alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ex parte Wendel Lee DYESS.

No. 27447.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 26, 1955.

Freeman & Ward, Harry N. Ward, Fort Worth, for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

Relator, an inmate of the Texas Prison System, seeks his discharge by writ of ha-beas corpus.

Relator is confined by virtue of sentences from the District Courts of Wichita, Wil-barger and Ector Counties.

The sole question presented is the effectiveness of an order contained in the Ec-to'r County sentence. Relator contends that it is too vague and indefinite to effect its object. The order reads: “Said sentence not to run concurrently with sentences rendered in the 20th District Court of Wichita County, Texas, in Nos. 9241 and 9242 on Oct. 13, 1949.”

Relator relies upon several recent decisions of this Court, among them being Ex parte Epperson, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 136, 233 S. W.2d 141, wherein we held that an order which read *“*‘not to run concurrent with any other sentence heretofore received’ ” not effective as cumulating two sentences.

In Ex parte Collier, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 377, 243 S.W.2d 177, we reviewed a number of prior decisions and concluded that where the order contained the number of the cause and the court in which the convict was sentenced it was sufficient.

We are not impressed with relator’s contention that the order must be couched in the language of the statute. Here, the Court merely stated negatively what the statute states shall be done affirmatively.

The relief prayed for is denied.
#### PALMER v. CHEYNE et al.

No. 6692.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.

Sept. 10, 1953.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 1, 1953.

Brown & Brown, Texarkana, for appellant.

B. F. Edwards, Clarksville, for appellees.

HALL, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the District'Court of Bowie County sustaining appellees’ plea of privilege to be sued in Red River County where ' they -maintain-their residence. The only question pre-' sented here is whether appellees waived their plea of privilege by inserting therein paragraph No. 6, reading: “And the defendants (appellees) deny all and singular the allegations in plaintiffs’ (appellants’) petition contained, demands strict proof thereof, and of this they put themselves upon the country.” Appellant contends that the above pleading constitutes a general denial and puts in issue all allegations in his petition and is the basis for his only point brought forward.

The plea of privilege containing paragraph six, set out above, was filed on October 27, 1952. Appellant’s controverting affidavit was filed October 30, 1952. Appellees, with permission of the trial court, filed an amended plea of privilege omitting paragraph 6, the general denial, on November 24, 1952. Judgment sustaining the plea of privilege was rendered, filed and recorded on December 29, 1952. So, it appears that the issues on the plea of privilege with respect to the waiver thereof on account of the general denial contained therein, were joined before appellees’ amended plea omitting the general denial was filed.

As heretofore pointed out, appellees, with permission of the trial court, amended their plea of privilege by striking out paragraph six and the case was heard upon their amended plea.

The rule is well settled that either of the parties to a plea of privilege action have a right to amend their pleadings with .consent of the court.

The procedure followed by the court below in this trial is a correct one and is supported by the following authorities: Hickman v. Swain, 106 Tex. 431, 167 S.W. 209; Martin v. Kieschnick, Tex.Com.App., 231 S.W. 330; Hall v. Castleberry, Tex.Civ.App., 283 S.W. 581; Beier v. Sandgarten, Tex.Civ.App., 99 S.W.2d 1004; Panther Oil & Grease Manufacturing Co. v. Anderson, Tex.Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 561.

The only issue before us is whether the filing of the original plea of privilege which included paragraph 6 (general denial) was such an answer to the merits as would preclude the appellees from insisting oh "their plea of privilege; or 'would constitute a *374waiver of their plea. In our opinion, under the circumstances present here, it did not constitute a waiver of the plea of privilege. There is no issue as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the judgment is in all things affirmed.
**Exhibit 3.13**

 

***Delaware***

*The First State*

 

***I, JEFFREY*****W. *BULLOCK, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF******DELAWARE, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THE ATTACHED IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF “BOISE BUILDING******SOLUTIONS DISTRIBUTION, L.L.C.”, CHANGING ITS NAME FROM “BOISE BUILDING SOLUTIONS DISTRIBUTION, L.L.C.” TO “BOISE CASCADE******BUILDING MATERIALS DISTRIBUTION, L.L.C.”, FILED IN THIS OFFICE ON THE TWENTY-EIGHTH DAY******OF APRIL****, **A.D. 2010, AT 7:42 O’CLOCK P.M.***

