alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6204

DELMAH RAPHAEL POINDEXTER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:14-cv-00291-RAJ-TEM)

Submitted: June 26, 2015 Decided: July 1, 2015

Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Delmah Raphael Poindexter, Appellant Pro Se. Aaron Jennings 

Campbell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Delmah Raphael Poindexter seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Poindexter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### BROCKER v. STATE.

No. 22058.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 22, 1942.

Rehearing Denied June 10, 1942.

*409Howard G. Hartzog, of Port Lavaca, and J. W. Ragsdale, of Victoria, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Murder is the offense; the punishment, three years in the state penitentiary.

In the light of the record, an extended statement of the facts is not deemed called for. It is sufficient to say .that appellant killed deceased by cutting and stabbing him with a small knife, which, from the State’s standpoint, was unprovoked and unjustified. According to the appellant’s version, it was a killing in self-defense from the actual attack of the deceased.

The issues of fact arising were pertinently submitted to the jury and in such a manner that no exceptions or objections were reserved to the court’s charge.

By bill of exception, complaint is made of the overruling of appellant’s second application for a continuance. The trial court’s qualification to the bill of exception calls attention to the fact that the application was defective in that two statutory requisites for a valid motion for a continuance are omitted therefrom, viz.: the application fails to state that the witness was not absent by the procurement or consent of the defendant, and that the application was not made for delay. A motion for a continuance, to be valid, must, among other things, so state. Art. 543, C.C.P.; Clarich v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 282, 129 S.W.2d 291; Mayes v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 612, 42 S.W.2d 65; Woods v. State, 115 Tex.Cr.R. 373, 28 S.W.2d 554; Allen v. State, 141 Tex.Cr.R. 94, 146 S.W.2d 384; White v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 69, 95 S.W.2d 429.

The remaining bills of exception relate to argument of State’s counsel. The argument complained of violated no statutory or mandatory rule; nor does it appear therefrom that it was manifestly improper or harmful to the appellant. In the light of such fact, reversible error is not shown. Vineyard v. State, 96 Tex.Cr.R. 401, 257 S.W. 548; Heidle v. State, 129 Tex.Cr.R. 201, 86 S.W.2d 641; Newchurch v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 619, 121 S.W.2d 998.

 It was within the province of the jury to determine the disputed issues of fact. The State’s testimony was sufficient to authorize its conclusion of guilt.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant has filed a motion for a rehearing in which he re-asserts the same questions which were presented on the original submission of the case. These questions were fully discussed in the original opinion. However, we have again reviewed the record in the light of appellant’s motion but remain of the opinion that the case .was properly disposed of originally. Therefore, the motion for rehearing is overruled.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
U.S. Dep_artment of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration February 12, 2013 Office of the Chief Counsel



### CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000
Re: Federal Aviation Administration v. Frostad Atelier. Inc.; FDMS No. FAA-2011-0294 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591

I hereby file my Notice ofAppearance in this matter. Going forward, I will be the attorney ofrecord and all communications for the Federal Aviation Administration should be addressed to Charles Raley, Attorney, Enforcement Division/AGC-300, Office ofthe ChiefCounsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591, (202) 267-3357, facsimile (202) 267-5106. Sincerely,

Peter Lynch Assistant ChiefCounsel

for Enforcement

By: 

### -=c;;;Q:::::=· 

# =·:::::.::::·

. 

# ·=====- Charles Raley, Attorney Enforcement Division, AGC-300 Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Phone: (202) 267-3357 Facsimile: (202) 267-5106 Email: charles.raley@fiw.gov 

# RECEIVED FEB 202013 HEARING DOCKETCc: David W. Williams, Esq. 16372 Underhill Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647
The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3547 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3547

To extend the application of certain space launch liability provisions 
                             through 2014.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 20, 2013

 Mr. Smith of Texas (for himself, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, 
Mr. Palazzo, and Ms. Edwards) introduced the following bill; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the application of certain space launch liability provisions 
                             through 2014.

    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 ``Space Launch Liability 
Indemnification Extension Act''.

SEC. 2. INDEMNIFICATION EXTENSION.

    Section 50915(f) of title 51, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``December 31, 2013'' and inserting ``December 31, 2014''.
                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 22

- 00250

- CV

EX PARTE T.T.

From the 379th Judicial District Court
, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2021W0607 Honorable Ron Rangel , Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios , Justice Liza A. Rodriguez , Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 9, 20 22

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; DISMISSED
On April 21, 2022, the State of Texas filed a notice of restricted appeal challenging an
“Order Granting Expunction” signed on December 3, 2021. After we formally set this case for
submission on the parties’ brief s, the State filed a motion seeking to dismiss its restricted appeal.
The State also requested expedited issuance of the mandate.

