alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 2, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41236

Summary Calendar

 

LEON LEE SAMMONS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

DOUGLAS DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6-02-CV-33

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

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leon Lee Sammons, Texas prisoner # 896479, was convicted of

aggravated robbery by a jury and sentenced to 60 years in prison.

Sammons appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 application. Sammons argues that the prosecutor commented

on his decision not to testify. Assuming that the argument was

a comment on Sammons’s failure to testify, the comment must be

viewed in the context of the trial and reversal is not warranted
No. 02-41236

-2-

unless the improper comment had a "clear effect on the jury." 

United States v. Montoya-Ortiz, 7 F.3d 1171, 1179 (5th Cir.

1993). Curative instructions are considered in analyzing whether

an improper remark constitutes reversible error. See United

States v. Anchondo-Sandoval, 910 F.2d 1234, 1237 (5th Cir. 1990). 

The trial court sustained the objection to the argument and

instructed the jury to disregard it. Juries are presumed to

follow the instructions of the court. See Zafiro v. United

States, 506 U.S. 534, 540-41 (1993). Additionally, the evidence

of Sammons’s guilt is overwhelming. Sammons has not shown that

the district court erred in concluding that the state court’s

denial of relief on this issue was contrary to clearly

established federal law or was based on an unreasonable

determination of the facts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Williams v.

Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 409 (2000); Beazley v. Johnson, 242 F.3d

248, 255 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Sammons moves for the appointment of appellate counsel. 

Sammons represented himself adequately in having this court grant

his motion for a certificate of appealability (COA). His brief 

on the issue of the prosecutor’s comment regarding his failure

to testify is more than adequate in presenting the claim. 

See Schwander v. Blackburn, 750 F.2d 494, 502 (5th Cir. 1985). 

Sammons’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           3,488
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,185
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,439
<INVENTORY>                                     74,223
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               108,116
<PP&E>                                          10,756
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,217
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 150,317
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           83,413
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           114
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,104
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   150,317
<SALES>                                         50,040
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,040
<CGS>                                           40,609
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,609
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    22
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,303
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,657)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,303
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,354)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,354)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.21)


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

No. 15139.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 13, 1932.

R. R. Huffman, of Marshall, for appellant.

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

MORROW, P. J.

Driving an automobile while intoxicated is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The motion for new trial was overruled and notice of appeal entered on the 26th day of September, 1931. The statement of facts was filed in the trial court on, January 5,-1932. By statute (article 7.60, subd. .5, 0. :0. P.) the time that may intervene between the notice of appeal- and the filing of the statement of facts in the trial court is limited to 90 days. Unless it is shown that the delay was not due to any fault or negligence of the appellant or his counsel, this court is precluded from giving consideration to the statement of facts. See George v. State, 25 Tex. App. 229, 8 S. W. 25, and cases collated. For the reasons stated, we are not permitted to consider the statement of facts.

The hills of exception were filed in time for consideration. However, they present no question for review which, in the absence of thé statement of facts, can be considered.

The point made that the court was in error in depriving the jury of the right to pass upon the identity of the offense in considering the matter of increased puifishment, as set forth in article 61, P. C. 1925, is not supported by the record. The jury was accurately and properly charged upon the subject.

The judgment is affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 25, 2018

Order 

Clerk

July 25, 2018

156622(65)

W A FOOTE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,

d/b/a ALLEGIANCE HEALTH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 156622

v COA: 333360

Kent CC: 15-008218-NF

MICHIGAN ASSIGNED CLAIMS PLAN

and MICHIGAN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

PLACEMENT FACILITY,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

JOHN DOE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants-appellees to extend the time 

for filing their supplemental brief is GRANTED. The supplemental brief will be accepted 

for filing if submitted on or before August 17, 2018.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements contained in the Form 10-Q for the six months ended June
30, 1999 for Aetna Inc. and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            29,827
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                         880
<MORTGAGE>                                       3,440
<REAL-ESTATE>                                      311
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  37,134
<CASH>                                           2,086
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           1,976
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 107,705
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 18,717
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                218
<POLICY-OTHER>                                   3,889
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           16,610
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                  2,488
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              862
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,263
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,151
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   107,705
<PREMIUMS>                                       8,962
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              1,466
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                  27
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   1,191
<BENEFITS>                                       8,488
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                        102
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    672
<INCOME-TAX>                                       265
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                407
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       407
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.66
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-11-00627- CV

In re G erald F roem m ing, D.D.S.

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The p et i t i o n for writ of injunction and motion for emer g ency stay are denied. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(a) , 52.10.

