alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-91,955-01

EX PARTE SAMUEL NINO JR., Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. F42357-A 

IN THE 18 DISTRICT COURT FROM JOHNSON COUNTY

TH

Per curiam. YEARY, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which SLAUGHTER, J., joined.

O P I N I O N

Applicant was convicted offour counts ofonline solicitation of a minor and sentenced to three

years’ imprisonment in count 1 and five years’ imprisonment in each of the remaining counts.

Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district

clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant alleges, among other things, that his convictions are based on an unconstitutional

statute. 

This Court, in Ex parte Lo, held unconstitutional the online solicitation of a minor statute for

which Applicant was convicted. Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Applicant filed

this habeas application based on the Lo decision and asks that his convictions be set aside. The State
2

recommends that relief be granted in this cause.

Relief is granted based on Applicant’s claim that he was convicted under authority of an

unconstitutional statute. The judgments in Cause No. F42357 in the 18 District Court of Johnson

th

County are set aside and the cause isremanded so the trial court can dismissthe indictment. The trial

court shall issue any necessary bench warrant within ten days from the date of this Court’s mandate.

Copies ofthis opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department ofCriminalJustice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: November 18, 2020

Do not publish
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 the Form 10-QSB of Absolute Waste Services, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of their knowledge and belief, that:

          1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
               and

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



                                            /s/  Thomas F. Duszynski
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Thomas F. Duszynski
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                 Chief Financial Officer

                                                 Date:    August 12, 2005


     This certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, or otherwise
subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification
shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the
Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk April 1, 2013

s0325 

# Order

April 1, 2013

146169

ANTHONY LEMON,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146169

COA: 304642

Genesee CC: 09

- 092581

- CZ

MARK BOUDREAU and KEVIN SMITH,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

STEPHEN MCFADDEN and JUSTIN

BROUGHTON,

Defendants

- Appellants,

and

CYNTHIA HERFERT,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 18, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T L AMON E . J AC KS ON , P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. D . K . S I S T O , W ar d e n ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 17331 D. C . No . 2 : 0 8 - c v - 0 2 5 0 2 - F C DC MK ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia F r ank C . D a m r e l l , J r . , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r27, 2011 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , W . F L E T C H E R , an dM U R G U IA , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L a m on E . J a c ks on, aC a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t d is m is s in g h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n f o rf a ilu r e to e x h au s ta d mi n i s tr a t i v e r e me d i e s u n d e rth e Pr i s o n Li t i g a t i o n Re f o rm A c t , 4 2 U . S. C. § 1997e ( a ) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo the 

# FI LED OC T 07 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 17331 2 di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss alfor f ai l ure t o exh aust , and for cl ear e rr or i t s f ac tual d e te rm in a tio n s . W

y at t v . T e rhune , 3 1 5 F .3 d1 1 0 8 , 1 1 1 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . W e a f f i rm. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyd is m is s e dth e a c tio n b e c au s e J a c k s o n ’s f a ilu r e to s ubm i tat i m e l yi nm a t e gr i e vanc e appe a l a s t o hi s f a i l ur e - t o- pr ot e c tc l a i m di d not c o n s titu te p r o p e re x h au s tio n . Se e W oodf ord v . N go , 548 U . S . 81, 83- 84, 93 ( 2006) (“ [P ] roper exhaust i on ” i s m andat ory and cann otbe sat i sf i ed by fi l i ng an ad m i n i strat i v e g ri ev an ce th ati s p ro p erl y rej ect edas “ u n t i m el y o r o th erw i se p r o c e du r a llyd e f

e c tiv e [ .]” ) ; se e al

so B oo th v. Chu rner , 532 U . S . 731, 734 ( 2001) ( a n i nm a t e s e e ki ng onl ym one yda m a ge s m us tc om pl e t e apr i s on a dm i ni s tr a t i ve proces s c apabl e of a dd re ss i ng hi s c om pl ai ntand p rovi di ng som e f orm of re l i ef

