alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 15

- 00057

- CR

MARCUS LESLIE, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 5th District Court Bowie County, Texas Trial Court No. 13

- F

- 1027

- 005

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.2 

### O R D E R Court reporter Leslie P. Bates recorded the trial court proceedings in appellate cause number 06

- 15

- 00057

- CR, styled Marcus Leslie v. The State of Texas , trial court cause number 13F1027

- 005 in the 5th Judicial District Court of Bowie County, Texas. The r eporter’s record was originally due in this matter June 1, 2015. That deadline was extended twice by this Court on Bates’ requests, resulting in the most recent due date of July 31, 2015. Bates has now filed a third request seeking an additional fourteen

- day extension of the filing deadline. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure establish that “trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 35.3(c). The Rules further instruct that an “appellate court may enter any order necessary to ensure the timely filing of the appellate record.” Id. In furtherance of our responsibilities established by the Rules, we find we must take steps to ensure that the record in this case is filed in a reasonable amount of time. Therefore, we overrule Bates’ third request for an extension of the filing deadline and hereby order her to file the reporter’s record in cause number 06

- 15

- 00057

- CR, styled Marcus Leslie v. The State of Texas , trial court cause number 13F1027

- 005 in the 5th Judicial District Court of Bowie County, Texas, to be received by this Court no later than Friday, August 14, 2015. If the reporter’s record is not received by August 14, we warn Bates that we may begin contempt proceedi ngs and order her to demonstrate why she should not be held in contempt of this Cour t for failing to obey its order

.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT Date: August 4, 2015
#### TEAL v. STATE.

No. 18686.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 23, 1936.

Wm. E. Davenport, of San Angelp, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for violation of the liquor laws of the state; penalty assessed at a fine of $250 and confinement in the county jail for sixty days.

Omitting the formal parts, the information reads as follows: “Bessie Teal, on or about the 10th day of March, A. D., One Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty-six, and before the making and filing of this Information, in the County of Tom Green and State of Texas, did then and there unlawfully being then and there a person lawfully authorized to sell beer for consumption on the premises where sold, to-wit: — 515 North Chadbourne Street, in the City of San Angelo, Tom Green County, Texas, did then and there unlawfully have in her possession at and near said premises liquor produced by the process of distillation, to-wit, whiskey.”

The evidence heard in the trial court is not brought forward for review, but the legal propositions presented are identical with those before the court in the case of Gremillion v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 100 S.W.(2d) 106, not yet reported [in State report].

Upon the reasons and authority of the case mentioned, the judgment in the present instance is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                          $        29
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                         8,783
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          0
<PP&E>                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        8,812
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    29
<BONDS>                               8,783
<COMMON>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          8,812
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          0
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           0
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                              0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.00
        

</TABLE>
#### ALLEN v. STATE.

No. 20902.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 6, 1940.

R. S. Ragsdale, of Burkburnett, and Sam B. Spence, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Wichita County with the offense of burglary and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two- years.

 The transcript in the present instance does not contain the proper notice of appeal. In addition to showing a docket entry, we find the following notation at the conclusion of the sentence: “To which the defendant excepted and gave notice of appeal.” Manifestly, this is not such a notice of appeal as complies with the statutory requirement. Art. 827, C.C.P. From the notice given, it does not appear whether the appeal was made to this court or to some other court. The notice of appeal must show that the appeal is taken to the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex.Jur., Vol. 4, p. 114, sec. 76; Hill v. State, 108 Tex.Cr.R. 335, 300 S.W. 70; Thweatt v. State, 110 Tex.Cr.R. 603, 9 S.W.2d 1042.

Deeming the notice of appeal found in the record insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court to consider the appeal, it is therefore dismissed.
EXHIBIT 31.2

I, Gerald J. Malys, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Apex Silver Mines Limited;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the
registrant and have:

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures
to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report
is being prepared;

b. Designed such internal controls over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over
financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;

c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors:

a. All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 10, 2008



/s/ Gerald J. MalysGerald J. MalysSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

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 this Annual Report of UnionBanCal Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the year ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Masashi Oka, President and 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, to my knowledge:



Dated:
May 13, 2011

By:

/s/ MASASHI OKA Masashi Oka Chief Executive Officer


---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS   SCHEDULE   CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION
EXTRACTED  FROM THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF  EARNINGS  AND
CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE SHEET FOR THE PERIOD ENDED  MARCH  31,
1997  FILED  WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION  ON
FORM  10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE  TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                            3,287,698
<SECURITIES>                      4,222,841
<RECEIVABLES>                       826,907
<ALLOWANCES>                       (82,709)
<INVENTORY>                         778,762
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  6,195,627
<PP&E>                              796,663
<DEPRECIATION>                    (192,767)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   11,834,205
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             1,039,054
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                               7600
<OTHER-SE>                       16,743,014
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     11,834,205
<SALES>                             875,723
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    875,723
<CGS>                               522,824
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     1,393,838
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      624
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (895,175)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (895,175)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                      (895,175)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (.12)
                                           

        

</TABLE>
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 AFG Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the  Securities
and  Exchange   Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"),   we,  Erich
Spangenberg,  Chief  Executive  Officer,  and William P. Stelt,  Chief Financial
Officer 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 result of  operations of the
Company.


Dated: April 15, 2005                     By:/s/Erich Spangenberg
                                            --------------------
                                            Chief Executive Officer

                                           By:/s/William P. Stelt
                                            --------------------
                                            Chief Financial Officer
[Cite as State v. Ali , 2019-Ohio-4763.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

STATE OF OHIO Respondent

v. JUBA ABDULLAH ALI

Petitioner C.A. No. 29580

ORIGINAL ACTION IN HABEAS CORPUS

Dated: November 20, 2019

PER CURIAM. {¶1} Juba Abdullah Ali has petitioned this Court for a writ of habea s corpus to order his release from custody. 

### Because Mr. Ali has not complied with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25, this Court must dismiss this case

. {¶2} 

### Upon review of the petition, it is apparent that it contains nu merous defects. Mr. Ali failed to specifically name the respondent, although hi s allegations are directed to the trial court judge who is presiding over his criminal cas e. He also failed to verify his petition and attach his commitment papers, as required by R .C. 2725.04. While these defects would ordinarily require dismissal, Mr. Ali also failed to comply with a statutory filing mandate that requires this Court to dismiss his petition

. {¶3} 

### R.C. 2969.25 sets forth specific filings requirements for inmat es who file a civil action against a government employee or entity. The judg e who is presiding over his case is a government employee. Mr. Ali, incarcerated in th e Summit County Jail, isC.A. No. 29580 Page 2 of 3 

### an inmate. R.C. 2969.21(C) and (D). A case must be dismissed if the inmate fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25 in the c ommencement of the

action. State ex rel. Graham v. Findlay Mun. Court , 106 Ohio St.3d 63, 2005-Ohio-3671, ¶ 6 (“The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failu re to comply with them subjects an inmate’s action to dismissal.”). {¶4} 

### Mr. Ali did not pay the cost deposit required by this Court’s L ocal Rules. He also failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C), which sets forth specific requirements for an inmate who seeks to proceed without paying the cost deposit. Mr. Ali did not file an affidavit of indigency and he did not file a statement of his p risoner trust account that sets forth the balance in his inmate account for each of the precedi ng six months, as certified by the institutional cashier. {¶5} 

### Because Mr. Ali did not comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25, the case is dismissed. Costs taxed to Mr. Ali. {¶6} 

### The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all partie s not in default notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58.

LYNNE S. CALL AHAN FOR THE COURT

CARR, J. HENSAL, J. CONCUR.C.A. No. 29580 Page 3 of 3 APPEARANCES: JUBA ABDULLAH ALI, Pro se, Petitioner. SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and COLLEEN SIMS, Ass istant Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondents.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          39,220
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  415,497
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     46,723
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               456,977
<PP&E>                                       2,897,542
<DEPRECIATION>                                 336,032
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,714,508
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          851,581
<BONDS>                                      1,870,194
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        95,556
<OTHER-SE>                                     897,177
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,714,508
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,424,691
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,579,384
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             210,049
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (364,742)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (366,342)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>
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 Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brian J. Jennings, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 Partnership.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 12, 2008



/s/ Brian J. JenningsBrian J. Jennings Chief Financial
Officer


*A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to
and will be retained by Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 232 

To terminate the EB–5 Visa Program and to reallocate the employment 

creation visas to the other employment-based visa classifications. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2017 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To terminate the EB–5 Visa Program and to reallocate 

the employment creation visas to the other employmentbased visa classifications. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT CREATION 

4 VISA CLASSIFICATION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 203(b)(5) of the Immi6 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)) is re7 pealed. 

8 (b) REALLOCATION TO OTHER EMPLOYMENT-BASED

9 VISA CLASSIFICATIONS.—Section 203(b) of such Act (8 

10 U.S.C. 1153(b)) is amended— 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 232 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘28.6 per2 cent’’ and inserting ‘‘30.4 percent’’; 

3 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘28.6 per4 cent’’ and inserting ‘‘30.4 percent’’; 

5 (3) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘28.6 per6 cent’’ and inserting ‘‘30.4 percent’’; and 

7 (4) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘7.1 percent’’ 

8 and inserting ‘‘8.8 percent’’. 

9 SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS. 

10 (a) IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.—Title II 

11 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151 

12 et seq.) is amended— 

13 (1) in section 202— 

14 (A) in subsection (a)(5)(A), by striking 

15 ‘‘(4), or (5)’’ and insert ‘‘or (4)’’; and 

16 (B) in subsection (e)(3), by striking 

17 ‘‘through (5)’’ and inserting ‘‘through (4)’’; 

18 (2) in section 203(b)(1), in the matter pre19 ceding subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘paragraphs 

20 (4) and (5)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (4)’’; 

21 (3) in section 204(a)(1)— 

22 (A) by striking subparagraph (H); 

23 (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (I), 

24 (J), (K), and (L) as subparagraphs (H), (I), 

25 (J), and (K), respectively; 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 232 IS

1 (C) in subparagraph (H), as redesignated, 

2 by moving clause (iv) 6 ems to the left; and 

3 (D) by moving subparagraph (K), as re4 designated, 4 ems to the left; and 

5 (4) by striking section 216A (8 U.S.C. 1186b). 

6 (b) REPEAL OF PILOT IMMIGRATION PROGRAM.— 

7 Section 610 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 

8 and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropria9 tions Act, 1993 (Public Law 102–395) is repealed. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
#### ANDERSON v. STATE.

No. 16024.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 10, 1933.

My res & Pressly, of Port Worth, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for aggravated assault, punishment being a. fine of $100 and imprisonment in the county jail for one year and a day.

The complaint and information appear to be regular, properly charging the offense.

No bills of exception or statement of facts are brought forward. • In such condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### The Lorain Coal & Dock Co. et al., Appellants, *v.*Atkinson, Admr. of Bureau of Unemployment Compensation et al., Appellees.

(No. 28728

Decided July 2, 1941.)

*Mr. Robert E. Scott*and *Messrs. Taplin S Taplin,*for appellants.

*Mr. Thomas J. Herbert, Mr. E. G. Schuessler*and *Mr. David M. Spriggs,*for appellees.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal , as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Hart, Zimmerman and Bettman, JJ., concur.

Matthias, J., not participating.