alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-16-00020-CR

KEVIN BRYAN FARRAR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 188th District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 41109-A

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Kevin Bryan Farrar pled guilty to forgery. In accordance with his negotiated plea 

agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced Farrar to two years’ confinement in state jail, 

but suspended the sentence in favor of placing Farrar on community supervision for five years. 

However, after Farrar pled true to the State’s allegations that he violated the terms and conditions 

of his community supervision, the trial court revoked Farrar’s community supervision and 

sentenced him to fifteen months’ confinement in state jail. 

On appeal,1 Farrar argues that his sentence violated his Eighth Amendment protections 

because it was disproportionate to his crime. We addressed the question of whether we have 

jurisdiction to address this issue in our opinion of this date on Farrar’s appeal in cause number 06-

16-00019-CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude that we do not have 

jurisdiction over Farrar’s sole point of error on appeal in this matter. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: August 26, 2016

Date Decided: November 17, 2016

Do Not Publish

 

1

In cause numbers 06-16-00019-CR and 06-16-00021-CR, Farrar also appeals the trial court’s revocations of 

community supervision and sentences for forgery of a financial instrument and possession of a controlled substance.
# C_2015183EN.01000102.xml

| 4.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7611 — IDeA/IP/Hunt/Corin)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 183/02)

On 28 May 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7611. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7611. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-15-00306-CV

Roberto Vazquez

v.

Maria Angelica Vazquez

On appeal from the

155th District Court of Fayette County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2014V-168

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause 

remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court 

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs 

of the appeal are adjudged against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 10, 2016.
MEMO RO NEVER USE FOR APPROVALS, ROVALS, 

CONCURRENCES, OR SIMILAR ACTIONS 

1 NAME OR TITLE 

ORGANIZATION AND LOCATION 

2 

3 

4 

ORGANIZATION AND LOCATION 

M E FORM NO 9 5 Rcplaoos DA AGO Form 8911, I OCT 48 1 Apr 48, which may be usecL 

INITIALS 

DATE 

CIRCULATE 

COORDINATION 

FILE 

INFORMATION 

NECESSARY ACTION 

NOTE AND RETURN 

SEE ME 

SIGNATURE
Attachment 1 

Seminole Dry Conveyor Bottom Ash Handling System Summary Description and Diagram 
THE BOTTOM ASH SYSTEM DESIGN: 

The primary ash removal conveyor is mounted beneath the boiler, fully sealed to the combustion 

chamber. The negative pressure inside the boiler draws in air in a controlled manner through the 

primary conveyor. The incoming ambient air travels along the conveyor, counter to the ash flow 

direction, over the surface of the ash contained on the conveyor pans. This causes a re-burning 

process of the glowing ash, which reduces the unburned carbon level and frees up additional thermal 

energy. Therefore, the air is preheated before it enters the combustion chamber of the boiler. 

THE ARRANGEMENT 

Underneath the combustion chamber of the boiler, a hopper is installed and supported from the floor 

by means of a steel structure. The transition chute or hopper is lined with special refractory and 

insulation on the inside to withstand the radiation from the combustion chamber of the boiler. A heat 

resistant fabric compensator (expansion joint) is installed between the boiler/hopper outlet and the 

primary conveyor inlet, to compensate for the movement between the cold and hot conditions of the 

boiler. Large slag agglomerations are broken down by jaw crushers in order to ensure they are an 

appropriate size to be cooled and conveyed. These jaw crushers are hydraulic operated. In the full 

closed position, they will provide isolation of the primary conveyor from the boiler hopper. 

THE REST OF THE SYSTEM 

In addition to collecting the bottom ash in a dry condition, Seminole also collects its economizer ash 

in a dry condition. The ash is collected from the boiler economizer area in 6 hoppers that discharge to 

a series of drag chain conveyors that transport the ash onto the primary conveyor where it is added to 

the bottom ash. 

Once the bottom ash and economizer ash are removed from the boiler by the primary conveyor, it is 

transported up to the transfer tower where the ash then passes though a double roll grinder to reduce 

the particle size to below 3 inches. The crushed ash will fall onto a secondary transfer conveyor that 

is very similar in design to primary conveyor. The ash will travel up the secondary conveyor where it 

passes through another set of single roll crushers where it is reduced to 3⁄4 inches in size and is then 

discharged into the storage silo. The ash is stored in a dry condition. Seminole has the capability of 

offloading the ash in either a dry or a wet condition. The Pug mill wet unloading system adds 

sufficient quantities of water to condition the ash to prevent dusting in open top trucks. The dry 

unloading system utilizes a retractable loading spout that is attached directly to specialized trucks 

designed to receive dry material. 
Seminole Dry Conveyor Bottom Ash Handling System Summary Diagram Removed - CBI
# C_2014461EN.01001201.xml

| 20.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 461/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 461/12

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7453 — Cutrale / Safra / Chiquita)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 461/04)

On 16 December 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7453. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7453. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
November 22, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JOSHUA EUGENE PLASTER, Appellant

NO. 14-15-00522-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcripts of the record of the court below, and 

having inspected the record, the Court holds there was no error in the judgment 

requiring reversal, but there was error in the judgment as entered, which is capable 

of reformation by this Court. Therefore, the judgment is REFORMED, to reflect 

that (1) appellant pled true to the allegation contained in the enhancement paragraph; and 

(2) the allegation contained in the enhancement paragraph is true.

