alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 1, 2019

No. 04-18-00547-CR

Desere Devine DAVILA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 4, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 569002

Honorable Jason Roland Garrahan, Judge Presiding

A M E N D E D O R D E R

We originally issued an order on January 8, 2019, setting a due date for the pro se brief 

and holding counsel’s motion to withdraw in abatement. However, we inadvertently failed to 

serve a copy of the order on appellant. Accordingly, we issue this amended order. 

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to 

raise on appeal. Counsel certifies he served copies of the brief and motion on appellant,

informed appellant of her right to review the record and file hers own brief, and provided 

appellant with a form for requesting the record and explained to appellant the procedure for 

obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Nichols v. 

State, 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 

177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). To date, appellant has not filed the form 

provided by his counsel. 

If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER that she do so on or before April 1, 

2019. The State has filed a notice waiving its right to file a brief in this case unless appellant 

files a pro se brief. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no 

later than thirty days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court.

We further ORDER the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel held in 

abeyance pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988) 

(holding that motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently 
reviews record to determine whether counsel’s evaluation that appeal is frivolous is sound); 

Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same).

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appellant, her appointed 

counsel, the attorney for the State, and the clerk of the trial court. 

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

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

court on this 1st day of March, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Benthic BioGuide

The Benthic BioGuide is a living document that is constantly being updated as new information becomes available. The initial id

was hatched by Cindy Messer and a poster paper (pdf, 240 bk) was produced by Rachel Barnett and Sabrina Bell for the “2007 

of the San Francisco Estuary Conference”. During summer and fall of 2011, Wyatt Floerke and Bill Templin, worked on this vers

the bioguide for the first 10 (of 40) most common species. If you have information to contribute, please contact Karen Gehrts.

Barnett,R. and S. Bell, 2008. The Benthos BioGuide (pdf, 240 bk) : A Guide to Abundant Benthic Organisms in the San

Francisco Estuary – Fall 2009

Benthic Bioguide (pdf, 1.40 mb) – This is a PDF version of the entire bioguide for ease in printing and sharing

Benthic BioGuide

Quick View

Corbula amurensis

Corbicula fluminea

Gammarus daiberi

Americorophium spinicorne

Corophium alienense

Monocorophium acherusicum

Americorophium stimpsoni

Ampelisca abdita

Varichaetadrilus angustipenis

Laonome species A

References

Internet Links

Additional Pictures

Glossary

Data

Data Type: Benthic Organisms Meta Data

Download Data

Contact Person: Heather Fuller

Bay-Delta Monitoring and Analysis Section http://www.water.ca.gov/bdma/BioGuide/

1 of 1 4/20/2016 3:22 PM
#### Hugh McHenry WARNER, Appellant, v. David L. DAVIS, Warden, Kentucky State Reformatory, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 20, 1964.

Rehearing Denied May 15, 1964.

For dissenting opinion see 377 S.W.2d 878.

Hugh McHenry Warner, pro se.

John B. Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PALMORE, Judge.

This is a habeas corpus proceeding in which the appellant, a prisoner in the Kentucky State Reformatory, seeks to set aside on constitutional grounds the judgment of conviction pursuant to which he is imprisoned. In the absence of a showing that the remedy by motion under RCr 11.42 is inadequate, his petition was properly dismissed. Ayers v. Davis, Ky., 377 S.W.2d 154.

The judgment is affirmed.
Certificate of Trust of FPIC Capital Trust V.



 CERTIFICATE OF TRUST 
 OF 
 FPIC CAPITAL TRUST IV 
  
 THIS Certificate of Trust of FPIC Capital Trust IV (the “Trust”), is being duly executed and filed by the
undersigned, as trustee, to form a statutory trust under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C. § 3801 et seq.) (the “Act”). 
  
 1. Name. The name of the statutory trust formed hereby is FPIC Capital Trust IV. 
  
 2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust in the State of Delaware are
Wilmington Trust Company, Rodney Square North, 1100 North Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19890-0001, Attention: Corporate Trust Administration. 
  
 3. Effective Date. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon filing. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate of Trust in accordance with Section 3811(a) of the
Act. 
  

			
	WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, as trustee
		
	By:	 	 
	 Name:
	 	 
	 Title:
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 Amendment No. 2 to Annual Report of Apollo Solar Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




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




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







/s/Renyi Hou


Renyi Hou


Chief Executive Officer and Chairman


September 14, 2010








/s/ Wilson Liu


Wilson Liu


Chief Financial Officer


September 14, 2010




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Apollo Solar Energy Inc. and will be retained by Apollo Solar Energy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
#### Clifford BRANHAM, Appellant, v. EASTERN COAL CORPORATION et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 23, 1965.

Ronald W. May, Combs & May, Pike-ville, for appellant.

Baird & Hays, Pikeville, for appellees.

