alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered February 24 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00893
- CV FELIPE DELEON, JR., Appellant

V. ROSA BENITEZ, Appellee On Appeal from the 292nd Judi cial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV97
- 00151
- S

O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s request for a copy of his November 12, 2020 “pleading to jurisdiction with exhibits and affidavit in support of brief

. ” We GRANT the reques t and DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to mail appellant a copy of the jurisdictional brief

. We note we questioned our jurisdiction over this appe al because the clerk’s record did not contain a copy of the challenged order , a nd the trial court clerk informed the Court the order did not exist. Appellant provided the Court a copy ofthe order in his jurisdictional brief and, on January 29, 2020, a supplemental

clerk’s record containing a copy of th at order w as filed

. Having reviewed the order, which was signe d July 8 2019 and dismiss ed for want of jurisdiction appellant’s motion for new trial on a protective order that dissolved on its own terms in February 1998, we now question our jurisdiction to the extent the a ppeal appears untimely

. See Brashear v. Victo ria Gardens of McKinney, L

. L

. C

. , 3 0 2 S.W.3d 542, 545 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2009, no pet.) (op. on reh’g) (timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional). Generally, an appeal is taken from a final judgment, not the refusal to reconsider that judgment, an d must be filed within thirty days of the date the judgment is signed or, with a timely filed motion for new trial, within ninety days of judgment. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1, 26.1(a). A motion for new trial is timely if filed within thirty days of the dat e of judgment. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 329 b(a). Here, the judgment was signed February 20, 1997, but the motion for new trial and notice of appeal w ere not filed until over twenty years later, in June and July 2019 , respectively

. Accordingly, we ORDER appe llant to file, no later than March 6, 2020, a letter brief addressing the timeliness of the appeal. A ny response to appellant’s
letter brief must be filed within ten days of the letter brief’s filing. If any partyrelies on information not included in th e clerk’s record, that party shall have filed a

supplemental clerk’s record containing that information. Until the Court determines its jurisdiction, no action will be taken on the reporter’s record. The Court will address the status of the reporter’s rec ord should it determine it has jurisdiction over the appeal. Should the Court determine it lacks jurisdiction, the Court will dismiss the appeal without further notice. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 42.3(a). The Court may also dismiss the appeal without further n otice should appellant fail to file the requested letter brief. See id. 42.3(a),(c). /s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS **AUSTIN**

T8B II Uxmmploymnt kmpsnrat ion Brown Building Awtiin, Texae

(a),-(b), or fi3)of S8OtibXI6 or the Aot, enoh &8’3idon diSpO88a Or all rights Of tb8 olf+iWlt t0 benorit8 &Luring

hi8 

### b8n8rityear. Ii, ,~1683! th8 1IBp8 aubseotlonamentionad~ ho is disqualified for fSr8F .s, ,’

+

**T8X~4a**tbmIUph3y‘m8nt ~Omp8nMtiOn ~Obi88iOn, page $3 

### P@@-pJ or aouree, tpponthe lnltla%lon or a

88 8S, h8 18 ontit1ea to reoeire b8nerit Oh8Oka ti88S di8qUalifl8d 

### at thrt tiE8." 2W~.-held

inkour 

### OpinionHod O-89218 that a di6qualifiamtlon 69 the Qommi8doa or w Court 

### or an Individual to 

### r808lv8 b8iI8fit8

dw111& th8 b8n8flt 3hiOd8 Or hiI5 

### b8n8flt 98ar **ai8pO88d** Or allright Or the iadlvldual to r808iV8 aI%9 benefita during **that b8n8flt**  year. Thlr holding was baaed upon the asmmption that, On th8 **h818** Or the **fndiVidMl ’** **8** initial Olaim iOr b8n8- **flt8,** he Wa8 dbqtUiiri8d rOr ill the **b8Mrit** &Wr1068 Of his b8I¶8fit

98ar. **Your** 

### Interpretation or our OpinionHo. 0-57SS, a0 r8flbOted in POtU l8tt8r addr8tIO8d t0 a r8Rr888lltatiV8 Or the Sooial S8aurity Board, is 6orreot. **YOur8~**very APPROVED APRIL 69, 1942 **ATTORBBT**OEAERAL **/I/ QNV8r**  **88u8N** tNly 09 TBx4s

