alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Octa Branch ROBINSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 37479.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 16, 1964.

*884No attorney of record for appellant.

Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Carl E. F. Dally, Cletus A. Davis and Ripley Woodard, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DICE, Commissioner.

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

The state’s testimony shows that on the day in question the appellant, while driving his automobile upon a public street and highway in the city of Houston, was involved in a collision with another automobile in which four young people were riding. After the collision, which occurred at an intersection, appellant drove about a block and stopped.

Larry Bond, the driver of the other automobile, testified that after the collision he went to where appellant was seated in his automobile, leaning against the door “from one side to the other,” and that at such time appellant acted as if he could not keep awake and was going to sleep.

Officers Rominger and Adamson testified that they went to the scene after the collision and observed the appellant. In describing his appearance and action, the officers testified that appellant appeared to be sleepy, that he had difficulty in producing his driver’s license, that he had trouble walking, his speech was slurred, he spoke with a lot of profanity and stated that he was “too damn drunk to drive his car.'v The officers testified that appellant had the smell of alcohol on his breath, and each expressed his opinion that appellant, at such time, was intoxicated.

It was further shown that after the collision a pint bottle of vodka which was one-fifth empty and two empty half-pint vodka bottles were found in appellant’s automobile.

Testifying as a witness in his own behalf, appellant admitted having had two drinks of vodka prior to the collision. He swore that he had no recollection of the collision and that he thought the juveniles in the other car were trying to curb him. Appellant denied making the statement that he was too drunk to drive "or having used profanity in talking to the police officers. He further denied that he was sleepy and explained that the reason for his leaning forward in the automobile was to relieve pressure from a chronic pain at the end of his spinal column.

The record contains no formal bills of exception and there are no objections to the court’s charge. No brief has been filed on behalf of appellant.

We have examined the informal bills of exception appearing in the statement of facts and find no reversible error.

The evidence, being sufficient to support the jury verdict, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court
JOHNNY D. HOLLOWAY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-2263

_____________________________/

Opinion filed June 3, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

James H. Daniel, Judge.

Johnny Holloway, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, ROWE, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
                             3900 US Bancorp Tower
                             111 S.W. Fifth Avenue
                          Portland, Oregon 97204-3698



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


Informedics, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
33-30243, 33-46474, and 33-85132 on Form S-8 of our report dated December 15,
1996 appearing in or incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form
10-KSB of Informedics, Inc. for the year ended October 31, 1996.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
    Portland, Oregon

January 27, 1997
Marty - 2nd of two. Please include in the Coso Redes (0336) e-docket. Thanks again. 

----- Forwarded by Doris Lo/R9/USEPA/US on 07/29/2010 11:42 AM ----- 

From: Meredith Kurpius/R9/USEPA/US 

To: Doris Lo/R9/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Jan Taradash/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Jerry Wamsley/R9/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 07/20/2010 03:10 PM 

Subject: Re: Summary of monitoring issues that should be addressed by the Great Basin District 

Hi All, 

I finally got Chris Lanane on the phone and here's the latest: 

-the contractor's trailer was moved so that the contractors no longer need to drive past the site 

-the drive area was covered with gravel so that any time a contractor does need to pass the site it doesn't 

kick up a big plume of dust 

-the turning area pavement was enlarged to prevent kicking up dust at the edges 

-Coso Operating Co. has NOT started watering yet which still leaves the area susceptible to windblown 

dust 

-Coso Operating Co. has NOT yet submitted their mitigation plan to GB 

-GB is planning to install cameras at the site to help identify the sources of any high levels of dust 

Chris Lanane also said that he is not aware of any exceedances over the past month. Because Coso 

Operating Co. has not yet started watering, GB is still treating their data as invalid. Chris said that he will 

follow-up with Coso Op. Co. on both the watering and the mitigation plan (he will cc. me on any emails). 

Chris said that he will prepare a formal memo to address our remaining issues (Doris' list below) and he 

will send the mitigation plan from Coso Op. Co. when he gets it. I think that's all the news for now. 

-Meredith 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

Meredith Kurpius, PhD 

Air Division, US EPA 

75 Hawthorne St., AIR-7 

San Francisco,CA 94105 

415-947-4534 (p) 

415-947-3579 (f)
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Roush, Appellant.

(No. 27486

Decided April *5,*1939.)

*Mr. Paul D.*Michel, prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. Walter D. Moore,*for appellee.

*Mr. Z. P. Davis*and *Messrs. Mouser & Mouser,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00320- CR

In re Joe G arcia Dennis Mitchell Alford, Ap pellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F CO MAL CO UNTY, 207 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. CR2011 -28 4, TH E H ONO RAB LE DIB WALDRIP , JUDGE P RESIDING

O R D E R T O S H O W C A U S E
P ER CURIAM

T h is is a contempt proce eding ancillar y to Dennis Mi tchell Alford’s appea l from a jud gm en t o f co n v i ction for possession of a firea rm by a felon. The subject of this proce eding is J oe Ga rcia , appellant’ s counsel. Appellant’s brief was orig inally due J uly 5, 2012. After appellant’ s court-a ppointed attorney , J oe Ga

rcia , failed to re spond to this C ourt’s not ice that the brief wa s overdue , we a bated the appea l on September 20, 2012, with instructions to the trial court to hold a hear ing to deter mine whether appellant desires to prosec ute this appea l and , if so, whether appointed counsel has abandone d the appea l. See Tex. R. App. P
. 3 8
. 8(b)( 2) (providing that if counsel for criminalappellant fails to file brief, ap p el l at e court should order trial court to conduct hear ing on whether

appellant wishe s to prosecute appea l, is indi g ent, or ha s abandone d appea l).

