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

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,713

EX PARTE JAMES DANIEL HARRIS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 49,178-C IN THE 89TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM WICHITA COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure,

the clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas

corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was

convicted of possession of a controlled substance and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

In his writ application, Applicant contends his appellate counsel rendered ineffective

assistance because he failed to timely file a notice of appeal. Based on counsel’s affidavit

stating a calendaring error resulted in an untimely notice of appeal being filed, the trial court
2

recommendsrelief be granted. The recommendation is supported by the record. We therefore

hold that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal from the

judgment of conviction in Cause No. 49,178-C from the 89th Judicial District Court of

Wichita County.

Applicant is ordered returned to that time at which he may give a written notice of

appeal so that he may then, with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. Within ten

days of the issuance of this opinion, the trial court shall determine whether Applicant is

indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial courtshall

immediately appoint an attorney to represent Applicant on direct appeal. All time limits shall

be calculated as if the sentence had been imposed on the date on which the mandate of this

Court issues. Should Applicant desire to prosecute an appeal, he must take affirmative steps

to file a written notice of appeal in the trial court within 30 days after the mandate of this

Court issues.

Delivered: January 11, 2012

Do Not Publish
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 22, 2016

NO. 03-14-00547-CR

The State of Texas, Appellant

v.

Bryan Roland Chandler, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction signed by the district court. Having reviewed 

the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, the Court 

dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this 

appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
**** 

**Exhibit 31.1**

** **

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Eldad Eilam, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of hopTo Inc.; 

 

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.

 

 

/s/ ELDAD EILAM

Eldad Eilam

Chief Executive Officer

April 30, 2015
**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 Quarterly Report ofUniversal Health Services, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alan B. Miller, President andChief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and to the best of my knowledge, 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 operations of the Company atthe end of, and for the period covered by, the Report. 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toUniversal Health Services, Inc. and will be retained and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
***Exhibit
21.1***
 
 ***Subsidiaries
of Delta Financial Corporation***
 
 
 **Name**
    **State of Incorporation**Delta Funding Corporation
    New YorkFidelity Mortgage Inc.
    DelawareDFC Financial Corporation
    DelawareDF Special Holdings Corporation
    DelawareContinental Property Management Corp.
    New YorkDFC 1999-A Corp.
    DelawareDFC Receivables Company, L.L.C.
    DelawareDFC 2000-B Corp.
    DelawareDFC Financial of Canada Limited
    Ontario, CanadaDFC Funding of Canada Limited
    Ontario, CanadaDFC Servicing Receivables Corp.
    DelawareDFC Servicing Receivables Company, L.L.C.
    DelawareDFC Holding-A Corp.
    DelawareDFC Funding Corporation
    DelawareDFC Acceptance Corporation
    DelawareDelta Funding Residual Holding Trust 2000-1
    DelawareDelta Funding Residual Holding Trust 2000-2
    DelawareRenaissance Mortgage Acceptance Corp.
    DelawareRenaissance NIM Trust 2002-A
    DelawareRenaissance NIM Trust 2002-C
    DelawareRenaissance NIM Trust 2002-D
    DelawareRenaissance NIM Trust 2003-A
    DelawareRenaissance NIM Trust 2003-B
    DelawareRenaissance NIM Trust 2003-C
    DelawareRenaissance NIM Trust 2003-D
    DelawareRenaissance NIM Trust 2004-A
    DelawareRenaissance NIM Trust 2004-B
    DelawareRenaissance NIM Trust 2004-C
    DelawareRenaissance NIM Trust 2004-D
    DelawareDFC 2003-A Corp.
    DelawareDFC 2003-B Corp.
    Delaware
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2512 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for a code of conduct 

for justices and judges of the courts of the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 28, 2021 

Mr. MURPHY (for himself, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. DURBIN, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, 

Ms. HIRONO, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Ms. DUCKWORTH, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, 

Mr. WYDEN, Mr. CASEY, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. LEAHY, 

Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. BOOKER, Mr. MENENDEZ, and Mr. SANDERS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for a 

code of conduct for justices and judges of the courts 

of the United States. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Supreme Court Ethics 

5 Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2512 IS

1 SEC. 2. CODE OF CONDUCT. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 57 of title 28, United 

3 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘§ 964. Code of conduct 

6 ‘‘Not later than 1 year after the date of the enact7 ment of this section, the Judicial Conference of the United 

8 States shall issue a code of conduct, which applies to each 

9 justice and judge of the courts of the United States, except 

10 that the code of conduct may include provisions that are 

11 applicable only to certain categories of judges or justices.’’. 