 

***AND I DO HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AFORESAID CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT IS THE THIRD DAY OF MAY, A.D. 2010.***

 
|                | [Seal]                                 |                |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------|---------------------|
|                |                                   |
|                |                                   |
|                | /s/ Jeffrey W. Bullock                 |
|                | Jeffrey W. Bullock, Secretary of State |
| *3847638 8100* | *AUTHENTICATION:*                      | *    7961512*  |
|                |                                   |                |
| *100438429*         | *DATE:*                                | *    04-29-10* |

*You may verify this certificate online at corp.delaware.gov/authver.shtml*

 

1

----

 
|     | *State of Delaware*             |
|----------|---------------------------------|
|     | *Secretary of State*            |
| * * | *Division of Corporations*      |
|     | *Delivered 07:46 PM 04/28/2010* |
| * * | *FILED 07:42 PM 04/28/2010*     |
|     | *SRV 100438429 - 3847638 FILE*  |

 

**STATE OF DELAWARE CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT**

 

1.                                       Name of Limited Liability Company:

Boise Building Solutions Distribution, L.L.C.

 

2.                                       The Certificate of Formation of the limited liability company is hereby amended as follows:

 

The name of the company shall be Boise Cascade Building Materials Distribution, L.L.C.

 

3.                                       The Effective date of this Certificate of Amendment shall be May 3, 2010.

 

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF,** the undersigned have executed this Certificate on the 26th day of April, A.D. 2010.

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ David G. Gadda                 |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------|
|   |   | Authorized Person(s)               |
|   |   |
|   |   |
|   | Name:  | David   G. Gadda Authorized Person |
|   |   | Print   or Type                    |
|        |        |                                    |  |

 

----
#### William E. BOWMAN et al., Appellants, v. James A. HAYDEN et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 15, 1954.

Donald R. Pierce, Louisville, for appellants.

Morris B. Borowitz, Louisville, for ap-pellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion for an appeal from a judgment rescinding a contract for the sale of real estate and awarding damages in the amount of $550. It appearing that there was ample evidence to support the Chancellor’s findings that a material misrepresentation had been made by the defendants and relied upon by the plaintiffs, we find no error in the judgment.

The motion for appeal is overruled and the judgment stands affirmed.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUN 22 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. ANTHONY TAYLOR,

Defendant-Appellant. No. 97-3301 (D.C. No. 95-CR-10033

& 97-3331-MLB) (D. Kan.)
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA , LOGAN , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

Defendant seeks review of the district court’s orde r denying his motion to modify, vacate, or set aside his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 1 Before defendant may proceed on appeal, however, he must s ecure a certificate of appealability from this court, which requires “a substantial showing of the denial-2-

of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) . Based upon our review of the record as a whole, we conclude that defendant has f ailed to make such a showing. Defendant’s motion to file a reply brief is GRANTED , with the exception of those attachments to the brief that were not bef ore the district court. Defendant’s application for a certificate of appeal ability is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge
#### MARTIN v. STATE.

No. 26982.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 5, 1954.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from the revocation of a probation.

The appellant was convicted on April 11, 1953, on his plea of guilt to the crime of forgery, and upon such plea was sentenced to confinement in the state penitentiary for a period of five years. However, this sentence was probated or suspended and appellant was placed on probation with the Sheriff of Smith County for a period of five years in accordance with such probation order which, among other things, required that the appellant “commit no offense against the laws of this or any other state, or the United States.”

Thereafter, it is shown by a petition duly signed by the District Attorney and the Sheriff of Smith County, that the appellant had committed other offenses against the laws of the state in that he had committed three offenses of theft of the grade of misdemeanor and thereby had violated the terms of said probation-, all having occurred within the time of his probationary period. Whereupon the court revoked the probation of the sentence and appellant gave notice of appeal from such action of the court.

There is nothing in this record which calls for a review in the absence of a statement of facts or bills of exception, and no briefs have been filed herein.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00074-CV

IN RE SAMSON LOYNACHAN RELATOR

----------

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

TRIAL COURT NO. 1233936R

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND ORDER

----------

Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this court to compel the 

trial court to rule on his motion for temporary transfer of appellate record. 

