alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A0563. DONALD MORAN v. THE STATE.

Donald Moran was found guilty of aggravated battery, aggravated assault,

burglary, possession of a knife during the commission of a felony, and stalking. On

appeal, we reversed his stalking conviction, but affirmed his remaining convictions.

Moran v. State, 334 Ga. App. 765 (780 SE2d 529) (2015). Moran later filed an

extraordinarymotion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The trial court

denied the motion, and Moran filed this direct appeal. We lack jurisdiction.

An appeal from the denial of an extraordinary motion for new trial must be

initiated by filing an application for discretionary review. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (7);

Balkcom v. State, 227 Ga. App. 327, 329 (489 SE2d 129) (1997). Moran’s failure to

follow the required appellate procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal.

Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

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.

December 05, 2016

12/05/2016
EXHIBIT 32.11

STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1350

I, Joshua Pickus, the chief executive officer of SupportSoft, Inc. (the Company), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63
of title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,



|(i) | the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: August 4, 2006



/s/ JOSHUA PICKUSJoshua PickusPresident and Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been provided to
SupportSoft, Inc. and will be retained by SupportSoft, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

|1 | The material contained in this Exhibit 32.1 is not deemed filed with the SEC and
is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-95,208-01

EX PARTE DEQUENTUN TREY MITCHELL, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1482604-A IN THE 180TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Applicant pleaded guilty to delivery of a controlled substance and was sentenced to one year

imprisonment. Applicant did not file a direct appeal. Applicant filed this application for a writ of

habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. SeeTEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant claims that he was denied due process through the use of material false evidence,

and that his guilty plea was involuntary. These claims relate to the discovery of misconduct by

former Houston Police Officer Gerald Goines, who was the primary officer involved in the alleged

offense. Based on the record, the habeas court finds that Applicant was denied due process by the

use of material false evidence against him, and that Applicant’s guilty plea was involuntary. Ex parte
2

Mathews, 638 S.W.3d 685 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022); Ex parte Coty, 418 S.W.3d 597 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2014). The habeas court recommends granting relief on false evidence and involuntary plea

grounds. We agree.

Relief is granted. Ex parte Chabot, 300 S.W.3d 768, 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). The

judgment in cause number 148260401010 in the 180th District Court of Harris County is set aside.

Applicant shall answer the charges as set out in the indictment. The trial court shall issue any

necessary orders within ten days from the date of this Court’s mandate.

Copies ofthis opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: December 13, 2023

Do not publish
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

SALVATORE JOHN RUSSO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-2460

[October 18, 2018]

Appeal of order denying 3.801 motion from the Circuit Court for the 

Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Lawrence M. Mirman, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 432015CF000767AXMX.

Salvatore John Russo, Stuart, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., GROSS and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Commonwealth v. Shade

*241D. *Richard Eckman, District Attorney,*for Commonwealth.

*William C. Haynes,*for defendant.

October 14, 1977

BUCHER, *J.,*

The matter before the court is an application to quash an information charging retail theft under the Crimes Code Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, 18 C.P.S.A. §3929(a)( 1). This is a summary offense unless, as in the instant case, defendant is a second offender. Defendant had been convicted previously of the summary offense of shoplifting under the old Penal Code of June 24, 1939, P.L. 872, as amended, 18 P.S. §4816.1, App. Hence, if convicted of the present offense and if the prior conviction is applicable, defendant’s crime becomes a misdemeanor of the second degree, the value of the goods being less than $100.

Section 3929(a)(1) of the Crimes Code provides: “(a) Apersonis guilty of aretail theft if he: (1) takes possession of any merchandise offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment with the intention of converting it to his own use without paying to the owner the value thereof.”

Section 816.1 of the old Penal Code of July 5, 1957, P.L. 501, provided that: “Whoever shall wil-fully take possession of any goods, wares or merchandise offered for sale by any store or other mercantile establishment, with the intention of converting the same to his own use without paying the purchase price thereof, shall be guilty of shoplifting.”

*242Defendant contends that these acts are wholly different, constitute separate offenses and that, in any event, the present crime charged is de minimis.

We disagree with these contentions. Both acts prohibit the theft of merchandise, both require an intention to convert to one’s own use and both require that the actor intend not to pay the purchase price or full value thereof.

Nor is it fatal to the prosecution that the first offense occurred prior to the enactment of the Crimes Code. In 24B C.J.S. 1960(5) it is said: “. . . in order to authorize the infliction of a more severe penalty on conviction for a second or a subsequent offense, it is not necessary that the first conviction . . . should have occurred subsequent to the enactment of the statute or the amendment thereof.” People v. Hightower, 112 N.E. 2d 126, cert. den. 346 U.S. 875; Com. v. Warner, 87 D. & C. 91 (1954).

We do not consider this case de minimis because, while the value of the goods here is small, the annual business loss from shoplifting in this nation is $504,000,000 and represents 17 percent of the losses from all crimes against business establishments.* Shoplifting is a serious problem in the aggregate and adversely affects taxpayers and consumers.

