alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Cite as State v. Rebholz, 2014-Ohio-2429.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

ANDREW REBHOLZ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

:

:

:

:

:

 APPEAL NO. C-130636 

 TRIAL NO. C-12CRB-34335 

 

 

O P I N I O N.

 

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court 

 

Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed, Conviction Vacated, and Appellant 

 Discharged 

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: June 6, 2014 

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula E. Adams, 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee, 

T. Martin Jennings, for Defendant-Appellant. 

Please note: we have removed this case from the accelerated calendar.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

2

DINKELACKER, Judge. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Andrew Rebholz was charged with criminal child 

enticement under R.C. 2905.05(A). He subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the 

charge in which he argued that R.C. 2905.05 was unconstitutional on its face and as 

applied to him. The trial court denied the motion. Following a bench trial, the trial 

court found him guilty and sentenced him. This appeal followed. 

{¶2} In his sole assignment of error, Rebholz contends that the trial court 

erred in denying his motion to dismiss. He argues that R.C. 2505.05 is overbroad 

and unconstitutional on its face. This assignment of error is well taken. 

{¶3} After this appeal was filed, the Ohio Supreme Court held in State v.

Romage, 138 Ohio St.3d 390, 2014-Ohio-783, 7 N.E.3d 1156, that “Ohio’s childenticement statute, R.C. 2505.05(A) is unconstitutionally overbroad because it 

sweeps within its prohibition a significant amount of constitutionally protected 

activity.” Id. at syllabus. 

{¶4} Under the doctrine of stare decisis, we are bound by the Supreme 

Court’s decision. State v. Bethel, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP-810, 2008-Ohio2697, ¶ 25-28; Cincinnati ex rel. Crotty v. Cincinnati, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C76179, 1976 Ohio App. LEXIS 8553, *10 (May 19, 1976), overruled on other grounds, 

50 Ohio St.2d 27, 361 N.E.2d 1340 (1977). Consequently, we sustain Rebholz’s 

assignment of error. We reverse the trial court’s judgment denying Rebholz’s motion 

to dismiss the charge, vacate Rebholz’s conviction, and order him discharged from 

further prosecution for this offense. 

Judgment reversed, conviction vacated, and appellant discharged. 

HENDON, P.J., and DEWINE, J., concur. 

 

Please note: 

The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
Order entered May 21, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00589-CV

GREYHOUND LINES, INC. AND RASHAD ARMAND NICHOLS, Appellants

V.

JANIE REEVES, Appellee

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 09-09239

ORDER

The Court has before it appellants’ May 10, 2013 unopposed second motion for extension 

of time to file reply brief of appellants. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that the 

reply brief tendered by appellants on May 13, 2013 be timely filed as of that date.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 23. Consent of Independent Accountants

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-45249 and 333-45251) and on Form S-3 (No.
333-63060) of Getty Realty Corp. of our report dated February 13, 2002 relating
to the financial statements, which appears in the Annual Report to Shareholders,
which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the
incorporation by reference of our report dated February 13, 2002 relating to the
financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

New York, New York
March 26, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE>   5 
        
<S>                                                               <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                     6-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                               OCT-31-1997 
<PERIOD-END>                                                    APR-30-1998 
<CASH>                                                           146,191 
<SECURITIES>                                                           0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     12,572 
<ALLOWANCES>                                                           0 
<INVENTORY>                                                       60,534
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 249,166 
<PP&E>                                                            57,121 
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    34,893 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   327,769 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            124,272 
<BONDS>                                                                0 
<COMMON>                                                           7,261 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0       
<PREFERRED>                                                            0 
<OTHER-SE>                                                       196,236 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     327,769 
<SALES>                                                           34,428 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  45,267 
<CGS>                                                             21,365 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    458,801 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                       0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                 8,350 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 (421,885) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             (421,885) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0 
<CHANGES>                                                              0 
<NET-INCOME>                                                    (421,885) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                      (.06) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      (.06) 
         






</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 PC MALL, INC.
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
(AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)
  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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 at the dates and for the
periods indicated.
  May 15, 2007/s/ Theodore R. Sanders

Theodore R. SandersChief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6369

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ROBERT HENRY STEWART, JR., a/k/a Robert Stewart, a/k/a 

Robert Abney, a/k/a Champ Stewart,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior

District Judge. (1:96-cr-00001-CMC-1; 1:14-cv-00500-CMC)

Submitted: October 21, 2014 Decided: October 23, 2014

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Henry Stewart, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William Norman 

Nettles, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Henry Stewart, Jr., seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 Stewart has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
## NUMBER 13

- 2 2

- 00 435

- CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE COMPANY

, A ppellant

,

v.

