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

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00419-CR

BILLY JACK HOLLAND APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 97TH DISTRICT COURT OF CLAY COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 2015-0041C-CR

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Billy Jack Holland pleaded guilty to sexual assault of a child in 

exchange for 20 years’ confinement and now attempts to appeal this conviction. 

On November 3, 2016, we notified Appellant that the trial court’s certification of 

his right to appeal states that this is a plea-bargain case and that he has no right 

of appeal. We informed Appellant that unless he or any party desiring to 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

continue the appeal filed with the court, on or before November 14, 2016, a 

response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, the appeal would be 

dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d), 44.3. Appellant filed a response, 

but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal. Therefore, we dismiss 

the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f). 

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth

BONNIE SUDDERTH

JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; WALKER and SUDDERTH, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: December 22, 2016
* Honorable C. Lynwood Smith, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, sitting by designation. HAVOCO OF AMERICA, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. Elmer C. HILL, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 97-2277. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

July 5, 2001. Appeal from the United States District Court for th e Northern District of Florida (No. 95-30585-CV-RV); Roger Vinson, Judge. Before BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and SMITH * , District Judge. BIRCH, Circuit Judge:
In Havoco of Am., Ltd. v. Hill, 197 F.3d 1135 (11th Cir.1999), we certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Florida: Does Article X, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution exempt a Florida homestead, where the debtor acquired the homestead using non-exempt funds with the specific intent of hindering, delaying, or defrauding creditors in violation of Fla. Stat. § 726.105 or Fla. Stat. §§ 222.29 and 222.30? Id. at 1144. After a thorough review of the question, the Supreme Court of Florida issued the following opinion: [W]e conclude that we must answer the certifie d question in the affirmative. The transfer of nonexempt assets into an exempt homestead with the in tent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors is not one of the three exceptions to the homestead ex emption provided in article X, section 4. Nor can we reasonably extend our equitable lien jurisprude nce to except such conduct from the exemption's protection. We have invoked equitable principles to reach beyond the literal language of the excepts only where funds obtained through fraud or egregious conduct were used to invest in, purchase, or improve the homestead. Havoco of Am., Ltd. v. Hill, --- So.2d ---- (Fla. June 21, 2001). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court's holding that Hill's purchase of a home with non-exempt funds, made with the intent to hinder creditors , does not overcome the Florida homestead exception.
### u.s. Department of

Transportation Office of the Secretary of Transportation Subject: 

# Memorandum

Date: Notice of Communication in case: Docket DOT-OST-2010-0018 

## FEB 

## 05 2015

From: Susan L. Kurland

Assistant Secretary and International Reply to Reese Davidson Attn. of: x68161

To: Chief, Dockets
In accordance with Department rules (14 CFR Part 300), I am reporting the following communication. On January 29, 2015, Jamie Fleet, chief of staff for Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington, called me and raised the Department's ongoing proceeding to consider the allocation of a pair of slots for service to Tokyo's Haneda Airport (Haneda). Mr. Fleet wanted to make sure that the Department had received the two letters that Senator Cantwell had submitted in support ofretaining Delta's Seattle-Haneda frequencyl and reiterated the importance ofHaneda service to the Seattle community. I ~nformed Mr. Fleet that I could not discuss the substance of an ongoing case, and that a summary ofthe communication would be placed in the docket. 

### Please place this memorandum in Docket DOT-OST-2010-0018.

cc: Mr. Jamie Fleet
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-12-00060-CV

ROBERT BONNER,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 413th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. C200700320

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On February 21, 2012, this Court sent appellant, Robert Bonner, a letter 

informing him that his notice of appeal in this matter contained several deficiencies, 

including a failure to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 25.1. In response to our letter, on March 2, 2012, Bonner filed a five-page 

document addressing the deficiencies. However, in reviewing his March 2, 2012 filing, 

we notice that Bonner did not include proof that he served his filing on all parties to the 

trial court’s final judgment, as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(e). 
Bonner v. State Page 2

See id. at R. 25.1(e) (“The notice of appeal must be served on all parties to the trial 

court’s final judgment or, in an interlocutory appeal, on all parties to the trial court 

proceeding.”); see also id. at R. 9.5(a) (“At or before the time of a document’s filing, the 

filing party must serve a copy on all parties to the proceeding.”), (d) (“A document 

presented for filing must contain a proof of service in the form of either an 

acknowledgement of service by the person served or a certificate of service.”). As we 

noted in our February 21, 2012 letter, Bonner’s failure to file a compliant notice of 

appeal within 21 days of our letter “will result in the dismissal of his appeal without 

further notification for failure to comply with this order or notice from the Clerk.” See 

id. at R. 42.3(c). Because Bonner’s notice of appeal still is not compliant with Texas Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 25.1, we dismiss his appeal in this matter. See id.