Because the trial court has ruled on Relator’s motion on December 8, 2014, and 

December 15, 2014, this court is of the opinion that relief should be denied. 

Accordingly, Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied as moot.

Relator’s motion to suspend rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) is denied as moot as well.

 

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

The clerk of the trial court provided this court with copies of the December 

8, 2014 and December 15, 2014 orders. The clerk of this court is instructed to 

send copies of those orders to Relator along with this opinion.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and MEIER, J.

DELIVERED: March 19, 2015
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 Brownsville Company
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended September 30,
2006,  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission  (the
"Report"),  the  undersigned certifies,  pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley  Act  of 2002, to the best of the undersigned's  knowledge,
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:  January 12, 2007      By:  /s/ Adam R. Cegielski
                                   Adam R. Cegielski,
                                   President  and Chief Executive
                                   Officer
                                   (Principal Executive Officer)


Dated:  January 12, 2007      By:  /s/ Adam R. Cegielski
                                   Adam R. Cegielski,
                                   Principal Accounting Officer
                                   (Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 99.1

                                                 [LOGO OMITTED]
                                                 Countrywide[R]
                                                   HOME LOANS


                                               400 Countrywide Way
March 10, 2006                           Simi Valley, California 93065-6298







Sidley Austin, LLP
Re: BellaVista 2005-1, BellaVista 2005-2
787 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Attn: Rebecca Bonventre

                             OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE


I, Joseph Candelario, hereby certify that I am the First Vice President, Loan
Administration of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., fka Countrywide Funding
Corporation. I further certify, with respect to the Servicing Agreements for
Countrywide Mortgage Obligations, Inc., the following:

I have reviewed the activities and performance of the Servicer during the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2005 under the Agreements and, to the best of my
knowledge, based on my review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its duties,
responsibilities or obligations under the Agreements throughout the fiscal year.



/s/ Joseph Candelario           March 10, 2006
------------------------        --------------
Joseph Candelario               Date
First Vice President
Compliance Officer
Loan Administration
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2158 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2158

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 14901 Adelfa Drive in La Mirada, California, as the ``Wayne Grisham 
                             Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 13, 2011

Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California (for herself, Mr. Baca, Mr. Bilbray, 
   Mr. Calvert, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Costa, Mrs. Davis of 
 California, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Farr, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Honda, Mr. Hunter, 
  Ms. Lee of California, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. Daniel E. 
 Lungren of California, Ms. Matsui, Mr. McClintock, Mr. McNerney, Mr. 
     George Miller of California, Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Pelosi, Ms. 
Richardson, Mr. Rohrabacher, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of 
    California, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Sherman, Ms. Speier, Mr. Stark, Mr. 
  Thompson of California, Mr. Waxman, and Ms. Woolsey) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 14901 Adelfa Drive in La Mirada, California, as the ``Wayne Grisham 
                             Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. WAYNE GRISHAM POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 14901 Adelfa Drive in La Mirada, California, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Wayne Grisham Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Wayne 
Grisham Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
©2012 DJI Innovation s . All Rights Reserved. 

### 1 

# Spreading Wings S800 Spare Parts Manual

V 1. 2

www.dji - innovations.com©2012 DJI Innovation s . All Rights Reserved. 

### 2 

# Spare Parts Listing

If S800 needs part replaced, please refer to the following diagram to identify the part with the NO. and components , and then make a purchase. Each package includes screws needed. 

### F r ame Arm

NO. Name Components 1 15'Propeller CCW S8010 1 01A 2 15'Propeller CW S8010 1 01B 3 4114 Motor 320KV S8010301 、 S8010302 、 S8010303 4 F r ame Arm ( Counter Clockwise ) S8010401 A 、 S8010402 、 S8010 4 03 、 S8010404 5 F r ame Arm ( Clockwise ) S8010401 B 、 S8010402 、 S8010 4 03 、 S8010404 6 ESC (Red LED) S8010601 、 S8010602R 7 ESC (Green LED) S8010601 、 S8010602G 8 F r ame Arm w/ Propeller & Motor & ESC 1. CCW & Red LED 2. CCW & Green LED 3. CW & Red LED 4. CW & Green LED 1 、 3 、 4 、 6 1 、 3 、 4 、 7 2 、 3 、 5 、 6 2 、 3 、 5 、 7



## Notices:

 The diagram i s only for c ounter c lockwise rotation propeller and f r ame arm

.  F or c lockwise propeller and f r ame arm, it is S8010 1 01 B and S8010 4 0 1 B

.©2012 DJI Innovation s . All Rights Reserved. 