EXIQUIO SALINAS

, A ppellee

.

On a ppeal from the 93rd District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.



## ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Justices Benavides, Tijerina, and Peña

Order Per Curiam

The case is before the Court up on a joint motion to abate appeal , appellant’s

unopposed motion for extension of time, and appellant’s motion s to extend time to file

appellant’s brief

. The parties request abatement of this matter in order to effectuate the

settlement agreement

.2 The Court, having reviewed the status of the case and the joint motion , is of the

opinion that the cause should be abated pending the final settlement

. The refore, the joint

motion to abate is granted

, and this matter is abated until April 3 , 2023

. The Court directs

appella nt to file, on or before April 3 , 2023

, either (1) a motion to reinstate the appeal, or

(2) a motion to dismiss the appeal pursuant to settlement.

Furthermore, the court denies as moot appellant ’s previous motion to abate and

motion s for extension to time to file a brief.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the

17th day of February , 202 3

.
**Exhibit 8**

 

List of Principal Subsidiaries

Of

Gruma,S.A.B. de C.V.

 
| **Subsidiary**                                               | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of Incorporation** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------|
| ** **                                                   | ** ** | ** **                        |
| Grupo  Industrial Maseca, S.A.B. de C.V. (“GIMSA”) |       | Mexico                            |
|                                                         |       |                              |
| Gruma  Corporation                                           |       | Nevada,  United States            |
|                                                         |       |                              |
| Azteca  Milling LP                                           |       | Texas,  United States             |
|                                                         |       |                              |
| Molinos  Nacionales, C.A. (“MONACA”)               |       | Venezuela                         |

 

----
#### ROGERS v. STATE.

No. 22956.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 15, 1944.

Tom Sanders and John R. Francis, both of Houston, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was properly charged with driving and operating an automobile upon a public highway in Harris County, Texas,, while intoxicated, and upon a plea of not guilty before the court he was assessed a fine of fifty dollars, from which judgment of the court he appeals.

There are no bills of exceptions in the record, and only one witness, was heard by the court. Such witness showed that appellant was steering an automobile, while-intoxicated, upon a public highway in such county; it was also shown that such automobile’s engine was not running but that it was being pushed by another car.

The only question presented by the facts seems to be whether a car being pushed1 by another car, being steered by an intoxicated person, comes within the meaning of the punitive statute, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 802, which prohibits such intoxicated person “driving and operating a motor vehicle.”

Volume 5, American Jurisprudence, p. 918, Sec. 772, lays down the following doctrine:

“ * * * An automobile unable to proceed under its own power, which is being towed, is a ‘motor vehicle’ within the meaning of a statute making it an offense to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and providing that the term ‘motor vehicle’ shall include all vehicles propelled by power other than muscular power.”

The text cites but one case, State v. Tacey, 102 Vt. 439, 150 A. 68, 68 A.L.R. 1353.

We think appellant, who was guiding this automobile in motion, the engine of which was not running, was guilty of operating the same, and his intoxication was proven and undisputed.

The judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 215 (Monday, November 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 66530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28380]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. GT01-4-000]


Dauphin Island Gathering Partners; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

October 31, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 26, 2000, Dauphin Island Gathering 
Partners (DIGP) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with 
an effective date of October 23, 2000.

First Revised Sheet No. 247

    DIGP states that this filing is submitted to reflect a change in 
the World Wide Web address of DIGP's Internet Web Site. DIGP has 
revised Sheet No. 247 to reflect DIGP's current World Wide Web address 
of www.digp.defs.com
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protest will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Beginning November 1, 2000, comments and protests may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-28380 Filed 11-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
USA Notice of Publication – Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

CLOIS GLENN RABORN (01)

 NO. 4:22-CR-066-O

NOTICE OF PUBLICATION

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(1) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(6)(C), I certify that 

the government posted notice of this forfeiture action on an official government internet site 

(www.forfeiture.gov) for at least 30 consecutive days beginning on June 28, 2022 as shown 

by the Advertisement Certification Report attached as Exhibit A.

