alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### HAZARD BOARD OF EDUCATION, William Brown, Corbett Brown, Roy Goldsmith, W. A. Stanfill, C. A. Noble, Appellants, v. PERSINGER SUPPLY COMPANY, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 29, 1955.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 27, 1956.

Don A. Ward, E. C. Wooton, Hazard, for appellants.

Grover C. Wilson, Hazard, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The principal parties involved in this case are the appellee, Persinger Supply Company, and the appellants, William Brown and Corbett Brown. The Browns had a contract to build a school building for the Hazard Board of Education. The Browns gave Charles Whitehead a plumbing contract. The Persinger Supply Company obtained a judgment on a claim it had against Charles Whitehead. Crane Company also had a claim against Whitehead for materials furnished him which went into the school building. The Crane Company did not assert its lien on the Whitehead claim, timely. Because the Board of Education had withheld several thousand dollars on the Browns’ building contract, it appears in this litigation as a stakeholder. The other appellants were sureties on the Browns’ contract. After the institution of the action now before us the Browns were assigned Crane Company’s claim against Whitehead.

We have examined the record and think the trial court correctly adjudged that Per-singer Supply Company was entitled to the balance of $1,456.56 on its judgment against Whitehead, and that the Board of Education was properly directed to pay that amount to the Company.

The motion for an appeal is overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-86,421-04

EX PARTE JAMES MICHAEL RESER, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 12-0702-K277D IN THE 368 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY 

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of aggravated assault and unlawful restraint and sentenced to fifteen

and ten years’ imprisonment respectively. The Third Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. 

Reser v. State, No. 03-15-00469-CR (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 25, 2016)(not designated for

publication). Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction,

and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. 

Applicant filed this application pro se, but appears to have been appointed counsel prior to

him filing the application. Habeas counsel has filed a motion with the trial court which requests the

trial court stay the proceedings so he can consult with Applicant and decide whether to dismiss or

amend this application, or possibly withdraw as counsel. 
We remand this application to the trial court to determine whetherApplicant wants to dismiss

this application, supplement it, or proceed to adjudication on its merits. The trial court shall make

supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether Applicant wishes to withdraw

this application, supplement it, or proceed to adjudication on its merits. If Applicant states he wishes

to withdraw the application, the trial court shall make findings as to whether it believes he should

be allowed to do so under this Court’s reasoning in Ex parte Speckman, 537 S.W.3d 49 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2017). 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within sixty days from the

date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court’s

findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things,

affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from

hearings and depositions. See TEX.R.APP.P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested

by the trial court and obtained from this Court. 

Filed: April 22, 2020

Do not publish
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Ross, Appellant. The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Anthoulis, Appellant. The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Hart, Appellant.

(Nos. 27632, 27633 and 27634

Decided July 5, 1939.)

*Mr. WilUam A.*Ambrose, prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. Harold H. Hull,*for appellee.

*Messrs. Chestosky & HaVy, Mr. John F. Nolan*and *Mr. James 8. Cooper,*for appellants.

*632It is ordered and adjudged that said appeals as of right be, and the same hereby are, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said causes.

*Appeals dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7589

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. HAROLD DEAN ENGLISH, a/k/a Harold Brown, Jr., a/k/a Bug, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:95-cr-00068-MJP)

Submitted: September 10, 2009 Decided: September 14, 2009

Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harold Dean English, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Harold English appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. English , No. 3:95-cr-00068-MJP (D.S.C. Aug. 22, 2008). We deny English’s motions for appointment of counsel, for leave to file a supplemental brief, and to place his appeal in abeyance. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
Please wait... 

 

If this message is not eventually replaced by the proper contents of the document, your PDF 

viewer may not be able to display this type of document. 

 

You can upgrade to the latest version of Adobe Reader for Windows®, Mac, or Linux® by 

visiting http://www.adobe.com/go/reader_download. 

 

For more assistance with Adobe Reader visit http://www.adobe.com/go/acrreader. 

 

Windows is either a registered trademark or a trademark of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries. Mac is a trademark 

of Apple Inc., registered in the United States and other countries. Linux is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the U.S. and other 

countries.