FIRST ASSISTANT **ATTOMEY** W4HBRQ

**APPROVBD OPIINIOH**  **coMMlTTE% BY**  **BWB cBIIBMAI!I**
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 42 (Friday, March 1, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 15217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-04310]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-703 and 731-TA-1661-1663 (Preliminary)]


Glass Wine Bottles From Chile, China, and Mexico; Correction 
Notice of Determinations

AGENCY: International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: Correction is made to the publication number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of February 16, 2024 (89 FR 12380) in FR 
Doc. 2024-03227, on page 12381, in the fourth column, the publication 
number should be USITC Publication 5493 (February 2024).

    Issued: February 26, 2024.
Sharon Bellamy,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2024-04310 Filed 2-29-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
#### Ex parte MERRITT.

No. 26720.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 21, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

This is an original application for a writ of habeas corpus brought by the relator Reuben G. Merritt, seeking his release from the Texas Prison System.

The record shows that relator was at the August term 1951, in cause No. 795 in the District Court of Terry County sentenced to serve a term of not less than two nor more than two and one-half years.

On July 7, 1952, in cause No. 4040 in the' District Court of Bastrop County, relator was sentenced to serve a term of two years. Such sentence contains this order: “It is further ordered by the Court that this sentence be cumulative to that pronounced on the defendant in the District Court of Terry County, Texas, and being now served by the defendant.”

Relator attacks the sufficiency of this cumulation.

In Bland v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 267, 167 S.W.2d 761, we held a cumulation ineffective as to a Kaufman County conviction where the order read, in part, as follows : “ * * * and particularly in addition to and cumulative of the conviction for a similar offense in the District Court of Kaufman Co., Texas”.

In Ex parte Johnson, Tex.Cr.App., 218 S.W.2d 200, 201, we held ineffective an attempted cumulation which read: “Defendant sentenced cumulative with sentence now serving — assessed in District Court of Hardin County.” We said that the above contained “no description of the Hardin County 'case by number, date of conviction, or punishment imposed.”

In Ex parte Ball, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 382, 235 S.W.2d 652, we held ineffective an attempted cumulation which read: “Leon Ball, cumulative with sentence in Hale County.”

*597In Ex parte Brown, Tex.Cr.App., 243 S.W.2d 167, 168, we held ineffective an attempted cumulation which read: “ * 3⁄8 * but consecutive to conviction in Tarrant 'County in 1941.”

In Ex parte Robbins, Tex.Cr.App., 253 S.W.2d 53, we held ineffective an attempted cumulation which read: “Sentence cumulative with 25 year sentence for murder (TSP No. 95186).”

In Ex parte Collier, Tex.Cr.App., 243 S.W.2d 177, 178, we said: “This court has through the years admonished the trial courts to incorporate in their cumulative sentences a full description of the prior proceeding in the interest of accuracy * * 3⁄8 »

We have been furnished with a certificate from the Texas Prison System showing that relator has served both sentences unless the cumulation be held effective.

In view of the authorities heretofore cited, we hold that the relator is entitled to be discharged.

It is so ordered.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, D. Gary McRae, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of McRae Industries, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: October 28, 2005   /s/ D. Gary McRae  D. Gary McRae  President and CEO  
52
EXHIBIT 99.4

I, Emanuel Chirico, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this quarterly report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in
all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this quarterly report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a)	designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)	evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and

c)	disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,
or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a)	all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)	any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting.

Dated:  June 8, 2004

| | /s/ Emanuel Chirico                                 
| | ----------------------------------------------------
| | Emanuel Chirico                                     
| | Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
#### Claudell F. WRIGHT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27789.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 9, 1955.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1956.

Cliff H. Tupper, San Angelo, for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

The offense is burglary; the punishment, 31⁄2 years in the penitentiary.

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.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing

WOODLEY, Judge.

Our attention is directed to the fact that appellant did reserve a bill of exception, though he did not secure and file a statement of facts. The bill of exception reveals the following.

Appellant was without counsel at the trial. He did not testify and offered no witnesses in his behalf.

After the charge had been prepared, submitted to appellant, and read to the jury, -and the attorney for the State had argued its case, the trial court “inquired of the defendant, and informed the defendant in open court and before the jury that he had á right to say anything he desired to the jury.”

