alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismiss; Opinion Filed January 24, 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 01142
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF A .L.K. AND L.M.K., CH ILDREN On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 12
- 04986 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Schenck, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Myers The filing fee, docketing statement, and clerk’s record in this case are past due. By postcard
dated September 18, 2019, w e notified appellant the $205 filing fee was due. We directed appellant to remit the filing fee within ten days and expressly cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal. Also b y postcard dated September 18, 2019, we informed appellant the docketing statement in this case was due. We cautioned appellant that failure to file the docketing statement within ten days might result in the dismissal of this appeal
without further not ice. By letter dated January 6, 2020, w e informed appellant the clerk’s record had not been filed because appellant had not paid for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to provide verification of payment or arrangements to pay for the clerk’s recor d or to provide written
documentation appellant had been found entitled to proceed without payment of costs within ten days . We cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal– 2

–

without further notice. To date, appell ant ha s not paid the filing fee, provided the required documentation, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regard ing the status of this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b) , (c).

191142F.P05 /Lana Myers/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE– 3

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF A.L.K. AND L.M.K., CHILDREN
No. 05

- 19

- 01142

- CV On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 12

- 04986. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. Justices Schenck and Carlyle participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.
Judgment entered this 24 th day of January, 2020.
#### Ex parte WAGNON.

No. 20313.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 1, 1939.

M. E. Gates and Gordon M. Burns, both of Huntsville, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Relator is in the penitentiary under a conviction for robbery in the District Court of Wheeler County, Texas.

Relator sought discharge from the penitentiary under a writ of habeas corpus heard before the Hon. Max Rogers, Judge of the 12th Judicial District of Texas. Upon being remanded relator appealed to this court.

It is relator’s contention that the indictment against him charged only robbery by the use of firearms which is a- capital case only, and that under the provision of the statute (Arts. 10a and 12, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. of Texas) a jury could not be waived and a plea of guilty entered before the court as was done in this case.

In the application for the writ of habeas corpus it is stated that attached thereto and made a part thereof was a certified copy of said indictment. We find in the transcript what purports to be a copy of the indictment which we assume is the one which was attached to the application for writ of habeas corpus, but said indictment bears no certificate of the clerk that it is a correct copy of the indictment.

No statement of facts is brought before us showing what evidence was before the district judge on the habeas corpus hearing. In its absence we must assume that the evidence was such as to support the court’s order remanding relator to the penitentiary authorities.

*573If the indictment in fact charged relator with robbery by assault and violence and by putting the party robbed in fear of life and bodily injury, and by using a firearm, the State could abandon that part of the indictment alleging the use of a firearm, and relator could then waive a jury and enter his plea of guilty to ordinary robbery before the court without a jury. See Gonzales v. State, 88 Tex.Cr. R. 248, 250, 226 S.W. 405; Sweeney v. State, 103 Tex.Cr.P. 393, 281 S.W. 571, and cases therein cited.

In the absence of a showing to the contrary we must presume that the learned trial judge who remanded relator had facts before him which authorized his action.

The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 14, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00692-CR

SAUNDREA ANNETTE JACKSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 263rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1340533

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant appeals her conviction for aggravated robbery.

1 Appellant’s 

appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly 

 

1

The record reflects that appellant pleaded guilty without an agreed recommendation as 

to sentencing. The certification of the right to appeal incorrectly states, “the defendant has 

waived the right of appeal.” Although negotiated waivers of the right to appeal are valid, nonnegotiated waivers of the right to appeal are valid only if the defendant waived the right of 

appeal, knowing with certainty the punishment that would be assessed. See Monreal v. State, 99 

S.W.3d 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Because there is no plea bargain in this case, and no 
2

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the 

record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised 

of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford 

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). At appellant’s request, the 

record was provided to her. On May 30, 2014, appellant filed a pro se response to 

counsel’s brief.

