alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ex parte BURROW.

No. 25207.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 7, 1951.

Braeewell & Wright, of Huntsville, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

' Relator has filed his application for- discharge from the penitentiary in which he alleges that he is being -held by reason of six judgments against him, assessed by the District Court of Wilson County in Causes No. 3338, 3339, 3340, 3341, 3342 and 3343.

In the first three cases of the numbers set out it is shown by the evidence furnished us :by the District Judge of Wilson County, upon request, that the relator was charged with theft of chickens of the value over $50. Apparently the proceeding was had under the theory that this charged a general theft of property of the value of more than $50 as defined by Article* 1421 of the Penal Code; The indictment in each of the cases, however, was brought under Article 1442b Vernon’s Ann.P.C. for the theft of chickens.

The value of'the alleged property is immaterial. There being a special statute on the subject, resort cannot be -had to the general statute in the manner shown by the record. See Article 1423 of the Penal 'Code. This is made very clear in the case of Lee v. State, 115 Tex.Cr.R. 429, 28 S.W.2d 559. It follows, then, that because of the excessive penalty in each of the three foregoing cases the judgments against him are void.

In Causes No. 3341, 3342 and 3343 valid judgments assess penalties of two years each, which ran concurrently.

It is further shown, in accordance with the pleadings filed in this cause, that relator entered his plea of guilty in the District Court of Bexar County on the 31st day of October,' 1949, in Cause No. 51193, and was assessed a penalty for theft of chickens of two years which' should begin to run on the 2nd day of September, 1949. The prison record furnished by the General Manager of the penitentiary shows that relator has served in excess of two years, including the good time allowed him.

Finding from the record that all of the valid judgments of two years each have run concurrently; that he has served more than two years including the good time with which he is credited; and upon the finding that all of the five year sentences *968against him, as shown by the corrected judgments from Wilson County, are void; relator . is entitled to his release. It is therefore ordered that he be released from the State Penitentiary so far as he is being held by reason of the judgments and sentences herein discussed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 68981]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29255]



[[Page 68981]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments

    Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651; 80 Stat. 
897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether 
instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which 
the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being 
manufactured in the United States.
    Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the 
regulations and be filed within 20 days with the Statutory Import 
Programs Staff, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. 
Applications may be examined between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 
4211, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC.
    Docket Number: 00-035. Applicant: Washington University School of 
Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology Research Unit, 660 South Euclid, 
Campus Box 8054, St. Louis, MO 63110. Instrument: Motorized 
Manipulator. Manufacturer: Luigs and Neumann, Germany. Intended Use: 
The instrument will be used to move the microelectrode for patch 
clamping the synaptic terminal during studies of synaptic connections 
between neurons to determine the electrical properties of a synapse in 
the auditory system in the rat. Application accepted by Commissioner of 
Customs: October 20, 2000.
    Docket Number: 00-036. Applicant: University of Wisconsin-Madison, 
Electrical and Computer Engineering, 1415 Engineering Drive, Madison, 
WI 53706. Instrument: Telecommunications Instrumentation Modeling 
System, Model TIMS-301. Manufacturer: Emona Instruments Pty Ltd., 
Australia. Intended Use: The instrument will be used in the creation of 
an undergraduate communication laboratory as companion courses to the 
undergraduate communications systems sequence, ECE436 and ECE437. Such 
laboratories are essential to prepare students for the communications 
industry. Students in these courses will use the system to simulate 
different modulations and demodulation techniques by constructing 
modems. The planned experiments will reinforce the theory presented in 
the classroom and provide students with hands-on-experience. 
Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: October 20, 2000.

Gerald A. Zerdy,
Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 00-29255 Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

          In  connection  with  the   accompanying   Quarterly  Report  of  Moro
Corporation  (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004
(the "Report") as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date
hereof, I, David W. Menard,  Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of the  Company,  certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.,  Subsection  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.



Date:  May 10, 2004                        /s/ David W. Menard
                                           -----------------------------
                                           David W. Menard
                                           Chief Executive Office
                                            and Chief Financial Office
III

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 34

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 24 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

Received

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Calling for a continued United States policy of opposition

to the resumption of commercial whaling, and otherwise

expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to

conserving and protecting the world’s whale, dolphin,

and porpoise populations.