### 3

En sure to solde r t hick wires and fine wires correctly , when solder ESC to frame arm. C lockwise and c ounter c lockwise motor should be soldered to ESC correctly by d ifferent color order

.



### For arms For arms

Center Frame

NO. Name Components 9 Arm Mounting Bracket S8020901 、 S8020902 、 S8020903 、 S8020904 10 Center Frame Support Pillar S8021001 11 Center Frame Top &Bottom Board S8021101 、 S8021102 12 Top Board Cover for Arm Mounting Bracket S8021201©2012 DJI Innovation s . All Rights Reserved. 

### 4

Bi - pod

Note1: All unlabeled screw s are HC

- M2.5X5

. Note2: (1 ) Left and right T

- frames are different; (2 ) Left and right b i

- pod t op m ounting h ub s are different; (3 ) Left s et , m iddle s et and r ight s et of bi

- pod c arbon t ube b racket are different. NO. Name Components 13 H

- Frame S8031301 、 S8031302 14 Bi

- pod Top Mounting Hub S8031401 、 S8031402

15 H

- Frame w/Bi

- pod Top Mounting Hub S8031501 、 S8031502 、 S8031503 、 S8031504 、 S8031505 、 S8031506 

### 、 S8031507 、 13 、 14 16 T

- Frame(Right) S8031601 、 S8031602 、 S8031603 17 T

- Frame(Left) S8031601 、 S8031602 、 S8031604 18 T

- Frame Non slip Damper (4pcs) S8031801 19 T

- Frame Silicone Rubber Damper (4pcs) S8031901 20 Bi

- pod Carbon Tube S8032001 21 Bi

- pod Drawbar S8032101 、 S8032102(2pcs) 、 S8032103©2012 DJI Innovation s . All Rights Reserved. 

### 5

22 Battery Tray S8032201 、 S8032202 、 S8032203 、 S8032204

23 Bi

- pod Carbon Tube Bracket(Left Set ) S8031501 、 S8031502 、 S8031503 、 S8031504 、 S8031505

24 Bi

- pod Carbon Tube Bracket(Middle Set) S8031501 、 S8031502 、 S8031503 、 S8031504 、 S8031506

25 Bi

- pod Carbon Tube Bracket(Right Set) S8031501 、 S8031502 、 S8031503 、 S8031504 、 S8031507 26 Screw Pack M2.5 X 5 10pcs 27 Sc rew Pack M3 X 8 10pcs 28 Screw Pack M 2.5 X8 10pcs
Exhibit 32.2   Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002   In connection with the quarterly report of BidGive International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Rebecca Richardson-Blanchard, the Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) and 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 results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Rebecca Richardson-Blanchard Interim Chief Financial Officer   Date:  November 13, 2008
#### Joan Bigaj, Appellant, v Thomas J. Gehl et al., Respondents.

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: The order appealed from is modified by reversing that part which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment dismissing defendants’ counterclaim for breach of contract and by dismissing the counterclaim. The contract for the sale of the property owned by the estate of Alvin Ashman was signed by plaintiff as executrix before letters testamentary were issued to her. Thus, at the time plaintiff signed the contract of sale, she had no power to dispose of the property *(see,*EPTL 11-1.3; *Matter of Yarm,*119 AD2d 754) and lacked capacity to enter into the contract *(see, Cohn v United States Trust Co.,*127 AD2d 523). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Forma, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
Exhibit 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-173210, 333-165847, 333-160464, 333-150102, 333-125760, 333-131976, 333-132564, 333-135677, 333-137250 and 333-140994 on Form S-8 of our reports dated August 29, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements and consolidated financial statement schedule of Silicon Graphics International Corp. and its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”), and the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended June 24, 2011.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


San Jose, California


August 29, 2011