alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ex parte Gail COOPER.

No. 28465.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 28, 1956.

James L. Mitchell, Dallas, for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

On Motion for Rehearing

Our original opinion is withdrawn.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court of Dallas County remanding relator to the custody of the sheriff of said county for delivery to an agent for the State of Colorado.

In Ex parte Peairs, Tex.Cr.App., 283 S.W.2d 755, there was an affirmative showing in the record that the Constitution and laws of the State of Arkansas authorized prosecution for all offenses upon an information. It was because of this proof that *907we held the affidavit was sufficient to support the information.

 There is no showing in this record that the laws of Colorado are different from those of this State, and we must assume that prosecution for the felony offense herein involved is not authorized by Colorado law upon an information. Ex parte Gardner, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 365, 264 S.W.2d 125. For that reason, extradition cannot be authorized by the information and affidavit before a notary public on file herein, as was done in Ex parte Peairs, supra.

The second affidavit which is attached to the warrant, under category 3 of said Article as is enumerated in the above case, will not authorize extradition because it is based upon information and belief, and also the warrant was not issued by such magistrate.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
### NUMBER 13

- 14

- 00 0 39

- CV



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

HENRY ANDREW HANSEN, II, M.D. AND Appellants, CENTRAL TEXAS VEIN C ENTER, P.A. ,

v.

THOMAS WILLIAM JACKS ON, REGIONAL EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, COLLEGE STATION MEDI CAL CENTER, LLC, AND COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, PSC , Appellee s

.

On Appeal from the 8 5 th District Court of Brazos County, Texas.



## ORDER

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Perkes and Longoria Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appell ees ’ corrected joint unopposed motion to

extend time to file briefs of appellees. 1 Appell ees ’ brief s are due to be filed on June 9,

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Tenth Court of Appeals in Waco pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX . G OV ' T C ODE A NN . § 73.0012014. Appell ee s are requesting an a dditional 45

- day extension of time to file their briefs

in this cause.

The Court, having fully examined and considered appell ees ’ joint unopposed

motion to extend time to file briefs of appellees , is of the opinion that, in the interest of

justice, the motion should be granted with order. Appell ees ’ joint unopposed motion to

extend time to file briefs is hereby GRANTED , and the Honorable Robert Bell and

Honorable Kent C. Sullivan , counsel for appell ees , are her eby ORDERED to file the

appelle e s ’ brief s with this Court on or before July 24, 2014

. No further extensions will be

granted in this matter.

The Clerk of this Court is ORDERED to serve a copy of this order on the Hon orable

Robert Bell and Honorable Kent C. Sullivan by certified mail, return receipt requested.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 6 th day of June, 20 1 4

.

(West , Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S. ).
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2028 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2028

       To amend title 11 of the United States Code to modify the 
 dischargeability of debts for certain educational payments and loans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 2011

Mr. Cohen (for himself, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Conyers, Mr. George 
   Miller of California, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Berman, Mr. 
  Towns, Ms. Moore, Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Stark, Mr. 
Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Watt, Ms. Chu, and Mr. Polis) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To amend title 11 of the United States Code to modify the 
 dischargeability of debts for certain educational payments and loans.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Private Student Loan Bankruptcy 
Fairness Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. EXCEPTIONS TO DISCHARGE.

    Section 523(a)(8) of title 11, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking subparagraph (B), and
            (2) in subparagraph (A)--
                    (A) in clause (i)--
                            (i) by striking ``(i)'', and
                            (ii) by inserting ``any program for which 
                        substantially all of the funds are provided by 
                        a'' after ``unit or'', and
                    (B) in clause (ii)--
                            (i) by striking ``(ii)'' and inserting 
                        ``(B)'', and
                            (ii) by striking ``or'' at the end.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

    (a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act 
and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by this Act 
shall apply only with respect to cases commenced under title 11 of the 
United States Code on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 4.2


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated April 18, 2019, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 1935 contained in Amendment
No. 2 to the Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-229298) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned
report in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


April 18, 2019
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

GLENN BLACKLEDGE
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 2216

[ November 24, 2021 ]

Appeal of an order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court

for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Mariya Weekes

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 99

- 018401CF10A

.

