alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DONOVAN RAY CUBIT,

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00142-CR

Appeal from the

421st District Court

of Caldwell County, Texas 

(TC# 2019-283)

O R D E R

The reporter’s record was due to be filed on July 27, 2022. The Court Reporter, Aisha 

White-Thompson, advised the Court on July 28, 2022 and August 9, 2022 that no arrangements 

have been received. In addition, on August 8, 2022, Adam Crawshaw, Appellant’s retained 

attorney, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record and appoint appellate counsel. Before 

the Court considers the motion, it will be necessary for the trial court to conduct a hearing.

Therefore, it is ORDERED that the trial court conduct a hearing to determine whether 

Appellant wishes to continue the appeal and whether Appellant is entitled to appointment of new 

counsel. New counsel is to make satisfactory arrangements with the Court Reporter within 15

days after their appointment. The trial court shall forward its findings to the District Clerk of 

Caldwell County, Texas, on or before August 29, 2022. The District Clerk shall prepare and 

forward a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s findings and forward the same 

to this Court on or before September 8, 2022. Further, the trial court’s reporter shall prepare, 

certify, and file the record of the trial court proceedings with this Court on or before September 8, 

2022.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of August, 2022.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Image Sensing System, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
James Murdakes, Chief Executive 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:

         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.


                                /s/ James Murdakes
                                ----------------------
                                James Murdakes
                                Chief Executive Officer
                                October 27, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,305,326
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  983,219
<ALLOWANCES>                                   545,200
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,542,298
<PP&E>                                         206,227
<DEPRECIATION>                                 159,161
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,321,564
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,734,480
<BONDS>                                      4,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       146,167
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,728,041
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,321,564
<SALES>                                        598,494
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               653,058
<CGS>                                          732,701
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  843,777
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               571,921
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             652,313
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,414,953)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (652,313)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (513,453)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 

 § 

VS. § CRIMINAL NO. 4:22-CR-174-Y 

 § 

ALEXIS ROSALES (3) § 

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ADJUDGING DEFENDANT GUILTY 

The Court has reviewed all relevant matters of record in this case, 

including especially (1) the Consent to Administration of Guilty Plea 

and Allocution by United States Magistrate Judge and (2) the Report of 

Action and Recommendation on Plea Before the United States Magistrate 

Judge. No objections to either have been filed within fourteen (14) 

days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, 

the Court concludes that the report and recommendation of the magistrate 

judge on the plea of guilty is correct, and it is hereby accepted by the 

Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty, and defendant 

is hereby adjudged guilty. The defendant’s sentence will be imposed in 

accordance with the Court’s sentencing scheduling order. 

SIGNED August 31, 2022. 

 

 _________________________________ 

 TERRY R. MEANS 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cr-00174-Y Document 77 Filed 08/31/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 181
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 15 March 2005

in Case C-209/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) The Queen (on the application of Dany Bidar) v London Borough of Ealing, Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1)

(Citizenship of the Union - Articles 12 EC and 18 EC - Assistance for students in the form of subsidised loans - Provision limiting the grant of such loans to students settled in national territory)

(2005/C 132/14)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-209/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom), made by decision of 12 February 2003, received at the Court on 15 May 2003, in the proceedings pending before that court between the Queen (on the application of Dany Bidar) and London Borough of Ealing, Secretary of State for Education and Skills — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur) and A. Borg Barthet, Presidents of Chambers, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, M. Ilešič, J. Malenovský, J. Klučka and U. Lõhmus, Judges; L.A.Geelhoed, Advocate General, H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

----

(1)OJ C 171 of 19.07.2003.

----
Case 3:22-cr-00056-E Document 23 Filed 08/23/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 42
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 Defense

###### Department of the Air Force 

The Air National Guard is issuing this notice to advise the public of its decision to extend the public and agency scoping period for the preparation of the Draft EIS which will assess the potential environmental impacts of a proposal to develop an air-to-ground training range in the State of Montana. 