The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED as REFORMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The bank holding company listed in this notice has applied to the Board for approval to conduct a minority stock issuance in accordance with the Board's regulations governing mutual holding companies.

The application listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, is available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 23, 2015.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Prabal Chakrabarti, Senior Vice President) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2204:

                    1.                     *Provident Bancorp*                     and                     *Provident Bancorp, Inc.,*                     both in Amesbury, Massachusetts; to conduct a minority stock issuance in accordance with the Board's Regulation MM. Provident Bancorp and Provident Bancorp, Inc. control Provident Bank.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 23, 2015.

Michael J. Lewandowski,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2015-06924 Filed 3-25-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
# C_2014438EN.01000101.xml

| 6.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 438/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 438/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7396 — Saudi Aramco/S-OIL)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 438/01)

On 2 December 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7396. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7396. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
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 June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on 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/ A. LEIGH POWELL                                                          
|Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President (principal executive officer)



August 2, 2004



|                                                                                  
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ KEVIN M. HARRIS                                                               
|Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (principal financial and accounting officer)



August 2, 2004
# C_2014431EN.01000402.xml

| 1.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/4

---

Designation of the Chamber responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 193 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court

(2014/C 431/07)

At its General Meeting on 7 October 2014, the Court designated the First Chamber as the Chamber that is, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the Rules of Procedure, responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 193 of those Rules, for the period from 7 October 2014 to 6 October 2015.

---
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-10701

Summary Calendar

 

ROBERT LEE HENDERSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT; ET AL.,

Defendants,

DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT; RICHARD HUDSON,

Ricky; JOHN T. MEANS; PAUL A. DEMAAGD,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:99-CV-1769-P

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

March 26, 2001

Before DAVIS, JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Lee Henderson appeals the district court’s dismissal

of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Henderson’s motion for leave

to supplement the record on appeal is DENIED.

Henderson’s contentions that the district court denied his

motion to add the City of Dallas as a party defendant, determined

that service of process on the City of Dallas was insufficient,
No. 00-10701

-2-

and denied discovery are frivolous. Henderson has abandoned any

challenge to the dismissal of his complaint against the unserved

defendants by failing to brief the issue sufficiently. See Cinel

v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994).

Henderson challenges the district court’s determination that

Officer Demaagd and Officer Means were entitled to qualified

immunity on his false arrest claims. The district court did not

err in determining that Demaagd and Means acted with objective

reasonableness on information provided by another officer. 

See Bennett v. City of Grand Prairie, 883 F.2d 400, 410 (5th Cir.

1989). Henderson did not establish that Means was liable for his

supervisory role. See Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303-04

(5th Cir. 1987). 

Henderson does not identify a policy or custom related to

the alleged violation of his constitutional rights, and he does

not establish an actionable violation attributable to the

individual defendants. Accordingly, the district court properly

dismissed his claims against the City of Dallas. See

Olabisiomotosho v. City of Houston, 185 F.3d 521, 528-29 (5th

Cir. 1999).

The district court did not err in denying Henderson’s motion

for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Henderson has

failed to brief sufficiently his claims concerning the following

issues: false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, the Texas

concealed handgun law; the failure to provide Miranda v. Arizona,

384 U.S. 436 (1966), warnings; the acceptance of hearsay; the

expungement of his record; the denial of his motions; and the
No. 00-10701

-3-

weight afforded to Pamela Scott’s affidavit. Accordingly, he has

abandoned these issues. See Cinel, 15 F.3d at 1345. The

judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001022657
<NAME> AETNA INDUSTRIES
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,185
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,793
<ALLOWANCES>                                       411
<INVENTORY>                                      7,040
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                91,132
<PP&E>                                         120,636
<DEPRECIATION>                                  48,714
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 192,943
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          116,490
<BONDS>                                        167,477
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (17,170)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   192,943
<SALES>                                        221,894
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               221,894
<CGS>                                          204,782
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  204,782
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,202
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,918
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,008)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,968)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,040)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,040)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2015189EN.01000101.xml

| 6.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

5 June 2015

(2015/C 189/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1218 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 139,97 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4603 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,73170 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3417 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0478 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,8085 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9557 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,396 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 311,28 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1441 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4545 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,9899 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4534 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4023 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6979 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5713 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5122 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 249,74 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,9126 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,9596 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5589 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 912,50 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1766 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 50,501 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 62,8100 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,829 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,5189 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,4451 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 71,5602 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1218

JPY

Japanese yen

139,97

DKK

Danish krone

7,4603

GBP

Pound sterling

0,73170

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3417

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0478

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,8085

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9557

CZK

Czech koruna

27,396

HUF

Hungarian forint

311,28

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1441

RON

Romanian leu

4,4545

TRY

Turkish lira

2,9899

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4534

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4023

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6979

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5713

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5122

KRW

South Korean won

1 249,74

ZAR

South African rand

13,9126

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,9596

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5589

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 912,50

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1766

PHP

Philippine peso

50,501

RUB

Russian rouble

62,8100

THB

Thai baht

37,829

BRL

Brazilian real

3,5189

MXN

Mexican peso

17,4451

INR

Indian rupee

71,5602

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Docket No. FAA-2011-1253