Edward G. Salantrie of the Law Office of Edward G. Salantrie, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

No appearance required for appe llee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY
, L EVINE
, and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Network Engines, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Gregory A. Shortell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

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

 

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

 
| Dated: February 9,  2009 | /s/ Gregory A. Shortell                               |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                          | **Gregory A.  Shortell*****Chief Executive Officer*** |

 

----
#### Eugene F. WHITE, d/b/a Eugene F. White Lumber Company, Appellant, v. J. D. COX, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 15, 1954.

George I. Cline, Morehead, for appellant.

Walter M. Gardner, Ren F. Nickell, West Liberty, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from a judgment of the Morgan Circuit Court awarding appel-lee $800 damages as the value of timber belonging to appellee which appellant wrongfully converted to his own use.

.This is a purely fact case as to the true boundary line between the parties and as to the value of the timber cut. An examination of the record shows the findings of the chancellor on both items are amply supported by the evidence.

Motion for an appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
#### Charles E. GAFFORD, Appellant, v. W. Jess BUCHANAN, Warden, State Penitentiary, Eddyville, Ky., Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 3, 1956.

Charles E. ’Gafford, pro se.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., W. Owen Keller, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

STANLEY, Commissioner.

The appellant, Charles E. Gafford, is confined in the Eddyville penitentiary under a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court rendered at its September, 1950, term, sentencing him to confinement for life for the crime of armed robbery. He appeals from a judgment of the Lyon Circuit Court dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus.

The petition charges that the judgment of conviction is void because the indictment was returned by a grand jury illegally impaneled and contrary to the provisions of KRS 29.240. When the indictment was returned, that section limited sessions of a •grand jury to six days in a term unless the court extended the time. The indictment was returned on June 28, 1950, and, according to the allegations of this petition, there had been no order of court extending the *905sessions of the grand jury to cover that date.

In Harrod v. Commonwealth, Ky., 253 S.W.2d 574, we fully considered the question of the validity of an indictment rendered under like circumstances and held that it was not void although subject to being quashed upon seasonable motion; therefore, the convict was not entitled to be released under a writ of habeas corpus.

This judgment is affirmed on authority of this case.
LC - MS w/ Chemical Structure Diagram Sanitized
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-18-00631-CV

In re German Rodriguez

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

 

Jeff Rose, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Field and Toth

Filed: October 9, 2018
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 I-trax, 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, R.
Dixon Thayer, 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/ R. Dixon Thayer
--------------------------------
R. Dixon Thayer
Chief Executive Officer

May 16, 2005
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONBY PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

I, Steven R. Berrard, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Services Acquisition Corp. International;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

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

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and we have:

a)  designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

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

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

a)  allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control  over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)  any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: March 27, 2006 |   | /s/ STEVEN R.  BERRARD                 |
|---------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                      |   | Name: Steven R. Berrard                |
|                      |   | Title:  *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carolyn Footman, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (William Martin, J.), rendered December 5, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing defendant to concurrent, indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s conviction rests on the testimony of two police witnesses. The undercover officer testified that when he asked for "blow”, defendant led him to the back of an abandoned building. There she placed the $10 in prerecorded "buy” money in a basket which had been lowered from the second *249floor, which was raised up and returned with a glassine envelope of heroin. The arresting officer testified that he seized defendant after receiving a communication with a detailed description from the undercover officer. The defense at trial was that the police had manufactured the case. Defendant testified that she was arbitrarily arrested.

We find that the weight of the evidence supports defendant’s conviction. The verdict rests on a determination of credibility that we find no reason to disturb. *(People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620.)

Defendant’s general objections at trial did not preserve her claims that the prosecutor vouched for her witnesses and unfairly argued that the police had no motive to lie. Were we to reach these claims, we would find them without merit. The summation argument as to the officers’ lack of motive to lie was responsive to the defense argument that the entire case was manufactured, as was the argument that the officers had told the truth. *(People v Moran,*154 AD2d 322.)