Whereas there is significant widespread support in the international community for the view that for scientific, ecological, and educational reasons, whales should no longer

be hunted for profit;

Whereas there is concern that efforts will be made at the

1993 Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission to overturn the Commission’s existing moratorium on commercial whaling of large whales;

Whereas there are species of small cetaceans that are currently subject to direct commercial harvest; and
2

HCON 34 RDS

Whereas there are unique regions of the world’s seas which

serve as important feeding grounds for many species of

whales, and where the impacts of environmental threats

are unknown: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) the United States policy should promote the

4 conservation and protection of whale, dolphin, and

5 porpoise populations;

6 (2) the United States should remain opposed to

7 any resumption of commercial whaling, and should

8 work toward a moratorium on the direct commercial

9 harvest of dolphins and porpoises;

10 (3) the United States should work to strength11 en the International Whaling Commission by

12 reaffirming its competence to regulate direct com13 mercial harvest of small cetaceans and should en14 courage the Commission to consider the expertise of

15 its Scientific Committee;

16 (4) the United States should support the estab17 lishment of appropriate international sanctuaries

18 where whaling is prohibited; and

19 (5) in promoting the conservation and protec20 tion of the world’s whale populations, the United

21 States should make the fullest use of diplomatic
3

HCON 34 RDS

1 channels, appropriate domestic and international

2 law, and all other available means.

Passed the House of Representatives February 16,

1993.

Attest:

Clerk.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 219 (Monday, November 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67726-67727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28931]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP97-346-028]


Equitrans, L.P.; Notice of Gathering Surcharge Report

November 6, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 1, 2000, Equitrans, L.P. (Equitrans) 
submitted its stranded gathering surcharge report pursuant to Article 
IV of the Stipulation and Agreement (Stipulation) filed on January 22, 
1999 and amended on March 31, 1999 in the above reference dockets.
    Equitrans the purpose of this filing is for Equitrans to report its 
reconciliation of the amount collected during the surcharge period for 
standard gathering and the amount Equitrans was authorized to collect 
under the Stipulation.
    Equitrans states that the total net amount collected, including 
interest, resulted in an under-recovery of $3,501.34. Because of the 
small amount of the under-recovery, Equitrans states that it is waiving 
its right to collect the under-recovery and will not direct bill its 
firm transportation customers for that amount.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the

[[Page 67727]]

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before November 13, 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 proceedings. 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). 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. 00-28931 Filed 11-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

Trend Micro Incorporated and Trend Micro, 

Inc. 

Plaintiffs 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

v. 

Taasera Licensing LLC, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3:22-cv-00477 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

Plaintiffs Trend Micro Incorporated and Trend Micro, Inc. (collectively, “Trend Micro”) 

files this Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). According to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), an action may be dismissed by the 

plaintiff without order of court by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the 

adverse party of an answer. Accordingly, Trend Micro hereby voluntarily dismisses this action 

against Defendant Taasera Licensing, LLC without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) with 

each party to bear its own fees and costs. 

Case 3:22-cv-00477-E Document 5 Filed 03/04/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 393
- 2 - 

Dated: March 4, 2022 PAUL HASTINGS LLP 

/s/ Yar R. Chaikovsky 

Yar R. Chaikovsky (admitted) 

Philip Ou (pro hac vice) 

Bruce S. Yen (pro hac vice) 

Alexander H. Lee (pro hac vice) 

Paul Hastings LLP 

1117 S. California Avenue 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1106 

Telephone: 650.320.1800 

Facsimile: 650.320.1900 

Email: yarchaikovsky@paulhastings.com 

Email: philipou@paulhastings.com 

Email: bruceyen@paulhastings.com 

Email: alexanderlee@paulhastings.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, 

Trend Micro Incorporated and Trend Micro, 

Inc.

Case 3:22-cv-00477-E Document 5 Filed 03/04/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 394
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-60250 Conference Calendar

__________________ CHRISTOPHER REGULAR, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus EDWARD HARGETT, SUPERINTENDENT, MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY; EDDIE LUCAS; COMMISSIONER, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; MIKE MOORE, Respondents-Appellees.