J. W. Craft, Jr., Frankfort, for Special Fund.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

The Workmen’s Compensation Board denied the claim of Clifford Branham for compensation for disability from silicosis. The board’s opinion stated that the claimant had failed to establish to the satisfaction of the board that he had silicosis. On appeal to the circuit court judgment was entered affirming the order that dismissed the claim. Branham has appealed to this Court from that judgment.

Two doctors testified that Branham had silicosis in an early stage. Four doctors testified that they found no evidence of silicosis (they found other disabling ailments). The referee concluded that there was not sufficient evidence on which to base a finding that Branham was disabled from an occupational disease.

On appeal to the full board an order was entered for the appointment of a disinterested examining physician. The order recited as the reason for such appointment that the board, after reviewing the evidence, was in doubt as to whether the claimant was disabled as the result of an occupational disease.

The disinterested physician made a report, and gave a deposition, stating that in his opinion the claimant had “a mild form of silicosis” or “early category 1 silicosis.” However, his opinion was equivocal and lacking in positiveness. The board stated in its final opinion that the physician’s testimony was “of such a nature as to leave the Board still in doubt.”

In our opinion this is a simple case of conflicting evidence — the kind of case in which the board’s finding, whichever way it goes, must be upheld by the courts.

The appellant argues that the board did not actually decide the case as one of conflicting evidence, by choosing to believe one party’s evidence rather than the other’s; but instead the board based its decision on an erroneous theory of burden of proof, which in effect required the claimant to prove his claim beyond a reasonable doubt.

Where the evidence is conflicting the claimant has the burden of persuasion. His evidence has to be sufficiently strong to persuade the board of the truth of the fact his evidence is designed to establish. *927Roark v. Alva Coal Corporation, Ky., 371 S.W.2d 856. In the instant case the board simply was not persuaded.

The record indicates to us that the board reached its decision of the case on the basis of an evaluation of the evidence which it was entitled to make, and not through the imposition of an undue burden of proof. Cf. Lee v. International Harvester Company, Ky., 373 S.W.2d 418.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant

to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of OPNET Technologies, Inc. (the Company), I, Joseph W. Kuhn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |  | 
|------------------------ |  |  | 
|Dated: November 11, 2003 |  |  | 
|                         |  |  | 
|                         |  |  | 



A signed original of this written
statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to OPNET Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by OPNET Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



34
#### Albert E. SPEIR, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28705.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 12, 1956.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

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

PER CURIAM.

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

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.
#### Gerald A. THOMPSON (Plaintiff), Appellant, v. HEALZER CARTAGE COMPANY and L. R. Bryan (Defendants), Respondents.

No. 22149.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 13, 1955.

Robert I. Adelman, Kansas City, for appellant.

Richard H. Beeson, David P. Dabbs, Dean F. Arnold, Kansas City, for respondents.

CAVE, Judge.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff as the result of á collision between the automobile he was driving and a truck owned by defendant Healzer Cartage Company and driven by its agent,L. R. Bryan.

The prayer was for damages in the aggregate sum of $75,000. Trial to jury resulted in a-verdict and judgment for plaintiff and against the defendants in the sum of $6,850. Plaintiff filed motion for new trial on the sole ground of the inadequacy of the verdict. The motion was overruled and plaintiff ■ perfected his appeal to this court.

The only ground of error assigned on appeal is that the court erred in overruling the motion for new trial which charged that the verdict was so grossly inadequate, as to import passion and prejudice on the part *bi*the jury. The rule is that where a plaintiff, being dissatisfied, appeals from a judgment in his own favor, the “amount in dispute” for the purpose of determining appellate jurisdiction is the difference between the amount claimed or sued for and the amount recoveréd at the trial. Grodsky v. Consolidated Bag Co., 324 Mo. 1067, 26 S.W.2d 618; Coghlan v. Trumbo, Mo.App., 171 S.W.2d 794; same case reported in Mo., 179 S.W.2d 705; Hemminghaus v. Ferguson, 358 Mo. 476, 215 S.W.2d 481; Conner v. Neiswender, 360 Mo. 1074, 232 S.W.2d 469; Sec. 3, Art. V, Constitution 1945, V.A.M.S.

Under the above decisions the “amount in dispute” in this case is in excess of $7,500, and this court does not have jurisdiction. Consequently, the cause should be transferred to the Supreme Court. It is so ordered.

DEW, P. J., and ROSE, Special Judge, concur.

BROADDUS, J., not sitting.
112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1369 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1021 Pennsylvania Avenue in Hartshorne, 

Oklahoma, as the ‘‘Warren Lindley Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1369 EH

1 SECTION 1. WARREN LINDLEY POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 1021 Pennsylvania Avenue in 

4 Hartshorne, Oklahoma, as the ‘‘Warren Lindley Post Of5 fice’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Warren Lindley Post 

10 Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 23, 2012. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1369 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostLindley Post Office’’. in Hartshorne, Oklahoma, as the ‘‘Warren al Service located at 1021 Pennsylvania Avenue
#### Hogan, a Taxpayer, Appellant, *v.*City of Cleveland et al., Appellees.