Following the hear ing, the trial court forwa rded its fi ndings and rec ommendations to this Court, rec ommending that counsel be g rante d an extension until October 31, 2012, to file either a brief or motion to dismiss the appea l. This Court g rante d an extension and notified Gar cia that this Court expected appellant’ s brief or a motion to dismiss the appea l to be filed on or befor e November 9, 2012. No brief or motion to dismiss was filed. Fur ther, Gar cia ag ain failed to respond to this C ourt’s subseque nt notice that the brie f wa s overdue
.

On December 2 1, 2012, this Court order ed counsel to tender a brief on appellant’ s behalf or a motion to dismiss no later than J anuar y 11, 2013. To date , co u n s el has failed to file a brief or motion to di smiss as ordere d, nor has c ounsel communicate d with this C ourt. There fore , it is here by order ed that the said J oe Gar cia shall appea r in person befor e t h i s C o u rt on Fe bruar

y 27, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., in the courtroom of this Court, located in th e P ri ce Daniel, Sr. Building , 209 West 14th Street, City of Austin, Travis County , Texas, then and there to show cause why he should not be held in contempt and sanctions imposed for his failure to obey the Dec ember

21, 2012, order

of this Court. I t is so ordered on this the 6th day of F ebrua

ry , 2013.

Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Goodwin and F ield Do Not Publish

2
#### The State, ex rel. Myers, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio.

(No. 27305

Decided April 26, 1939.)

*Messrs, Dolle, O’Donnell &*Gash, for relator.

*Mr. Herbert 8. Duffy*and *Mr. Thomas J. Herbert,*attorneys general, *Mr. Eugene Carlin, Mr. G. L. Hawthorne*and *Mr. E. P. FelJcer,*for respondent.

By the Court.

The only question involved in this proceeding is thus stated in the brief of counsel for relator: “The controversy is simply whether or not Section 1465-90, Grenoral Code, whioh became effective July 3, 1937, applies. If it does, then this writ, admittedly, should be granted. The argument of respondent against its applicability rests solely on the *311effect of Section 26, General Code, with respect thereto.”

That question was answered by this court in *State, ex rel. Longano,*v. *Industrial Commission, ante,*165, and a writ will, therefore, he denied.

*Writ denied.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
EX-10.19




 Exhibit 10.19 

CymaBay Therapeutics, Inc. 

Amended and Restated 

Non-Employee Directors Compensation Program 

In January 2017, our Board adopted an Amended and Restated Non-Employee Director Compensation Program intended to compensate our non-employee directors with a
combination of cash and equity. Each non-employee director will receive an annual base cash retainer of $35,000 for such service. The chairman of our board of directors will receive an additional annual base cash retainer of $20,000 for this
service. In addition, we intend to compensate the members of our board of directors for service on our committees as follows: 
  

	 	•	 	The chairperson of our audit committee will receive an annual cash retainer of $17,500 for this service, and each of the other members of the audit committee will receive an annual cash retainer of $9,000.


  

	 	•	 	The chairperson of our compensation committee will receive an annual cash retainer of $10,000 for such service, and each of the other members of the compensation committee will receive an annual cash retainer of $6,000.


  

	 	•	 	The chairperson of our nominating and corporate governance committee will receive an annual cash retainer of $8,750 for this service, and each of the other members of the nominating and corporate governance committee
will receive an annual cash retainer of $4,000. 

 Cash payments described above shall be paid either quarterly or semi-annually at the
discretion of the board member. Further, at about the time of our annual meeting of stockholders, each non-employee director having completed a minimum of twelve months of service will receive an additional equity award of an option to purchase
15,000 shares of our common stock. In the event the non-employee director has served less than twelve months, an equity award of an option to purchase up to a maximum of 15,000 shares of our common stock may be awarded at the discretion of the Board
or Compensation Committee. If a new board member joins our board of directors, the director will receive an initial stock option to purchase 30,000 shares of our common stock. Annual option grants and option grants to new board members will be
subject to vesting as determined by our Board or Compensation Committee on the date of grant.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.42

                        AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         Reference is made to the Employment Agreement, dated on or about May
7th, 2004 ("Original Agreement"), between Markland Technologies Inc. (the
"Company") and Kenneth Ducey, Jr. (the "Employee")

         The Original Agreement is hereby amended as follows: In consideration
of the deletion of section 4(d), with regard to the anti-dilution provision, of
the Original Agreement, the Company has agreed to make the first grant of shares
based on the Company Equity as of May 12th, 2004, the date of the present
Agreement between parties.

