alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09
- 2 1
- 00154
- CR

__________________ DEWAYNE LEE WALDRUP , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 20
- 10
- 12141
- CR

__________________________________________________________________ ORDER Appellant Dewayne Lee Waldrup filed a motion to abate the appeal and remand the case for written findings of fact and conclusions of law. The State has not filed an objection to an abatement. The trial court made some oral findings at the conclusion of the hearing on the motion to suppress, but additional findings may assist this Court in addressing the appeal. See State v. Cullen , 195 S.W.3d 696, 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (the tria l court may state its essential findings on the record at the conclusion of the hearing).2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the appeal is abated and the case is remanded to the trial court for entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law on the trial court’s essential findings on the issues raised in the hearing of appellant’s motion to suppress. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.4. A supplemental clerk’s record containing the t rial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are due to be filed in this Court by March 3 , 202 2

. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c)(2). All appellate timetables are suspended pending filing of the supplemental clerk’s record with this
Court. The appeal wi ll be reinstated without further order when the supplemental clerk’s record is filed with the appellate court. The brief of the appellant is due thirty days after the supplemental clerk’s record is filed. Requests for briefing extensions will be strongly d isfavored.
ORDER ENTERED February 1 , 202 2

. PER CURIAM Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 5 

77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD 

CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590 

Douglas Hmris, General Manager 

Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. 

7 Mobile Avenue 

Sauget, Illinois 62201 

Dear Mr. Harris: 

MAY 0 4 2015 

REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF: 

Thank you for meeting with us on Apri19, 2015 at our offices in Chicago, and for your April15, 

2015 letter. I believe that the meeting was helpful and productive. We are currently reviewing 

the information you provided concerning EPA's pending Title V renewal operating permit for 

the Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. facility in Sauget, Illinois. We will include your letter 

in the docket for .this permit proceeding. 

It is important to me to make sure that EPA understands and addresses your concerns before 

proceeding further. As we discussed, EPA will be in touch with you before we take action on the 

permit. 

Again, thank you for your letter. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me at (312) 886-

3000 or George Czemiak, at (312) 353-2212. 

~~~)~£- Robert Kaplan 

Deputy Regional Administrator 

Recycled/Recyclable a Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (50% Postconsumer)
#### POWERS v. STATE.

No. 15603.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 15, 1933.

J. M. Rieger, of Breekenridge, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for theft; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

The facts show that a man named Barker found a large quantity of mercury secreted in the pasture of one Mayhall some two miles from where appellant lived. Barker testified that he informed appellant of the presence of this mercury, and at appellant’s suggestion he went with him and showed him where it was hidden. He further testified that appellant suggested that they take the property and hide it in appellant’s pasture, and that at some later time same should be sold and appellant and the others would share in the proceeds. A witness who was engaged in the junk business testified that appellant offered to sell him 240 pounds of mercury, for which witness agreed to pay the sum of 75 cents a pound. Appellant refused to agree to accept payment by check, but in accordance with a further agreement he brought the mercury into the town of Strawn the day following, at which time he was arrested by the officers who were looking for whisky.

There seems sufficient evidence of diligence on the part of the grand jury at the time the matter was brought before them, in trying to find out the owner of said mercury, but, failing in this, the indictment which was returned, under which appellant was tried, alleged the ownership of same to be unknown. The fact that it was later found out that' two gas companies had each lost a quantity of mercury, and that this fact was known at the time of trial, would not seem to affect the propriety of a prosecution of appellant under an indictment alleging theft of property from an unknown owner. Dawson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 61 S. W. 489. The above case is discussed in Kuykendall v. State, 117 Tex. Or. R. 571, 36 S.W.(2d) 726.

The testimony seems sufficient to justify the conviction. We find in the record no bills of exception.

No error appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1164 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to exempt certain repayments under 

the Civil Service Retirement System from the requirement that they 

be made with interest. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 24, 2009 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the 

Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to exempt certain 

repayments under the Civil Service Retirement System 

from the requirement that they be made with interest. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘CSRS Retirement Re5 payment Technical Correction Act of 2009’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1164 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN REPAYMENTS UNDER THE 

2 CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM FROM 

3 THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY BE MADE 

4 WITH INTEREST. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 8334(d)(1) of title 5, 

6 United States Code, is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘(d)(1)’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘(d)(1)(A)’’; and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(B) No interest under subparagraph (A) shall be re11 quired in the case of any deposit to the extent that it rep12 resents the amount of any refund that was made to an 

13 employee or Member during the period beginning on Octo14 ber 1, 1990, and ending on February 28, 1991.’’. 

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

16 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enact17 ment of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 

18 (Public Law 101–508). 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
#### Ex parte PIERCE.

No. 16556.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 7, 1934.

Arthur J. Mandell, of Houston, for appellant.

H. G. Tigner, Asst. Cr. Dist. Atty., of Houston, and Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

By way of habeas corpus appellant sought release, and was remanded to custody. Hence this appeal.

Appellant was convicted in the corpora-' tion court of the city of Houston upon a charge of violating a city ordinance, and upon appeal to the county court was agáin convicted and a fine of $5 assessed against hini. The writ of habeas corpus having been • awarded by the Honorable Langston G. King, judge of the criminal district court No. 2 of Harris county, a hearing was had and appellant remanded to custody.

It is insisted that the ordinance under which the conviction was obtained is unconstitutional. The ordinance was not introduced in evidence. Courts do not take judicial notice of the ordinances of municipal corporations.- Hence we are unable to pass on the question attempted to be raised. Patton v. State, 112 Tex. Cr. R. 351, 16 S.W.(2d) 1072; Parvin v. Byers (Tex. Civ. App.) 16 S.W.(2d) 914; Terreto v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R.. 188, 215 S. W. 329; White v. State, 82 Tex. Cr. R. 274, 198 S. W. 964; Wilson v. State, 16 Tex. App. 501; City of Austin v. Walton, 68 Tex. 507, 5 S. W. 70.

The judgment 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.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of RadiSys Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brian Bronson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ BRIAN BRONSON      
|Brian Bronson          
|Chief Financial Officer
|February 27, 2008
**Exhibit
      32.1**


**CERTIFICATION
      BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Numerex Corp. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-Q as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”), I, Stratton J. Nicolaides, as Chief Executive Officer of the
      Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
      knowledge, that:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 for the dates
      and periods covered by the Report.





This
      certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company with the requirements of Section 906 of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be disclosed, distributed or used
      by
      any person or for any reason other than as specifically required by
      law.


March
                23, 2007
            /s/
                Stratton J. NicolaidesStratton
                J. NicolaidesChief
                Executive Officer and
                Chairman
```

Exhibit 23.3

                                          CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements (Form S-8 No.  333-79241,  Form S-8 No. 333-28481 and Form
S-8 No. 333-28527)  pertaining to the Stock Option Plans of MedImmune,  Inc. of our report dated February 15, 1999, with respect to the
consolidated  financial  statements of U.S.  Bioscience,  Inc., not presented separately in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 2000.

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
February 21, 2001
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-41263 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MACRINO ESPINOZA-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-00-CR-313-2

-------------------- June 19, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Macrino Espinoza-Vasquez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Espinoza contends that 21 U.S.C. § 841 is unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). As Espinoza concedes, his argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent, but he raises the issue to preserve it for Supreme Court review. See United States v. Slaughter , 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 532 U.S. 1045 (2001). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Trimol Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, 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 as of and for the periods
covered in the Report.


                                                     /s/ Jack Braverman
                                                     ------------------
                                                     Jack Braverman
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                                     TRIMOL GROUP, INC.

August 13, 2004


                                       22
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       8,282,683
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             8,050,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 14,590,571
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      18,137,427
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        18,213,864
<LOANS>                                     73,692,330
<ALLOWANCE>                                    738,353
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             126,527,319
<DEPOSITS>                                 111,448,328
<SHORT-TERM>                                 3,280,586
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            852,650
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,944,870
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,000,985
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             126,527,319
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              6,181,220
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            2,412,798
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             8,594,018
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,830,713
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,830,713
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        5,763,305
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  340,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              11,269
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              4,849,168
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,005,713
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,005,713
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,005,713
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.93
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.39
<LOANS-NON>                                    528,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                    14,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               595,593
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  248,855
<RECOVERIES>                                    51,615
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              738,353
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           738,353
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Unassociated Document


    Exhibit
      10.1

     

    AMENDMENT
      NUMBER ONE TO

    MAIDENFORM
      BRANDS, INC.

    2005
      ANNUAL PERFORMANCE BONUS PLAN

    


    WHEREAS,
      Maidenform Brands, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Maidenform Brands, Inc.
      2005 Annual Performance Bonus Plan (the “Bonus Plan”); and

    


    WHEREAS,
      pursuant to Section 8 of the Bonus Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company
      (or a duly authorized committee thereof) (the “Board”) reserved the right to
      amend the Bonus Plan at any time; and

    


    WHEREAS,
      the Company desires to amend the Bonus Plan in a manner intended to provide
      that
      all payments made under the Bonus Plan will be exempt from Section 409A of
      the
      Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in accordance with Treasury
      Regulation Section 1.409A-1(b)(4).

    


    NOW,
      THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 8 of the Bonus Plan, the Bonus Plan is hereby
      amended, effective as of January 2, 2005, by deleting the following proviso
      from
      the end of the first sentence of Section 5.3 of the Bonus Plan:

    


    “,
      provided that, if an Award is not paid by such dates the Award shall be paid
      on
      April 1 after the end of the applicable year”

    


    Except
      as
      expressly set forth herein, the Bonus Plan shall remain unmodified and in full
      force and effect.

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the
      Board
      has authorized the undersigned officer of the Company to execute this amendment
      on behalf of the Company and the undersigned has caused this amendment to be
      executed on behalf of the Company as of the date set forth
      below.


     

    Maidenform
      Brands, Inc.

    


    
      	
              BY
                

            	
              /s
                / Maurice S. Reznik

            	 
	 	
              Maurice
                S. Reznik

            	 
	 	
              Chief
                Executive Officer

            	 
	 	 	 
	Date:	
               10/30/2008
DENY and Opinion Filed July 14, 2022 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00657-CV 

IN RE CITY OF DALLAS, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 14th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-01696 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Schenck, Carlyle, and Goldstein 

Opinion by Justice Schenck 

Before the Court are relator’s July 1, 2022 petition for writs of prohibition and 

injunction and motion for emergency stay. In its petition, relator requests that we 

issue a writ of prohibition against the trial court to prevent it from signing an order 

enforcing the order authorizing pre-suit depositions. Relator also requests that we 

issue a writ of injunction against real party in interest to prevent her from taking any 

further action to enforce the order authorizing pre-suit depositions pending final 

resolution of a related mandamus proceeding. 

A writ of prohibition has three functions: (1) preventing interference with 

higher courts in deciding a pending appeal; (2) preventing an inferior court from 

entertaining suits that will re-litigate controversies already settled by the issuing 
 –2– 

court; and (3) prohibiting a trial court’s action when it affirmatively appears the court 

lacks jurisdiction. In re Bolton, No. 05-10-01115-CV, 2010 WL 4011041, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 14, 2010, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citing Humble 

Expl. Co., Inc. v. Walker, 641 S.W.2d 941, 943 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1982, orig. 

proceeding)). We conclude that relator has presented no proper basis for this Court 

to issue a writ of prohibition here. 

A court of appeals also does not have original jurisdiction to grant writs of 

injunction, “except to protect its jurisdiction over the subject matter of a pending 

appeal, or to prevent an unlawful interference with the enforcement of its judgments 

and decrees.” In re Torres, No. 05-18-00774-CV, 2018 WL 4784580, at *1 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas Oct. 4, 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (quoting Ott v. Bell, 606 

S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex. App.—Waco 1980, no writ)). Because there is no pending 

appeal associated with this original proceeding, we conclude that relator has not 

shown that a writ of injunction is necessary. 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writs of prohibition and injunction. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Having denied the petition, we also deny the motion for 

emergency stay as moot. 

220657F.P05 

/David J. Schenck/

DAVID J. SCHENCK 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 31.2    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002    In connection with the Quarterly Report of Trimol Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.   /s/ Jack BravermanJack BravermanChief Financial OfficerTRIMOL GROUP, INC.   May 22, 2006  19