(No. 27635

Decided May 31, 1939.)

*Mr. Walter Booth,*for appellant.

*Mr. Henry S. Brainard,*director of law, *Mr. Edward Blythin, Mr. Frank T. Gullitan,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. Saul S. Danaceau,*for appellees.

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

*Appeal dismissed.*

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

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 28 (Friday, February 9, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 9118]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02686]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Notice of Public Meetings of the Texas Advisory Committee; Update

AGENCY: Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Notice; update Zoom webinar registration links.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission on Civil Rights published a notice in the 
Federal Register of Wednesday, December 27, 2023, concerning various 
meetings of the Texas Advisory Committee. The document contained 
outdated registrations links. These are the updated Zoom webinar 
registration links as follows:

February 15: https://www.zoomgov.com/s/1612870248
March 19: https://www.zoomgov.com/s/1615522515

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brooke Peery, (202) 701-1376, 
[email protected].
    In the Federal Register of Wednesday, December 27, 2023, in FR Doc. 
2023-28560, on page 89366, first and second columns, all times remain 
the same 12 p.m.-1 p.m. mountain time.

    Dated: February 6, 2024.
David Mussatt,
Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
[FR Doc. 2024-02686 Filed 2-8-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard James JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-6885.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 25, 2002.

Decided Aug. 2, 2002.

Bernard James Jones, Appellant Pro Se. William Earl Day, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Bernard James Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2002). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Jones’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, *see*Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on September 2, 2001. Jones’s notice of appeal was filed on May *56028, 2002.* Because Jones failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.*

*

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been given to prison officials for mailing. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JAIM E FAB IAN M E ZA-R IVAS, AKA Ja im e M e z ariva is, AKA Ja im e Fa b ia n M e z ariva s, AKA Ja im e F. M e z re via s ,

Pe t i tione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-71882 Age n c y No. A205-297-149 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 18, 2017 ** B e fore : TR OTT, TASHIM A, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. Ja im e Fa bia n M e z a -R iva s, a

native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a p pe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) orde r de ny ing a c ontinua nc e and e nte ring a

n orde r of 

# FIL ED JAN 24 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).re m ova l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie wfor a buse of disc re tion thede nia l of a

c ontinua nc e and re vie w de novo dueproc e ss c la i m s. Sandoval-Luna v . Muk

a se y , 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th C ir. 2008). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. The a ge n c y

did not a b u se its disc re tion or viola te due proc e ss by

de ny ing M e z a -R i va s’ m otion for a c ontinua nc e for la c k of good c a

u se , whe re M e z a -R iva s ha d the opportunity

to re se a rc h a nd inc o rporate re c e nt de ve lopm e nts re ga rding soc i a l group c la i m s, a

nd future c ha

n ge s in thela

w re m a ine d spe c ulative . Se e8 C .F.R . § 1003.29 (a

n IJ m ay g ra

nt a m otion for a

c ontinua nc e for good c a

use ); Ahme d v . Holde r , 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th C ir. 2009) (c onside ring the nature of the e vide n c e e xc lude d a

nd the re a sona

ble ne ss of pe t itione r’ s c onduc t); Singh v . Holde r , 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ [T] he IJ [is] not re q uire d to gra

nt a c ontinua nc e ba se d on . . . spe c ulations.” ); Lata v . IN S, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000). M e z a -R iva s’ m otion for a sta y of re m ova l (Doc k e t Entry No. 20) a nd supple m e nta l m otion for a sta y of re m ova l (Doc ke t Entry No. 22) a re de n ie d a s m oot. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D .

1 5 - 7 1 8 8 2 2
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002



In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of OPNET
Technologies, Inc. (the Company), I, Marc A. Cohen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                                      |  | 
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------ |  | 
|Dated: August 5, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Marc A. Cohen                   
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Marc A. Cohen                       
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to OPNET Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by OPNET Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference  in  Registration  Statement  No.
33-29616,  No.  33-61592,  No.  333-44595,  No.  333-44605,  and No. 33-63021 of
Merisel,  Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated March 16, 2000, appearing in this
Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Merisel,  Inc.  for the year ended  December  31,
1999.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Los Angeles, California

March 30, 2000
Form of Stock Certificate of Common Stock



 

 
  
 INCORPORATED
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 
 NUMBER 
 SHARES 
 EMPI,
INC. 
 Common Stock 
 Restrictions on transfer on reverse side. 
 This certifies that Specimen is the owner and registered
holder of Specimen——- Shares of fully-paid and non-assesable Common Stock of Empi, Inc., $.01 par value per share 
 transferable only on the books of the corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said corporation has caused this certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers and to be sealed with
the seal of the corporation this 
 day of            , 2004

 Secretary 
 President