alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 12-14-00367-CR

ON APPEAL FROM THE 411TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

TRINITY COUNTY, TEXAS

CAUSE NO. 10078-A 

ELIJAH BROWN §

§

IN THE 12TH COURT OF APPEALS

§ OF

vs. §

§

STATE OF TEXAS § TYLER, TEXAS

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

Now comes Elijah Brown, Appellant in the above styled and numbered cause, 

and moves this Court to grant an extension of time to file appellant's brief, pursuant 

to Rule 38.6 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and for good cause shows 

the following:

1. This case is on appeal from the 411th District Court of Trinity County, 

Texas.

2. The case below was styled the STATE OF TEXAS vs. Elijah Brown, 

and numbered 10078-A. Appellant was convicted of Burglary of a Habitation. 

4. Appellant was assessed a sentence of Five (5) years deferred 

adjudication probation on April 15, 2014. 

5. On August 12, 2014, the State filed a Motion to Adjudicate Guilt.

6. A hearing was conducted and the allegations of the State’s Motion to 

Adjudication were found to be “True”. 

7. Appellant was assessed a sentence of Twelve (12) years Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division on September 30, 2014. 

ACCEPTED

12-14-00367-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

1/30/2015 4:12:43 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 1/30/2015 4:12:43 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
8. Notice of appeal of was mailed on November 4, 2014.

9. The appellate brief is presently due on January 30, 2015.

10. Appellant requests an extension of time of thirty (30) days from the 

present date.

11. No extensions to file the brief have been received in this cause.

12. Defendant is currently incarcerated.

13. Appellant relies on the following facts as good cause for the requested 

extension:

Counsel currently has five pending briefs due before the Court including one 

due on February 2, 2014 and is therefore respectfully requesting additional time to 

review the records and prepare an adequate brief.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that this 

Court grant this Motion to Extend Time to File Appellant's Brief, and for such other 

and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

Respectfully submitted:

 /s/John D. Reeves

____________________

John D. Reeves

Attorney at Law

1007 Grant

Lufkin, Texas 75901

Phone (936) 632-160

Fax: (936) 632-1640

tessabellus@yahoo.com

SBOT # 16723000

Counsel for Appellant
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Pursuant to Tex. R. App. 10.1 (5), certify that I, the undersigned conferred 

with the staff of opposing counsel who indicated that he does not oppose this 

motion.

 /s/John D. Reeves

___________________________

John D. Reeves

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Appellant’s 

Motion to Extend Time to file Appellant’s Brief on this 30th day of January, 2015

forwarded to State’s Attorney, Bennie Schiro, District Attorney, Trinity County, 

by electronic service at bennie.schiro@co.trinity.tx.us.

/s/John D. Reeves

__________________________

John D. Reeves

Attorney for Appellant, 

Elijah Brown
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007
of Intelligent Systems Corporation;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 quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we 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; andb)
    
    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; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors:
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies 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; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: November 14, 2007
    
    /s/ J. Leland StrangeJ. Leland Strange
Chief Executive Officer
ATE OF: LBZJ/2712

smect. WEEKLY DIARY - 30 October thru 5 November 1959

wo BG

Satellite Systems ~
1. Subsystem I: {(SzcREr)—

Thompson-Ramo-Wooldridge's Work Statement and delivery schedule
proposal for. Proposed Engineering Change "E" to T-R-W's Air Force
Contract 30(602)-1814 has been received by this office and the ISM.
Subject proposal is being reviewed and will be the subject of a
Conference with RADC and TRW personnel at AFEMD the week of 9 November
59. Purpose of the conference is to review the 1-R-W proposal to
insure that the contractor efforts are adequate to support Subsystem
I I®C requirements insofar as AMO responsibilities are concerned.

2. Commmication:& Control System: (UNCL)

Commmication. and Control Systems. applicable to SANOS, MIDAS end
DISCOVERER have been:a part of the Lockheed contract work statement.
This program has now grown to the point where decision has been made to
establish this effort under a prime contract between the Air Force and
Philco. Lockheed has been notified of this decision and steps have been
teken to implement 1t by development of separate work statements for
the portions that remain with Lockheed and the portions that. will be
contracted with Philco. This arrangement contemplates technical direction
of the Phileo effort by Lockheed. Conferences are being held with the
parties concerned in order that schedules for this arrangement can be
established and the necessary steps taken to implement it.