After consideration, w e grant the motion and dismiss the restricted appeal. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). Because the m otion does not disclose an agreement regarding the assessment
of costs, we order all costs assessed against the State. See id . R. 42.1(d) (absent agreement of the
parties, costs are taxed against appellant). We further order the clerk of the court to imm ediately

issue the mandate. See id. R. 18.1(c).
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3044 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3044

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To approve the transfer of Yellow Creek Port properties in Iuka, 
                              Mississippi.

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

SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF YELLOW CREEK PORT PROPERTIES.

    In accordance with section 4(k) of the Tennessee Valley Authority 
Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831c(k)), Congress approves the conveyance by 
the Tennessee Valley Authority, on behalf of the United States, to the 
State of Mississippi of the Yellow Creek Port properties owned by the 
United States and in the custody of the Authority at Iuka, Mississippi, 
as of the date of enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 15, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3044

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To approve the transfer of Yellow Creek Port properties in Iuka, 
                              Mississippi.
```
#### GAY v. CHAMBERS.

No. 11788.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Jan. 7, 1948.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 4, 1948.

Weatherly & Weatherly, of Falfurrias, for appellant.

Lloyd & Lloyd, of Alice, for appellee.

NORVELL, Justice.

Appellant’s petition contained the following allegations:

“Defendant owes plaintiff $4,800 for the following reasons:

> “On May 1, 1928, being then validly indebted to plaintiff for $2,500, defendant wrote, signed, and delivered to plaintiff, after defendant.had been adjudged a bankrupt in the bankruptcy proceeding hereinafter alluded to, a document reading as follows :

> “ ‘Brownsville, Texas, May 1st, 1928. This is to certify that I owe A. S. Gay of Brownsville $2500.00 which has been entered in my petition of Bankruptcy. If in case I am in a position after I am discharged from the Court at any time, it is my full intention to pay this amount in full. J. Corbett Chambers (Signed).’

> “In so writing, signing, and delivering this document to plaintiff, it was and is defendant’s intention, and construction of this, document and transaction, thereby to bind himself to the payment of the debt so described.”

*941Appellee excepted to the petition on the ground that the written instrument pleaded wrs not an enforcible contractual obligation. The exception was sustained by the trial court and upon appellant’s refusal to amend the cause was dismissed.

 The ruling of the trial court must be sustained, unless it can be said that the instrument of writing set forth in the petition discloses a legally enforcible contract to pay the obligation mentioned therein. Moore v. Dilworth, 142 Tex. 538, 179 S.W.2d 940. While no particular, form of words need be used, there must be *a promise, undertaking or engagement expressed.*Herrington v. Davitt, 220 N.Y. 162, 115 N. E. 476, 1 A.L.R. 1700.

The pleaded circumstances surrounding the delivery of the written instrument do not aid appellant’s case. This appeal turns upon the construction of the written instrument and the most that can be said is that appellant expressed in writing his hope, -desire, expectation or intention to pay. This is not sufficient. Neblett v. Armstrong, Tex.Com.App., 26 S.W.2d 166, 75 A.L.R. 577. See also annotations following this case in the American Law Reports.

We regard the two Texas cases cited as controlling, and although appellant’s brief contains an interesting discussion of numerous authorities dealing with various factual situations, we must omit discussion thereof. Rule 452, Texas Rules ■Civil Procedure.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT
32





CAREADVANTAGE,
INC


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
to, and for purposes only of, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, Dennis J. Mouras, Chief
Executive Officer and acting principal financial officer of CareAdvantage, Inc.
(the “Company”), hereby certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii)
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
August 12, 2010




/s/
      Dennis J. MourasDennis
      J. MourasChief
      Executive Officer and acting Principal Financial
      Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 6122]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2556]

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

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

    The Board of Directors of the Corporation for National and 
Community Service gives notice of the following meeting:

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, February 8, 2011, 11 a.m.-12:15 p.m.

PLACE: Corporation for National and Community Service, 1201 New York 
Avenue, NW., Suite 8312, Washington, DC 20525 (Please go to 10th floor 
reception area for escort).

CALL-IN INFORMATION: This meeting is available to the public through 
the following toll-free call-in number: 800-857-9872 conference call 
access code number 5898. Any interested member of the public may call 
this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur 
charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the 
Corporation will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no 
charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-
free telephone number. Replays are generally available one hour after a 
call ends. The toll-free phone number for the replay is 888-568-0906. 
The end replay date: February 15, 2011, 10:59 p.m. (CT).

STATUS: Open.

Matters To Be Considered

I. Chair's Opening Comments
II. Consideration of Previous Meeting's Minutes
III. CEO Report
IV. Committee Reports:
    a. Oversight, Governance and Audit Committee
    b. External Relations Committee
    c. Program, Budget and Evaluation Committee
V. Consideration of the Proposed 2011-2015 Strategic Plan
VI. Public Comments

Members of the public who would like to learn more about the proposed 
strategic plan and the development process should visit the CNCS Web 
site http://www.nationalservice.gov/about/focus_areas/index.asp where 
the draft document will be posted in advance of the meeting.
    Members of the public who would like to comment on the business of 
the Board may do so in writing or in person. Individuals may submit 
written comments to esamose@cns.gov subject line: FEB 2011 CNCS BOARD 
MEETING. Individuals attending the meeting in person who would like to 
comment will be asked to sign-in upon arrival. Comments should be no 
more than 2 minutes.

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS: The Corporation for National and Community 
Service provides reasonable accommodations to individuals with 
disabilities where appropriate. Anyone who needs an interpreter or 
other accommodation should notify Ida Green at igreen@cns.gov or 202-
606-6861 by 5 p.m., February 4, 2011.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Emily Samose, Strategic Advisor 
for Board Engagement, Corporation for National and Community Service, 
9th Floor, Room 9613C, 1201 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20525. 
Phone (202) 606-7564. Fax (202) 606-3460. TDD: (202) 606-3472. E-mail: 
esamose@cns.gov.

    Dated: February 1, 2011.
Wilsie Y. Minor,
Acting General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2011-2556 Filed 2-1-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6050-$$-P
```
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 Amended Quarterly Report of Apollo Gold Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, R. David Russell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  ****Date: January 20, 2005
By:
/s/ R. David RussellR. David RussellChief Executive Officer
**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 LaSalle Hotel Properties (“LHO”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jon E. Bortz, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of LHO, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 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, as amended; and 