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s 

response, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we 

find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing 

to the jurisprudence of the state. We are not to address the merits of each claim 

raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are 

no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Donovan.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

 

evidence of a waiver made after sentencing, any waiver could not have been made knowingly, 

voluntarily, and intelligently given that the defendant had no way of knowing with certainty the 

punishment that would be assessed. See Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 219 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2000). Thus, there is no valid waiver of the right to appeal.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMO OPTEK
CORP.'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 28, 1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                         114,166
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   78,497
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,781
<INVENTORY>                                     60,794
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               276,907
<PP&E>                                          73,365
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,347
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 537,456
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          181,135
<BONDS>                                         96,819
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           485
<OTHER-SE>                                     240,883
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   241,368
<SALES>                                        253,682
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               253,682
<CGS>                                          134,987
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  134,987
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,644
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,483
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,974
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,157
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,011
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,146
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,146
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1


                                 EXHIBIT 21.1

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 Name                                                  Jurisdiction        D/B/A
 ----                                                  ------------        -----
 <S>                                                   <C>                 <C>
 Fuisz International Holdings Limited                  Ireland             Fuisz International Holdings
                                                                           Limited

 Fuisz International Limited                           Ireland             Fuisz International Limited

 Fuisz International Bermuda Limited                   Bermuda             Fuisz International Bermuda
                                                                           Limited

 Fuisz Ireland Limited                                 Ireland             Fuisz Ireland Limited

 Fuisz Technologies (Ireland) Limited                  Ireland             Fuisz Technologies (Ireland)
                                                                           Limited

 Laboratoires Murat                                    France              Laboratoires Murat

 Pangea Ltd.                                           United States       Pangea Ltd.

 Clonmel Healthcare Limited                            Ireland             Clonmel Healthcare Limited

 Istoria Farmaceutici                                  Italy               Istoria Farmaceutici

 Dr. Rentschler GmbH & Co. Medizin KG                  Germany             Dr. Rentschler GmbH & Co.
                                                                           Medizin KG
</TABLE>
#### Rieke, Gdn., Appellant, *v.*Hogan et al., Appellees.

(No. 28297

Decided February 26, 1941.)

*28
      *Messrs. Gurry d McCabe*and *Mr. A. F. Gallagher,*for appellant.

*Mr. Henry 8. Brainard,*director of law, *Mr. Charles W. White*and *Mr. J. H. Crowley,*for appellees.

By the Court.

The Court of Appeals held that, under Section 119 of the Charter of Cleveland, in the absence of the director of the department only the mayor is authorized to inquire into the cause of suspension of police and fire department officers and employees, and that such gmsi-judicial duty cannot be assigned to an assistant in the absence of specific charter provision.

Counsel for relatrix below contend that the only legal order issued was the 90-day suspension on April 20, 1936, and that Rieke continued to be a member of the department under suspension and without pay until his death on April 10, 1938.

Section 23 of the Rules of the Trustees of the Firemen’s Relief and Pension Fund provides:

> “If any *member*of the division of fire shall be killed *29or die from any cause, *while a member*of the division of fire, or while retired, and shall leave * * * minor child or children (as herein defined), under eighteen years of age, * * * such * * * minor child or children * * * shall be placed upon the firemen’s pension roll and receive the following amounts monthly, *vis:** * (Italics ours.)

Section 29 of the rules provides:

> *“Members who have resigned*or who have been discharged from the division of fire shall have no interest or claim on the firemen’s pension fund, except as otherwise provided by these rules and by-laws.” (Italics ours.)

The Court of Appeals adopted the view of counsel for the respondents that even if the action of the acting director were not valid in accepting Rieke’s resignation implied from his conduct, under the facts in this case he abandoned his position and for that reason he was not a *member*of the department at his death, citing 22 Ruling Case Law, 560, Section 264, and *Scofield*v. *United States*(6 C. C. A.), 174 F., 1. After referring to *Selby*v. *City of Portland,*14 Ore., 243, 12 P., 377, 58 Am. Rep., 307, wherein it is stated, at page 246, that it requires.cogent proof to establish abandonment as a matter of fact, the Court of Appeals in the present case declared that stronger evidence of abandonment could hardly be secured than that Rieke did not report for duty and made no attempt to resume his duties or to retain his position during the period commencing with the expiration of his> 90-day suspension and continuing until the date of his death, an interval of nearly two years.

