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

No. 21871.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 21, 1942.

Alex P. Pope, of Tyler, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was charged by . complaint with the possession of illicit liquor, that is, unstamped intoxicating liquor, and was by the jury sentenced to pay a fine of $100.

There are numerous bills of exception in the record, none of which we think reflect serious error save bill No.: 3. In that bill, the appellant, while on the stand, offered certain testimony relative to what took place at the time of his arrest by the constable, which testimony it was claimed, if true, would have shown animus and ill-will upon the part ;,of the officer arresting him, and who was also the principal witness in the case relative to the transaction complained about. We not only think appellant should have been allowed to testify relative to such matter himself, but should also have been allowed to question the officer as to whether such transactions occurred which would have had bearing on the question of animus or ill-will of this witness. Neither of these privileges was allowed appellant by the trial judge, and we think the same was error. Other matters complained of by appellant will doubtless not again occur. The trial court was correct in not allowing appellant to bring in defensive testimony under the guise and doctrine of surprise by hearsay from his own witness by means of an effort to impeach such witness by showing that previous to said trial the witness had informed appellant’s attorney that such facts were true, the truth of which he denied while on the stand, and had refused to testify to such defensive matter.

For the error discussed the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Order entered December 1 , 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00704
- CR
JEROME JOHNSON , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the Crimina l District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F01
- 53637
- JH

O RDER Before the Court is appellant ’ s November 10 , 2021 “ Motion for Production of Exculpatory Material Evidence s in P ossession of the S tat e , Material to the Appeal

. ” In the moti on , appellant seeks reports, record s , documents, the complete prosecutor file , and other items no t located in the appellate record. We DEN Y the motion

. See Delgado v. Stat e , No. 05

- 19

- 00821

- CR , 2021 WL 490156 5 , at *9 (Tex. App.

—

Dallas Oct. 21, 2021, no pet h.) ( “ The standar d we mu st apply deals only with ‘ the record evidence adduced at the trial. ’ This includes evidence bothproperly and improperly admitted, but it cannot include evidence not admitted. ” )

(internal citation s omi tted)

. In his second motion , a ppellant contends he is entitled to appointe d counsel i n this appeal. A n indigent convicted person intending to file a motion for post

conviction DNA testing has a limited right to appointed counsel. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 64.01(c). While t hat “ entitlement used to be absolute, ” “ it is

now con ditioned on the trial judge ’ s finding ‘ that reasonable grounds exist for the filing of a motion. ’ ” Ex parte Gutierrez , 337 S.W.3d 883, 889

– 90 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011)

. Here, the trial court did not find that reasonable grounds existed for filing the motion ; thus, under the plain lan guage of the code of criminal procedure, appellant is not entitled to counsel “ during a proceeding under this chapter, ” which includes this appeal. We DE NY appellant ’ s motion for co unsel. Also before the C o urt is appellant ’ s letter requesting clarification on when h is brief is due. In the letter, appellant n otes that he has not ye t received a pap er copy of the clerk ’ s record

. We DIRECT the Clerk to send a paper copy of the clerk ’ s re cord filed in this appeal to appellant at the address on file with the Court.
We ORDER appellant ’ s brief due by January 14, 2022.

/ s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 190

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for the sine die adjournment of the first

session of the One Hundred Third Congress.
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 190

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Monday, November 22, 1993, or the legislative

4 day of Tuesday, November 23, 1993, pursuant to a motion

5 by the majority leader, or his designee, in accordance with

6 this resolution, it stand adjourned sine die, and that when

7 the Senate adjourns on any day beginning on Monday, No8 vember 22, 1993 through 11:55 a.m. on Monday, January

9 3, 1994, pursuant to a motion made by the majority lead10 er, or his designee, in accordance with this resolution, it

11 stand adjourned sine die or until noon on the second day

12 after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to sec13 tion 2 of this resolution: Provided, That the Senate may

14 recess or adjourn for any period in excess of three days

15 pursuant to a motion made by the majority leader, or his

16 designee, for the duration of the first session of the One

17 Hundred Third Congress, subject to section 2 of this reso18 lution.
2

HCON 190 EH

1 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the majority

2 leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

3 the minority leader of the House and the minority leader

4 of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House and

5 Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their opin6 ion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Passed the House of Representatives November 23

(legislative day, November 22), 1993.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### MIKESKA v. STATE.