Respectfully submitted,

CHAD E. MEACHAM 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Brandie Wade

BRANDIE WADE

Assistant United States Attorney

State Bar of Texas No. 24058350

801 Cherry Street, 1700

Fort Worth, Texas 76102

Telephone: 817-252-5200

Facsimile: 817-252-5455

Email: brandie.wade@usdoj.gov

Case 4:22-cr-00066-O Document 40 Filed 09/23/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 115
USA Notice of Publication – Page 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on August 11, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing document with 

the clerk of court for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the electronic 

case filing system of the court. The electronic case filing system sent a “Notice of Electronic 

filing” to counsel for Defendant, who has consented in writing to accept this Notice as 

service of this document by electronic means.

/s/ Brandie Wade

BRANDIE WADE

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 4:22-cr-00066-O Document 40 Filed 09/23/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 116
EXHIBIT 32.1 TO 10-QSB
----------------------
                            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 Prologic Management Systems,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, James M. Heim, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best
of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 for the periods presented.


                             /s/ James M. Heim
                             ------------------------------------
                                 James M. Heim
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Prologic Management Systems, Inc.
                                 August 14, 2006
EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
  I, Nancy S. Lurker, certify that:
  
  1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of PDI, Inc.; and
  
  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
  
  
 Date: January 28, 2011                                                                                     /s/ Nancy S Lurker
 Name: Nancy S. Lurker
 Title: Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal Executive Officer)
Page 1 of 2 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

RAFAEL SEGOVIA, 

an individual, 

PLAINTIFF, 

v. 

AHNS GROUP, INC., 

a domestic corporation, 

DEFENDANT. 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* Case No. 3:22-cv-535-N 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 55(b)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff and this Court hereby, 

ORDERS, ADJUDGES and DECREES that Defendant shall fully remedy all 

barriers to entry defined by the ADA that are present at the property that is the 

subject of this litigation as alleged in the Plaintiff’s Complaint; it is, further, 

ORDERS, ADJUDGES and DECREES that Defendant shall pay Plaintiff’s 

attorneys’ fees and litigation costs necessary and reasonably incurred by the 

prosecution of this cause of action, to be determined by this Court on subsequent 

hearing or after reviewing a sworn affidavit submitted by Plaintiff’s attorney. 

Case 3:22-cv-00535-N Document 12 Filed 05/27/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 57
Page 2 of 2 

SIGNED on May 27, 2022. 

 ____________________________________ 

 DAVID C. GODBEY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cv-00535-N Document 12 Filed 05/27/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 58
Biweekly Newsletter RSS Feeds Print This Page Text Size 

### What's New| Offices STATISTICS & DATA | SIC MANUAL This page allows the user to search the 1987 version SIC manualby keyword , to access descriptive information for aspecified 2,3,4-digit SIC , and toexamine the manual structure. Enter a SIC CODE: Enter the search keyword(s): Submit Clear Search Help and Examples

Freedomof Information Act | Privacy & Security Statement | Disclaimers | Customer Survey | Important Web Site Notices | International | Contact Us U.S. Department of Labor | Occupational Safety & Health Administration | 200 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20210 Telephone: 800-321-OSHA (6742) | TTY: 877-889-5627



### www.OSHA.gov All DOL OSHA Advanced Search A to Z Index | En Español | Contact Us | About OSHA 

### OSHA
Home Workers Regulations Enforcement Data & Statistics Training Publications Newsroom Small Business 

## 3/14/2011 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) ...

www.osha.gov/pls/imis/sicsearch.html 1/1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6353

WAYNE A. BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DOCTOR KOLOUGO; MARY TARANASKI, Health

Services Administrator; HAMPTON ROADS REGIONAL

JAIL; J. JONES, Registered Nurse,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-02-897-3)

Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 27, 2003

Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne A. Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Wayne A. Brown appeals the district court’s order dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice for failure

to pay the initial partial filing fee as ordered. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. See Brown v. Kolougo,

No. CA-02-897-3 (E.D. Va. Feb. 5, 2003). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED