alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BRAUN v. STATE.

No. 26328.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 25, 1953.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal May 13, 1953.

Watson C. Arnold, Waco, for appellant.

-George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin; for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant was adjudged guilty of the misdemeanor offense of false imprisonment by assault and violence, and his punishment was assessed by a- jury at 365 days in jail.

Appellant’s notice of appeal recites merely that he “gives this his notice of appeal.”

Under authority of Blackman v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 20 S.W.2d 783, and Casey v. State, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 111, 32 S.W. 2d 461, the notice is sufficient although the Court of Criminal Appeals was not named.

The later case of Allen v. State, 138 Tex. Cr.R. 523, 137 S.W.2d 780, holding to the contrary is now expressly overruled.

Having given notice of appeal from the misdemeanor judgment of conviction, the law required that app.ellant enter into a recognizance or bopd' on appeal, or remain in custody. We find no recognizance or appeal bond in the record and it is not shown that appellant is in jail.

In this condition of the record we are without jurisdiction to enter any order other than to dismiss the appeal. See Fletcher v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 242 S.W.2d 377.

The appeal is dismissed.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal

MORRISON, Judge.

The appellant has made a sufficient showing to this Court that he is in confinement pending this .appeal. The appeal is now reinstated. .

*709We have before us what purports to be a statement of facts adduced ón a hearing of appellant’s motion in arrest of judgment. It does not bear the approval of the trial judge or of counsel.

Under the provisions, of Article 759a, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., a statement of facts must be agreed to by the defendant or his counsel and the attorney for the State, if it is not approved by the trial judge. Section 6 of the Act provides that the statute shall apply to all statements of fact relating to any motion heard in the case.

The statement of facts before us therefore cannot be considered.

The proceedings appearing -regular and nothing being presented for our review, the judgment is now affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          10,858
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,142
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     34,074
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                97,484
<PP&E>                                          15,493
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 127,971
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           79,024
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      57,021
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   127,971
<SALES>                                        164,134
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               164,134
<CGS>                                          151,557
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  151,557
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (20,660)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (7,851)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,809)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,809)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.27)
        

</TABLE>
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 145

Providing for an adjournment of the House from Wednesday, September

15, 1993 to Tuesday, September 21, 1993.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 14, 1993

Mr. HAMILTON submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for an adjournment of the House from Wednesday,

September 15, 1993 to Tuesday, September 21, 1993.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on Wednes3 day, September 15, 1993, it stand adjourned until noon

4 on Tuesday, September 21, 1993.

Æ
From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: Sharon Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Steve Fruh/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Mariana Cubeddu/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 12/10/2010 07:48 PM

Subject: Part of E.O. 12866 Review: Interagency Discussion about the conclusion of the review process

pertaining to NESHAP: Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor

‐ Alkali Plants 2060

‐ AN99

Hi Sharon,

We have concluded review of RIN 2060

‐ AN99, “NESHAP: Mercury Cell Chlor

‐ Alkali Plants,

Amendments.”

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards,

Cortney
Order entered September 18, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 01002 - CV VALPAK DIRECT MARKET ING SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant V. COLONIAL SAVINGS, F. A., Appellee On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 366 - 03570 - 2018



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s September 14, 2018 unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a brief. We GRANT the motion and exten d the time to October 11, 2018

. /s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

BENJAMIN MICHAEL MCGONIGLE

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 22

- 2151

LT Case No. 20 22

- MH

- 000007

- A

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. _______________________________/

Decision filed May 16, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court

f or St. Johns County,

R. Lee Smith , Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender

, and Ryan M. Belanger , Assistant

Public Defender, Daytona Beach, f or Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General

, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire

, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WALLIS

, SOUD and MACIVER

, JJ., concur.
#### McGREGOR v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 19, 1952.

*625Moore & Morrow, Madisonville, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

DUNCAN, Justice.

The appellant was convicted on a charge of false swearing and his punishment fixed at confinement in the State Penitentiary for a term of two years.

The alleged false statements were contained in an affidavit for continuance filed by appellant in connection with an indictment pending against him in the Hopkins Circuit Court upon a charge of malicious shooting at without wounding. The affidavit, in the usual form, stated that an absent witness, Emmett Morgan, if present, would state in substance that he was present at the time of the alleged shooting and that affiant was merely shooting at a target.