ORDER

And now, October 14,1977, for the foregoing reasons the application to quash is denied.

*

The U.S. Fact Book, 1976, prepared by Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce.
# - -

A u g u st 27, 2014 Carol Sutkus State of Ca liforni a Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District 43301 Division St., Suite 206 Lancaster, CA 93535-4649

E

n v iro nm e nta l Prote c ti o n Agenc y Air R eso urces Board P . 0 . B ox 2 8 1 5 Sac ra mento , Ca l ifo rnia 95812 661.723.8070 Fax 661.723 .34 50 E ldon Heaston , Exec utive Director

Project Title: A m e ndm ent of A VAQMD Rule 701 

### -Air Pollution Eme r gency Contingency Actions D

ear M s. Su tk us: T h e Antelop e Valley Air Qua lity Management D i s trict (AVAQMD) reque s t s that t he Ca liforni a A ir Reso ur ces Board s ubmit amended Rul e 7 01 

### - Air Polluti on Em erge n cy Co ntinge n cy, to th e U nit e d States En viro nm e n ta l Protect i o n A ge n cy (USEPA) for in c lus io n in the State Impl e m en tati o n Plan (S IP). The am e ndment s to Rule 70 I are primaril y procedural in n ature . T hey are int e nd ed to rev i s e te rmin o l ogy to refle c t the c urrent name , s t atu s a nd structure o f th e A VAQMD. T h e a men dm e nt w ill a l so a dju st Epi so d e C rit e ria f o r PM The Di strict r e qu ests CARB t o s ubmit th e propo se d a m e ndm e nt of Ru l e 70 I to r e pla ce the S IP ve r s ion in e ff ec t i n the AV AQMD. If y o u ha ve any qu es ti o n s r ega rdin g thi s s ubmittal , p l ease co ntact me at (66 1) 723 -80 70, ext e n s i o n 2 , o r B a rb a ra Lo d s at ex t e ns io n 3. Pl ease n o te that all d oc um e nts r e quire d for a co mplete s ubmi ss io n were se nt e l ec tr o n i ca ll y on A ug u s t 27 , 2 014 .

Bre t Banks Operations Manager BSB / bl CA RB S IP Sub m itta l R eq ue s t A V Rul e 7 0 I 05 2 014



## 0 Pr•nled on recycled paper An t e l ope va ll ey
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS

Peter Leparulo, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of Novatel Wireless, Inc. (the Company), and Kenneth Leddon, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that, to the best of his knowledge:

1.The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

2. The information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2009 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Annual Report and the results of operations of the Company for the
period covered by the Annual Report.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned have set their hands
hereto as of the 12thday of March, 2010.



/S/    PETER
LEPARULOPeter LeparuloChairman and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)/S/    KENNETH
LEDDONKenneth LeddonSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 30, 2022

NO. 03

- 22

- 00180

- CV

D. H. , Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 421ST DISTRICT COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY
BEFO RE CHIEF J USTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND SMITH

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the order signed by the tr i a l court on March 21, 2022

. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s order

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s order

. Because appellant i s

indigent a nd u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-31113

CLARENCE SIMON, JR., 

 Plaintiff - Appellant Cross-Appellee

v.

LONGNECKER PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED; C-PORT, L.L.C.; 

SEACOR MARINE, L.L.C.; ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION; 

THOMAS ENERGY SERVICES, L.L.C.,

 Defendants - Appellees

TRI-DRILL, L.L.C., 

 Defendant - Appellee Cross-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:12-CV-1178

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The court has considered this appeal in light of the briefs, oral argument 

and pertinent portions of the record. Having done so, we find no reversible 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 7, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-31113 Document: 00513787979 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/07/2016
No. 15-31113

2

error of law or fact and affirm essentially for the reasons stated by the district 

court. We dismiss the cross-appeal of Tri-Drill as moot. 

AFFIRMED IN PART, APPEAL OF TRI-DRILL DISMISSED.

 Case: 15-31113 Document: 00513787979 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/07/2016
Exhibit 13.1  Section 906 Certification  Pursuant 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), the undersigned officer of The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland, a chartered corporation incorporated under the laws of Ireland (Bank of Ireland), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:  The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the twelve months ended December 31, 2010 (the Report) of The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland  fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Bank of Ireland.   Date:24 June 2011Name: Richie BoucherTitle: Group Chief Executive
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2980 

To authorize the voluntary donation of grazing permits and leases in the 

State of New Mexico, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 7, 2021 

Mr. HEINRICH (for himself and Mr. LUJA ́N) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the voluntary donation of grazing permits and 

leases in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Wildlife-Livestock Con5 flict Resolution Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DONATION OF GRAZING PERMITS AND LEASES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Beginning in fiscal year 2022, the 

8 Secretary of the Interior, with respect to public land, and 

9 the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to National For10 est System land (referred to in this section as the ‘‘SecVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:19 Oct 09, 2021 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2980.IS S2980

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2980 IS

1 retary concerned’’), shall accept the donation of any valid 

2 existing leases or permits authorizing grazing on public 

3 land or National Forest System land in the State of New 

4 Mexico. 

5 (b) TERMINATION.—With respect to each permit or 

6 lease donated under subsection (a), the Secretary con7 cerned shall— 

8 (1) terminate the grazing permit or lease; and 

9 (2) except as provided in subsection (c), ensure 

10 a permanent end to grazing on the land covered by 

11 the permit or lease. 

