alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 29, 2015

NO. 03-14-00791-CR

George Henry Walker, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 119TH DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction signed by the trial court. Having reviewed the 

record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial 

court’s judgment of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of 

conviction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is 

made.
**ACCOUNTANT'S
      AWARENESS LETTER**








Securities
      and Exchange Commission


450
      Fifth
      Street, N.W.


Washington,
      D.C. 20549








We
      are
      aware that our report dated July 27, 2005 on our review of the interim financial
      statements of I-Trax, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of June 30, 2005 and for the
      three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 included in
      the
      Form 10-Q for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2005 is
      incorporated by reference in the Company’s Registration Statements on Form S-3
      (No. 333-110891, 333-108191 and 333-114604). Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
      the
      Securities Act of 1933, this report should not be considered as part of the
      Registration Statements prepared or certified by us within the meaning of
      Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.











/s/
      Goldstein Golub Kessler LLP





**GOLDSTEIN
      GOLUB KESSLER LLP**


New
      York,
      New York





August
      15, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Hesperia Holding, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Donald Shimp, President 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.



                           /s/ DONALD SHIMP
                           ----------------
                               Donald Shimp
                               President
                                November 15, 2004
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7581

NATHANIEL H. WILLIAMSON, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus THEODIS BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Correction, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-341-1) Submitted: April 28, 2004 Decided: July 27, 2004 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel H. Williamson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CARO LINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).PER CURIAM: Nathaniel H. Williamson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williamson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed on appeal 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 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 161 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow Head Start teachers 

the same above-the-line deduction for supplies as is allowed to elementary 

and secondary school teachers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 5, 2011 

Mr. SHULER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow Head 

Start teachers the same above-the-line deduction for supplies as is allowed to elementary and secondary school 

teachers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HEAD START TEACHERS ALLOWED ABOVE-THE4 LINE DEDUCTION FOR SUPPLIES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 62(d) of 

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining eligible edu7 cator) is amended by adding at the end the following new 

8 subparagraph: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 161 IH

1 ‘‘(C) HEAD START TEACHERS.—The term 

2 ‘eligible education’ includes, with respect to any 

3 taxable year, an individual who is a teacher or 

4 aide under a Head Start program operating 

5 under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et 

6 seq.) for at least 700 hours during a school 

7 year.’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years ending after 

10 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF UNITED FOODS, INC., FOR 12 MONTHS ENDED FEB. 28, 1997,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                           3,772
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,841
<ALLOWANCES>                                       308
<INVENTORY>                                     36,694
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,125
<PP&E>                                         121,848
<DEPRECIATION>                                  67,210
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 119,108
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,387
<BONDS>                                         41,265
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,810
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,646
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   119,108
<SALES>                                        195,820
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               195,820
<CGS>                                          159,120
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  159,120
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,735
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    60
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,871
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,508
<INCOME-TAX>                                       586
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                922
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       922
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
        

</TABLE>
Order filed October 17, 2013

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00783

- CV

____________ RAFAEL OJEDA , Appellant

V. SARENS BESTUUR, NV, Appellee

On Appeal from the 151st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 03779



### O R D E R
The notice of appeal in this case was filed August 22, 2013. To date, the filing fee of $175.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant has established indigence has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P

. 20.1. Therefore, the court issues the following order.
Appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $175.00 to the
Clerk of this court on or before October 28, 2013. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. Ifappellant fails to timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal

will be dismissed.

PER CURIAM
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Billy Joe Waldroup, Appellant

No. 06

- 15

- 00062

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 124th District Court of Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 44403

- B ). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment

of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment by delet ing the $1,062.50

assessment of attorney fees

. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, Billy Joe Waldroup, has adequately indicated his inability to

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERE D SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of BOE Financial Services of Virginia, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), each of the undersigned 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 the best of his knowledge: (1) the Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 780(d)); and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company as of September 30, 2006, and for the periods then ended.



