alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 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 recom mendation 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 T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P R OC

. art. 1.14(a), 44.02. Here, t he clerk’s record reflects that04

- 19

- 00060

- CR

- 2

- p rior 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.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d). We ordered that this appeal would be dismissed unless an amended trial court certification showing appellant has th e 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 rec ord

. Accordingly , this appeal is dismissed

. See id.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 140 

To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify 

those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals 

and citizens of the United States at birth. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 5, 2011 

Mr. KING of Iowa (for himself, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, and Mr. WOODALL) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the 

United States who are nationals and citizens of the 

United States at birth. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Birthright Citizenship 

5 Act of 2011’’. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 140 IH

1 SEC. 2. CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH FOR CERTAIN PERSONS 

2 BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 301 of the Immigration 

4 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401) is amended— 

5 (1) by inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—’’ before 

6 ‘‘The following’’; 

7 (2) by redesignating subsections (a) through (h) 

8 as paragraphs (1) through (8), respectively; and 

9 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(b) DEFINITION.—Acknowledging the right of birth11 right citizenship established by section 1 of the 14th 

12 amendment to the Constitution, a person born in the 

13 United States shall be considered ‘subject to the jurisdic14 tion’ of the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) 

15 if the person is born in the United States of parents, one 

16 of whom is— 

17 ‘‘(1) a citizen or national of the United States; 

18 ‘‘(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent 

19 residence in the United States whose residence is in 

20 the United States; or 

21 ‘‘(3) an alien performing active service in the 

22 armed forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, 

23 United States Code).’’. 

24 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by sub25 section (a)(3) shall not be construed to affect the citizenVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:03 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H140.IH H140

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 140 IH

1 ship or nationality status of any person born before the 

2 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
|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 thequarterendedMarch 31, 2009(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:May 11, 2009
|-----------------



| | /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.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1371 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1371

      To amend SAFETEA-LU to ensure that projects that assist the 
 establishment of aerotropolis transportation systems are eligible for 
                certain grants, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 5, 2011

  Mr. Cohen introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend SAFETEA-LU to ensure that projects that assist the 
 establishment of aerotropolis transportation systems are eligible for 
                certain grants, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Aerotropolis Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. PROJECTS OF NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE.

