alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Heard ROBERSON and James Scott, Appellants, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 23749.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 4, 1947.

Ernest S. Goe'ns, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is robbery. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a period of ten years.

Upon the application of each of the appellants, duly verified, in which they request this Court to dismiss their appeal, the application is granted and the appeal of each of the appellants is dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion by the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00680-CR

Ronny Gene Smith, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 426TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 67764-A, THE HONORABLE FANCY H. FEZEK, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant Ronny Gene Smith has filed a pro se notice of appeal of the trial court’s

findings of fact and conclusions of law entered in response to his application for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim.

Proc. art. 11.07 (procedure for application for writ of habeas corpus).

Article 11.07 vests complete jurisdiction over post-conviction relieffrom final felony

convictions in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07, § 5;

Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481,

483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); In re Watson, 253 S.W.3d 319, 320 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, orig.

proceeding). The intermediate courts of appeals have no role in criminal law matters pertaining to

proceedings initiated under article 11.07. See In re Briscoe, 20 S.W.3d 196 (Tex. App.—Houston

[14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding); cf. Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115,

117–18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.1

__________________________________________

J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Field

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: November 6, 2013

Do Not Publish

We also note that the trial court certification in the record reflects that appellant has no 1

right of appeal. We are required to dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has

a right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d); Dears v. State,

154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

2
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3183 

To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to provide consumers with a free annual disclosure of information the Bureau of 

Consumer Financial Protection maintains on them, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2013 

Mr. WESTMORELAND (for himself, Mr. RENACCI, Mr. GRIMM, Mr. JONES, Mr. 

LANKFORD, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. DUFFY, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. BARR, Mr. ROTHFUS, Mrs. WAGNER, Mr. POSEY, Mr. PEARCE, 

Mr. FINCHER, and Mr. MCHENRY) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 

to provide consumers with a free annual disclosure of 

information the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection maintains on them, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ANNUAL DISCLOSURE TO CONSUMERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1022(c)(9) of the Con5 sumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3183 IH

1 5512(c)(9)) is amended by adding at the end the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(C) ANNUAL DISCLOSURE TO CON4 SUMERS.— 

5 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Once during any 

6 12-month period, upon request of a con7 sumer and without charge to the con8 sumer, the Bureau shall clearly and accu9 rately disclose to the consumer, before the 

10 end of the 15-day period beginning on the 

11 day the request is made, the following: 

12 ‘‘(I) All information with respect 

13 to the consumer held by the Bureau 

14 at the time of the request, except that 

15 if the consumer to whom the informa16 tion relates requests that the first 5 

17 digits of the social security number 

18 (or similar identification number) of 

19 the consumer not be included in the 

20 disclosure, and the Bureau has re21 ceived appropriate proof of the iden22 tity of the requester, the Bureau shall 

23 so truncate such number in such dis24 closure. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3183 IH

1 ‘‘(II) The sources of the informa2 tion. 

3 ‘‘(III) Any person or other Fed4 eral department or agency to which 

5 the Bureau disclosed information de6 scribed under subclause (I). 

7 ‘‘(ii) METHOD OF REQUEST.—The 

8 Bureau shall allow consumers to make a 

9 request under clause (i)— 

10 ‘‘(I) online, with a link promi11 nently displayed on the Bureau’s 

12 website; 

13 ‘‘(II) via United States mail; and 

14 ‘‘(III) via a toll-free telephone 

15 number established by the Bureau for 

16 such purpose.’’. 

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Section 1022(c)(9)(C) of the 

18 Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 

19 5512(c)(9)(C)), as added by subsection (a), shall take ef20 fect with respect to consumer requests made after the 1- 

21 year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 

22 Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### CRISP v. STATE.

No. 22210.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 17, 1942.

A. J. Smith, Jr.,.of Stamford, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

On a plea of guilty before the court appellant was convicted of the theft of an *210automobile, and his punishment assessed at two years confinement in the penitentiary.