Defendant’s remaining contention that the court’s charge was deficient is unpreserved. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Milonas, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-11084

Summary Calendar

 

SYDNEY ANN STUART,

formerly known as

Sydney Ann Howell,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

L.C. HAMMOND; L. MOSES,

# 2302,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:98-CV-197-D

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

June 2, 2000

Before JONES, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sydney Ann Stuart, formerly known as Sydney Ann Howell,

argues that the district court erred in granting the defendant

police officers’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing her 42

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that she had been arrested based

on an invalidly issued warrant and without probable cause.

Our review of the record reflects that Stuart did not

demonstrate that the affidavit supporting the arrest warrant, which

was prepared by Officer Hammond based on information discovered by
No. 99-11084

-2-

Officer Moses during his investigation, stated a deliberate

falsehood or was prepared with reckless disregard for the truth.

See Hale v. Fish, 899 F.2d 390, 400 n.3 (5th Cir. 1990). The error

contained in the affidavit with respect to the date of the offense

was clearly the result of negligence. Mere negligence is

insufficient to support a constitutional violation. See Sanders v.

English, 950 F.2d 1152, 1159 (5th Cir. 1992).

Further, the totality of the circumstances showed that

the information in the affidavit was based on a reliable source who

had provided Officer Moses with truthful information in the past.

See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). Stuart did not

come forth with any evidence to dispute the pharmacist’s assertion

that the doctor’s office had denied that the doctor had refilled

Stuart’s prescription. The complaint filed by the pharmacy was

sufficient to provide a substantial basis for concluding that

probable cause existed for Stuart’s arrest for fraudulently

obtaining a prescription for a controlled substance. See Jones v.

United States, 362 U.S. 257, 269 (1960).

Because Stuart failed to demonstrate that her arrest

arose out of a violation of her constitutional rights, the district

court did not err in granting the defendants’ motion for a summary

judgement.

AFFIRMED.
Port Everglades Construction Permit

Linero, Alvaro to: Andrew Parks 12/05/2012 04:16 PM

Cc: "Koerner, Jeff"

History: This message has been forwarded.

That is great news!

We only issued a non‐PSD air construction permit for this project because it did not trigger PSD for the

conventional pollutants.

I know the site below says PSD permits, but it wasn’t actually a PSD permit.

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/Air/emission/construction/port_everglades.htm

Additionally a Site Certification was issued recently, but that process is independent of our permitting

process and does not supersede our air construction permitting.

A. A. Linero, P.E.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Office of Permitting and Compliance

850‐717‐9076

Did you know that the Department may not require you to submit a Title V fee for the 2012 calendar year? To learn more, 

please visit us online at the following web address: www.title5feeholiday.com

Please take a few minutes to share your comments on the service you received from the department by 

clicking on this link. DEP Customer Survey.

From: Koerner, Jeff 

Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 3:52 PM

To: Linero, Alvaro

Subject: FW: Port Everglades Construction Permit

Al, please respond.

From: Parks.Andrew@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Parks.Andrew@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 3:43 PM

To: Koerner, Jeff

Subject: Port Everglades Construction Permit

Hi Jeff, we are in the process of completing the draft PSD GHG permit for the Port Everglades facility and 

I am wondering if there is a construction permit that was issued aside from the PSD permit that is on your 

website??
Andrew B. Parks, P.E.

Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region IV

61 Forsyth Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

Phone: 404-562-8122

Fax: 404-562-9019

*********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED 

*******************

This Email message contained an attachment named 

 image001.jpg 

which may be a computer program. This attached computer program 

could

contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's 

computers, 

network, and data. The attachment has been deleted.

This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses 

introduced

into the EPA network. EPA is deleting all computer program 

attachments

sent from the Internet into the agency via Email.

If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, 

you

should contact the sender and request that they rename the file 

name

extension and resend the Email with the renamed attachment. 

After

receiving the revised Email, containing the renamed attachment, 

you can

rename the file extension to its correct name.

For further information, please contact the EPA Call Center at

(866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TDD number is (866) 489-4900.

*********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED 

***********************