“The defendant thereupon proceeded to argue his own case to the jury and in such argument stated to the jury why he had committed the offense alleged.”

There is no claim that the court should have furnished counsel for appellant, and no factual basis for such a claim.

The trial- court properly advised appellant as to his right to address the jury.

When appellant saw fit to do so and in effect confessed his guilt, in his argument, the trial court was not called upon to interfere.

We overrule the contention that the bill shows that appellant’s constitutional rights and privileges regarding self-incrimination were violated.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
* Judge King did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d)(1994). UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7627
DIMIDROFF HALEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN FANELLO, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-450, CR-92-20) Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 2, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, * Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dimidroff Haley, Appellant Pro Se. John Kirk Brandfass, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia; Kate L. Mershimer, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Dimidroff Haley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewedthe 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. See Haley v. Fanello , Nos. CA-99-450; CR-92-20 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 10, 1999). 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
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Howard H. KINNER, Appellant.

No. 442.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

July 26, 1937.

Joseph H. Wackerman, of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Otho S. Bowling, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Vine H. Smith, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for appellant.

Before L. HAND, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1  Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") by Gold Horse International, Inc. (the "Registrant"), I, Liankuan Yang, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify that:  1.The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of Registrant.  /s/ Liankuan YangName: Liankuan YangTitle: Chief Executive Officer, principal executive officer  Dated: February 22, 2011  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the company and will be retained by the company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Chestatee Bancshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2007, as filed with
the Securities Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, J. Philip Hester, Sr.,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i)  This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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


Date:    August 13, 2007         BY: /s/ J. Philip Hester, Sr.
         ---------------             ------------------------------------------
                                     J. Philip Hester, Sr., President and CEO
                                     (Principal Executive Officer)





<PAGE>
#### E. B. BARNES v. STATE.

No. 27583.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 6, 1955.

{No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

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

*821Appellant has filed his personal affidavit stating that he no longer desires to prosecute this appeal and requests that the same he dismissed.

This request is accordingly granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
#### Noah OWENS, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 30, 1953.

O. J. Cockrell, Jackson, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Atty. Gen., Wm. F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from the Breathitt Circuit Court 'by Noah Owens from a judgment convicting him of the offense of possessing alcoholic beverages in local option territory for the purpose of sale and fixing his punishment at a fine of $100 and confinement for 30 days in jail.

A consideration of the record discloses no error prejudicial to the appellant’s substantial rights and the judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.3
AMENDMENT TO
DANIEL L. URNESS STOCK OPTION DATED JULY 10, 2018


This Amendment is made to that certain Stock Option Agreement dated as of July 10, 2018 (the “Option”) between Cavco Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) and Daniel L. Urness (the “Optionee”) as is effective as of April 15, 2019 (the “Effective Date”).


Pursuant to the authority reserved to the Compensation Committee of the Board in Section 4 of the 2005 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) to modify the terms of an option, including as to vesting, the Option is amended to add at the end of the first paragraph the following:


Notwithstanding the foregoing, for the period from the Grant Date to November 8, 2018, continuous employment for vesting shall include any employment of the Optionee with the Company, it being the intent that the Optionee’s employment in a lower position with a subsidiary of the Company shall be counted as continuous service in determining the vested percentage of the shares subject to the Option thereafter.


Except as provided above, the Option shall be and remain in full force and effect in accordance with the terms thereof.


This Amendment is executed on behalf of the Company by the undersigned, who has been duly authorized by the Compensation Committee.


CAVCO INDUSTRIES, INC.


By: /s/ Steven G. Bunger        
Steven G. Bunger
Its: Chairman, Board of Directors


Receipt of this Amendment by the Optionee is hereby acknowledged.


/s/ Daniel L. Urness        
Daniel L. Urness
EXHIBIT 23.1




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-72654, 333-48605 and 333-79567) of Tofutti Brands Inc. of our report dated April 2, 2010, with respect to the financial statements of Tofutti Brands Inc., included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2010.





Amper, Politziner & Mattia, LLP


/s/Amper, Politziner & Mattia, LLP





Edison, New Jersey


April 2, 2010
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 Annual Report of Tofutti Brands Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 27, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Mintz, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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/David Mintz *
----------------
David Mintz
Chief Executive Officer
March 26, 2004


* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.