__________________________________________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Henson Filed: De cembe r 9, 2011
EXHIBIT 31.2



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



As adopted pursuant to



SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with Quarterly Report of Park Bancorp, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2005, (the Report), I, Steven J. Pokrak, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:



| | (3) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (4) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Steven J. PokrakSteven J. PokrakTreasurer and Chief Financial OfficerNovember 18, 2005




See accompanying
notes to consolidated financial statements.
# FILED
June 10, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COU RT OF CR IMINA L A PPEA LS OF TENN ESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE DECEMBERSESSION, 1996

STA TE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) No. 03C01-9602-CC-00066 Ap pellee ) ) McMINN COUNTY vs. ) ) Hon. R. STEVEN BEBB, Judge GUSSIE WILLIS VANN, ) ) (F el on y Mu rd er - De at h P en al ty; Appellant ) Incest)

SEPARA

TE CONCURRING
I concur in t he result re ached by the maj ority i n affirming all convicti ons and the appellant' s sentence of death. I write separately

only to addr

ess the issue of wheth er the indict ment for incest i s fatally defect ive for faili ng to incl ude the requisi te mens rea . I agree t hat the indictment is vali d, but for reasons other than those arti culated by t he majority . The majority relies upon State v. Marshall , 870 S.W.2d 532, 537 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). In Marshall , this court held that the mens rea

is an essenti al element of an offense and, ther efore, must be included in th e indictment. Id . at 537. This court further hel d that, if the mens rea is implicit in the allegations contained in the indictm ent, the indictment is adequate. Id . at 538. The majori ty applies this ratio nale, concludi ng that the mental state of "knowingly" is "necessarily impl ied by the al legations i n the indictment."

Howeve r, as noted by

the majority , the legis lature did not include the requisite mental state inthe definition of the offense of incest, permitt ing the application of any

one of three mental states set forth i n Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 11-301(c). I would si mply adhere to this court' s position i n State v. Di son , No. 03C01-9602-CC-00051 (Te nn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, Jan. 31, 1997), in which we held that, under these circumstan ces, the accused's culpable m ental state is2

notan essential element of the offense and need not be alleged in the indictment.

____________________________________ DAVID G. HA YES, Judge
Exhibit 31.2  CERTIFICATIONS  I, Gang Ma, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB/A of China RuiTai International Holdings Co., Ltd.;  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;  4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 control 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 officer(s) 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 the registrant 's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control 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: September 25, 2008 /s/ Gang Ma, Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.12

nStor Technologies, Inc.

October 1, 2004

Cenvill Recreation, Inc.1601 Forum PlaceSuite 500West Palm Beach, Florida  33417Attn:  Mark F. Levy

Dear Mr. Levy:

We have agreed to the following amendments to that certain Promissory Note, dated June 29, 2004, in the amount of $600,000 (the “Note”), payable by nStor Technologies, Inc. to Cenvill Recreation, Inc., copies ofwhich are attached hereto. 

1)   The maturity date of the Note is hereby extended from September 30, 2004 to January 15, 2005 (“Maturity”).

2)   Accrued and unpaid interest on the Note through October 31, 2004 in the amount of $14,695 is hereby added to the $600,000 principal amount of the Note so that as of the date hereof, the principal amount of theNote has been increased to $614,695 (the “New Principal Amount”).  Interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum will accrue on the unpaid New Principal Amount and be payable at Maturity.

Except as set forth in this letter, the Note remains unmodified and in full force and effect. 

Please indicate your concurrence with the foregoing.

Sincerely,

                                                                       Cenvill Recreation, Inc.

/s/ ToddGresham                                            Agreed By: /s/ Mark F. LevyToddGresham                                                                        Mark F. LevyPresident                                                                                 Vice President and Secretary

**6190 Corte Del Cedro * Carlsbad * California * 92009(760) 683-2500 * fax (760) 683-2544**
#### TEXAS CO. v. SCHWARZ et al.

No. 8896.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Oct. 26, 1932.

*168E. B. & Howell Ward, of Corpus Christ!, and Wm. K. Hall, of Houston, for appellant.

Hubbard, Dyer & Weaver, of Corpus Christi, for appellees.

ELY, O. J.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing an application for a temporary injunction to restrain the prosecution of two suits pending in the justice’s court, and the institution of suits on sums for monthly rental on certain property. Appellees state that the two suits have been dismissed, and that the rental term has expired, and all rents, if any, have become due, and that the possibility of a multiplicity of suits has been destroyed, and that the questions involved in the appeal have become moot.

We uphold the motion and dismiss the appeal, but, in view of the fact that it was through the acts of appellees that the appeal became necessary and the further prosecution of the.appeal has been rendered unnecessary by appellees, the costs of the appeal will be assessed against appellees.

Dismissed at the cost of appellees.
EXHIBIT 31.1
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Richard P. Thompson, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AradigmCorporation;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;
     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation, of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     a) all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and
     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting. /s/ RICHARD P. THOMPSONRichard P. Thompson*Chairman and Chief Executive Officer*
Dated: May 14, 2004