alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00083-Z-BR

§

WILLIE ROY WILSON, III (1) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

WILLIE ROY WILSON, III (1), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 1997), 

has appeared before me pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment. After 

cautioning and examining WILLIE ROY WILSON, III (1) under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 

11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense charged is supported by an 

independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore recommend that the plea of 

guilty be accepted, and that WILLIE ROY WILSON, III (1) be adjudged guilty of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) - AFFECTING 

COMMERCE BY ROBBERY and have sentence imposed accordingly. After being found guilty of the offense by the 

District Judge,

☒ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community 

if released.

☐ The Government does not oppose release.

☐ The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

☐ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other 

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ The Government opposes release.

☐ The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

☐ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a 

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown 

under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence 

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released.

Date: March 3, 2023

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its 

service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States 

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Case 2:22-cr-00083-Z-BR Document 34 Filed 03/03/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 66
Exhibit 4.2



VATEE, INC.


 SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT







The Investor named below, by payment of the purchase price for such Common Shares, by the delivery of a check payable to VATEE, INC., hereby subscribes for the purchase of the number of Common Shares indicated below of VATEE, INC., at a purchase of $0.10 per Share as set forth in the Prospectus.







By such payment, the named Investor further acknowledges receipt of the Prospectus and the Subscription Agreement, the terms of which govern the investment in the Common Shares being subscribed for hereby.







A. INVESTMENT:                        (1) Number of Shares ___________________________












(2) Date of Investor's check ______________________







B. REGISTRATION:







(3) Registered owner: __________________________







Co-Owner: __________________________________







(4) Mailing address: ___________________________







City, State & zip: _____________________________







(5) Residence Address (if different from above):







=================================================







(6) Birth Date: ______/______/______







(7) Employee or Affiliate: Yes ______ No ______







(8) Social Security: #: ______/______/______







U.S. Citizen [ ] Other [ ]







Co-Owner Social Security:







#: ______/______/______







U.S. Citizen [ ] Other [ ]







Corporate or Custodial:







Taxpayer ID #: ______/______/______







U.S. Citizen [ ] Other [ ]







(9) Telephone (H) ( ) _________________________


 
















(10) *email address:__________________________


*Please note that by providing your email address, you accept that all further communications between you and the Company shall be by email, unless otherwise required by law and/or the rules and regulations of any governing body of traded securities.












C. OWNERSHIP







[ ] Individual Ownership                                                      [ ] IRA or Keogh







[ ] Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship







[ ] Trust/Date Trust Established_______________







[ ] Pension/Trust (S.E.P.)







[ ] Tenants in Common                                                      [ ] Tenants by the Entirety







[ ] Corporate Ownership                                                  [ ] Partnership







[ ] Other_____________________







D. SIGNATURES


Registered Owner: _____________________________







Co-Owner: ___________________________________







Print Name of Custodian or Trustee: _____________________________







Authorized Signature: _____________________________







Date: _____________________







Signature: ___________________________________







MAIL TO:                                           Vatee, Inc.


3590 North Blagg Rd.


Pahrump, NV 89060


____________________________________________________________________


FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:


Date Received: ________________________________________________


Date Accepted/Rejected _________________________________________


Subscriber's Check Amount: _______________________


Check No. ___________________ Date Check ________________
Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

VS, § CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-185-K (01)

§

MARIO ALBERTO RAMIREZ- §

JARAMILLO

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry 

of a Plea of Guilty, the Consent of the defendant, and the Report and Recommendation 

Concerning Plea of Guilty of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto 

having been filed within fourteen days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), 

the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation of 

the Magistrate Judge concerning the Plea of Guilty is correct, and it is hereby accepted by 

the Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty and the Defendant is hereby 

adjudged guilty. Sentence will be imposed in accordance with the Court’s scheduling order.

SO ORDERED.

Signed August 10th, 2022.

_____________________________

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cr-00185-K Document 22 Filed 08/10/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 36
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           9,568
<SECURITIES>                                    80,355
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,985
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,908
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               138,908
<PP&E>                                         748,981
<DEPRECIATION>                                  74,476
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 901,761
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          103,782
<BONDS>                                        552,570
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           225
<OTHER-SE>                                     220,168
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   901,761
<SALES>                                         93,902
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                93,902
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  104,556
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,908
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (21,562)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (7,870)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,692)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 16,740
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,048
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### John F. R. Wysard et al., Individually and on Behalf of the Committee for the Preservation of Route 394, Appellants, v New York State Department of Transportation, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs for the reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court, Ricotta, J. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Chautau*912qua County, Ricotta, J.—art 78.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
|                                                                               
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                               
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                 
|View History: Annual                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                           
|View History:                                                                  
|                                                                               
|U.S. Foreign Crude Oil Refinery Receipts by Tank Cars (Rail) (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                               
|                                                                               
|U.S. Foreign Crude Oil Refinery Receipts by Tank Cars (Rail) (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                               

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 100    | 170    | 0      | 0      | 0     
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 53     | 0      | 0      | 59     | 7      | NA     | 0      | NA     | 0      | 0     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 3      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 288    | 4,114  | 11,222 | 24,138 | 14,450 | 10,987 | 20,998 | 33,153 | 30,955
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 19,567 | 25,698 | 28,191 | 20,178 |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

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

The certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
and may not be relied upon or used for any other purposes.