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/ George M. Longest, Jr.
|George M. Longest, Jr.    
|Chief Executive Officer   
|                          
|/s/ Bruce E. Thomas       
|Bruce E. Thomas           
|Chief Financial Officer   
|                          
|November 9, 2006          



Page: 24
EXHIBIT 23.1 TO ANNUAL REPORT OF SPECTRASCIENCE, INC. ON
                FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 No. 333-1149) pertaining to 2,264,006 shares of common stock issuable
upon conversion of preferred stock and exercise of warrants, (Form S-3 No.
33-57116) pertaining to 1,083,333 shares of common stock and 50,000 shares of
common stock issuable upon exercise of warrants, (Form S-3 No. 33-45536)
pertaining to 1,810,000 shares of common stock, (Form S-8 No. 33-63047)
pertaining to the 1991 Stock Option Plan (Form S-8 No. 33-45523) pertaining to
the 1991 Stock Plan, (Form S-8 No. 33-36385) pertaining to the 1990 Restricted
Stock Plan, (Form S-8 No. 33-22052) pertaining to the 1988 Employee Incentive
Stock Plan and (Form S-8 No. 2-93693-C) pertaining to the 1983 Employee Stock
Option Plan of GV Medical, Inc., of our report dated February 14, 1997, with
respect to the financial statements of SpectraScience (formerly GV Medical,
Inc.) included in this Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December
31, 1996.


                                                     /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 25, 1997
#### E. H. HAMMOND et al., Appellants, v. Percy SMIDTH, Appellee.

No. 12937.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Galveston.

Jan. 19, 1956.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 16, 1956.

Lawrence Arnim, Houston, for appellant Hope Hammond Arnim,

' Pat N. Fahey, Houston, for appellee.

HAMBLEN, Chief Justice.

Appellee instituted this suit against appellant and others to recover a brokerage commission claimed to be due under the terms of a contract whereby - appellee undertook to sell land owned by appellant and others. Appellee alleged performance of his obligation under the contract, and default by appellant. The land was part of the separate estate of appellant, a married woman. Appellant pleaded her cover-ture defensively. She appeals from a judgment rendered against her after trial before the court without a jury.

According to appellant the sole question presented for determination on this appeal is whether a married woman is liable on her contract to pay a broker a commission for finding a purchaser for her separate property, she not being joined in said contract by her husband, and the petition of plaintiff failing to allege that the debt sued upon was for necessaries for her or her child or for the benefit of her separate estate.

It has been authoritatively held that a married woman is so liable. Scarborough v. Payne, Tex.Civ.App., 198 S.W.2d 917, writ refused.

Billingsly v. Swenson Land Co., 58 Tex.Civ.App. 67, 123 S.W. 194 (no writ history), the only case cited by appellant in support of her appeal which is factually analogous to the instant case, was decided December 1, 1909, before the effective date of Article 4614, V.A.T.S., Married Woman’s Act of 1913. In Scarborough v. Payne, supra, the San Antonio Court of Civil Appeals, citing Williams v. Doan, Tex.Civ.App., 209 S.W. 761, by this Court, unequivocally holds that the contract of the wife for the services of a broker to find a purchaser for her separate property is enforceable since the passage of such statute.

Judgment affirmed.

GANNON, J., not sitting.
#### O. V. ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28092.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 7, 1956.

Sam Brown, Lubbock, for appellant.

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

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The conviction is for the felony offense of driving while intoxicated; the punishment, one year in jail.

No statement of facts on the main trial accompanies the record.

By Bill of Exception No. 1, appellant urges error because of the failure of the trial court to admonish the appellant at the time he entered his plea of guilty as to the consequences of such plea.

The bill certifies that following the presentment of the indictment, the court inquired of appellant how he desired to plead, and to which appellant answered, “Guilty”, and the court further asked, “You are pleading guilty, Mr. Alexander, because you are guilty?” and appellant replied, “Yes sir”, and the court then asked, “And doing so without fear, promise, .persuasion or hope of reward?” and appellant answered, “Yes”, whereupon the court accepted appellant’s plea of guilty.

It is apparent that the court failed to admonish the appellant as to the consequences of his plea of guilty, that is, the punishment provided by law for the offense charged and the punishment which could be inflicted under his plea.