ACCEPTED

06-15-00054-CV

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

8/24/2015 3:50:53 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 8/24/2015 3:50:53 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
#### John L. SHERMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 29089.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 5, 1957.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DICE, Commissioner.

The conviction is for driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $50.

There appears in the transcript what purports to be a copy of the statement of facts on file in the cause.

Art. 760(2), Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., provides that the statement of facts shall not be copied in the transcript but shall be filed in duplicate with the clerk and the original sent up as a part of the cause on appeal.

The instrument being copied in the transcript and not being the original statement of facts bearing the approval of the trial judge or that of counsel for the state and the accused cannot be considered. Art. 759a, V.A.C.C.P.; Art. 760, supra; Brewster v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 177, 226 S.W. 2d 124 and McDaniel v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 126, 239 S.W.2d 630.

In the absence of a statement of facts which can be considered we cannot appraise appellant’s exception to the court’s action in refusing his requested instruction to the jury.

If in fact the original statement of facts was timely approved and filed, it maybe forwarded to this Court and appellant may file a motion for rehearing if he so de-sifes. However, our examination of the copy has revealed that there was sufficient, evidence to sustain the conviction and we-observe no reversible error.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
CASE NO. 01-14-00952-CV 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 

FIRST SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON 

HERBERT JACKSON 

Appellant 

PATRICIA JACKSON 

Appellee 

On Appeal from Cause No. 14-DCV-217167 

328th Judicial District Court 

Fort Bend County, Texas 

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE BRIEF 

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT: 

COMES NOW, HERBERT JACKSON, Defendant and request an extension to file 

Brief and would respectfully show as follows; 

Defendant, Herbert Jackson's attorney, Annie Briscoe, had a very extensive case 

load in last few months. Inadvertently she missed the notices showing when the brief was 

calendared. 

Therefore, Herbert Jackson is asking the court to grant a thirty day extension for 

ACCEPTED

01-14-00952-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

4/30/2015 1:13:15 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/30/2015 1:13:15 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
counsel to prepare and file the petition on his behalf. 

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, counsel requests that the court grant 

her a thirty day extension in this matter in order for her to prepare and file the brief. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Annie P. Briscoe 

1217 Prairie St., Suite 207 

Houston, Texas 77002 

713 270-8732 Telephone 

713 227-0066 Telecopier 

TBN.:0300850 

anniepump@yahoo.com 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

A copy of Motion to Extend Time was delivered to the following party(ies) 

by the means indicated on April 30,2015 

Patricia Jackson 

VIA: Facsimile 713 960-0555 and 

Regular US Mail 

TO: Attorney Carolyn L. McElroy 

5177 Richmond Ave, Suite 1275 

Houston, Texas 77056 

Annie P. Briscoe
|EXHIBIT 32.1
|------------



|CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer ofBelmarCapital Fund LLC (the Fund), that based on his knowledge:

|(a) | theQuarterlyReport of the Fund on Form10-Qfor thequarterendedJune 30, 2006(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Fund for such period.                               
|   



|Date:August 9, 2006
|-------------------



| | /s/Thomas E. Faust Jr.Thomas E. Faust Jr.Chief Executive Officer
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# **Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

**ASCREATED BY**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned officerof Stratagene Corporation (“Stratagene” or the “Company”) hereby certifiesthat:

(i) the accompanyingquarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31,2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “ExchangeAct”); and

(ii) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: May 15, 2007 | By:    | /s/ Joseph A.  Sorge, M.D.            |   |
|--------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|               |   | Joseph A. Sorge, M.D.                 |
|               |   | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and |
|               |   | President                             |

 

This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (“Item 601(b)(32)”)promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”),and the Exchange Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), thiscertification (A) shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theExchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section and (B)shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under theSecurities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Companyspecifically incorporates it by reference.

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Stratagene and will be retained byStratagene and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                                          0000725876             
<NAME>                                         Gateway Industries, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     Dollars
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.0
<CASH>                                         5,140,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  566,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,734,000
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,814,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          76,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,734,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,814,000
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               359,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                748,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   389,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .11
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Andrew H. Meyers, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of Langer, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, 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 Annual Report on
Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Langer, Inc.