, even i f the process do es no tprov i de for the re coveryof m on et ary r el i ef ). W e c o n s tru e th e d is m is s a l o f J a c k s o n ’s c la im s to b e w ith o u t p r e ju d ic e . See W y a tt , 31 5 F . 3d at11 20 (e xp l ai ni ng thati f the courtconcl ud es thata pri soner has fa i l ed t o exh aust , the prop erre m edy i s di sm i ss alw i tho utprej ud i ce ). Ja ckson’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.
Development of Chemical Precipitation Purchased Equipment Costs: 

Tanks 

 

 

This telephone contact report supports EPA’s development of purchased equipment cost equations for tanks by 

documenting EPA's communication with a vendor regarding purchase costs and information for tanks used in 

the Steam Electric cost model. 
Project No.: 0172.08.029.044 DISTRIBUTION 

Page _1_ of __1_

Project Name: Steam/Cost/Compliance Modeling

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD 

 Outgoing Call

Date: 06/28/2011 Time: 7:30 am PDT 

Company Name: Bendel Tank & Heat Exchanger Corporation 

 

Contact Name: Vince Petrucci 

Phone No : (704)-596-5112 

Name: Kavya Kasturi ERG

GENERAL SUBJECT: Vendor cost request for carbon steel shop-built tanks for a chemical precipitation wastewater treatment system. 

 

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN 

On June 28, 2011 at 7:30 am I contacted Mr. Vince Petrucci. I explained to Mr. Petrucci that we are working 

on conceptual level costing of a chemical precipitation wastewater treatment system to treat FGD (flue gas 

desulfurization) wastewater from steam electric power plants, and as a part of this project we are trying to 

collect cost information on different components or units of a chemical precipitation system. 

I told Mr. Petrucci that we are interested in shop-built carbon steel tanks. I requested information such as 

purchase cost, cost for ancillary equipments and power consumption (if applicable). Mr. Petrucci stated that the 

maximum tank size they offer is approximately 70,000 gallons, which corresponds to a tank diameter of 15 feet 

and height of 60 feet. Mr. Petrucci indicated that he would provide cost information via email.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

PHARMACOPEIA, INC.

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Pharmacopeia, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph A. Mollica, Ph.D., Chairman of theBoard, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of theSarbanes-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 allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| /s/ Joseph  A. Mollica, Ph.D.                                  |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Joseph A.  Mollica, Ph.D.                                      |
| Chairman of  the Board, President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                                           |
| August 8,  2003                                                |

 

----
NUMBER 13-23-00487-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

 

JAMES ALFREDO MORENO SALAZAR, Appellant,

 v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 36th District Court 

of Aransas County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras

This cause is before the court on appellant’s motion to dismiss this appeal. 

Counsel for appellant signed the motion, and the appellant signed an attached affidavit. 

We find the motion and affidavit together meet the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 42.2(a) that appellant and attorney must sign a written motion to dismiss the 

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant
2

the motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal. 

Having dismissed the appeal at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will 

be entertained.

DORI CONTRERAS

Chief Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the

21st day of December, 2023.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DAVID PILAR RODRIGUEZ,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00112-CR

Appeal from

120th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 20140D01101)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be 

dismissed, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We 

further order that this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

Hughes, J., not participating
EXHIBIT 32.4





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I, Thomas B. Specketer, Vice President and Controller of MidAmerican Funding, LLC  (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
 the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





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








Date: August 6, 2010/s/ Thomas B. SpecketerThomas B. SpecketerVice President and Controller(principal financial officer)
#### In re KNOX KREATIONS, INC., Bankrupt. H. David CATE, Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant (79-1509/10), Plaintiff-Appellant (80-1210), v. Hugh P. NICELY, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee (79-1509/10), Defendant-Appellee (80-1210).

Nos. 79-1509, 79-1510 and 80-1210.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued July 8, 1981.

Decided Aug. 11, 1981.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Oct. 15, 1981.

Charles A. Wagner III, Gentry & Wagner, Knoxville, Tenn., R. Thomas Stinnett, Stone & Hinds, Knoxville, Tenn., for defendant-appellant, cross-appellee.

George Penh, Knoxville, Tenn., for plaintiff-appellee, cross-appellant.

Before WEICK, LIVELY and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The trustee in bankruptcy for Knox Kreations, Inc. appeals from a judgment which set aside a bankruptcy court determination that certain transfers made by Knox to Hugh P. Nicely were fraudulent. Nicely appeals from that portion of the district court’s judgment which held that two payments made from an escrow account to Nicely had to be set aside. The facts of the case are set out in the district court’s opinion reported at 474 F.Supp. 567.

There is no merit to any of the contentions made by the trustee in bankruptcy. The district court was correct in holding that the September 11, 1975 security agreement was not fraudulent and should not have been set aside under Section 70(e) of the Bankruptcy Act, and its interpretation of the relevant Tennessee statutes is persuasive. The district court was also correct in holding that Nicely’s claims should not be subordinated to Knox’s other creditors. The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen the proof in this case.

Nicely contends that the district court erred in ordering the two payments made from the escrow fund returned to the trustee. We agree. Knox’s obligation on the September 11, 1975 note was a “debt” as that term is defined by Section 67(d)(1)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act. Consequently, the *231payments made from the escrow fund were made in satisfaction of a debt and were made with fair consideration. The August 19,1977 payment was not a voidable preference. Once funds were deposited in the escrow account (which occurred more than four months prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition), a transfer occurred within the meaning of Section 60 of the Act.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# United States Hosts Proliferation Security Initiative Exercise Fortune Guard 22

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
135423 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 135423 COA: 271039 Muskegon CC: 05-052215-FH ALVIN ANTONIO JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 16, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s0317 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 24, 2008

Clerk
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 03384

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name3

Description

03384\03384_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

03384\03384_Certification Statement.PDF Plant certification statement

x 03384\03384_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

x 03384\03384_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

3

 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
#### Szumski, Appellant, vs. Szumski, Respondent.

*December 10, 1936*

January *12, 1937.*

*501
      *Sydney C. Charney*of Milwaukee,' for the appellant.

*Casimir Gonski*of Milwaukee, for the respondent.

*502Martin, J.

The judgment was entered under sec. 247.28, Stats., which provides:

> “In a judgment in an action for a divorce, although such divorce be denied, the court may make such order for the support and maintenance of the wife and children, or any of them, by the husband or out of his property as the nature of the case may render suitable and proper.”

The appellant contends that under the statute above quoted, a divorce being denied, the court was without power to limit the liability of the husband to support his wife. Actions for divorce are purely statutory, and only such judgments may be entered as are authorized by statute. *Boehler v.*Boehler, 125 Wis. 627, 104 N. W. 840; *Graham v. Graham,*149 Wis. 602, 136 N. W. 162; *In re Grbic,*170 Wis. 201, 174 N. W. 546, and cases cited.

In *Estate of Simonson,*164 Wis. 590, 594, 160 N. W. 1040, the court said:

> “Upon the assuming of the relationship of husband and wife the law requires the husband to support and provide for his wife, such requirement being grounded upon principles of public policy, and the husband cannot shirk it even by an express contract with his wife.” Citing *Rowell v. Barber,*142 Wis. 304, 318, 125 N. W. 937; *Ryan v.*Dockery, 134 Wis. 431, 114 N. W. 820; *Perkinson v. Clarke,*135 Wis. 584, 591, 116 N. W. 229.

The parties in the instant case are still husband and wife. To sustain the judgment entered, we would have to give to the plain and unambiguous language of sec. 247.28, Stats., a construction wholly unwarranted. By its enactment, the legislature did not intend that the courts should have the power to exempt a husband from liability for the support of his wife. The judgment in the instant case provides that, after making payments of $30 per month for a period of two years, or after having paid the total sum of $720 to the plaintiff, the defendant husband be relieved from further support*503ing or contributing to the support of his wife. A husband cannot shirk his obligation to support and provide for his wife even by an express contract with the wife. *Estate of Simonson, supra.*

Obviously, the trial court was of the opinion that it had power under the statute quoted to relieve the husband entirely from all obligation for the support of his wife after making the monthly payments required for a period of two years or until the total sum of $720 had been paid. Clearly there is no such authority in the statutes.

The appellant contends that the allowance to her for counsel fees was inadequate. That, however, is a matter largely within the discretion of the trial court, and we cannot say that the court erred in fixing the attorney fees at $100.

That part of the judgment appealed from must be reversed and the record remanded for further proceedings according to law.

*By the Court.*— That part of the judgment appealed from is reversed. Record remanded for further proceedings according to law.