alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### George HALE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27786.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 9, 1955.

*763No appearance for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

The offense is carrying a pistol; the punishment, a fine of $300.

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.
Memorandum 

U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

_.-,. 

. : ! : L: 

Subject: Request for Ext sions, Dockets DOT-OST-1996-1899, 

~M9 69~and DOT-OST-1998-4409 

l ° From: Dennis J. DeVany, Chief 

\ (}' EAS and Domestic Analysis, X-53 

To: Gregory Frazier, S-3.6 

Date: February 12, 2013 

Michael Martin, X-53 

Ext. 66494 

By Order 2013-1-8, January 11, 2013, the Department requested proposals from 

interested air carriers to serve Kingman, Page, Prescott, and Show Low, Arizona, under 

the Essential Air Service (EAS) program, to be submitted no later than February 12, 

2013. On February 12, SkyWest Airlines requested an extension to submit proposals no 

later than February 15, 2013. We are here granting the extension request. Proposals for 

all four communities are now due no later than February 15, 2013.
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 Sino-Biotics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), David Lennox, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operations Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Sole Director of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sino-Biotics, Inc., and will be retained by Sino-Biotics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.    /s/   David Lennox David Lennox, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operations Officer (Principal Executive Officer), Sole Director   Date:  May 2, 2008
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8559

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,

v.

THO TRAN,
Respondent - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:01-hc-00833-BR)

Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 26, 2009

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tho Tran, Appellant Pro Se. David T. Huband, BUREAU OF PRISONS, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Tho Tran appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion requesting a furlough under 18 U.S.C. § 4243(h)(1)

(2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. United States v. Tran , No. 5:01-hc-00833-BR
(E.D.N.C. Nov. 19, 2008). 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
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

EGU BART 19,621 22,344 25,152 30,214 31,611 38,586 38,586 38,586 38,586 38,586 38,586 38,586 38,586 38,586

Non-EGU BART 2,952 2,952 2,952 2,952 2,952 3,464 4,201 4,201 4,201 4,201 4,201 4,201 4,201 4,201

EGU BART & Non-EGU BART 22,573 25,296 28,104 33,166 34,563 42,050 42,787 42,787 42,787 42,787 42,787 42,787 42,787 42,787
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed January 4, 2023

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D 2 1

- 2 422 Lower Tribunal No. 20

- 406 A

________________ V.M.A., a juvenile , Appellant,

vs. The State of Florida , Appellee.
An Appeal from the C ircuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Scott M. Bernstein , Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner , Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman , Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and S C A L E S and HENDON , JJ. PER CURIAM.2 Citing due process concerns, V.M. A. , a juvenile, appeals from final orders withholding adjudication of delinquency and placing V.M. A. on probation for aggravated battery . The challenged orders were rendered after
the trial court , over V.M .A. ’s objection, conducted V.M. A. ’s adjudicatory hearing remotely, using the Zoom videoconferencing platform. 1 In overruling
V.M. A. ’s objection, the trial court, noting that the State did not agree to an “in person” adjudicatory hearing, relied upon an August 6, 2021 administrative memorandum issued by the Administrative Judge for the Unified Children’s Court Division of the Miami

- Dade Children’s Courthouse that then required all juvenile adjudicatory hearings be conducted remotely unless the parties agreed to appear in person

. T he trial court, though, did not make any case specific findings of why it was necessary to conduct the adjudicatory hearing remotely

.

1 The remote hearing conducted below occurred on October 25

- 26, 2021, while the Florida Supreme Court’s In re Comprehensive COVID

- 19 Emergency Measures for the Florida State Courts , Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20

- 23, Amend. 13 (May 6, 2021) was in effect. This administrative order provided, in relevant part, that:

• “The presiding judge in all cases must consider the constitutional rights of crime victims and criminal defendants and the public’s constitutio nal right of access to the courts.” Id. at 3.