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:  March 29, 2004             By:    /s/ Andrew H. Meyers
                                               --------------------
                                        Name:  Andrew H. Meyers
                                        Title: President and
                                               Chief Executive Officer
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1308 

To amend the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission Act to extend the 

termination date for the Commission, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 1, 2011 

Mr. GALLEGLY (for himself and Mr. SCHOCK) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission Act 

to extend the termination date for the Commission, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RONALD REAGAN CENTENNIAL COMMISSION 

4 ACT AMENDMENTS. 

5 (a) FINAL REPORT DUE DATE.—Section 7(c) of the 

6 Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission Act (Public Law 

7 111–25; 36 U.S.C. 101 note prec.) is amended by striking 

8 ‘‘April 30, 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘November 30, 2011’’. 

9 (b) TERMINATION.—Section 8 of the Ronald Reagan 

10 Centennial Commission Act (Public Law 111–25; 36 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1308 IH

1 U.S.C. 101 note prec.) is amended by striking ‘‘May 30, 

2 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2011’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date: March 31, 2011                                       |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                       |   |   |   |
| /s/ Ronald Conquest                                        |   |   |   |
|                                                            |   |   |   |
| Ronald ConquestChief Executive OfficerWindGen Energy, Inc. |   |   |   |
|                                                       |   |   |   |

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6086

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GLORIA A. MCCUTCHEON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-97-866) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 23, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gloria A. McCutcheon, Appellant Pro Se. William Earl Day, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Gloria A. McCutcheon appeals the district court’s order denying her request for an extension of time to file a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. McCutcheon , No. CR-97-866 (D.S.C. Dec. 17, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Forrest STURGILL, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Sept. 21, 1956.

Robert S. Wellman, Prestonsburg, for appellant.

Jo M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., Albert G. Rhea, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

MONTGOMERY, Judge.

Forrest Sturgill was jointly indicted with two others for the offense of grand larceny. Upon a separate trial, he was convicted and sentenced to one year’s confinement in the state reformatory.

Appellant assigns as error a variance between the indictment and proof and between the proof and instructions. He contends that the variance constitutes reversible error.

The indictment charged that the property stolen was owned by one George Evans-The proof was that the wire stolen was-owned by the Glo Valley Coal Corporation,, of which George Evans was the principal stockholder. The phrase “George Evans-operations” was shown to have been used in referring to the activities of the Glo Valley Coal Corporation and other enterprises in which Evans was interested. The jury was instructed to find appellant guilty if they believed the property of George. Evans was taken.

In Lissenbee v. Commonwealth, 198 Ky. 639, 249 S.W. 782, the indictment charged’ that Felix Turner’s watch and money were-stolen. It was held to be a fatal variance when the proof showed Felix Napier to be the owner. In Williams v. Commonwealth, 314 Ky. 33, 234 S.W.2d 148, the indictment charged the theft of one overcoat and other articles as the property of Inland Steel Company. The proof showed the overcoat to be owned by Sam Wallin. On the basis of the Lissenbee case, the variance was held to be fatal.

In Criminal Code of Practice, § 128, it is provided that an erroneous allegation in the indictment as to the owner of property taken is not material if the taking of the property be described with sufficient certainty to identify the act. In the present case, the property and owner were described as copper wire owned by George Evans. This was not such a particular description as to identify the act with sufficient certainty to make this prosecution a bar to another indictment against appellant by the Glo Valley Coal Corporation or to put him on notice of the offense for which he was to be tried.

Appellant’s motion for a peremptory instruction made at the close of the Commonwealth’s testimony should have been sustained.

Judgment is reversed for further proceedings consistent herewith.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

                                    18 U.S.C.
                                      1350
          AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Fred Narcross, President of Morgan Equities Group, Inc., (The
Registrant),there being no Chief Financial officer at this time, do hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

1. This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant for the period ending
June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, 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
aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant for
the period covered.

Date: August 18, 2006

                                  /s/ Fred Narcross, President