                    An additional scoping meeting will be held on December 12, 2000 at the Phillips County Library, 101/2                     South 4th East, Malta, MT. The purpose of the additional scoping meeting is to address the development of additional alternatives in Phillips County. The comment period for scoping related comments has been extended to January 15, 2001 to ensure sufficient time to consider public and agency comments in the screening process and preparation of the Draft EIS. You may call 1-800-545-8680 (select option 5, Wing Headquarters) to give oral comments. If you have questions or require additional information, please contact Major Mitnik at (301) 836-8636 or (301) 836-8065. Written comments should be submitted to the following address: Montana EIS, ANG/CEVP, ATTN: Major Tammy Mitnik, 3500 Fetchet Avenue, Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland 20762.                 

Janet A. Long, 

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-29518 Filed 11-16-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001-05-U
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-19-0000813

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

STATE OF HAWAI I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

VERNON T. VIERRA, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT

(CASE NO. 2PC151000078)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Nakasone, JJ.)

Upon review of the record, it appears that:

(1) The statement of jurisdiction and opening brief

were due on or before December 30, 2019, and January 27, 2020,

respectively;

(2) Defendant-Appellant Vernon T. Vierra (Vierra)

failed to file either document, or request an extension of time;

(3) On July 24, 2024, the appellate clerk entered a

default notice informing Vierra's counsel of record in this

appeal, David Sumner Wiltsie, that the time for filing the

statement of jurisdiction and opening brief had expired, the

matter would be called to the court's attention on August 5,

2024, for appropriate action, which could include dismissal of

the appeal, under Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure

Rules 12.1(e) and 30, and Vierra could request relief from

default by motion; and

(4) Vierra has not taken any further action in this

appeal.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is

dismissed.

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-19-0000813

13-AUG-2024

08:17 AM

Dkt. 21 ODSD
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court will take no

further action on the September 24, 2020 order to show cause.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, August 13, 2024.

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard

Acting Chief Judge

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Associate Judge

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone

Associate Judge

2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1150

PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TRIANGLE PAVING, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellant, and EMJ CORPORATION; UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, Defendants. CAROLINAS AGC, INCORPORATED; INSURANCE ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION ASSOCIATION, Amicus Curiae. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-95-892-5-3-BR) Argued: July 10, 1997 Decided: July 29, 19972 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, HAMILTON, Circuit Judge, and NORTON, United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Jay McCullam Wilkerson, BUGG & WOLF, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Walter Edgar Brock, Jr., YOUNG, MOORE & HENDERSON, P.A., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: John B. Taylor, JOHNSON, TAYLOR, ALLISON & HORD, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Amicus Curiae Carolinas AGC. Laura A. Foggan, Daniel E. Troy, Alex M. Azar, II, WILEY, REIN & FIELDING, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Insurance Association. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company (Penn National) brought this declaratory judgment action against TrianglePaving, Inc. (Triangle), seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to provide insurance coverage under two insurance policiesit had issued to Triangle for damages associated with job-site runoff (sedimentation) from a construction site. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Penn National, concluding that the job-site runoff was a "pollutant" as that term was defined in the policies and, therefore, fell within the policies' "total pollution" exclusions. Triangle now appeals that decision. Ourreview of the record, the district court's opinion, and the arguments of counsel have revealed that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons stated by that court in its opinion. See Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v. Triangle Paving, Inc., No. 5:95-CV-892-5-3-BR (E.D.N.C. December 30, 1996).

AFFIRMED
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 398 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.J.Res. 398

                       One Hundred Third Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America


                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
 the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-
                                  four


                            Joint Resolution

  
 
  To establish the fourth Sunday of July as ``Parents' Day''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the fourth Sunday of 
every July shall be established as ``Parents' Day'' to be recognized as 
a recurring, perennial day of commemoration.

SEC. 2. RECOGNITION.

    All private citizens, organizations, and governmental and 
legislative bodies at the local, State, and Federal level are 
encouraged to recognize Parents' Day through proclamations, activities, 
and educational efforts in furtherance of recognizing, uplifting, and 
supporting the role of parents in the rearing of their children.







                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.







                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.`
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

SHELLEY GIPSON,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 4:22-cv-0730-P

WEATHERFORD COLLEGE,

Defendant.

ORDER

On January 31, 2023, the Court ordered all Counsel of record for all 

Parties to read: (1) Dondi Properties Corp. v. Commerce Savings & Loan 

Assoc., 121 F.R.D. 284 (N.D. Tex. 1988); (2) the Texas Lawyer’s Creed; 

and (3) the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. ECF No. 63. Counsel 

was then instructed to certify to the Court via an affidavit that they 

have read, understand, and will comply with these three documents 

throughout the remainder of this litigation. Id. (emphasis added). The 

Court cautioned Counsel that a failure to comply with its Order would 

result in monetary sanctions. Id. 

Despite these unambiguous instructions, Plaintiff’s counsel Kevin M. 

Duddlesten and Defendant’s counsel John L. Ross both failed to comply 

with the Court’s Order by filing declarations instead of affidavits that 

were witnessed and authenticated by a notary public or commissioner of 

oaths. See ECF Nos. 64, 65. Accordingly, the Court concludes that 

sanctions should be imposed on Mr. Duddlesten and Mr. Ross in the 

amount of $250 each.

 The Court therefore ORDERS Mr. Kevin M. Duddlesten and Mr. 

John L. Ross to each pay $250 to the Clerk of the Court for the Fort 

Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas by 5:00 p.m. on 

Friday, February 3, 2023. The Clerk of the Court is INSTRUCTED

to accept their payments in accordance with this Order. 

Case 4:22-cv-00730-P Document 66 Filed 02/01/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 908
2

In addition, the Clerk of the Court is INSTRUCTED to STRIKE

and UNFILE Mr. Duddlesten’s declaration (ECF No. 64) and Mr. Ross’s 

declaration (ECF No. 65). Counsel shall comply with the Court’s prior 

Order instructing them to read the abovementioned documents and 

certify their reading to the Court via an affidavit by 5:00 p.m. on 

Friday, February 3, 2023. A failure to do so will result in additional 

sanctions, including monetary penalties. 

SO ORDERED on this 1st day of February 2023.

Mark T. Pittman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00730-P Document 66 Filed 02/01/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 909
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Jamie Lee Bledsoe, Appellant

No. 06-14-00138-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 71st District Court of 

Harrison County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 12-

0374X). Opinion delivered by Justice 

Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment 

of the court below. Therefore, we reverse the portion of the judgment assessing punishment and 

remand to the trial court for a new punishment hearing; we modify the judgment to reflect the 

correct degree of the offense as a state jail felony; and the judgment, as modified, is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, Jamie Lee Bledsoe, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 3, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         28,000
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 314,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                   268,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              707,800
<PP&E>                                        337,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1,633,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         395,900
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                  (149,900)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1,633,900
<SALES>                                       288,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              288,600
<CGS>                                         125,200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 268,200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                1,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             33,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (14,200)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (5,700)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (8,500)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (8,500)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 4 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 4

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
             allowing an item veto in appropriations bills.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

  Mr. Allard (for himself, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Goss, Mr. 
Ramstad, Mr. Bliley, Mr. Baker of Louisiana, Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Thomas of 
   Wyoming, Mr. Fawell, Mr. Schaefer, Mr. McCandless, Mr. Oxley, Mr. 
 Solomon, Mr. Penny, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Zeliff, Mr. Sam Johnson of 
Texas, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Zimmer, Mr. Baker of California, Mr. Smith of 
New Jersey, Mr. Burton, Mrs. Meyers of Kansas, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Smith of 
 Texas, Mr. Packard, Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Barrett of 
    Nebraska, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Quillen, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Walsh, Mr. 
 Boehner, Mr. Barton, Mr. Upton, Mr. Petri, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Stump, Mr. 
 Hunter, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Condit, Mr. Talent, Mr. Saxton, Mrs. Bentley, 
and Mr. Pete Geren of Texas) introduced the following joint resolution; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
             allowing an item veto in appropriations bills.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and 
purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures 
of three-fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. The President shall have the power to disapprove any 
appropriation or provision and approve any other appropriation or 
provision in the same appropriation bill. In such case he shall, in 
signing the bill, designate the appropriations and provisions 
disapproved, and shall return a copy of such appropriations and 
provisions, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall 
have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in the 
case of other bills disapproved by the President.
    ``Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have 
been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures 
of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date 
of its submission.''.

                                 <all>
```