alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR E N B ANC R ECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: Samantha Tianne Erickson v. Lee Robert Erickson

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00481

- CV

Trial court case number: 2013

- 10540

Trial court: 308th District Court of Harris County

The en banc court has unanimously voted to deny appellant’s motion for en banc

reconsideration of the denial of appellant’s request for temporary relief

. * It is ordered that
appellant’s motion for reconsi deration and en banc reconsideration is denied

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sarah B. Landau

____________ Acting for the En Banc Court

Date: July 12, 2019

* En banc court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes, Higley, Lloyd, Kelly,

Goodman, Landau, Hightower, and Countiss.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

676 

KA 14-02142 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, PERADOTTO, AND CARNI, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BETTY M. COLLETTE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Daniel

J. Doyle, J.), entered September 23, 2014. The order determined that

defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender

Registration Act. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that she is a

level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act

(Correction Law § 168 et seq.), defendant contends that Supreme Court

abused its discretion in denying her request for a downward departure

from the presumptive level three risk. We reject that contention. “A

defendant seeking a downward departure has the initial burden of . . .

identifying, as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor,

namely, a factor which tends to establish a lower likelihood of

reoffense or danger to the community and is of a kind, or to a degree,

that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the risk

assessment guidelines” (People v Clark, 126 AD3d 1540, 1540, lv denied

25 NY3d 910 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Gillotti,

23 NY3d 841, 861), and defendant failed to make that showing (see

Clark, 126 AD3d at 1540; People v Johnson, 120 AD3d 1542, 1542, lv

denied 24 NY3d 910). 

Entered: September 30, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2539 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2539

    To amend the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
 Appropriations Act, 2015, to reauthorize certain projects to increase 
                      Colorado River System water.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 13, 2018

  Mr. Heller introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
 Appropriations Act, 2015, to reauthorize certain projects to increase 
                      Colorado River System water.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF PROJECTS TO INCREASE COLORADO RIVER 
              SYSTEM WATER.

    Section 206(c)(2) of the Energy and Water Development and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015 (43 U.S.C. 620 note; Public Law 113-
235), is amended by striking ``2018'' and inserting ``2022''.
                                 <all>
```
|                                                                                                                                         | Year      Ended December 31, |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                         | 2009                         | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 |
| Earnings:                                                                                                                                    |                         |   |   |   |   |
| Incoming      from continuing operations                                                                                                     | $1,234             | $1,198   | $1,020   | $1,005   | $920   |
| Income      taxes provision                                                                                                                  | 460                | 425   | 539   | 554   | 544   |
| Fixed      charges                                                                                                                           | 861                | 907   | 937   | 845   | 639   |
| Pre-tax      earnings required to coverthe      preferred stock dividend of consolidated subsidiaries                                        | (16)                    | (16)  | (17)  | (15)  | (20)  |
| Total      Earnings                                                                                                                          | $2,539             | $2,514   | $2,479   | $2,389   | $2,083   |
| Fixed      Charges:                                                                                                                          |                         |   |   |   |   |
| Interest      and amortization of premiums, discounts and capitalized expenses related      to short-term borrowings and long-term debt, net | $798               | $825   | $865   | $799   | $603   |
| Interest      on capital leases                                                                                                              | 19                 | 22   | 23   | 11   | 1   |
| AFUDC      debt                                                                                                                              | 44                 | 44   | 32   | 20   | 15   |
| Pre-tax      earnings required to coverthe      preferred stock dividend of consolidated subsidiaries                                        | 16                 | 16   | 17   | 15   | 20   |
| Total      Fixed Charges                                                                                                                     | $877               | $907   | $937   | $845   | $639   |
| Ratios      of Earnings toFixed      Charges                                                                                                 | 2.90               | 2.77   | 2.65   | 2.83   | 3.26   |
Opinion filed March 8, 2018

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-18-00058-CV

__________

MVD ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, Appellant

V.

BARRY TUBB, Appellee

On Appeal from the 132nd District Court

Scurry County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 25537

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

MVD Entertainment Group has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. MVD 

indicates that the parties have settled this matter, and MVD requests that this court 

issue an order dismissing the appeal. In accordance with MVD’s request, we dismiss 

this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

The motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

March 8, 2018 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of: Willson, J., 

Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1

 

1

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.
Exhibit
      32.2




**CERTIFICATION
        PUSUANT TO**
 **18
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PUSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 In
        connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Panhandle Eastern Pipe
        Line
        Company, LP (the "Company") for the annual period ended December 31, 2005
        as
        filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
        "Report"), I, Julie H. Edwards, as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
        Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
        pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge (i)
        the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15(d)
        of
        the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) the information
        contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
        condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 /s/
        JULIE H. EDWARDS
 Name:
        Julie H. Edwards
 Title:
        Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 Date:
        March 16, 2006
 
 
 
 
 This
        Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant
        to 18
        U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
        2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18
        of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be
        incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company 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 this Report, irrespective of any
        general incorporation language contained in such filing.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documents
        authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
        in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
        by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
        the
        Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
        upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**GLUE WILKINS,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**HON. DANTE R. PELLIGRINI [SIC], COMMONWEALTH COURT,** 

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 189 MM 2014** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 6 th**  **day of January, 2015, the Application or Leave to Fi le** 

**Original Process is** GRANTED **, and the “King’s Bench Matters” is** DENIED **. The**

**Prothonotary is** DIRECTED **to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.**
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4182

CLARENCE DAVENPORT, a/k/a Sweets,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CR-99-4)

Submitted: October 24, 2001

Decided: November 14, 2001

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

James T. Maloney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Kenneth E.

Melson, United States Attorney, Nicholas S. Altimari, Assistant

United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Pursuant to a valid plea agreement, Clarence Davenport, a/k/a

"Sweets," pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with

intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994),

and received a seventy-month prison term. On appeal, he contends

that the district court erred by denying his motion for a downward

departure due to his numerous medical problems. Because Davenport

made a valid waiver of his right to appeal his sentence, we dismiss

the appeal. 

A defendant whose plea agreement contains an express waiver of

the right to appeal may not appeal his sentence unless the waiver is

shown to be unknowing or involuntary. United States v. Brown, 232

F.3d 399, 403 (4th Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Marin, 961

F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992). Davenport’s plea agreement contained

such a waiver. Our review of the plea agreement and the record of the

plea colloquy reveal that Davenport’s waiver was knowing and voluntary. The sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum penalty and

there is no evidence that it was based on a constitutionally impermissible factor. Marin, 961 F.2d at 496. Moreover, the sentence was not

imposed pursuant to proceedings conducted in violation of Davenport’s right to counsel. United States v. Attar, 38 F.3d 727, 732-33

(4th Cir. 1994). 

We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

2 UNITED STATES v. DAVENPORT
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 EP MedSystems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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 operation of the Company
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |                     |  |                                                      
|------------------ |  |  |  | ------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|                   |  | 
|Date: May 15, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Matthew C. Hill
|                   |  |  |  |                     |  | Matthew C. Hill                                      
|                   |  |  |  |                     |  | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Appellant 

 v. 

DAMION WALKER, 

 Appellee 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 1 EAP 2015 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence 

of the Court of Common Pleas of 

Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, 

on November 19, 2014 at No. CP-51-

CR-0012595-2012 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 15th day of August, 2016, the Order of the Philadelphia County 

Court of Common Pleas is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Smith Barney Mid-West Futures Fund L.P. II (the"Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the periodending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, David J. Vogel, President and Director of Citigroup Managed FuturesLLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Partnership.

/s/ David J.Vogel

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

David J.VogelCitigroup Managed Futures LLC President andDirector     Date: May 16,2005

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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          17,748
<SECURITIES>                                     8,107
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,470
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,150
<INVENTORY>                                      4,917
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,506
<PP&E>                                          38,938
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  96,047
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,970
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           166
<OTHER-SE>                                      79,521
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    96,047
<SALES>                                         24,164
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,164
<CGS>                                           16,206
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,087
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 274
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    351
<INCOME-TAX>                                       161
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                190
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       190
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
*OPINION ISSUED DECEMBER 12, 2008*

#### RICHARD L. CAREY VS. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

(CC-08-0276)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

Andrew F. Tarr, Attorney at Law, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This claim was submitted to the Court for decision upon a Stipulation entered into by claimant and respondent wherein certain facts and circumstances of the claim *189were agreed to as follows:

1. On June 3, 2008, the claimant was driving north on W.Va. Route 88 next to Oglebay Park when he noticed a vehicle in the southbound lane had stopped in the roadway. Claimant observed that the road was blocked with tree branches. As he stopped his vehicle, a branch from the tree fell onto his vehicle damaging the vehicle’s windshield, hood, and fender.

2. Respondent was responsible for the maintenance of W.Va. Route 88 which it failed to maintain properly on the date of this incident.

3. As a result of this incident, claimant’s vehicle sustained damage in the amount of $362.00.

4. The amount of $362.00 for the damages is fair and reasonable.

The Court has reviewed the facts of the claim and finds that respondent was negligent in its maintenance of W.Va. Route 88 on the date of this incident; that the negligence of respondent was the proximate cause of the damages sustained to claimant’s vehicle; and that the amount of the damages agreed to by the parties is fair and reasonable. Thus, claimant may make a recovery for his loss.

Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion to and does make an award in the amount of $362.00.

Award of $362.00.
#### SHARP v. STATE.

No. 19739.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 11, 1938.

L. D. Johnston, of Waxahachie, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

The appellant was convicted for selling intoxicating liquor in the dry area of Ellis coupty, Tex., and her penalty assessed at thirty days’ confinement in the county jail.

There are two bills of exception in the record; bill No. 1 complaining of the court’s refusal to charge the jury that the witness W. Y. Mills was an accomplice, and it was necessary that his testimony relative to the sale of the liquor described in the information be corroborated.

We have heretofore held in the case of Stevens v. State, 110 S.W.2d 906, in a well-considered opinion by the late Judge Latti-more, and a line of cases following such decision, that an agent of the Liquor Control Board, in the absence of' any effort of entrapment, who purchases liquor in a dry area merely to detect violations of the law, and without promises or deceit, was not an accomplice witness whose testimony had to be corroborated in the prosecution of a seller of liquor.

To the same effect is bill of exceptions No. 2, wherein appellant requested the court to instruct a verdict of not guilty because of the fact that the evidence of W. Y. Mills was unsupported by any corroborating evidence thereto. What we have said in regard to bill of exceptions No. 1 applies also to this bill, and we do not think the court was called on to instruct the jury relative to the accompliceship of the witness W. Y. Mills under the facts disclosed by this record.

The judgment will accordingly be affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.01
 
                          GENELABS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
 
                 LIST OF REGISTRANT'S SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                       PERCENT OWNED
                                                                STATE OR COUNTRY        BY GENELABS
                            NAME                                OF ORGANIZATION      TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
------------------------------------------------------------    ----------------     ------------------
<S>                                                             <C>                  <C>
Accelerated Clinical Research Organization, Inc.............      Delaware                   100%
Genelabs Asia (Pte.) Ltd....................................      Singapore                  100%*
Genelabs Biotechnology Ltd..................................       Taiwan                     40%
Genelabs Diagnostic, Inc....................................      Delaware                   100%
Genelabs Diagnostics (Pte.) Ltd.............................      Singapore                  100%**
</TABLE>
 
---------------
 * Wholly-owned by Genelabs Diagnostic, Inc.
 
** Wholly-owned by Genelabs Asia (Pte.) Ltd.