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

USDC No. 4:94-CV-262-D-0

- - - - - - - - - - August 23, 1995 Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Christopher Regular, a Mississippi state inmate convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment, appeals the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus. Regular's direct criminal appeal is still pending before the Mississippi Supreme Court. His federal habeas petition challenges, not his conviction, but the Mississippi state courts' determination regarding his bail on appeal. HeNo. 95-60250 -2- argues that the state courts acted arbitrarily and unreasonably in setting bail pending appeal in the amount of $75,000. There is no absolute federal constitutional right to bail pending appeal; however, once a state makes provisions for bail, the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require that it not be denied arbitrarily or unreasonably. Young v. Hubbard , 673 F.2d 132, 134 (5th Cir. 1982). In light of the seriousness of Regular's offense and the length of his sentence, bail of $75,000 was not arbitrary or unreasonable, and thus, was not unconstitutional. See id. Regular argues for the first time on appeal that, because he was rendered a pauper by being required to post a $100,000 bond prior to trial, a $75,000 appeal bond is tantamount to no bond at all. "[I]ssues raised for the first time on appeal are not reviewable by this court unless they involve purely legal questions and failure to consider them would result in manifest injustice." Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). We decline to consider this argument because even a complete denial of bond would not have been constitutionally impermissible in this case. See , e.g. , Young , 673 F.2d 134. Regular's argument that the district court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing before dismissing his petition is equally unavailing. An evidentiary hearing is required only if the petitioner did not receive a full and fair state-court hearing and there are disputed issues of fact. Townsend v. Sain , 372 U.S. 293, 312 (1963). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Case 3:22-cr-00114-N Document 31 Filed 08/02/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 63
#### EARP v. STATE.

No. 21528.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 26, 1941.

E. T. Adams, of Glen Rose, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Complaint was filed in the corporation court of the city of Glen Rose charging appellant with failing to appear and work the streets, or to furnish, an able substitute, when summoned to do so on the 17th day of June, 1940.

We gather from the record that appellant was tried in the city court and appealed to the county court of Somervell County where he was again tried on the 9th day of October, 1940, and assessed a fine of $5, from which he attempts to bring the appeal to this court.

The fine assessed in the county court being less than $100, this court has no jurisdiction of the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2011-1115 SNPRM

Directorate ID: 2010-SW-011-AD

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

 NO COMMENTS RECEIVED – If this box is checked, no signatures are required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:

If NO, we don’t agree because 
Page 2 of 3

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Date

Branch Manager Date
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

KEN PAXTON, IN HIS OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 

TEXAS, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v. No. 4:22-cv-0143-P

MARVIN RICHARDSON, IN HIS OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY AS ACTING DIRECTOR, BUREAU 

OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND 

EXPLOSIVES,

Defendant.

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs David Schnitz, Tracy Martin, and 

Floice Allen’s unopposed Motion to Proceed Without Local Counsel 

(“Motion”). ECF No. 6. Local Rule 83.10(a) requires the appearance of 

local counsel where counsel of record for a party does not reside in this 

district or maintain their principal office in this district. N.D. TEX. R.

83.10(a). Having considered the complaint and this Court’s practice of 

strictly enforcing the Local Rules,1 the Court concludes that the Motion 

should be, and is hereby, DENIED. 

1This Court, like all of the judges of the Fort Worth Division, has a long and 

consistent history of requiring litigants to strictly adhere to the Local Rules. See, e.g., 

Six Flags Ent. Corp. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am., No. 4:21-CV-00670-P, 2021 

WL 2064903, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 21, 2021) (Pittman, J.) (dismissing lawsuit without 

prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 83.10(a) requiring local counsel); United 

States v. Thomas, No. 4:13-CV-688-A, 2013 WL 11332537, at *1–2 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 5, 

2013) (McBryde, J.) (holding that Local Rule 83.10(a) required Austin-based attorney 

to designate local counsel); Robert Cook & Associates, Inc. v. Illinois Nat’l Ins. Co., No. 

7:09-CV-141-O, 2010 WL 11619707, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2010) (O’Connor, J.) 

(admonishing defense counsel that “disregard of the Local Rules is burdensome for 

those required to analyze and adjudicate Defendant’s motion” and ordering counsel “to 

file a statement notifying the Court . . . why they failed to comply with the local rules 

and whether this failure should result in the forfeiture of their right to practice in the 

Northern District of Texas”); Harper v. Am. Airlines, Inc., No. 4:09-CV-318-Y, 2009 WL 

Case 4:22-cv-00143-P Document 7 Filed 03/01/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 73
2

Accordingly, no later than March 15, 2022, Plaintiffs shall file the 

entry of appearance of local counsel satisfying the requirements of Local 

Rule 83.10(a). Failure to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions 

without further notice. 

SO ORDERED on this 1st day of March, 2022.

4858050, at *1–2 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2009) (Means, J.) (denying motion to declare classcertification motion timely because plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule 23.2 and 

“once on this Court's docket the case becomes subject to this Court's local rules”).

Case 4:22-cv-00143-P Document 7 Filed 03/01/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 74
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 25, 2011 

t0718 

Order 

 

July 25, 2011 

142853 & (52) 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Cross-Appellant, 

v SC: 142853 

 COA: 294411 

Ct of Claims: 06-000003-MT 

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, 

Defendant-Appellant, 

Cross-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 17, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as crossappellant are considered, and they are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court prior to the completion of the 

proceedings ordered by the Court of Appeals.