The indictment appears to be in proper form. The record contains neither statement of facts nor bills of exceptions. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment will therefore be affirmed.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                                              EXHIBIT 12


                                                               MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST IV
                                                                MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING IV, L.P.
                                                                 COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO
                                                   COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS
                                                                          (dollars in thousands)


                                                                                                             FOR THE PERIOD
                                      FOR THE YEAR ENDED                 FOR THE YEAR ENDED                   JUNE 19, 1998
                                      DECEMBER 29, 2000                   DECEMBER 31, 1999              TO DECEMBER 25, 1998
                           ---------------------------------  ---------------------------------  ----------------------------------
                              MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH     MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH
                                 PREFERRED       PREFERRED          PREFERRED       PREFERRED        PREFERRED       PREFERRED
                           CAPITAL TRUST IV  FUNDING IV,L.P.  CAPITAL TRUST IV  FUNDING IV,L.P.  CAPITAL TRUST IV  FUNDING IV, L.P.
                           ----------------- ---------------  ----------------- ---------------  ----------------- ----------------

<S>                        <C>                 <C>            <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>

Earnings                       $ 29,361           $ 34,478        $ 29,361           $ 34,428         $ 15,578            $ 18,274
                               ========           ========        ========           ========         ========            ========


Fixed charges                  $      -           $      -        $      -           $      -         $      -            $      -

Preferred securities
 distribution
 requirements                    28,480             29,361          28,480             29,361           15,110              15,578
                               --------           --------        --------           --------         --------            --------

Total combined fixed
 charges and preferred
 securities distribution
 requirements                  $ 28,480           $ 29,361          28,480           $ 29,361         $ 15,110            $ 15,578
                               ========           ========        ========           ========         ========            ========

Ratio of earnings to
 combined fixed charges
 and preferred securities
 distribution requirements         1.03               1.17            1.03               1.17             1.03                1.17


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.3


 





 


STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT


 


	
  Date:

  	
   

  	
                     ,
  200     

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Name:

  	
   

  	
  «Name»

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Address:

  	
   

  	
  «Address», «City», «State» «Zip»

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Re:

  	
   

  	
  Non-Qualified Stock Option Award Notice

  



 


Dear:
«First_Name»:


 


Pursuant to the Pharmacopeia Drug Discovery, Inc.
2004 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), the Plan’s administrative committee
(the “Committee”) granted you a Non-Qualified stock
option (“Option”) to purchase shares of common stock as outlined below.


 


This
Option is subject to the applicable terms and conditions of the Plan.


 


	
  Granted To:

  	
   

  	
  «Name»

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Grant Date:

  	
   

  	
  «Grant_Date»

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Shares Underlying Option:

  	
   

  	
  «Shares»

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Option Price per Share:

  	
   

  	
  «Option_Price»

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Vesting Schedule:

  	
   

  	
  25% on the first anniversary of the Grant Date;
  1/48th each month thereafter

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Expiration Date:

  	
   

  	
  «Expiration_Date»

  



 


[Name]


HR
Administrator


 


I
hereby acknowledge receipt of the Option granted on the date shown above, which
has been issued to me under the terms and conditions of the Plan and this Stock
Option Agreement.  I also acknowledge
receipt of a copy of the Plan and acknowledge and agree that I am bound by the
terms and conditions of the Plan and this Stock Option Agreement with respect
to the Option.


 


	
  Signature:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Date:
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                 |                                                                                               |                                |
|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
| October                14, 2008 |                                                                                          | /s/ Edna                Carter |
|                                 | Edna                Carter, Chief Accounting Officer (Principal                Accounting Officer) |

----
**Exhibit      10.2**

**AMENDMENT        NUMBER ONE TO CREDIT AGREEMENT**

** **

**1.**
**DEFINITIONS**

**2.**
**AMENDMENTS**

**        (a)**

* less*
*plus*

*minus*

**(b)**

**(c)**

----

**(c)**

**(d)**

**(e)**

**3.**
**REPRESENTATIONS        AND WARRANTIES**

**4.**
**NO        DEFAULTS**

**5.**
**CONDITIONS        PRECEDENT**

**6.**
**REAFFIRMATION**

**7.**
**COSTS        AND EXPENSES**

----

**8.**
**LIMITED        EFFECT**

**9.**
**COUNTERPARTS;        EFFECTIVENESS**

*[remainder        of page left blank intentionally; signatures to follow]*

----

|   | **TELTRONICS,                  INC.**,a Delaware Corporation                                                          |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | By:                                                                                                                             |  /s/                Ewen R. Cameron |
|   | Name:                                                                                                                           |  Ewen                R. Cameron |
|   | Title:                                                                                                                          |  President |
|   |                                                                                                                            |   |
|   |                                                                                                                            |   |
|   |                                                                                                                            |   |
|   | **WELLS                  FARGO FOOTHILL, INC.,**a California corporation, as Agent and as a                  Lender   |
|   | By:                                                                                                                             | /s/                Tiffany Ormon |
|   | Name:                                                                                                                           | Tiffany                Ormon |
|   | Title:                                                                                                                          | Vice                President |

