m s of due pr oc e s s vi ol at i ons , i nc l udi ng i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t anc e of c o u n s e l c la im s . Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 4 0 0 F .3 d7 8 5 , 7 9 1 - 9 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n s f o rr e v i e w. T he B I A di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on in d e n y in g p e titio n e r s ’ m o tio n to re op en w here they f

ai l ed t o est abl i sh thati neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se lm ay h av e a f f e c te dth e o u tc o m e o f

th e irc a s e . Se e R o

ja s - G a rc ia v . A s h c r o

ft , 339 F . 3d 8 1 4 , 8 2 6 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( t o p r e v a i lo n an i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t an c e o f

c o u n s e lc l a i m a p e titio n e rm u s t d e m o n s tr ate p r e ju d ic e ) . T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g p e titio n e r s ’ m o tio n to r e c ons i de rbe c aus e the m ot i on f a i l e d t o i de nt i f

yanye rr orof

f a c torl aw i n the B I A ’s p r io rd e c is io n d e n y in g th e irm o tio n to r e o p e n . See 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(b)(1); So c o p - G o n z a lezv . I

NS , 27 2 F . 3d11 76 , 11 80 n. 2 (9th C i r. 20 01 ) ( en banc). P E T I T I ON S F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Roy Edwin COOK, Appellant.

No. 47312.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

Oct. 12, 1959.

Ray Mabee, Galena, for appellant.

John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., Donald D. Guffey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

HOUSER, Commissioner.

Roy Edwin Cook, tried in the Circuit Court of Stone County and there convicted of the crime of robbery in the first degree with a dangerous and deadly weapon, and sentenced to seven years in the state penitentiary, appeals from the judgment of conviction. Appellant, has filed no. brief on appeal. . .

We are precluded from the consideration of any matters required to be preserved in a motion for a new trial, by reason of the fact that appellant filed no motion for a new trial. State v. Parker, Mo.Sup., 310 S.W.2d 923.

An examination of the record as required by Supreme Court Rule 28.02, 42 V.A.M.S., reveals no error. The pertinent allegations of the information, which charged robbery in the first degree by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon, follow almost identically the language of the information approved as sufficient in State v. Maddox, Mo.Sup., 250 S.W.2d 971. And see State v. Yates, Mo.Sup., 252 S.W. 641. The verdict of the jury found defendant guilty of “robbery in the first degree, as charged in the information,” and assessed appellant’s punishment at imprisonment in the peni-: tentiary for a term of seven years. The verdict was definite; it made a finding with reference to the same offense with which the appellant was charged in the information. The verdict assessed a punishment falling within the limits prescribed by the penalty section applicable to robbery in the first degree by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon. Section 560.135 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. Defendant, present in court in person and by his attorneys, was properly granted allocution and duly sentenced tó seven years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary in accordance with the verdict of the jury. No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

COIL and HOLMAN, CC., concur.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion by HOUSER, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court.

All of the Judges concur.
EXHIBIT 31.2 

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302**

**OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I,David A. Yost, Chief Financial Officer, certify that: 

 

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Raybor Management Inc.; 

 

2.    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterlyreport, 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 quarterly report; 

 

4.    The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: 

 

(a)    designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures 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 whichthis quarterly 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 endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c)    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 fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5.    The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

(a)    all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses 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; and 

 

(b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 14, 2003