    (a) Eligible Project Defined.--Section 1301(c)(2) of SAFETEA-LU (23 
U.S.C. 101 note) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(2) Eligible project.--
                    ``(A) In general.--The term `eligible project' 
                means any surface transportation project eligible for 
                Federal assistance under title 23, United States Code, 
                including freight railroad projects and activities 
                eligible under such title.
                    ``(B) Inclusion of aerotropolis transportation 
                system projects.--The term `eligible project' includes 
                a combination of projects described in subparagraph (A) 
                that, as a group--
                            ``(i) assist the establishment of an 
                        aerotropolis transportation system; and
                            ``(ii) satisfy the requirement under 
                        subsection (d).''.
    (b) Aerotropolis Transportation System Defined.--Section 1301(c) of 
SAFETEA-LU (23 U.S.C. 101 note) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
            ``(4) Aerotropolis transportation system.--The term 
        `aerotropolis transportation system' means a planned and 
        coordinated multimodal freight and passenger transportation 
        network that, as determined by the Secretary, provides 
        efficient, cost-effective, sustainable, and intermodal 
        connectivity to a defined region of economic significance 
        centered around a major airport.''.
                                 <all>
```
Approved under assigned authority

on January 21 , 2010*



## Linda L. Lundell (for)

Director, Office of International Aviation

* We will req uire the carrier to institute service in the subject U.S.

- Mexico markets no later than

February 22, 2010. We acted on this motion without awaiting expiration of the answer period

with the consent of all parties served with the requ est.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 94-7462
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSE ELIECER LONDONO, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CR-87-321-A) Submitted: April 9, 1996 Decided: August 27, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose Eliecer Londono, Appellant Pro Se. David Shepardson Cayer, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no basis for awarding relief. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. United States v. Londono , No. CR-87-321-A (E.D. Va. Oct. 20, 1993). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and 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
### -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 06/29 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 29 Jun 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.81 N 76.74 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
#### Harold Eugene BAXTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28664.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 12, 1956.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

Henry Wade, Criminal Dist. Atty., and George P. Blackburn, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The conviction, on a plea of guilty, is for the offense of driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $100.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review. The judgment is affirmed.
II

Calendar No. 310

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 654

[Report No. 104–208]

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with the appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel SUNRISE.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 30 (legislative day, MARCH 27), 1995

Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation

JANUARY 26, 1996

Reported by Mr. PRESSLER, without amendment

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with the appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for

the vessel SUNRISE.

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

3 That notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108

4 of title 46, United States Code, and section 27 of the Mer-
2

S 654 RS

1 chant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as applica2 ble on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary

3 of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation

4 with the appropriate endorsement for employment in the

5 coastwise trade for the vessel SUNRISE (United States

6 official number 950381).

Calendar No. 310

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 654

[Report No. 104–208]

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to

coastwise trade for the vessel SUNRISE.propriate endorsement for employment in theissue a certificate of documentation with the apJANUARY 26, 1996

Reported without amendment
#### Joseph MOORE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 30097.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 12, 1958.

C. C. Divine, Houston, for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Thomas D. White and Jack J. Rawitscher, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is unlawfully carrying a pistol; the punishment, a fine of $500.

Bradford, of the Harris County Emergency Corps, testified that in response to a call he went to a certain location in the City of Houston where he administered first aid to a man who has been injured and there saw the appellant with a .45 automatic in his hand which he surrendered to the witness.

Appellant’s confession was introduced in evidence in which he recites that a business associate came to appellant’s place of business on the night in question and informed the appellant that he was having trouble with one of his customers; that the appellant accompanied his associate until they met the man who had been causing the trouble, at which time in an altercation with the man the appellant “got my gun from my pocket,” and the man was accidentally shot.

Both the State and the appellant rely upon the recent holding of this Court in Linsey v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 599, 279 S.W.2d 862. The fact which the appellant overlooks is that we held the evidence sufficient in Linsey even though there was no con*750fession. In the case at bar, Bradford’s testimony clearly corroborated the appellant’s confession, and we find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.

The judgment is affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 

September 14, 2018

Order 

Clerk

September 14, 2018

148981(24)(25)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 148981

v COA: 319642

Muskegon CC: 12-062665-FH

PAUL J. BETTS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motions of defendant-appellant to extend the time 