3. Status of DISCOVERER Iqunches: -(S80REE)—

DISCOVERER VII launch hes been delayed for technical reasang and
. is now anticipated for @ November. 59.

S 2767 Spo

» UBAF
tor, Space & Satellites

cepny td
“vas; NOT © 74
ECUASSI AED. DUD Das 5200.
SOLBZIT-hO3}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND RELATED STATEMENT OF INCOME AS OF
DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          33,256
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  104,067
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,858
<INVENTORY>                                     34,809
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               183,381
<PP&E>                                          44,098
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,615
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 256,862
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          103,243
<BONDS>                                          2,935
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           415
<OTHER-SE>                                     140,936
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   256,862
<SALES>                                        117,179
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               190,176
<CGS>                                           63,901
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  165,418
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 436
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,974
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,706
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,708
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,708
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.78


</TABLE>
Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 21, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133394 Michael F. Cavanagh 

133396 Elizabeth A. Weaver 

133400-133406 & (74) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, Justices Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 133394 

 COA: 267565 

Oakland CC: 05-064732-AA 

STATE TAX COMMISSION and 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY,
 

Respondents-Appellees,

and 

CITY OF AUBURN HILLS,

 Respondent-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 133396 

 COA: 262500 

Wayne CC: 04-430612-AA,

STATE TAX COMMISSION and 04-430613-AA, 04-430614-AA

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY,

 Respondents-Appellees,

and 

CITY OF DEARBORN,

 Intervening Respondent-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 133400-02 

 COA: 262487, 262488, 262500 

Wayne CC: 04-430612-AA,

STATE TAX COMMISSION and 04-430613-AA, 04-430614-AA

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY, 

Respondents-Appellants, 

and 
 

 

 

 

 

2 

CITY OF DEARBORN,

 Intervening Respondent-Appellee. 

_______________________________________ 

DETROIT DIESEL CORPORATION, 

Petitioner-Appellee,

Cross-Appellant, 

v SC: 133403 

 COA: 263188

STATE TAX COMMISSION and 

 Wayne CC: 04-430915-AA 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY, 

and 

Respondents-Appellants, 

Cross-Appellees, 

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF REDFORD, 

 Intervening Respondent-Appellee, 

Cross-Appellee. 

_______________________________________ 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 133404 

 COA: 264154

STATE TAX COMMISSION and 

 Wayne CC: 05-507760-AA 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY, 

Respondents-Appellants. 

_______________________________________ 

DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 133405 

 COA: 265686

 Washtenaw CC: 2005-000250-AA 

STATE TAX COMMISSION and 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY, 

and 

Respondents-Appellants, 

TOWNSHIP OF SYLVAN, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

_______________________________________ 
 _________________________________________ 

 

 

3 

DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 133406 

 COA: 267565 

Oakland CC: 05-064732-AA 

STATE TAX COMMISSION and 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY, 

and 

Respondents-Appellants, 

CITY OF AUBURN HILLS,

Respondent-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the applications for leave to appeal the January 30, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as crossappellant are considered, and they are GRANTED. 

t0914 

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. 

September 21, 2007 

Clerk
#### Anonymous.

The decree of the court made at a former term, was, that eacii party should pay his own costs. Upon which a doubt arose, whether eacii party should pay half the costs, or only the costs which liad accrued upon business done for himself: And at . the last'term it was brought before the court, who decided that eacii party should pay for iiie process issued for Ids benefit. And then another question arose, whether a, copy of the bill taken out to be serví d on the Defendant, was for the benefit of the Plaintiff or tiie Defendant. And at last term, after much argument, Wiixíams and Haywood, Judges, differed in opinion. The matter Was again moved now and argued, and the court clearly agreed, that it was a part of the process to bring the Defendant into court, without which he could not be effectually brought in ; and therefore, it was for the Plaintiff’s benefit, as much as the *subpoena*was, and therefore, tiiat lie should pay the ex-pence of it under the decrece.
#### Bukolt, Appellant, vs. Neva, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Martens & Meleski*of Stevens Point.

For the respondent: *Walter A. Graunke*of Wausau.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
Order entered May 8, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00065-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.