No. 24318.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 30, 1949.

No appearance, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The offense is that of simple assault, with punishment assessed at a fine of $25.

The record is before us without a statement of- facts or hills of exception. Nothing is' presented for the consideration- of this court.

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. '
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 21, 2014

No. 04-14-00017-CV

Cynthia Ann TURNER,

Appellant

v.

Troy Adam TURNER,

Appellee

From the County Court At Law No 1, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CVG-002200-C1

Honorable Alvino (Ben) Morales, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The clerk’s record was due January 8, 2014, but it was not filed. On January 17, the 

Webb County District Clerk filed a notification of late record stating the clerk’s record was not 

filed because appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee to prepare the 

record and appellant is not entitled to the record without paying the fee. 

We order appellant Cynthia Ann Turner to provide written proof to this court on or 

before January 31, 2014 that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements satisfactory 

to the clerk have been made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to the clerk’s record 

without prepayment of the clerk’s fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1 and 35.3(a). If appellant fails to 

file such proof within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b).

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of January, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3472 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 510
113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3472

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 18, 2014

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                             July 31, 2014

               Reported by Mr. Carper, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 13127 Broadway Street in Alden, New York, as the ``Sergeant Brett E. 
                   Gornewicz Memorial Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. SERGEANT BRETT E. GORNEWICZ MEMORIAL POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 13127 Broadway Street in Alden, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Sergeant Brett E. Gornewicz Memorial Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sergeant 
Brett E. Gornewicz Memorial Post Office''.
                                                       Calendar No. 510

113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3472

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 13127 Broadway Street in Alden, New York, as the ``Sergeant Brett E. 
                   Gornewicz Memorial Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 31, 2014

                       Reported without amendment
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ADELBERT H. WARNER, II,

#13604-040,

Petitioner,

VS.

C. RIVERS, WARDEN, FCI

SEAGOVILLE,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:22-CV-0621-G-BK

)

)

)

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a

recommendation in this case. Objections were filed. The court reviewed de novo

those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which

objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and

recommendation for plain error. The court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions,

and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, except for the

following: on page four, line 16, “e.g.” should be replaced with “e.g.,”; on page four,

line 23, “(5th Cir. 1991)))” should be replaced with “(5th Cir. 1991))”; and on page

five, line nine, “were” should be replaced with “where”.

Case 3:22-cv-00621-G-BK Document 7 Filed 06/17/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 259
SO ORDERED.

June 17, 2022.

___________________________________

A. JOE FISH

Senior United States District Judge

- 2 -

Case 3:22-cv-00621-G-BK Document 7 Filed 06/17/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 260
1 

CORE/3522697.0002/182503962.1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

HIGHLAND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, 

L.P., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HIGHLAND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 

FUND ADVISORS, L.P. 

Defendant. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

Case No. 3:22-cv-00789-X 

CERTIFICATE REGARDING JUDGE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS 

I, the undersigned attorney, hereby certify that I have read and will comply with all judgespecific requirements for Judge Brantley Starr, United States District Judge for the Northern 

District of Texas. 

I further certify that no portion of any filing in this case will be drafted by generative 

artificial intelligence or that any language drafted by generative artificial intelligence—including 

quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions, and legal analysis—will be checked for accuracy, 

using print reporters or traditional legal databases, by a human being before it is submitted to the 

Court. I understand that any attorney who signs any filing in this case will be held responsible for 

the contents thereof according to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, regardless of whether 

generative artificial intelligence drafted any portion of that filing. 

Case 3:22-cv-00789-X Document 6 Filed 06/14/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 24
2 

CORE/3522697.0002/182503962.1 

Dated: June 14, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Michael P. Aigen 

Michael P. Aigen 

State Bar No. 24012196

STINSON LLP 

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2900 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

(214) 560-2201 telephone 

(214) 560-2203 facsimile 

Email: deborah.deitschperez@stinson.com 

Email: michael.aigen@stinson.com 

Attorneys for Highland Capital Management 

Fund Advisors, L.P. 

Case 3:22-cv-00789-X Document 6 Filed 06/14/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 25
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,     Petitioner     v.   THOMAS E. RADECKI,     Respondent 

No. 132 WAL 2015   Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 18th day of September, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
<Page>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
         ACCOMPANYING ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 20-F REPORT OF TRICOM, S.A.
              PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
              (CHAPTER 63, TITLE 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350(a) AND (b))

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63,
Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certifies that
the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 of
TRICOM, S.A. (the "Company") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                              /s/ RAMON TARRAGO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 22, 2003                           Ramon Tarrago
                                              Chief Financial Officer and
                                              Vice President of International
                                              Division
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

TAMARA G., §

PLAINTIFF, §

 §

V. § CASE NO. 3:22-CV-0631-D

 §

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL §

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, §

 §

DEFENDANT. §

ORDER

United States Magistrate Judge Renée Harris Toliver made findings, conclusions and a 

recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the 

proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court 

adopts the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

SO ORDERED.

March 14, 2023.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

SENIOR JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00631-D-BK Document 19 Filed 03/14/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 929
#### CARSON v. TURNER et al.

No. 2149.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

June 27, 1941.

Wiley L. Caffey and W. E. Lessing, both of Abilene, for appellant.

Pete E. Turner, of Midland, for appel-lees.

LESLIE, Chief Justice.

Pete E. Turner and Grace Graham King, joined by her husband, Letcher D. King, instituted this suit against Amos C. Carson, Jr., to establish their right, title and interest in certain lots in the City of Abilene, Texas. In addition, they sought to have a partition of the property if same were found susceptible to such, and if not, the appointment of a receiver to sell the same and divide the net proceeds of such sale among those entitled to the same and in proportion to their interest in the property.

The defendant answered by general demurrer,, general denial, claimed title to the land under 3, 5, 10 and 25 years’ statutes of limitation, and also alleged the property was a parol gift to him by his deceased father, A. C. Carson, Sr. The defendant also laid other claims to the property.

While the suit was pending, Ernest Gris-som purchased the interest of Grace Graham King and Letcher D. King in the subject matter of the litigation, and with leave of the court he intervened and had himself substituted as a party plaintiff for said Kings.

The cause was tried and resulted in a judgment favorable to the plaintiffs. The defendant Amos C. Carson, Jr., has appealed, but he has filed no briefs in this court. We have, therefore, examined the record for fundamental error, and finding none, the judgment is affirmed under the authority of Haynes v. J. M. Radford Groc. Co., 118 Tex. 277, 14 S.W.2d 811. It is so ordered.

GRISSOM, J., disqualified and not sitting.
Rev 0 (9/08)

Comments in Response to 

“Final rule; request for comments”

Docket: FAA-2011-0014 Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-066-AD

Comments have been received in response to: “Final rule; request for comments,”

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket and Directorate Identifier entered above. 

(Project engineer: Please review any comments to determine if additional action is warranted.

Once you have made your determination, please fill in the commenter(s) name(s) and check the 

appropriate response below. Include additional information following the appropriate response, 

if necessary. Then include your name and the date in the spaces provided, and return it to the 

AD directorate focal.

The FAA has reviewed comment(s) related to the above FAA Docket that we received from: 

Patrick J. Kremer

(Please check one)

 These comments have not been found to contain any information to warrant reconsideration 

or change of this AD.

 These comments have been found to contain information that warrants consideration of 

additional regulatory action. (SEE Airworthiness Directives Manual 

FAA-IR-M-8040.1 FOR ADDITIONAL ACTION.)

______Hung V. Nguyen_____ July 28, 2011__

Name: Date:

(This form is part of the official docket file for this AD action.)
### In the



# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted April 22, 2005

Decided May 9, 2005

Before

Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 03-3078

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

,

v.

ELIZABETH R. ROACH,

Defendant-Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Il linois,

Eastern Division.

No. 00 CR 411

Matthew F. Kennelly,

Judge

.

ORDER

This case comes to us on remand from the Supreme Court for further consideration in light of

United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Each party has filed a statement of position pursuant

to Circuit Rule 54.

