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

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-09-050-CR

QUIENTON DION ELDRIDGE	APPELLANT

A/K/A QUIENTON ELDERIDE

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant Quienton Dion Eldridge a/k/a Quienton Elderide entered an open plea of guilty to one count of aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury, enhanced by a repeat offender allegation to a first degree felony.  See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.42(b), 22.02(a)(1), (b) (Vernon Supp. 2009).  He brings two points challenging his conviction and twelve-year sentence.  We affirm.

	In his first point, appellant contends that the trial court erred by failing to  order a psychological assessment under article 42.12, section 9(i) of the code of criminal procedure because the presentence investigation report (PSI) admitted into evidence showed that appellant’s “grandmother had taken him to a psychiatrist when he was 15 and he attended counseling sessions for a ‘length of time.’”  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 9(i) (Vernon Supp. 2009).  According to appellant, that fact, coupled with the facts that his mother took drugs, his father abandoned the family, he suffered abuse from his mother’s boyfriends, and he did not have stable housing showed that he must be suffering from a mental impairment.

	To preserve a complaint for our review, a party must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion that states the specific grounds for the desired ruling if they are not apparent from the context of the request, objection, or motion.  Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249, 265 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (op. on reh’g), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1070 (1999).  Here, appellant’s attorney stated, “No objection,” when the State offered the PSI.  The failure to object at trial results in waiver on appeal of any error by the trial court in failing to order a psychological evaluation under article 42.12, section 9(i).  Nguyen v. State, 222 S.W.3d 537, 541–42 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d).  Accordingly, we hold that appellant failed to preserve this complaint for review.  We overrule his first point.

	In his second point, appellant claims that the probation officer who prepared the PSI should not have made a recommendation in the PSI that appellant be sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary.  See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 9(a) (providing that “[i]t is not necessary that the report contain a sentencing recommendation”).  Again, however, appellant failed to complain about this recommendation when the PSI was admitted at trial.  Thus, he failed to preserve this complaint for review as well.  See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Sanchez v. State, 222 S.W.3d 85, 89–90 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006, no pet.).  We overrule his second point.

	Having overruled both of appellant’s points on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

							PER CURIAM 

PANEL:  LIVINGSTON, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  November 12, 2009
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 Global Casinos, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank L. Jennings, Principal Executive and 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Frank L. Jennings                               Frank L. Jennings, Principal Executive 
and Financial Officer
October 17, 2005
Opinion filed November 8 , 2018



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

______ _ ___ No. 11

- 1 8

- 00 294

- C R

__________ IN RE BRANDON G. FIELDING

Original Mandamus Proceeding

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Relator, Brandon G. Fielding
, has filed a pro se petit ion for writ of mandamus
in this court

. He requests that we require the district clerk of Eastland C ounty to perform ministerial duties relat ed to Article 11.07, section 3(c) of the Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure. T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN . art. 11.07 , § 3(c) (West 201 5 ).
Relator asserts that the district clerk has failed to transmit a copy of certain documents as required

. We dismiss Relator ’ s petition for want of jurisdicti on

. A court of appeals has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk unless necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court of appeals

. In re Washington , 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. App

. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding). Relator has not shown that a writ of mandamus directed to the district2

clerk is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the district clerk. Additionally, Relator references the clerk’s duties to transmit copies of various documents to the Court of Criminal Appeals pursuant to Article 11.07
, section 3(c)

. W e have no jurisdiction to grant the relief requested by Relator with respect to a pending Article 11.07 writ

. See Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth Dist

. , 392 S.W.3d 115, 117

– 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013 ) (indicating that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction when an Article 11.07 application is pending )

. We have no authority to issue writs of mandamus in criminal law matters pertaining to proceedings under Article 11.07. In re McAfee
, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). Should an applicant find it necessary to c omplain about the processing of an
Article 11.07 application for writ of habeas corpus, the applicant may seek mandamus relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Benson v. District Clerk
, 331 S.W.3d 431 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). Relator’s petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM
November 8 , 2018 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Willson, J.; Gray, C.J., 10th Court of Appeals 1 ; and Wright, S.C.J. 2
Bailey, C.J., and Willson, J., not participating.