• “[J]uvenile delinquency cases shall be conducted remotely if ordered by the chief judge or the presiding judge or, if not, must be conducted in person.” Id. at 14.3 In M.D. v. State , 345 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), J.T.B. v. State , 345 So. 3d 927 (Fla. 3 d DCA 2022) , and K.M. v. State , 347 So. 3d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), which are indistinguishable in all material respects from the instant case, this Court concluded that due process considerations inherent in delinquency proceedings require the trial court to make case

- specific findings of necessity before conducting a remote adjudicatory hearing. Because the trial court did not make the requisite findings, we reverse the challenged orders and remand for a new adjudicatory hearing.
Reversed and remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                              18
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       37
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    18
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      55
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                5
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        55
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     8
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (8)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (8)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (8)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1668 

To include nonprofit and volunteer ground and air ambulance crew members 

and first responders for certain benefits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 2, 2011 

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

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To include nonprofit and volunteer ground and air ambulance 

crew members and first responders for certain benefits. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Danny McIntosh 

5 Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY. 

7 Section 1204 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 

8 and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b) is amend9 ed— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1668 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘‘public em2 ployee member of a rescue squad or ambulance 

3 crew;’’ and inserting ‘‘employee or volunteer member 

4 of a rescue squad or ambulance crew (including a 

5 ground or air ambulance service) that— 

6 ‘‘(A) is a public agency; or 

7 ‘‘(B) is (or is a part of) a nonprofit entity 

8 serving the public that— 

9 ‘‘(i) is officially authorized or licensed 

10 to engage in rescue activity or to provide 

11 emergency medical services; and 

12 ‘‘(ii) is officially designated as a pre13 hospital emergency medical response agen14 cy;’’; and 

15 (2) in paragraph (9)— 

16 (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘as a 

17 chaplain’’ and all that follows through the semi18 colon, and inserting ‘‘or as a chaplain;’’; 

19 (B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking 

20 ‘‘or’’ after the semicolon; 

21 (C) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking 

22 the period and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

23 (D) by adding at the end the following: 

24 ‘‘(D) a member of a rescue squad or am25 bulance crew who, as authorized or licensed by 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1668 IH

1 law and by the applicable agency or entity (and 

2 as designated by such agency or entity), is en3 gaging in rescue activity or in the provision of 

4 emergency medical services.’’. 

5 SEC. 3. OFFSET. 

6 Of the unobligated balances available under the De7 partment of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund, $12,000,000 

8 are permanently cancelled. 

9 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

10 The amendments made by section 2 shall apply only 

11 to injuries sustained on or after June 1, 2009. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### William Whitus PUGH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28202.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 18, 1956

Florence, Florence & Garrison, Gilmer, for appellant.

Harry Loftis, Dist. Atty., R. S. Burruss and T. Alex Beall, Asst. Dist. Attys., Tyler, Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*930DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for possessing unstamped illicit liquor, the punishment 'being assessed at a fine of $300.

When this case was called for trial, appellant presented a motion to quash the information as being at variance with the complaint. That motion was overruled. .

The state then presented its motion seeking to dismiss the information in the case because “the second count in said information” was “insufficient in law to properly allege a former conviction.” Such motion was granted.

The state thereupon requested permission to file a new information in the case upon the original complaint. Such request was granted and the new information was presented.

The appellant was then called for trial to answer the new information. His request for not less than two days’ time within which to file written pleadings and to prepare for trial was refused, and he was forced to trial — all over his exceptions and objections.

When the trial court sustained the state’s motion to dismiss the information, appellant was, in law, discharged from the accusation against him. There was, then, no case pending against him, Art. 527, C. C.P.

When the state filed the new information, a new case was. thus instituted and appellant was called upon, for the first time, to answer for the offense charged in that information.

Art: 514, C.C.P., provides that “In all cases the defendant shall be allowed two entire days, exclusive of all fractions of a day after his arrest, and during the term of the court, to file written pleadings.”

We have repeatedly held that such statute must be complied with upon the demand of the accused. Turner v. State, 21 Tex.App. 198, 18 S.W. 96; Arrelano v. State, 82 Tex.Cr.R. 128, 198 S.W. 314.

The state insists that the new information constituted nothing more than an amendment of the existing or first information and that the two days’ allowance by statute does not apply thereto.

The record does not warrant such construction. The new information was new in fact and was the act of a different county attorney than the one who presented the first information.

