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

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

SUSAN COCHRAN,

Appellant,

V.

WILLIAM SHANE COCHRAN

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00181-CV

Appeal from the

109th District Court

of Andrews County, Texas

(TC# 19,636)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be 

dismissed for want of prosecution, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore 

dismiss the appeal. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2015.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.
#### Virginia Ruth GREEN, Appellant, v. E. H. R. GREEN, Appellee.

No. 12926.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Sept. 14, 1955.

Ronald Smallwood, San Antonio, for appellant.

Greenwood & Russell, Harlingen, Walter P. Brenan, San Antonio, for appellee.

NORVELL, Justice.

The determination of this appeal is controlled by our decision in Goodman v. Goodman, Tex.Civ.App., 236 S.W.2d 641. Upon motion being filed to modify the child custody provisions of a divorce decree rendered on May 15, 1953, the trial judge ordered a notice issued to appellant commanding her to appear and answer the application on May 6, 1955, which was seven days after the date of the filing of the motion. Appellant on said date pointed out that no citation had been served upon her. Despite this protest, the court proceeded with the hearing and rendered judgment effecting certain permanent changes in the custody provisions of the divorce decree.

In Goodman v. Goodman, supra, we held that an application to permanently change or abrogate the provisions of a child custody decree constituted the institution of a new suit, and that in the absence of waiver a permanent order modifying such decree could not properly be entered without service of citation.

The order appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded.
#### Frank GUERRA, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 31505.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 17, 1960.

Clyde W. Woody, Houston, for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Howell E. Stone, Samuel PI. Robertson, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is exhibiting a lewd motion picture; the punishment, 180 days in jail and a fine of $500.

The State, through her able district attorney, confesses error, and we agree. The court in his charge instructed the jury as follows:

> “Therefore, if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the said motion picture is not lewd and lascivious as those two terms are defined for you in the preceding paragraph, then you will find the defendant not guilty.”

Appellant timely objected as follows:

> “The defendant objects and excepts to Page Two of the charge as said charge shifts the burden of proof and puts a greater burden upon the defendant than is required by law. * * * ”

It is clear that the charge is subject to the objection, and the giving thereof constitutes reversible error.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10149

Conference Calendar

 

JIM LOPEZ, a/k/a Santiago C. Lopez, Jr.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TOM GREEN COUNTY, TX.; SAN ANGELO, TEXAS, CITY OF, and its

Local Government Officials,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:95-CV-056-C

- - - - - - - - - -

August 21, 1996

Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jim Lopez (#427372) appeals the dismissal of his civil

rights action as frivolous. Lopez’ claims against several state

judges should have been dismissed under the doctrine of absolute

immunity. See Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir. 1994). 

Lopez does not deny that his complaint challenges the fact of his

confinement. Lopez has failed to demonstrate that the district

court abused its discretion in dismissing Lopez’ remaining claims
No. 96-10149

- 2 -

under the rule in Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994). See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), now § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Because the appeal

is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,

219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. Rule 42.2. Lopez’ motion to

expedite the appeal is DENIED AS MOOT.

We caution Lopez that any additional frivolous appeals filed

by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid

sanctions, Lopez is further cautioned to review any pending

appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are

frivolous. 

 APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
----

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 Amended Quarterly Report of Magic Media Networks, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the three months ending January 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gordon Scott Venters, President, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

            (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: June 15, 2004

| /s/ Gordon Scott Venters                                                                              |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                       |
| Gordon Scott Venters        Principal Executive Officer and        Acting Principal Financial Officer |
EXHIBIT
31.1
  
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, Eggert
Dagbjartsson, certify that:
 
 1.           I
have reviewed this amendment to the annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of
Presidential Associates I Limited Partnership;
 
 2.           Based
on my knowledge, this  report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this  report;
 
 3.           Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, 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  report;
 
 4.           The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 
 a)           Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures 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 which this 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 end of 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 fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5.           The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a)           All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses 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 involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.
 
 Date:      
April 15,
2008                                                                         /s/ Eggert
Dagbjartsson
 Eggert
Dagbjartsson
 Chief
Executive Officer and
 President
AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE CORPORATE STOCK

This agreement made effective July 1, 2002, is written for the express purpose of evidencing the entire agreement of the parties with regard to the sale of one hundred (100%) per cent of the outstanding ownership of Cybertron, Inc. (formerly Cyber Cities Technologies, Inc.), a Hawaii corporation.

Whereas, Founders Industries, Inc., and Bryan L. Walker, a Trustee for the shareholders of Founders (collectively hereafter referred to as 'Founders'), seller herein, is the owner of the unencumbered sole stock certificate, and has full authority and power to sell the same; and

Washington Investment Company (hereafter Washington), purchaser herein, desires to acquire one hundred (100%) per cent of the outstanding ownership of Cybertron, Inc., (formerly Cyber Cities Technologies, Inc.).  Assets and liabilities of Cybertron are as shown on the balance sheet and schedules previously provided to purchaser by Founders.

Washington and Founders both specifically agree that Washington, its agents and representatives, disclaims any personal or other obligation to assume the liabilities of Cybertron, Inc., conveyed herein, but that any future actions on any of the liabilities shall go with the entity.