1 Tom Gray, Chief Justice, Court of Appeals, 10th District of Texas at Waco, sitting by assignment to the 11th Court of Appeals.

2 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.
Exhibit
32.2(*)
 Certification
of Chief Financial 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 the Quarterly Report of WebEx Communications, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
T. Everett, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, for purposes of
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that to the
best of my knowledge:
 
 (1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.
 
 
 **WEBEX COMMUNICATIONS,
      INC.**Date: May 10, 2005
    By:
    /s/ MICHAEL T. EVERETTMichael T. EverettChief Financial Officer
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _____________________________
 (*) In
accordance with Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K and SEC Release Nos.
33-8238 and 34-47986, Final Rule: Management’s Reports on Internal Control Over
Financial Reporting and Certification of Disclosure in Exchange Act Periodic
Reports, the certification furnished in this Exhibit 32.2 is deemed to accompany
this Form 10-Q and will not be deemed “filed” for purpose of Section 18 of the
Exchange Act. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, whether
made before or after the date hereof irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in any such filing, except to the extent that the registrant
specifically incorporates it by reference.
 
 
 
 
  Form 10-Q
for quarter ended March 31, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 13746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03686]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-1319]


Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Patheon 
API Services Inc.

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

SUMMARY: Patheon API Services Inc. has applied to be registered as a 
bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer 
to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION listed below for further drug information.

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), 
and applicants therefore, may submit electronic comments on or 
objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before 
April 23, 2024. Such persons may also file a written request for a 
hearing on the application on or before April 23, 2024.

ADDRESSES: The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all 
comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into 
the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier 
comments. Please go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the 
online instructions at that site for submitting comments. Upon 
submission of your comment, you will receive a Comment Tracking Number. 
Please be aware that submitted comments are not instantaneously 
available for public view on https://www.regulations.gov. If you have 
received a Comment Tracking Number, your comment has been successfully 
submitted and there is no need to resubmit the same comment.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this 
is notice that on December 21, 2023, Patheon API Services Inc., 101 
Technology Place, Florence, South Carolina 29501, applied to be 
registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of 
controlled substance(s):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Drug
          Controlled substance             code          Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimethyltryptamine.....................     7435  I
Psilocybin.............................     7437  I
Psilocyn...............................     7438  I
Amphetamine............................     1100  II
Methadone..............................     9250  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to bulk manufacture the above controlled 
substances to support customers' clinical trials. No other activities 
for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.

Marsha Ikner,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024-03686 Filed 2-22-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7043

DEREK JACKSON, a/k/a James A. Jackson, a/k/a

Sa'id Abdus-Samad,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

SEWALL SMITH; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge.

(CA-94-114-HAR)

Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 2, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derek Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney

General, Gwynn X. Kinsey, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

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

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Jackson v. Smith, No. CA-94-114-HAR (D. Md. June 15, 1995). 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 99.3

CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES



The Companysmanagement, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer conducted an evaluation of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days of the filing of this report on Form 10-QSB. Based on that evaluation, the

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have determined that such controls and procedures are designed to ensure that material information relating to the Company, is made known to them, particularly during the period in which this Form 10-QSB was being prepared. There have been no significant changes in the Companys internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of their evaluation.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 26, 2010

y1018 

# Order

October 26, 2010

141223

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141223 COA: 297251 St Clair CC: 04-002014-FC JOHNNY KEVIN LEE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to ap peal the May 13, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

D AVIS 

### , J., not participating. I recuse myse lf and am not participating because I was on the Court of Appeals panel in this case. See MCR 2.003(B).
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-04-00224- CV Mark Mc Candless, Joe P etr ocelli, and Powell Lan e P laza P artner ship , Appellan ts v. Met al Bu ildi ng Com ponents, L .P ., Appellee F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN401001 , HO NORAB LE SUZANNE COVINGTO N, JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E MO R

A N D UM O P I N I ON Pursuant to their mediated se ttlement agree ment, the parties have f iled a joint motion to abate this appe al so that they can e ffe ctuate that settlement agree ment. We gr ant the motion and abate this appeal until May 24, 2005, by

which date the par

ties will noti fy

the Court whet her the y have fu lf ill e d th e te rm s o f t

he ir se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt a

nd wi ll e ith e r m ov e to dis mi ss , mo ve to c ontin ue the a bate me nt, or

re sume the no rm a l c ours e of the ir a pp e a l.

W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pemberton Filed: April 5, 2005
**Exhibit 32.1**

**SECTION 1350CERTIFICATIONS**

Theundersigned hereby certify that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofInsight Midwest, L.P. (the “Registrant”) for the quarter ended March 31,2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
|        |   | /s/ MICHAEL S.  WILLNER                                                                 |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Michael S. Willner  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer  Insight Midwest, L.P.         |
|   |   | May 11, 2006                                                                       |
|   |   | /s/ JOHN ABBOT                                                                          |
|   |   | John Abbot  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  Insight Midwest, L.P. |
|   |   | May 11, 2006                                                                       |

 

----
#### J. T. PITCOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 30710.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 13, 1959.

See also 322 S.W.2d 537.

No attorney of record on appeal, for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Thomas D. White, Samuel H. Robertson, Jr., and Lee P. Ward, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*868WOODLEY, Judge.

The offense is passing as true a forged instrument; the punishment, five years.

This case was tried jointly with our cause No. 30,708, 324 S.W.2d 866, upon a plea of guilty before the court.

The indictment alleged the passing of a forged draft for $45.32 to Joe Tilbury, signed Leon Morrison. This draft was payable to Foley’s.

Joe Tilbury, employee of Foley’s, did not testify. The testimony of Special Agent Jones that the $45.32 draft was passed to Tilbury in payment for luggage he delivered was hearsay and without probative value. Pitcock v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 324 S.W.2d 866.

The evidence is insufficient to sustain the allegation that the draft was passed to Joe Tilbury and to support the conviction.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  Registration  Statement of
National  Home  Health  Care  Corp.  on  Form  S-8,  Registration  No.  33-61315
pertaining to the 1992 Stock Option Plan and the 1993 401(K) Plan, as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on July 26, 1995 of our report dated
October 7, 1998,  with  respect to the  consolidated  financial  statements  and
schedule of National Home Health Care Corp. and subsidiaries as at July 31, 1998
and July 31, 1997 and for each of the years in the three-year  period ended July
31, 1998  included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31,
1998.


RICHARD A. EISNER & COMPANY, LLP



New York, New York
October 29, 1998
Exhibit 31.3
 Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
 I, Barry J. Bentley, certify that:
 1.    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to annual report on Form 10-K of IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.; and
 2.    Based on my knowledge, this Amendment 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.
 Date:April 28, 2020/s/ Barry J. BentleyBarry J. BentleyInterim President and Chief Executive Officer
 
 
 
 1
#### Gladys Elmeda Fowler, Earnest SANDERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27927.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. *4,*1956.

Boling 1⁄8 Cooke, Lubb'ock, for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

The conviction is for a violation of the liquor law in Lubbock County; the punishment, a fine of $500 and 30 days in jail.

. 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' Í9 affirmed;
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1423 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1423

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 3, 2011

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 115 4th Avenue Southwest in Ardmore, Oklahoma, as the ``Specialist 
                   Micheal E. Phillips Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. SPECIALIST MICHEAL E. PHILLIPS POST 
              OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 115 4th Avenue Southwest in Ardmore, Oklahoma, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Specialist Micheal E. Phillips Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Specialist 
Micheal E. Phillips Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 2, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```