Because, appellant was not accorded the two days’ time allowed by statute, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.
<PAGE>  35

                                                                EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL 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 the accompanying Form 10-QSB of First Security Bancorp, Inc.
for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, I, John S. Shropshire, Chief Executive
Officer of First Security Bancorp, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(1)      Such Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 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 such Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
         June 30, 2003 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
         condition and results of operation of First Security Bancorp, Inc.


                                By: /s/ John S. Shropshire
Date:  August 19, 2003          _________________________________
                                John S. Shropshire
                                President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

THE COAST DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM,
INC.

Annual Report on Form 10-K

for the Year ended December 31, 2010

In connection with accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Coast Distribution System, Inc. (the Company), for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the Annual Report), I, James Musbach, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 31, 2011 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/    JAMES MUSBACH                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | James Musbach                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
|                     |  |  | 
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Coast Distribution System Inc. and will be retained by The Coast Distribution
System Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order filed April 16, 2013.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 12

- 01126

- CR

____________ NOEL GALVAN CERNA , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 155th District Court Austin County, Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. 2009R

- 0088



### ORDER The reporter’s record in this case was originally due January 18, 2013 , but
it was not filed

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. On January 28, 2013, this court ordered the court reporter to file the record within 30 days. On Febr uary 15, 2013, Vicki L. Brown, the court reporter responsible for this record, filed a request for an extension of time to file the record until April 30, 2013. The court granted an extension until March 21, 2013. When the court reporter failed to file the record,on April 2, 2013, this court ordered the court reporter to file the record within 30 days, and instructed the court reporter that if the record was not filed, the court would order the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for f ailure
to file the record. The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). It is the trial court’s responsibility to arrange for substitute reporters, if necessary, so that the appellate record may be completed and filed in a timely manner. On April 10, 2013, the court reporter filed a second request for an extension
of time to file the record. Due to the circumstances presented in the motion, including the size of t he record, the court GRANTS an extension of time to Vicki
L. Brown to file the reporter’s record in this appeal on or before May 15, 2013.
This is a FINAL extension. NO FUTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME WILL BE
GRANTED.

PER CURIAM

2
Order entered August 21 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00773
- CV
CHARLES J. PATERNOST RO, Appellant

V. REVERSE MORTGAGE SOL UTIONS, Appellee On Appeal fro m the 59th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV
- 18
- 1113



### O RDER The reporter’s record in this case has not been filed. By letter dated July 26, 2019, we informed appellant the court reporter notified us that the reporter’ s record had not been filed because appellant had not (1) requested the record; or (2) paid for or made arrangements to pay for the record. We directed appellant to provide the Court with written verification showing the reporter’s record had been request ed and that appellant had paid for or made arrangements to pay for the record or had been found entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that failure to provide the required documentation within ten days might result in the
app eal being ordered submitted without the reporter’s record. To date, appellant has not provided the required documentation nor otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding thestatus of the reporter’s record. Accordingly, we ORDER this appeal submitted without a

reporter’s record. Appellant’s brief is due THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
GARY C. PETERS SUITE SRC- 2 

MICHIGAN RuSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20510 

1202) 224-6221 

<llnitrd tatrs rnetr 

May 14, 2015 

Ms. Peggy Gilligan 

Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety 

Office of Government and Industry Affairs 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, SW 

Washington, DC 2059 1 

Dear Ms. Gilligan, 

I am contacting you on behalf of Eagle-Eye Drone Service, a Michigan-based 

company specializing in unmanned aerial technology for real estate purposes. Eagle-Eye 

Drone Service currently has an exemption request pending with your office (F AA-20 15-

0389-000 I). 

If approved, this exemption would allow Eagle-Eye Drone Service to survey preapproved residential and commercial sites that are not easily accessible by land. 

Furthermore, due to the low accessibility and inherent risks of these sites, an exemption 

would provide a significant benefit in public safety. It is my understanding that EagleEye Drone Service would focus their service in the Northern Michigan region and would 

like to eventually expand their service nationwide. The owner of this company is an FAA 

licensed pilot with 34 years of aviation experience. 

I believe this exemption would provide a great benefit fo r the State of Michigan 

and hope that you will give their request your full consideration. Thank you for your 

attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

~Lhb- Gary C. Peters 

United States Senator