Upon a trial of the instant case, Morgan denied that he was present on the occasion mentioned in the affidavit and denied that he had informed appellant that he would testify as set out therein. The witness stated that at the time of the shooting he was employed at a mine some six miles away. Bailey Alexander, the prosecuting witness in the shooting case, corroborated Morgan as to his absence from the scene of the original difficulty. Appellant testified that Morgan had informed him of the facts set out in the affidavit and that it was filed in reliance on that information. He was corroborated by a witness who claimed to have heard Morgan relate these facts to appellant.

Among other grounds, appellant relies upon that of newly discovered evidence. This evidence consists of an affidavit of Burl Oldham, a police officer in Dawson Springs. This affiant states that prior to the trial he had a conversation with Bailey Alexander in which Alexander informed the witness that Emmett Morgan actually was present at the time of the shooting but had been persuaded to deny that fact. The affidavit affirmatively shows that the witness did not inform appellant of this conversation until after the trial.

We recognize the general rule to be that a new trial will not be granted for newly discovered evidence which is only impeaching in its nature. But the rule should be cautiously applied and when the discovered evidence is of such compelling weight that it probably would have induced the jury to reach a different verdict, a new trial will be granted. Tyree v. Commonwealth, 160 Ky. 706, 170 S.W. 33; Hensley v. Commonwealth, 241 Ky. 367, 43 S.W .2d 996.

In this case, the affidavit of Oldham, in addition to impeaching the testimony of Alexander, indicates a conspiracy on the part of Alexander and others to procure appellant’s conviction by the means of false testimony. We think the evidence was of sufficient importance to justify a new trial.

In view of the disposition which we have made of the case, it will not be necessary to discuss other points raised by appellant.

The judgment is reversed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. EL01-12-000]

Take notice that on October 30, 2000, Gregory & Beverly Swecker (Complainants) filed a complaint against Midland Power Cooperative (Respondent). The complainants are requesting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) to determine Midland Power Cooperative's full avoided cost.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests must be filed on or before November 20, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. 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 also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222) for assistance. Answers to the complaint shall also be due on or before November 20, 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. 00-28501  Filed 11-6-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10053

Summary Calendar

 

RONALD DEAN LOWE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN VANCE,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:96-CV-2685-P

- - - - - - - - - -

July 1, 1997

Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The magistrate judge improperly granted Ronald Dean Lowe,

Oklahoma inmate #219027, leave to proceed on appeal in forma

pauperis (IFP). Lowe has at least three strikes, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g), which bars Lowe from IFP status. See Lowe v.

Cantrell, No. 96-10408 (5th Cir. Aug. 20, 1996) (unpublished;

dismissing as frivolous an appeal from the dismissal, for

frivolousness, of a civil rights complaint); Lowe v. Cantrell,
2

No. 96-6288 (10th Cir. Jan. 7, 1997) (unpublished; affirmance of

denial of leave to file a complaint IFP due to three prior

strikes under § 1915(g)); Lowe v. Doe, No. 96-CV-402 (N.D. Tex.

July 26, 1996) (dismissal, pursuant to § 1915, of civil rights

complaint). 

Nothing in the record indicates that the exception to the

statutory bar applies in this case. IT IS ORDERED that the

earlier order granting leave to proceed IFP is VACATED. Lowe has

thirty days in which to pay the $105 filing fee. Failure to make

timely payment will result in the dismissal of the appeal for

want of prosecution. See 5th Cir. R. 42.3.1.2.

APPEAL DISMISSED IF FULL FILING FEE NOT PAID.
#### Ex parte LEWIS.

No. 26082.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 12, 1952.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON,' Judge.

This is -an appeal from an order of the Criminal District Court of Dallas County denying appellant’s application for release *465on writ of habeas corpus and remanding him to the custody of the Sheriff of Dallas County for delivery to .the officers of Bexar County.

In the absence of a statement of facts and bills of exception, we presume that the trial court acted properly in denying the application.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Exhibit
32.2





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 on Form 10-K of InPlay Technologies, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark R.
Sokolowski, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my best
knowledge and belief, 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d));
      and





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





/s/ Mark R. SokolowskiMark
      R. SokolowskiChief
      Financial OfficerAugust
      11, 2009
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                              ESSEX PORTFOLIO, L.P.