Being a member of the division of fire was the first requisite for participation in the relief and pension fund. Abandonment may be treated as a constructive resignation. 2 McQuillin on Municipal Corporations (Rev. Ed.), 245, Section 516. Other propositions advanced by counsel for relatrix below need not be de*30cided. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2058 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2058

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the thresholds by 
  which medical facility projects and medical facility leases of the 
 Department of Veterans Affairs are considered major medical facility 
projects and major medical facility leases, respectively, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 1, 2017

Mr. Wyden (for himself and Mr. Merkley) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the thresholds by 
  which medical facility projects and medical facility leases of the 
 Department of Veterans Affairs are considered major medical facility 
projects and major medical facility leases, respectively, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF THRESHOLDS USED TO CLASSIFY MAJOR MEDICAL 
              FACILITY PROJECTS AND MAJOR MEDICAL FACILITY LEASES OF 
              THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    (a) Major Medical Facility Projects.--Subparagraph (A) of section 
8104(a)(3) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking 
``$10,000,000'' and inserting ``$20,000,000''.
    (b) Major Medical Facility Leases.--Subparagraph (B) of such 
section is amended by striking ``$1,000,000'' and inserting ``the 
average annual rental rate set forth in section 3307(a)(2) of title 
40''.
    (c) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section shall apply 
with respect to a medical facility project or medical facility lease in 
progress on the date of the enactment of this Act or beginning on or 
after such date.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEUDLE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
BALANCE SHEET OF TELECOMMUICATIONS INCOME FUND IX, L.P. AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997
AND THE AUDITED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         458,893
<SECURITIES>                                    65,389
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,513,511
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,922,056)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,795,697
<DEPRECIATION>                               (270,858)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,640,576
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          681,832
<BONDS>                                         50,557
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,908,187
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,640,576
<SALES>                                      2,624,821
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,624,821
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               880,006
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,801,233
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             163,677
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (220,095)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (220,095)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (220,095)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.25)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.25)
<FN> NET INCOME PER PARTNERSHIP UNIT
        

</TABLE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-3607

_____________________________

SEDRIC DEON BROOKS JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

W. Joel Boles, Judge.

June 11, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERS

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), David T. Hung, M.D., Chief Executive Officer of Medivation, Inc. (the
Company), and C. Patrick Machado, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

(1)
The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

(2) The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: November 10, 2008

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned have set his hand hereto as of the 10th day of November, 2008.



|                        |  |                                       |  |                        |  |        |  |                                                  
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |                                       |  |                       
|                        |  |                                      
|/s/ David T. Hung, M.D. |  |                                       |  | /s/ C. Patrick Machado
|Name:                   |  | David T. Hung, M.D.                   |  |                        |  | Name:  |  | C. Patrick Machado                               
|Title:                  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer |  |                        |  | Title: |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Medivation, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form
10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 218 

To restrict the inclusion of social security account numbers on documents 

sent by mail by the Federal Government, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2017 

Mr. GARDNER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To restrict the inclusion of social security account numbers 

on documents sent by mail by the Federal Government, 

and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Social Security Fraud 

5 Prevention Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RESTRICTION OF SSNS ON DOCUMENTS SENT BY 

7 MAIL. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—No department or agency of the 

9 Federal Government may include the social security ac10 count number of any individual on any document sent by 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 218 IS

1 mail unless the head of such department or agency deter2 mines that the inclusion of such social security number 

3 on such document is necessary. 

4 (b) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 1 year after the 

5 date of the enactment of this Act, the head of each depart6 ment and agency of the Federal Government shall issue 

7 regulations specifying the circumstances under which in8 clusion of a social security account number on a document 

9 sent by mail is necessary. Such regulations shall include— 

10 (1) instructions for the partial redaction of so11 cial security account numbers whenever feasible; and 

12 (2) a requirement that social security account 

13 numbers not be visible on the outside of any package 

14 sent by mail. 

15 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This Act shall apply with re16 spect to documents sent by mail on or after the date that 

17 is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS