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

No. 21094.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 29, 1940.

Rehearing Denied June 26, 1940.

M. H. Barton, of Overton, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for theft of property over the value of $50, punishment being assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exception. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

WORLDWIDE RESTAURANT CONCEPTS,INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein Registration Statement Nos. 333-110661, 333-47659, and 333-47661 on Form S-8of our reports dated August 3, 2005 relating to the financial statementsand financial statement schedules of Worldwide Restaurant Concepts, Inc.(which report expresses an unqualified opinion on those financial statementsand financial statement schedules and included an explanatory paragraphregarding the entering into a definitive merger agreement with Pacific EquityPartners to acquire all of the outstanding capital stock of WorldwideRestaurant Concepts, Inc.) and management’s report on the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting (which report expresses an adverseopinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financialreporting because of material weaknesses), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Worldwide Restaurant Concepts, Inc. for the year ended April 30,2005.

 

 
| /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|
| Los Angeles, California            |
|                               |
| August 3, 2005                |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          44,669
<SECURITIES>                                    20,312
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,706
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        719
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                62,335
<PP&E>                                           1,921
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,130
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  70,388
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,748
<BONDS>                                            937
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            27
<OTHER-SE>                                      60,676
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    70,388
<SALES>                                          5,019
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,019
<CGS>                                            1,436
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,436
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,702
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 193
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,926)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,926)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,926)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-10138

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DETROIT HINES, also known as Li’l Nut,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No.4:06-CR-88-3

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

In 2007, Detroit Hines, federal prisoner #35457-177, was convicted of

several cocaine and firearms offenses, including conspiracy to possess with the

intent to distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine. In December 2009, at

a time when he had no actions pending, Hines filed a pro se motion requesting

disclosure of the grand jury transcripts, minutes, or testimony relating to his

indictment. The district court construed the motion as arising under Federal

Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(E)(ii) and denied the motion. Hines has

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-10138 Document: 00511210532 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2010
No. 10-10138

appealed, and the Government has moved for dismissal or for summary

affirmance. Alternatively, the Government moves for an extension of time in

which to file a brief.

It is questionable whether Hines’s motion had a valid jurisdictional basis

in the district court. See United States v. Carvajal, 989 F.2d 170, 170 (5th Cir.

1993). However, even if we assume that the district court correctly exercised

jurisdiction under the rule cited above, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying the motion because Hines failed to show a particularized

need for the grand jury materials. See United States v. Miramontez, 995 F.2d 56,

57-58 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary

affirmance is granted. The Government’s alternative motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-10138 Document: 00511210532 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/20/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50637 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus OSCAR MATA-HUERTA, also known as Oscar Mata, Defendant-Appellant;

____________________ Consolidated with No. 00-50704

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BERNARDO GARZON-SERNA, Defendant- Appellant;

____________________ Consolidated with No. 00-50771

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus AMADOR GARAVITO-REYES, also known as Amador Garavito, Defendant-Appellant;No. 00-50637 c/w Nos. 00-50704 & 00-50771 &

00-50774 - 2 -

* 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. ____________________ Consolidated with No. 00-50774

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BERNARDO EDUARDO CASTANEDA-QUINTANA, also known as Eduardo Quintana, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

- - - - - - - - - - February 15, 2001 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Oscar Mata-Huerta, Bernardo Garzon-Serna, Amador GaravitoReyes, Bernardo Eduardo Castaneda-Quintana (collectively the Defendants) appeal their sentences following their guilty plea convictions for illegal re-entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The Defendants argue that their sentences should not have exceeded the two-year maximum sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The Defendants acknowledge that their argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but they seek to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466.No. 00-50637 c/w Nos. 00-50704 & 00-50771 &

00-50774 - 3 - The Defendants’ argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , 523 U.S. at 235. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that the judgments of the district court be affirmed and that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is granted.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank Pacheco, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered December 6, 1984, convicting him of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (Potoker, J.), after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his confession to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, a review of the totality of the circumstances *(see, People v Anderson,*42 NY2d 35) reveals that his confession was voluntarily obtained *(see, People v Hamilton,*138 AD2d 625). After learning of the defendant’s complicity in this dual homicide and robbery case from a confidential informant, the investigating detectives left word with the defendant’s acquaintances, that they wanted to speak with him. He evidently received this message because he voluntarily appeared at the police station *(see, People v Glasper,*160 AD2d 723). He was advised of his *Miranda*rights which he voluntarily, knowingly and intentionally waived. After a brief noncustodial interrogation, the defendant offered a full confession to shooting the decedent during the commission of an armed robbery *(see, People v Proctor,*135 AD2d 751; *People v Benitez,*128 AD2d 628). Despite the defendant’s possible subjective feelings of intimidation by the interrogating officers, their actions did not rise to the level of coercion *(cf., People v Anderson, supra; People v Leonard,*59 AD2d 1). Moreover, notwithstanding the defendant’s unsupported *466claims of physical abuse, the record amply supports the hearing court’s determination that the confession was voluntary *(see, People v Glasper, supra; People v Hamilton, supra; People v Gagne,*129 AD2d 808).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit *(see, e.g., People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396; *People v Turcius-Umana,*153 AD2d 707; *People v Younis,*144 AD2d 964; *People v Rawlings,*144 AD2d 500; *People v Crawford,*130 AD2d 678). Balletta, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 232 (Friday, December 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 75313]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30625]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-38,149]


Plum Creek Timber, Pablo, Montana; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on October 2, 2000 in response to a worker petition which 
was filed by the company on behalf of workers at Plum Creek Timber, 
Pablo, Montana.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC this 2nd day of November, 2000.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-30625 Filed 11-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1061 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                    September 29, 2010.
    Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
1061) entitled ``An Act to transfer certain land to the United States 
to be held in trust for the Hoh Indian Tribe, to place land into trust 
for the Hoh Indian Tribe, and for other purposes.'', do pass with the 
following

                              AMENDMENTS:

(1)On page 4, lines 13 through 15, strike [upon compliance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969] and insert in accordance 
with the regulations of the Department of the Interior for implementing 
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 
that are applicable to trust land acquisitions for Indian tribes that 
are mandated by Federal legislation,

(2)On page 8, strike lines 17 through 22 and insert the following:

SEC. 5. GAMING PROHIBITION.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H.R. 1061

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENTS
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9

       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             15,217
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          8,179,630
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                        0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                        0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                             0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         26,318,389
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           26,421,072
<LOANS>                                        18,384,613<F1>
<ALLOWANCE>                                       213,034
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 53,526,359
<DEPOSITS>                                     40,288,088
<SHORT-TERM>                                            0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               210,976
<LONG-TERM>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                          112,500
<OTHER-SE>                                     13,125,771
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 53,526,359
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   378,600
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 475,940
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   54,503
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  909,043
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                502,095
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                502,095
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             406,948
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                           0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                      0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   366,713
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    52,947
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         52,947
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                       52,947
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.04
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       3.11
<LOANS-NON>                                       238,300
<LOANS-PAST>                                       28,664
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                        0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   266,964
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  213,034
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                           0
<RECOVERIES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                       0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              213,034
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           213,034
<FN>
<F1> NOT NET OF ALLOWANCE
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JERRAL M. BELL, DC #S24476, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. 2D18-3511 STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed June 28, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Stephen M. Walker, Judge. Jerral M. Bell, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SLEET, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           18700
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    43023
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1932
<INVENTORY>                                        746
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 66039
<PP&E>                                           20389
<DEPRECIATION>                                    8700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   96438
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            25115
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         50476
<OTHER-SE>                                        9769
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     96438
<SALES>                                          76858
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 76858
<CGS>                                            20683
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    41421
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  9025
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 903
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5892
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2737
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               3155
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3155
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1


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


In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Titanium  Metals  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual Report"), we,
J. Landis Martin,  Chairman of the Board,  President and Chief Executive Officer
of the  Company,  and Bruce P.  Inglis,  Vice  President  -  Finance,  Corporate
Controller  and  Treasurer 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 Quarterly  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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
          all  material  respects,   the  financial   condition  and  result  of
          operations of the Company.




May 10, 2005


/s/ J. Landis Martin
--------------------
J. Landis Martin
Chairman of the Board, President
   and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Bruce P. Inglis
-------------------
Bruce P. Inglis
Vice President - Finance, Corporate
   Controller and Treasurer




Note:The  certification  the registrant  furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed
     "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,
     as  amended,  or  otherwise  subject to the  liabilities  of that  Section.
     Registration  Statements or other  documents  filed with the Securities and
     Exchange Commission shall not incorporate this exhibit by reference, except
     as otherwise expressly stated in such filing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Melita Oliviera, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Brien, J.), rendered June 8, 1988, convicting her of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel by her attorney’s failure to adequately explain the consequences of rejecting a plea offer. However, since the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel is based on matters dehors the record, it should have been raised in a posttrial application brought pursuant to CPL 440.10 *(see,*
      *692
      *People v Brown,*45 NY2d 852, 853, 854; *People v Camacho,*154 AD2d 611; *People v Hamlin,*153 AD2d 644, 645).

The defendant’s other contentions are either without merit or not preserved for appellate review, and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
#### DUCKWORTH v. STATE.

No. 15436.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 14, 1932.

B. B. Kirk, of Houston, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for child desertion; punishment two years in the penitentiary.

The law under which appellant was convicted was passed and became effective August 21, 1931 (Vernon’s Ann. P. C. art. 602). In order to sustain this conviction it would have to be shown that since said'time, the accused, had willfully failed to support, etc., his minor children. Elms v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 500, 270 S. W. 856. The burden is on the state to make such showing. The mere fact, in proof, that the accused did not support- or contribute to the support of his children after August 21, 1931, would not suffice to show that his failure or refusal was willful. He may not have been able.

As we understand this record, there is not a word of testimony establishing that since August 21, 1931, appellant has had any money to contribute to the support of his children, or any work from which he might receive money, or any property which might be converted into money. The statement that at some indefinite time since June, 1930, appellant received as much as 7⁄8400 soldier bonus furnishes no such proof. He may have received this amount in July -or August, 1930, or at any time prior to August 21, 1931, and may have lost same or paid it out on other *98obligations prior to the taking effect of this law. This’ court cannot let a conviction stand unless and until same be supported by some proof justifying the conclusion of guilt.

If this case should be tried again, testimony as to the kind of people who lived in the house occupied by appellant should- be omitted, as well as testimony of the conduct of persons at the house to which appellant went on one occasion with his little son. Such testimony has no bearing on the issue of willful desertion, etc., and is capable of creating prejudice against the accused and thereby doing him much harm.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
&%,5(3/$&(0(173$*( 



(3$+42:





'&1   6*(









7+()2//2:,1*+$6%((15(029('%(&$86(,7

&217$,16&21),'(17,$/%86,1(66,1)250$7,21

&%,3(5&)53$5768%3$57%