                  SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS
                 TO FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS


                      (Dollars in thousands, except ratios)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                   YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31
                                                               -------------------------------
                                                                1999        1998        1997
                                                               -------     -------     -------
<S>                                                            <C>         <C>         <C>
EARNINGS:
  Income before minority interests
    and extraordinary item .................................   $61,616     $40,600     $34,146
  Interest expense .........................................    21,268      19,374      12,659
  Amortization of deferred financing costs .................       566         718         509
                                                               -------     -------     -------
  TOTAL EARNINGS ...........................................   $83,450     $60,692     $47,314
                                                               =======     =======     =======

FIXED CHARGES:
  Interest expense .........................................   $21,268     $19,374     $12,659
  Convertible preferred stock dividends ....................     1,333       3,500       2,681
  Perpetual preferred unit distributions ...................    12,238       5,595        --
  Amortization of deferred financing costs .................       566         718         509
  Capitalized interest .....................................     5,172       3,494       1,276
                                                               -------     -------     -------
  TOTAL FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED
    STOCK DIVIDENDS ........................................   $40,577     $32,681     $17,125
                                                               =======     =======     =======

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
  (EXCLUDING PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS) ....................      3.09 X      2.57 X      3.28 X
                                                               =======     =======     =======

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED
  CHARGES AND PREFERRED DIVIDENDS ..........................      2.06 X      1.86 X      2.76 X
                                                               =======     =======     =======
</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice No. 3449] 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Keith D. Miller, Executive Secretary of the committee at 202-261-8200. 

Dated: November 2, 2000. 

Keith D. Miller, 

Executive Secretary, Overseas Schools Advisory Council. 

[FR Doc. 00-28672 Filed 11-7-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-24-P
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ANGELA COLMENERO, in her official 

capacity as Provisional Attorney General 

of Texas, DAVID SCHNITZ, TRACY 

MARTIN, and FLOICE ALLEN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STEVEN M. DETTELBACH, in his 

Official Capacity as Director, Bureau 

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 

Explosives, and MERRICK B. 

GARLAND, in his Official Capacity as 

Attorney General of the United States,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-00143-P

PLAINTIFF ANGELA COLMENERO’S

NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION UNDER RULE 25(d)

Effective July 14, 2023, Angela Colmenero is the Provisional Attorney General of Texas. 

She seeks relief in this suit in her official capacity only, and will continue to seek relief in her

official capacity only as Provisional Attorney General of Texas. Substitution is automatic. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 25(d).

Case 4:22-cv-00143-P Document 63 Filed 07/14/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1086
2

Date: July 14, 2023. Respectfully submitted,

ANGELA COLMENERO

Provisional Attorney General

BRENT WEBSTER

First Assistant Attorney General

GRANT DORFMAN

Deputy First Assistant Attorney General

RALPH MOLINA

Deputy Attorney General for Legal Strategy

/s/ Charles K. Eldred

CHARLES K. ELDRED

Special Counsel for Legal Strategy

State Bar No. 00793681

JOHNATHAN STONE

Assistant Attorney General

General Litigation Division

State Bar No. 24071779

Office of the Attorney General

P.O. Box 12548 

Austin, TX 78711-2548

(512) 936-1706 • fax (512) 320-0167

Charles.Eldred@oag.texas.gov

Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov

Attorneys for Angela Colmenero,

Provisional Attorney General of Texas

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of this pleading has been served electronically through the 

electronic-filing manager to all counsel of record on July 14, 2023.

/s/ Charles K. Eldred

CHARLES K. ELDRED

Assistant Attorney General

Case 4:22-cv-00143-P Document 63 Filed 07/14/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1087
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 24, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50170

RALPH CRESSMAN; PAULA SCHNIZER; JOE MAGOURIK; GREG MOSBY; JIMMY DAWS, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus MARTHA ELLIS; CHARLES REED; DONNY HARLAN, also known as Dony Harland; RICHARD MORRIS; RAY RUSHING, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (02-CV-275)

_______________________________________________________* 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. ON PETITION FOR REHEARING Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * 

### Appellees point out in their petition for rehearing that the judgment fails to address the state law claims of Appellant, for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress and the 42 U.S.C. § 1985 conspiracy claim. Because these claims were not raised or argued on appeal by Appellant, the judgment of the district court dismissing them is affirmed. The petition for rehearing is granted. The judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause is remanded only as to the federal privacy invasion claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 U.S.C. § 2510 as well as the state law claim under T EX 

### . C IV 

### . P RAC 

### . & R EM 

### . C ODE 

### § 123.002. Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part. Remanded.