         The Original Agreement otherwise remains in full force and effect

THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE THAT EACH HAS READ THIS AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL
AGREEMENT, UNDERSTANDS IT, AND AGREES TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
FURTHER, THE PARTIES AGREE THAT THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT AND THIS AMENDMENT TO THE
ORIGINAL AGREEMENT AND ANY EXHIBITS THERETO OR HERETO ARE THE COMPLETE AND
EXCLUSIVE STATEMENT OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, WHICH SUPERSEDES ALL
PROPOSALS OR ALL PRIOR AGREEMENTS, ORAL OR WRITTEN, AND ALL OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
BETWEEN THE PARTIES RELATING TO THE SUBJECT MATTER HEREOF.

ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

MARKLAND TECHNOLOGY, INC.                                 KEN DUCEY

By:  Robert Tarini                                        By:  Ken Ducey
CEO
/s/ Robert Tarini                                         /s/ Kenneth Ducey Jr.

Date: 6/14/2004                                           Date: 6/14/2004
#### Dragonette, Appellant, *v.*Brandes et al., Appellees. 

(No. 27353

Decided January 11, 1939.)

*Mr. Paul Mancino,*for appellant.

*Mr. Harvey E. Elliott,*for appellees.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

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

Day, J., not participating.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-20-0000104

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

CHRIS SLAVICK, Petitioner-Appellant, v.

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(S.P.P. NO. 1PR191000014 (CR. NO. 1PC041001534))

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Chan, JJ.)

Upon consideration of self-represented PetitionerAppellant Chris Slavick's (Slavick) July 7, 2020 declaration in

response to the June 24, 2020 order to show cause, the papers in

support, and the records in appellate case numbers CAAP-20-

0000076 and CAAP-20-0000104, it appears that (1) Slavick's

appeals in CAAP-20-0000076 and CAAP-20-0000104 are from the same

January 23, 2020 circuit court order denying his petition for

post-conviction relief under Hawai#i Rules of Penal Procedure

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-20-0000104

23-SEP-2020

09:19 AM
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Rule 40 in 1PR191000014;1 and (2) the appeal in CAAP-20-0000104

should be dismissed as duplicative.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal in

CAAP-20-0000104 is dismissed without prejudice to this court's

consideration of the appeal in CAAP-20-0000076.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions in CAAP20-0000104 are dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, September 23, 2020.

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

Chief Judge

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard

Associate Judge

/s/ Derrick H.M. Chan

Associate Judge

1 Slavick filed in the circuit court the notice of appeal that resulted

in the creation of CAAP-20-0000076 and he filed in this court the notice of

appeal that resulted in the creation of CAAP-20-0000104. Although the notices

of appeal were not identical, they unambiguously were from the same circuit

court order in the same underlying case. Slavick is cautioned not to file

similar documents to different courts that result in overlapping and

duplicative actions by this court.

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1
<CASH>                            730,284
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                     767,141
<ALLOWANCES>                       15,000
<INVENTORY>                     1,221,768
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                2,823,397
<PP&E>                          1,876,805
<DEPRECIATION>                    756,370
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  4,113,464
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             613,197
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                           16,366
<OTHER-SE>                      2,557,289
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    4,113,464
<SALES>                         5,479,603
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                5,479,603
<CGS>                           2,526,358
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   2,526,358
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                2,426,876
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                114,909
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   473,825
<INCOME-TAX>                        7,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               466,825
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                      466,825
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                         .31



</TABLE>
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification
      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant**


**to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





In
      connection with the quarterly report of Waytronx, Inc. (the "Company"), on
      Form
      10-Q of the quarter ended June
      30,
      200 8,
      I
      hereby certify solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as adopted to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best
      of
      my knowledge:





(1)
      The
      quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company


Waytronx,
                      Inc.By: 
/s/
                  William J. Clough
                
                
                Dated this 14th day of August
                  2008William
                          J. Clough,Chief
                        Executive Officer/President
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6285** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. TALEEK SHERROD SWINNEY , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Leonie M. Brinkema , District Judge. ( 1:13

- cr - 00422

- LMB

- 1 ; 1:15

- cv - 00251

- LMB )

Submitted : August 25, 2016 Decided: August 30, 2016

Before NIEMEYER , DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Taleek Sherrod Swinney , Appellant Pro Se. Lauren Elizabeth Britsch , UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C. ; Michael John Frank, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

U npublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Taleek Sherrod Swinney seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or ju dge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court de nies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Mil ler

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denia l of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Swinney has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argume nt would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT 24.4**

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

**(Annual Report on Form 10-K)**

The undersigned, an officer and/or director of Electro Scientific Industries, Inc., constitutes and appoints Nicholas Konidaris, Paul Oldham and Kerry Mustoe, and eachof them, his or her true and lawful attorney and agent to do any and all acts and things and execute in his or her name as an officer or director of the Company the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 28, 2009 and any andall amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission; and the undersigned does hereby ratify and confirm all that said attorneys and agentsand each of them shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof. Any one of said attorneys or agents shall have, and may exercise, all powers conferred. 

Dated: May 14, 2009.