SIGNED (as if on, although not necessarily on) this 1st day of July, 2002

WASHINGTON INVESTMENT COMPANY

By:   /s/ M. L. Bacon                                           

       M. L. Bacon, Manager

22 Meadowbrookk Drive

Hampton, Virginia  23666

FOUNDERS INDUSTRIES, INC.

By: /s/ Bryan L. Walker                                                   /s/ Bryan L. Walker                           

       Bryan L. Walker, President                                      Bryan L. Walker, Trustee

1026 West Main Street, Suite 104

Lewisville, Texas  75067
EXHIBIT 31.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Thomas C. Chesterman, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Aradigm Corporation;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation, of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.    /s/ THOMAS C. CHESTERMAN   Thomas C. ChestermanDated:March 18, 2004 Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### The State, ex rel. Handley, Pros. Atty., *v.*McCall, Judge.

(No. 27375

Decided February 1, 1939.)

*Mr. Lamoine Handley,*prosecuting attorney, *Mr. J. Stewart Alce*and *Mr. Warren G. Smith,*for relator.

*Messrs. Hart, McHenry & Jones*and *Mr. Grant P. Ward,*for respondent.

*64By the Court.

Jurisdiction of subject-matter need not necessarily be, raised in the first instance but may be raised at any time, even in the reviewing court. *Baltimore & Ohio Rd. Co.*v. *Hollenberger,*76 Ohio St., 177, 81 N. E., 184; *Sheldon’s Lessee*v. *Newton,*3 Ohio St., 494; 31 Ohio Jurisprudence, 1003, Section 370.

Whether the relator is a “person interested” in the probate of a will within the meaning of Section 10504-15, General Code, and therefore has a duty to perform under Section 2921, General Code, in recovering public moneys withheld from the county treasury or due to Carroll county, and whether he is a proper party under Section 11263, General Code, can be der termined in the courts below and be reviewed on appeal. *Van Camp*v. *McCulley, Trustee,*89 Ohio St., 1, 104 N. E., 1004; 30 Ohio Jurisprudence, 786, Section 59.

The Probate Court being vested by Section 8, Article IY of the Constitution with jurisdiction in probate and testamentary matters, has power to determine its own jurisdiction and its decision is subject to review on appeal. *State, ex rel. Barbee, Exr.,*v. *Allen, Judge,*96 Ohio St., 10, 117 N. E., 13.

The writ of prohibition lies only when there is no other adequate remedy and is not available as a substitute for a proceeding on appeal. *Silliman*v. *Court of Common Pleas,*126 Ohio St., 338, 185 N. E., 420, and *State, ex rel. Nichlaus,*v. *McClelland, Judge,*132 Ohio St., 447, 8 N. E. (2d), 565.

*Writ denied.*

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

Hart, J., not participating.
Exhibit 32.2

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 of Circuit Research Labs, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert W. McMartin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                         
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |  |                                                                                                                                                                               
|(2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented.
|    |  |                                                                                                                                                                               
|    |  |                                                                                                                                                                               





| | /s/ Robert W. McMartin                                                              
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Robert W. McMartin
Chief Financial Officer
Circuit Research Labs, Inc. 
May 18, 2005
Exhibit 32

AMERICANWEST BANCORPORATION

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Patrick J. Rusnak, state and attest that:

(1) I am the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of AmericanWest Bancorporation (the Registrant).

(2) I hereby 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

 the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the periodic
report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d)); and

 the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|       |  |                                                                  
|------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|By:    |  | /S/    PATRICK J. RUSNAK                                         
|Name:  |  | Patrick J. Rusnak                                                
|Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
|Date:  |  | March 31, 2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6633 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLADEUR ALPHONSE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-96-108; CA-04-1145)

Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 5, 2005

Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willadeur Alphonse, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Willadeur Alphonse, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and dismissing Alphonse’s motion filed pursuant to

Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b)(2), which the court construed as a

successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and concluded that

it lacked jurisdiction to consider. Alphonse also appeals from the

district court’s order denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 59(e). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by

the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Alphonse has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny

Alphonse’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate

of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
- 3 -

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1305 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1305

   To prohibit Members of Congress, including the Delegates and the 
Resident Commissioner to the Congress, and the President from receiving 
                    pay during Government shutdowns.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 31, 2011

  Mr. Shuler introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the 
  Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit Members of Congress, including the Delegates and the 
Resident Commissioner to the Congress, and the President from receiving 
                    pay during Government shutdowns.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON PAY DURING GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWNS.

    (a) In General.--Members of Congress and the President shall not 
receive basic pay for any period in which--
            (1) there is more than a 24-hour lapse in appropriations 
        for any Federal agency or department as a result of a failure 
        to enact a regular appropriations bill or continuing 
        resolution; or
            (2) the Federal Government is unable to make payments or 
        meet obligations because the public debt limit under section 
        3101 of title 31, United States Code, has been reached.
    (b) Retroactive Pay Prohibited.--No pay forfeited in accordance 
with subsection (a) may be paid retroactively.
    (c) Coverage of Delegates and Resident Commissioner.--For purposes 
of this Act, the term ``Member of Congress'' includes a Delegate or 
Resident Commissioner to the Congress.
                                 <all>
```