It has been the consistent holding of this court that the provisions of Art. 501, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. are mandatory, and that the prerequisites therein set out must be complied with as a condition precedent to the validity of a plea of guilty, and that such question may 'be raised after conviction. Such provisions are made applicable to felony cases less then capital by Art. 517, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., 12 Tex. *780Jur. 634, Sec. 297; Evers v. State, 32 Tex.Cr.R. 283, 22 S.W. 1019; Coleman v. State, 35 Tex.Cr.R. 404, 33 S.W. 1083; Webb v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 55 S.W. 493; May v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 534, 209 S.W.2d 606.

For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause Is remanded. ■

Opinion approved by the court.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
DEP Corporation

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-85000 and No. 33-58894) on Form S-8 of DEP Corporation and subsidiaries of
our report dated September 12, 1997 relating to the consolidated balance sheets
of DEP Corporation and subsidiaries as of July 31, 1997 and 1996, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash
flows and related schedule for each of the years in the three-year period ended
July 31, 1997, which report appears in the July 31, 1997 report on Form 10-K of
DEP Corporation and subsidiaries.


/s/KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
Los Angeles, California
October 24, 1997


                                 Exhibit 23.1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7551

DAWN D. SUTTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; JOHN FANELLO, Warden; KATHY HALH (or Ha lk), Correctional Officer; KENNETH P. MORITSUGU, Health Services Director; ROLAND E. WILLIAMS, Hospital Service Administrator; BERNORD PARINA, Clinical Director of Health Services, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Robert L. Buchanan, Jr., Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-1516-9-0JC) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 4, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dawn D. Sutton, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).23 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal from a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to deny his motions for temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions. We dismiss the appeal for lack ofjurisdiction because the magistrate judge's report is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The report here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 20, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12823-12824]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03377]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-8-2024]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 182, Notification of Proposed Production 
Activity; Valbruna Slater Stainless Inc.; (Metal Ingots); Fort Wayne, 
Indiana

    Valbruna Slater Stainless Inc. submitted a notification of proposed 
production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in 
Fort Wayne, Indiana within Subzone 182A. The notification conforming to 
the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was 
received on February 12, 2024.
    Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be 
limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/

[[Page 12824]]

component(s) and specific finished product(s) described in the 
submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized 
by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production 
activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section 
of the Board's website--accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.
    The proposed finished products include stainless steel ingots and 
nickel ingots (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 3.0%).
    The proposed foreign-status materials and components include 
stainless steel ingots and nickel ingots (duty rate ranges from duty-
free to 3.0%). The request indicates that certain materials/components 
are subject to duties under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 
1962 (section 232) or section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (section 
301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 232 
and section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to 
FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions 
shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#335547497347415257561d545c45"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0e687a744e7a7c6f6a6b20696178">[email protected]</span></a>. The closing period for their receipt is April 1, 2024.
    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection 
in the ``Online FTZ Information System'' section of the Board's 
website.
    For further information, contact Juanita Chen at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aec4dbcfc0c7dacf80cdc6cbc0eedadccfcacb80c9c1d8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aec4dbcfc0c7dacf80cdc6cbc0eedadccfcacb80c9c1d8">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: February 13, 2024.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-03377 Filed 2-16-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit
      15





**ACCOUNTANT'S
      AWARENESS LETTER**








Securities
      and Exchange Commission


450
      Fifth
      Street, N.W.


Washington,
      D.C. 20549








We
      are
      aware that our report dated July 19, 2006 on our review of the interim financial
      statements of I-trax, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of June 30, 2006 and for the
      six-month period ended June 30, 2006 is incorporated by reference in the
      Company’s Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-110891 and 333-114604)
      and on From S-8 (No. 333-125685). Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities
      Act of 1933, this report should not be considered as part of the Registration
      Statements prepared or certified by us within the meaning of Sections 7 and
      11
      of that Act.








/s/
      Goldstein Golub Kessler LLP





**GOLDSTEIN
      GOLUB KESSLER LLP**


New
      York,
      New York





August
      14, 2006