12 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.— 

13 The table of sections for chapter 57 of title 28, United 

14 States Code, is amended by adding after the item related 

15 to section 963 the following: 

‘‘964. Code of conduct.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
### NUMBER 13

- 12

- 00 544

- CV



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ CHICORY COURT ALTA VISTA, L. P., ET AL. , A ppellants,

v.

ODYSSEY RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION GP II, LLC, ET AL. , A ppellees.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 24th District Court of Victoria County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________ 

## ORDER

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza , a nd Perkes

Order Per Curiam

This appeal was abated by this Court on September 21, 2012

, and remanded to
the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure2

306a. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 306a( 4),(5). On December 17, 2012, the appellants advised
this Court that the parties were working to finalize a settlement agreement. On
November 6, 2013, this Court granted the parties’ joint motion to continue the abatement

until after mediation on Novembe r 14, 2013. Since the n there has be en no activity in this

appeal.
The Court hereby orders the parties to file, within fourteen days of the date of this

order, an advisory regarding the status of the appeal and, if applicable, a motion to

reinstate the appeal or a motion to dismiss the appeal.

Failure to respond to this order will result in reinstatement and dismissal of the

appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

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

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 11th day of March, 201 4

.
REF ID:A67282 

::]lUIRUET 

HEADQUARTERS, ARMY SERVICE FORCES 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF SIGNAL OFFICER 

WASHINGTON 25, D. C. 

SPSI~~-~n ~ 

?) March 1944 ~.I' 

MEMORANDUM For Colonel Corderman: c?;/ Subjec~: Assistance to the State Department on 

Cryptographic matters. 

1. I have given the matter of assistance to the State 

Department some more thought and believe that it might be 

useful to outline to you below a project for your consideration. 

This takes into account both the near-term and long-term point of view. 

2. For the near-term or immediate needs I suggest th.at 

converters M-325 be supplied in sufficient quantity to cover 

a world-wide communicatlon network for the Department. For 

such stations which have a small amount of traffic the handoperated 325 would do very nicely, but for stations having 

a considerable volume of traffic it would be advisable to 

furnish automatic equivalent 325 1s by an appropriate conversion 

of Sigaba units. This converted unit would not disclose any of the princ~ples of the Military-Naval Sigaba and would permit of high speed intercommunication between the Department and 

the embassies. Major Rosen tells me th.at such a conversion 

is practicable. 

, .• - The f'oregoing would take care o:f the situation until 

the Converter 409 becomes available at which time it might be advisable to replace the 3251s by the 409 type at the 

stations which have a small amount of' business and by an 

autema.tic equivalent 409 at the Department and at the important embassies where traffic is heavy. This project would, of 

course, be possible only about 2 or 2~ years from now. 

4. The advantages of the foregoing are that the State 

Department communications would be rendered very much more 

secure and at the important places, speeded up to a considerable 

extent; at the same time at the smaller stations there would be 

no serious maintenance and repair aifficulties because of the 

simplicity of the apparatus and the fact that dry-cell operation is possible. 

eclassified and 

pproved for release by 

SA on 04-08-2014 

ursuantto E.O. 13526 

~ F. Friedman 

Director of Communications 

Research
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PERSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of I-many, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date
hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of I-many, Inc., 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), as applicable, of the Securities 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/ JOHN A. RADE                                                                  
|Chief Executive Officer and President (principal
executive officer)               
|                                                                                  
|November 9, 2006                                                                  
|                                                                                  
|/s/ KEVIN M. HARRIS                                                               
|Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (principal
financial and accounting officer)
|                                                                                  
|November 9, 2006
# Sharing The SkiesLessons For UAS Pilots To Safely Share The Skies With OtherAircraft Vince Barnhart Attended the program on Saturday, October 24th, 2015 •



# At The DiscoverAviation Center Located at Lorain County Regional Airport (KLPR) Lessons included Federal Aviation Regulation 91.3 Responsibility and Author ity of the Pilot in Command Federal Aviation Regulation 91 . 111 Operating Near OtherAircraft Federal Aviat ion Regulation 91 . 119 Minimum Safe Altitudes: General Classes ofAirspace 

### A. 8 , C. 0 , 

### E . G , Prohibited, Restricted and Temporary Flight Restrictions Chart Reading Radio Communications at Airports Without a Control Tower Airport Operat ions at an Airport without a Control Tower Determining Runway Headings Traffic Patterns How to obtain airport contact information

P

atricia Austin Basic & Advanced Gr ound I nstructor FAA License #33 76054 c Dat e ""\ 