----
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 21, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60084 Conference Calendar

JIMMY L. TURNER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus HALEY BARBOUR, Governor of Mississippi; DONALD A. CABANA, Superintendent; CHRISTOPHER B. EPPS, Mississippi Department of Corrections System Commissioner; BILL STEIGER, Mississippi State Penitentiary Hospital Unit 42; BRIAN LADNER, CMCF-7/20, Associate Warden; ET AL, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:04-CV-380

-------------------- Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jimmy L. Turner, Mississippi prisoner # 57300, has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 199-202 (5th Cir. 1997). The district court dismissed the suit for failure toNo. 05-60084 -2- exhaust, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, and denied permission to proceed IFP on appeal. Turner has not demonstrated any nonfrivolous ground for appeal. He argues only that he is entitled to proceed IFP because he is financially eligible, because he submitted the appropriate documentation of his poverty, and because at all times he has been in imminent danger of injury and has been seriously physically injured. He makes no argument regarding the dismissal of his complaint for failure to exhaust. Turner’s IFP motion is denied, and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202; 5 TH CIR . R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Turner is cautioned that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING
ISSUED.
#### FIELDS v. STATE.

No. 22895.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 14, 1944.

Rehearing, Denied Oct. 18, 1944.

Polk Shelton, of Austin, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, ifor the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for aggravated assault with a penalty of ninety days in jail.

 Appellant was charged by indictment with assault to murder Clarence Clark. The jury found him guilty of aggravated assault and affixed the penalty. There are no exceptions to the court’s charge and only •one bill of exception is found in the record. It complains of the introduction of the testimony of an unnamed witness, which was to the effect that said witness had testified against the accused in a burglary case about two years prior thereto and that the accused was convicted, since which time the accused had never spoken to the witness. There is nothing- in the bill to show that it was “prejudicial and immaterial”. It fails to negative the existence of circumstances making it valid. We have examined the statement of facts and it does not appear that it should have had any prejudicial effect before the jury in view of the penalty assessed under facts that would amply support a conviction for assault to murder. In the absence of a showing that it was not appropriate and that it was prejudicial, we would hardly be in position to presume that it was. Such testimony is rarely admissible. However, we are unable to say that it was not proper testimony in the case now before us, in view of the record as we find it.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-2085

_____________________________

KIMBERLY BRINSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Gadsden County.

Robert R. Wheeler, Judge.

August 30, 2019

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED.

LEWIS, MAKAR, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Kimberly Brinson, pro se, Appellant.
2

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
# Contents

Data 1

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/nw2_epg0_swo_r31_bcfw.htm

U.S. Energy Information Administration

infoctr@eia.doe.gov

# Data 1

Back to Contents
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         162,703
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  503,432
<ALLOWANCES>                                    35,000
<INVENTORY>                                    254,823
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               948,590
<PP&E>                                         109,214
<DEPRECIATION>                                  52,270
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,823,310
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          399,687
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        92,976
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,330,647
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,823,310
<SALES>                                      1,140,720
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,150,460
<CGS>                                          533,725
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  533,725
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               539,643
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   9
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 77,083
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             77,083
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    77,083
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. R UDOLPH EM M ANUEL ENGLETON, Jr., a
. k.a . C -C at,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-50064

D.C . No. 2:14-c r-00303-JAK-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia John A. Kronstadt, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h

17, 2017 ** B e fore : HUG, FAR

R IS, an d C ANB Y, C irc uit Judge s . R udolph Em

m anue l Engle ton, Jr. a

ppe a l s from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt
and c ha lle nge s his 48-m onth se nte n c e for be i ng a fe l on in posse s sion of a

fire arm and a m m unition, in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 922(g)(1). Pursua nt to Ande rs v . 

# FIL ED MAR 21 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).C

alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Engle ton’ s c ounse l ha s file d

a brie f stating tha

t the re are no grounds for re lie f, a long with a m otion to withdra w a s c ounse l of
re c o rd. No pro se supple m e nta l brie f or answe ring brie f ha s be e n file d. Our inde pe nde nt re v i e w of the re c ord pursua n t to Pe nson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc lose s no a rgua ble grounds for re lie f on dire c t a ppe a l. C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D. AFFIRM E D.

2