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of LHO. 

 

February 22, 2006
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3457 

To authorize an additional district judgeship for the district of Idaho. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 12, 2013 

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

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To authorize an additional district judgeship for the district 

of Idaho. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DISTRICT JUDGESHIP FOR THE DISTRICT OF 

4 IDAHO. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall appoint, by 

6 and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 1 addi7 tional district judge for the district of Idaho. 

8 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.— 

9 In order that the table contained in section 133(a) of title 

10 28, United States Code, will reflect the change in the num11 ber of judgeships authorized by subsection (a), such table 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3457 IH

1 is amended by striking the item relating to Idaho and in2 serting the following: 

‘‘Idaho ............................................................................................. 3’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
# Contents

Data 1

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngc1a.htm

U.S. Energy Information Administration

infoctr@eia.doe.gov

# Data 1

Back to Contents
*The Hon. Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation. _____________ No. 96-1649WM

_____________ Richard D. McMillin, * * Appellant, * On Appeal from the United * States District Court v. * for the Western District * of Missouri * Michael Bowersox, * [To Be Published] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: November 18, 1996 Filed: December 31, 1996

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, MAGILL, Circuit Judge, and LONGSTAFF, * District Judge.

___________
PER CURIAM.The Court has received a Suggestion of Death in the abovecaptioned appeal. The suggestion reports that Richard McMillin, appellant, died at the Potosi Correctional Center on December 2, 1996. McMillin was before our Court appealing the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Since his imprisonment ended upon his death, and there can be no future collateral consequences-2- flowing from his imprisonment, his collateral attack is moot. Lane v. Williams , 455 U.S. 624 (1982); McMann v. Ross , 396 U.S. 118 (1969). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as moot, the judgment of the District Court is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc. , 340 U.S. 36, 39-41 (1950). A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 10.1


 


Summary of Executive Officer Compensation


 


Annual base salaries for the Company’s named executive officers for the
2006 fiscal year are as follows:


 


Jack R. Ingram, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, $120,000


Greg D. Forrest, President and Chief Operating Officer, $165,000


Robert B. Wagner, Chief Financial Officer, $110,000


Larry D. Patterson, Executive Director of Operations, $138,000
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JULISSA GAMEZ OCHOA,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 

 State.

 

§

§

§

 

§

§

§ 

 

§

'

'

No. 08-16-00045-CR

Appeal from the

Criminal District Court No. 1

Of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20150D02050)

 O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief until 

February 8, 2017. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE 

STATE’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jaime Esparza, the State’s Attorney, prepare the 

State’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before February 8, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of December, 2016.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.