for filing his supplemental brief and for immediate consideration are GRANTED. The 

supplemental brief will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before October 23, 

2018.
Attachment 10

Environmental Release and Exposure Sanitized
#### Travis L. DAVENPORT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer JOHNSON, Boothworker, Defendant-Appellee, and Reese Robbins, Col. Head of Securities; Lieutenant Shell, Shift Commander; Lieutenant Jones; Major Allen, Defendants.

No. 02-6513.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 25, 2002.

Decided Aug. 22, 2002.

Travis L. Davenport, Appellant Pro Se. Frank Fletcher Rennie, TV, Cowan *&*Owen, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Travis L. Davenport appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Davenport v. Johnson,*No. CA-00-810-A (E.D.Va. Mar. 20, 2002). 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.*
EXHIBIT 21

                            CHEMFAB CORPORATION
                                SUBSIDIARIES


WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARIES OF CHEMFAB CORPORATION

Hi-Temp Materials, Inc., incorporated under the laws of the state of Illinois.

Birdair Structures, Inc., incorporated under the laws of the state of New York.

Canton Bio-Medical, Inc., incorporated under the laws of the state of New York.

CHEMFAB Overseas Corporation, incorporated under the laws of the state of
Delaware.

CHEMFAB Holdings, organized under the laws of the Republic of Ireland.

Halbert Investments, organized under the laws of the Republic of Ireland.

CHEMFAB Luxembourg S.A.R.L., incorporated under the laws of the Grand-Duchy of
Luxembourg.

CHEMFAB Europe, organized under the laws of the Republic of Ireland.

Chemical Fabrics Ireland, Ltd., organized under the laws of the Republic of
Ireland.

CHEMFAB International Corporation, incorporated under the laws of the state of
Delaware.

CHEMFAB FSC, Inc., incorporated under the laws of Barbados, West Indies.

Advanced Facilities, Inc., incorporated under the laws of the state of New York.

Fluorocarbon Fabrications Ltd., incorporated under the laws of the United
Kingdom.

CHEMFAB Holdings U.K. Ltd., incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom.

Tygaflor Ltd. (formerly CHEMFAB U.K. Ltd.) incorporated under the laws of the
United Kingdom.

Iberflon, S.A., incorporated under the laws of Spain.

Scanfluor, ApS., incorporated under the laws of Denmark.

Chemfab (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., incorporated under the laws of the People's Republic
of China.

Chemfab do Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda., incorporated under the laws of
Brazil.

Chemfab Japan, LTD., incorporated under the laws of Japan.
The State of TexasAppellee



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 17, 2014

N o. 04

- 12

- 00379

- CR

Stephen RICHARDSON

, Appellant

v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 3 99th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010CR10629 Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

S andee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez , Justice

On October 16, 2013, this court issued an opinion affirming the trial court’s judgment

. On February 4, 2014, the Court of Criminal Appeals informed this court that although it had granted appellant an extension of time to file a petition for discretionary review until January 14, 2014, the time had expired. O ur mandate issued on February 5, 2014. On March 10, 2014

, appellant filed a pro se “Unsworn Declaration by Offender,” which we construe as a motion for rehearing because he asks this court to overturn his case and/or offer another fair plea bargain.

A motion for rehearing must be file d within fifteen days after the court of appeals renders its judgment. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.1. Because appellant’s motion is not timely, we DENY the

motion.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 17th day of March, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Paul F. Walsh, the Chief Executive Officer, of eFunds
Corporation (the Company), and Thomas S. Liston, the Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, hereby certifies that, to
the best of their knowledge:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                     
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (i) the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 of the Company
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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

|                         |  |                        
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Dated: November 14, 2003
|                         |  |                        
|                         |  | /s/ Paul F. Walsh      
|                         |  |                        
|                         |  | Paul F. Walsh          
|                         |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                         |  |                        
|                         |  | /s/ Thomas S. Liston   
|                         |  |                        
|                         |  | Thomas S. Liston       
|                         |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### Ex parte John Ira McCLAIN.

No. 27608.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 20, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the'State.' •

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

Relator, an inmate of the Texas Prison System, seeks his release by writ of habeas corpus alleging that the cumulation of sentences which’fie is'serving is defective.

The writ was granted by the Honorable Langston King, Judge of the Criiriinal District Court No. 2 of Harris County and made returnable .to this Court in accordance with Article 119, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. From the certified copy of the judgment and sentences forwarded to this Court, we learn the following:

On February 13, 1947, in Cause No. 57,655 in the Criminal District Court of Harris County the relator plead guilty to the offense of theft, and his punishment was assessed at four years.

On April 2, 1947, in Cause No. 57,654 in the Criminal District Court No. 2 of Harris County the relator plead guilty to the offense of burglary, and his punishment was assessed at twelve years. The sentence’ in this cause concludes -with this order: “Sentence cumulative with.57655, tried in Criminal District Court, Harris County, Texas.”

In Ex parte Bobbitt, Tex.Cr.App., 262 S.W.2d 416, we held valid an order of cumulation which referred to the number of the cause and the name of the court in which the'prior conviction was had and is here controlling.

The relief prayed for is denied.