At Roach’s original sentencing hearing , the district court granted her motion for downward

departure based on diminished capacity pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13. Absent the downward UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53No. 03-3078 Page 2

departure, Roach would have been required to ser ve a minimum of 12 months in prison. Instead, the

district court sentenced Roach to five years of probation, six weeks of work release at the Salvation Army

C enter, six weeks of home confinement with weekend electronic monitoring, and prohibited h er from

obtaining credit cards without the court's prior permission. In vacating this sentence, we held that the

district court abused its discretion in granting the downward departure, stated that the sentencing guidelines

significantly limited the district court’s ability to fashion a sentence based on considerations such as Roach’s

undisputed diminished mental capacity, and remanded the case for resentencing. S ee United States v.

Roach , 296 F.3d 565, 573 (7th Cir. 2002).

On remand, the district court specifically stated on the record that it felt that the low end of the

sentencing range was in far excess of what was warranted in this case, but resentenced according to the

guidelines setting aside its own personal opinion. After B ooker and United States v. Paladino

, 401 F.3d

471 (7th Cir. 2005), we now understand that the district court should have been free to fashion the very

sentence it intended to impose originally.

In Paladino , we determined that sentencing errors under Booker were indeed errors that were

both plain and constituted a miscarriage of justi ce. 401 F.3d at 481-83. In contrast to P aladino

, however, after review of the record and the Rule 54 statements, we can be certain that the sentencing judge

in this case would have imposed a lighter sentence than dictated by the guidelines had he not thought himself

bound by the guidelines. As a result, we find that Roach was prejudiced by the illegal sentenced imposed

by the district court, and, therefore, has survived plain-error review outright making the limited remand

prescribed in Paladino unnecessary.

Accordingly, Roach’s sentence is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for resentencing in

accordance with Booker

.
### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN NO. 03-01-00384-CV In the Matter of R.L.

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98T H JUDICIAL DIST RICT NO. J-1 6242, HON ORABLE W. J EANNE M

EURER, J

UDGE P RESIDIN G On Ap r il 18, 200 1, th

e Sta te f i l ed a m oti on to modify

disposition allegi

ng that R.L. vi olated the terms of h

is probation. On May

23, the court hel

d a he ari ng on the State ’s m odif i ca ti on m oti on an d ru l ed tha t R.L . v i ol ate d the te rms of his pro bat ion and en

gage d i n de l i n qu en t con du ct. The court conducted a disposi tion hea rin g and c omm

itted R. L. t o t he T exas Yo ut h Co mmi ssio n. R.L. a ppea l ed. SeeTex . Fam

. Code A nn . § 56.01 (c)(1)(C ) (We st Supp . 2002) . R.L. ’s appoin

ted counsel on appe al

fi le d a brief as sertin

g that t he appeal i s fri

volous. Th e b rief com pl i es wi th t he r equ irement s for suc h briefs d iscuss ed in In re D.A.S. , 973 S.W.2d 296 (T ex. 199 8) ; and mo re gene ra lly , in Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel states that he has di li gently exam in ed t he re co rd and r ese ar ched t he law a pplicable t o t he fact s and issues in the case. Cou nsel’s

bri ef contai ns a prof ess i onal ev al uati on of the re cord dem

onstra tin g wh y there are no meri torious errors to be

advanced. A

copy of c ouns el ’sbri

ef wa s del iv er ed t o R. L. an d t o his gua rd ian, and they

were ad vise d o f their ri

ght to exam

in e the appel

la te recor d and to file

a pro se br ief. A pro se bri ef wa s not fi le d. We ha

ve i ndepen dently reviewed t he record an d agr ee wi th coun sel that the appe al i s f ri vol ous.2 We gr ant co unse l’s mot ion t o w ithd ra w fro m the case and affi rm the juvenile court ’s order mod ify

ing t he pr oba t ion jud gment of d elinquenc y and t he co ur t ’s o rd er mod ify ing t he prob ati

on dispo sitio n t o a dispo sitio n of c ommitment t o t he T exas Yo ut h Co mmi ssio n.

Davi d Puryear, Justice Bef ore Justices K

idd, Patterson, and Puryear Af fi rmed File d: April 11, 2002 Do No t Publis

h
March 13, 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals
AVELO MORTGAGE, LLC , Appellant
NO. 14

- 11

- 00463

- CV V. INFINITY CAPITAL, LL C , Appellee

____________________
This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Infinity Capital, LLC , signed April 13, 2010 , was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We order appellant, Avelo Mortgage, LLC , to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.