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wheeling-Pittsburgh Corporation
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Paul J. Mooney, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 or
other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

Date: August 9, 2004
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Paul J. MooneyPaul J. MooneyChief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an Exhibit to this report
and should not be considered filed as a part of this report.
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00431-CR

Jose Luis LOPEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008CR7705B

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 26, 2009

DISMISSED

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that the case is a “plea-bargain case, and

the defendant has NO right of appeal.” Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

provides, “[t]he appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of

appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). 
04-09-00431-CR

-2-

Appellant’s counsel has filed written notice with this court that counsel has reviewed the

record and “can find no right of appeal for Appellant.” We construe this notice as an indication that

appellant will not seek to file an amended trial court certification showing that he has the right of

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174, 177 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). In light of the record presented, we agree with appellant’s

counsel that Rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is

dismissed.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
---

EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Blake Olafson, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

|(1) | the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Alexandra Capital Corp.
      for the year ended November 30, 2015 (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 Alexandra Capital Corp.                                                               

Dated: October 12, 2017



| | /s/Blake Olafson                                                 
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------
| | Blake Olafson                                                    
| | President, Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer,
      and Director
| | (Principal Executive Officer)                                    
| | Alexandra Capital Corp.                                          



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Alexandra
Capital Corp. and will be retained by Alexandra Capital Corp. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3627 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3627

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To require the Attorney General to report on State law penalties for 
             certain child abusers, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Kilah Davenport Child Protection Act 
of 2013''.

SEC. 2. ATTORNEY GENERAL REPORT.

    Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
and again 3 years thereafter, the Attorney General shall publish and 
submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States 
Senate a report on the penalties for violations of laws prohibiting 
child abuse in each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 
each territory of the United States, including whether the laws of that 
State, District, or territory provides for enhanced penalties when the 
victim has suffered serious bodily injury, or permanent or protracted 
loss or impairment of any mental or emotional function.

SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF PREDICATE FOR INCREASED PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN 
              DOMESTIC ASSAULTS.

    Section 117(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``, or against a child of or in the care of the person 
committing the domestic assault'' after ``intimate partner''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 9, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 3627

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To require the Attorney General to report on State law penalties for 
             certain child abusers, and for other purposes.
```
#### FISCHER v. HUFFMAN et al.

No. 6245.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

Nov. 10, 1952.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 15, 1952.

*879Leigh Fischer, Borger, for appellant.

Hood & Hood, Borger, ifor appellee.

MARTIN, Justice.

Appellees, Vera Huffman and Howard Huffman, recovered judgment against appellant, Leigh Fischer, in the County Court of Hutchinson County for possession of certain premises and for damages in the amount of $300. At a subsequent term of the County Court, appellant made a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc, thereby requesting the trial court to set aside that portion of the original judgment granting ap-pellees $300 damages. Appellant’s contention is that the judgment of the court for $300 damages was not supported by pleadings in the cause or by the verdict of the jury. From the record brought up by appellant, it appears that such point would have been well taken had an appeal been perfected from the original judgment. But no appeal was perfected from such judgment.

Appellant’s motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is not sufficient to constitute a pleading in equity in the nature of a bill of review within the requirements of Sedgwick v. Kirby Lumber Co., 130 Tex. 163, 107 S.W.2d 358. Such motion sought to correct a “judicial mistake as distinguished from a clerical mistake or omission.” Coleman v. Zapp, 105 Tex. 491, 151 S.W. 1040, 1042, syl. 5. The courts are uniform in ruling that a judicial mistake cannot be corrected by a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc under Rules 316 and 317, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 25 Tex.Jur. Sec. 68, pp. 436-437; Coleman v. Zapp, supra; Love v. State Bank & Trust Co. of San Antonio, 126 Tex. 591, 90 S.W.2d 819; Hannon v. Henson, Tex.Civ.App., 7 S.W.2d 613, syl. 5-7; Bridgman v. Moore, Tex.Civ.App., 206 S.W.2d 871, syl. 7, 8; Corbett v. Rankin Independent School Dist., Tex.Civ.App., 100 S.W.2d 113, syl. 8.

The order of. the trial court refusing to enter judgment nunc pro tunc also denies appellant’s application for injunction. Appellant brings up no point of error or brief as to the court’s refusal to issue an injunction and any error under this issue is waived. Burgess v. Sylvester, 143 Tex. 25, 182 S.W.2d 358, syl. 7; Wedgworth v. City of Fort Worth, Tex.Civ.App., 189 S.W.2d 40, syl. 4.

The judgment of the trial court refusing to enter judgment nunc pro tunc and denying appellant’s petition for injunction is affirmed.
#### LACEY v. STATE.

No. 21397.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 29, 1941.

J. M. Willis, of Henderson, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty.,1 of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for assault with intent to murder, with malice aforethought, punishment assessed being confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years.

No statement of facts or bills of exception accompany the record. In this condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.