### '-7 l 

### ? '-{ "' .J 

### / <:. , I c 'L , ) )
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             260
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,446
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,000
<INVENTORY>                                     64,045
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                78,596
<PP&E>                                         254,806
<DEPRECIATION>                                 241,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 100,533
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,372,318
<BONDS>                                        278,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        29,461
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,201,786)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   100,533
<SALES>                                          5,625
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,617
<CGS>                                            3,404
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  145,168
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                55,140
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,208
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (197,095)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (197,095)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
NATACHA TSANA-SAMBO, Plaintiff,
v. ERIC HOLDER, United States Attorney General, et al. Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 13-1175 (CKK)

MEMORANDUM OPINION (December 16, 2013) On July 31, 2013, Plaintiff Natacha Tsana-Sa mbo commenced this action against multiple United States Government officials in the United States Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security to compel the Defendants to adjudicate her Form I-485 Application to Adjust to Permanent Resident Status. On Novemb er 20, 2013, the Defendants filed a [13] Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, for Summary Judgm ent. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), Plaintiff had a total of se venteen days, or until December 9, 2013, to file an opposition to Defenda nts’ Motion. Local Civil Rule 7(b) also placed Plaintiff on notice that if a memorandum of points and author ities in opposition to a motion “is not filed within the prescribed time, the Court may treat the mo tion as conceded.” Plaintiff, who has been represented by counsel throughout these proceedings, failed to file an opposition to Defendants’ Motion. As of today, the docket reflects that Plaintiff has filed neither an opposition nor a motion for an extension of time.
Based on the absence of a timely response by Plain tiff, the Court shall, in an exercise of itsdiscretion, treat the Defendants’ Motion as conceded. Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia , 117 F.3d 571, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (“[T]he district c ourt [may] rel[y] on the absence of a response as a basis for treating a motion as conceded.”). An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. SO ORDERED. /s/ COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge

2
# C_2015075EN.01000201.xml

| 4.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 75/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/2

---

Special Report No 1/2015 ‘Inland Waterway Transport in Europe: No significant improvements in modal share and navigability conditions since 2001’

(2015/C 75/02)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 1/2015 ‘Inland Waterway Transport in Europe: No significant improvements in modal share and navigability conditions since 2001’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu

A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Publications (PUB) |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Publications (PUB)

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 15, 2021

NO. 03

- 19

- 00556

- CR

Cody A. Carpenter , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 51ST DISTRICT COURT OF IRION COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, TRIAN A, A ND SMITH

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgments of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the par ties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgments of conviction

. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgments of

conviction

. Because ap pellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs

is made.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          10,490
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,907
<ALLOWANCES>                                       787
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,527
<PP&E>                                           5,841
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,776
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,592
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,400
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,167
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,592
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,971
<CGS>                                            5,942
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,418
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   412
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,806
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,309
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,611
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,497
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .74


</TABLE>
Motion Granted and Order filed March 23, 2021

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-21-00122-CV

____________

TRADE EXPLORATION CORP., BRYAN C. WAGNER AND DUER 

WAGNER III, Appellants/Cross-Appellees

V.

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Appellee/Cross-Appellant

On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2009-60726

ORDER

This appeal is related to an appeal previously filed in this court: No. 14-19-

00091-CV, ExxonMobil Corp. v. Trade Exploration Corp. Appellants/crossappellees filed an unopposed motion asking that the record from the previous appeal 

be transferred into this appeal.

The motion is granted. The clerk of this court is directed to file a copy of the 

appellate record in appeal number 14-19-00091-CV into this appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Hassan.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A1575. IN THE INTEREST OF E. T., a child.

In this case, the appellant raised and the trial court ruled on the issue of

whether the appellant’s rights to confront the witnesses testifying against him, as

found in Art. I, Sec. I, Par. XIV of the Constitution of Georgia and the Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, were violated when the

State introduced the adult victim’stestimony at his delinquency proceeding via a twoway video-conference. This issue involves construction of the right to confrontation

as found in both the state and federal constitutions, over which the Supreme Court of

Georgia has exclusive jurisdiction.Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys. v. Lane, 266 Ga. 657, 657,

469 SE2d 22, 24 (1996); 1983 Ga. Const., Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. II. Further, resolution

of this question has not been directly addressed by the United States Supreme Court

or the Supreme Court of Georgia. See Wrotten v. New York, 560 U.S. 959 (130 SCt

2520, 177 LEd2d 316) (2010) (this issue was “not obviously answered by Maryland

v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836” (2010), J. Sotomayor, commenting). Accordingly, Case No.

A16A1575 is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/21/2016

November 21, 2016