ELIANA SAUCEDO, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. WX13-90032-U

ORDER

The clerk’s record filed in this case does not contain a copy of the trial court’s December 

31, 2014 order granting the applicant’s application for writ of habeas corpus. Instead, the clerk’s 

record contains a copy of the similar order the trial court signed in Ex parte Ryan Edward 

Schuller, cause no. 05-15-00064-CR. 

We ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of 

this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s December 31, 2014 order 

granting applicant’s application for writ of habeas corpus. 

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         564,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,997,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (460,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    144,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,000
<PP&E>                                      10,073,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (6,553,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,178,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,760,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,015,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,178,000
<SALES>                                     24,780,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,780,000
<CGS>                                       14,933,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,933,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,720,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             291,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,904,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    68,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,836,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,836,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 30892 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. ALICE LATULA, also known as Alice Mae Broussard

- Latula, also known as Mae Broussard, also known as Julie Norris, also known as Elkin Broussard, doing business as Triple Js Marketing , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:12

- CR

- 331

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alice Latula pleaded guilty to a s ingle count of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. She was sentenced at the low end of the applicable guidelines range to 78 months of imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release. She was also ordered to make restituti on in the amount of $1,322,419. Latula now appeals her 78

- month sentence as being

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precede nt except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 31, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-30892 Document: 00512987638 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2015No. 14

- 30892

substantively unreasonable in that it is greater than necessary to meet the sentencing objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The substantive reasonableness of a sentence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Latula concedes that her advisory guidelines sentencing range was properly calculated. Her challenge to her sentence focus es on what she characterizes as an anomaly created by U.S.S.G. § 2B1. 1(b)(2)(C) , which calls for the district court to enhance a defendant’s offense level by six levels if the offense involved more than 250 victims. 1 Latula points out that a better educat ed and more financially

- sophisticated defendant could hypothetically reach the same loss amount that she did by involving only 13 victims and would thus receive only a two

- level increase for the number of victims. She therefore reasons that the applicatio n of the § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C) enhancement had an outsized effect on her sentencing range. Latula also argues that , since she scored no criminal history points , a 78

- month sentence was unnecessary to deter recidivism and protect the public from her future crim es. The record reflects that the district court considered Latula’s arguments that a lesser sentence was warranted and determined that a sentence within the guidelines range was proper. We must defer to the district court’s sentencing decision, see Gall , 552 U.S. at 51

- 52, and Latula has not demonstrated that the district court’s choice of sentence was incorrect or not entitled to the presumption of reasonableness , s ee United States v. Cooks , 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED.

1 Latula’s offense involved 3,064 victims.

2 Case: 14-30892 Document: 00512987638 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2015
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-7018

KENNETH M. CARPENTER,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee.

Zachary M. Stolz , Chisholm, Chisholm & Kilpatrick, of Washington, DC, argued

for claimant-appellant.

Jane W. Vanneman , Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil

Division, United States D epartment of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for

respondent-appellee. With her on the brief were Tony West , Assistant Attorney

General, Jeanne E. Davidson , Director, and Martin F. Hockey, Jr. , Assistant Director.

Of counsel on the brief were Michael J. Timinski , Deputy Assistant General Counsel

and Jamie L. Mueller , Attorney, Office of the G eneral Counsel, United States

Department of Veterans Affa irs, of Washington, DC.

Appealed from: United States Cour t of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Judge William A. MoormanNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-7018

KENNETH M. CARPENTER,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee.



## Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United States C ourt of Appeals for Veterans Claims

in CASE NO(S). 01-1882

This CAUSE having been hear d and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam (NEWMAN, MAYER, and MOORE, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED November 13, 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from AVAX
Technologies, Inc. Statement of Income for years ended December 31, 1999 and
Balance Sheet as of December 31, 1999, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          3,426,059
<SECURITIES>                                    8,868,621
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               12,631,501
<PP&E>                                          2,458,678
<DEPRECIATION>                                    116,862
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 14,973,317
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             401,263
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                         1,752
<COMMON>                                           44,311
<OTHER-SE>                                     14,023,650
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   14,973,317
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        0
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   8,551,973
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,867,563)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,867,563)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,867,563)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.74)



</TABLE>