12 (c) COMMON ALLOTMENTS.—If the land covered by 

13 a permit or lease donated under subsection (a) is also cov14 ered by another valid grazing permit or lease that is not 

15 donated under that subsection, the Secretary concerned 

16 shall not allow the total grazing use on the land to exceed 

17 the average actual grazing use under the other valid graz18 ing permit or lease for the 5-year period preceding the 

19 date of donation. 

20 (d) LIMITATION.—Not greater than 10 permits or 

21 leases may be donated under subsection (a) in each fiscal 

22 year. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

DOUG LORENZEN, PAMELA BISHOP, 

PHILLIP J. STOBER, AND CONCERNED 

CITIZENS OF LEBANON COUNTY

v.

WEST CORNWALL TOWNSHIP ZONING 

HEARING BOARD AND SUNOCO 

PIPELINE, L.P.

PETITION OF: SUNOCO PIPELINE, L.P.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 8 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth 

Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of June, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.

The Motion to Quash is Dismissed as Moot.
EX-4.4.3



 Exhibit 4.4.3 
 SECOND AMENDMENT 
 TO THE 

THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED 
 WESTWOOD HOLDINGS GROUP, INC. 
 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 

The Third Amended and Restated Westwood Holdings Group, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended in the
following respects, effective February 22, 2013, subject to approval by the stockholders of Westwood Holdings Group, Inc. no later than February 22, 2014, in accordance with Section 17 of the Plan. If this Amendment is not so
approved, it will be considered void. 
 The first sentence of Section 4.1 of the Plan is deleted in its entirety and
replaced with the following sentence: 
 “Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 4.2, the maximum aggregate
number of shares of Stock that may be issued under the Plan shall be 3,898,100.”
#### Small Loans Act.

*Small Loans Act*— Usury—Act *of June 17, 1915.*

Under the Small Loans Act of June 17, 1915, F. L. 1012, a loan of more than $300 by any person, partnership, association or corporation to a single individual is unauthorized.

Attorney-General’s Department. Opinion to Hon. John S. Fisher, Commissioner of Banking.

Sept. 1, 1921.

Alter, Att’y-Gen.,

I have your inquiry as to the interpretation of the Act of June 17, 1915, P. L. 1012, entitled “An act regulating the business of loaning money in sums of $300 or less, either with or without security, to individuals pressed by lack of funds to meet immediate necessities, fixing the rates of interest and charges therefor, requiring the licensing of lenders, and prescribing penalties for the violation of this act.”

Your question is whether the authority conferred by the act is limited to a single loan, not exceeding $300 to any individual, or whether one individual may be given an unlimited number of loans, provided each loan does not exceed $300.

The language to be considered is found in section 1 of the act as follows: “It shall be lawful for any person, persons, partnership, association or corporation within this Commonwealth, who shall comply with the requirements of this act, to loan money in sums of three hundred ($300) dollars or less, either with or without security, to individuals pressed for lack of funds to meet immediate necessities and charge and collect for the loan thereof interest and fees as hereinafter provided.”

The interest and fees provided are such as would otherwise be usurious.

This act deals with an exception to the general law as well as to the principles of the common law. It should be construed accordingly. If the limit of $300 were to be applied only to each single loan and an individual could borrow any amount desired by dividing it into notes of $300 each, the limitation would be of little practical use. While the expression *“sums*of $300 or less” occurs in the language above quoted, the plural *“sums”*and the words *“to individuals,”*which follow, are consistent with an interpretation restricting the loan of the prescribed sum to each individual borrower. This, I think, is the correct interpretation.

You are advised that the loan of more than $300 by any person, partnership, association or corporation to one individual is not authorized by this act.

From Guy H. Davies, Harrisburg, Fa.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BRIGITTE CHARBONNEAU,

Appellant,

v.

LAWRENCE CHARBONNEAU,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-191

[April 12, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Okeechobee County; Jessica Ticktin, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

1992DR006366XXXXSB FZ.

John Caserta of John Caserta, P.A., Delray Beach, for appellant.

Ralph T. White of Law Office of R.T. White, Palm Beach Gardens, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, MAY and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Glenn Blair v. Angela McClinton

Appellate case number: 01-16-00431-CV

Trial court case number: 15-DCV-228828

Trial court: 505th District Court of Fort Bend County

The court confirms the trial court reporter’s request for clarification that the reporter’s 

record for this appeal need only include the February 23, 2016 record from the hearing on the 

underlying bill of review. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

 Acting individually 

Date: December 6, 2016