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed March 21, 2012

[CV06]
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-10977

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:09-cr-00011-RLV-WEJ-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SHERMAN EDWARD WILLIAMS, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(September 17, 2014)

Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 14-10977 Date Filed: 09/17/2014 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Sherman Edward Williams appeals his sentence of imprisonment of 192 

months after being convicted of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d), and 

brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, id. § 924(c)(1)(A). Williams 

argues that his sentence is both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We 

affirm.

We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential standard for 

abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597

(2007). 

Williams’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. The 

district court, contrary to Williams’s contention, did not treat the Guidelines as 

mandatory. The district court imposed Williams’s sentence only after it had heard 

both Williams and the government make their respective arguments about what 

sentence would be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the 

purposes of sentencing.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). And the record establishes that the 

district court considered the seriousness of the offense, the history of the 

defendant, and the guidelines range, and then determined that a sentence at the 

upper end of the range was adequate punishment. The district court committed no

abuse of discretion by placing greater emphasis on the nature of the offense than 

on Williams’s rehabilitative efforts and criminal history. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-10977 Date Filed: 09/17/2014 Page: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Wayne Pastore, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sonus Networks, 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;

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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



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 the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date: May 4, 2010/s/ WAYNE PASTORE Wayne Pastore Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)


---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32

Certification

 

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:

> 
(1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.P. (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;

(2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(3) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.P.

 

 By: Inland Real Estate Investment Corporation      General Partner

 

/S/ Brenda G. Gujral_____________________

Name: Brenda G. GujralTitle: President of the General Partner and         principal executive officer of Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.P.

Date: November 12, 2003
RYDER SCOTT COMPANY                                           Fax (713) 651-0849
PETROLEUM ENGINEERS
1100 Louisiana  Suite 3800   Houston, Texas 77002-5218  Telephone (713) 651-9191







                      CONSENT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING FIRM



      We consent to the  reference to our name included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998 for Geodyne Energy Income Limited
Partnership I-C.


                                          //s// Ryder Scott Company
                                                 Petroleum Engineers

                                          RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
                                          PETROLEUM ENGINEERS




Houston, Texas
January 19, 1999
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Nicholas R. Schacht,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Learning Tree International, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 1, 2010
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Learning Tree International, Inc.



|                 |  |        |  |                           
|---------------- |  | ------ |  | --------------------------
|December 9, 2010 |  |        |  |                           
|                 |  |       
|                 |  | By:    |  | /s/    NICHOLAS R.
SCHACHT
|                 |  | Name:  |  | Nicholas R. Schacht       
|                 |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer   

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Learning Tree International, Inc. and will be retained by Learning Tree International, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45053

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JAVAR D. BARNER,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: June 28, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Steven Hippler, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of 

confinement of two years, for accepting the earnings of a prostitute, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;

and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Javar D. Barner pleaded guilty to accepting the earnings of a prostitute, felony, Idaho 

Code §§ 18-5606, -5613. The district court imposed a unified seven-year sentence, with two 

years determinate. Barner appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 
2

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Barner’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
<page>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1



              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-18485) pertaining to the Covance Inc. Employee Equity
Participation Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-18487)
pertaining to The Stock Purchase Plan of Covance Inc., in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-18493) pertaining to the Covance Inc. Employee
Stock Purchase Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-29467)
pertaining to the Covance Inc. Conversion Equity Plan, in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-33185) pertaining to the Covance Inc. Restricted
Share Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-36469) pertaining
to the Covance Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-90777) pertaining to the Covance Inc. Deferred
Stock Unit Plan for Non-Employee Members of the Board of Directors, in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-90779) pertaining to the Covance
Inc. Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-90781) pertaining to the Covance Inc. Director's Restricted
Stock Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-36586) pertaining
to the Covance Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the Covance Inc. 2000
Employee Equity Participation Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 333-97433) pertaining to the 2002 Employee Equity Participation Plan and
the 2002 Employee Stock Option Plan, and in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-83712) pertaining to the Stock Purchase Savings Plan, of our
report dated February 18, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Covance Inc., Covance Inc. management's assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Covance Inc.,
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
2004.

                                        /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


MetroPark, New Jersey
March 1, 2005
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7280

MARCUS REDDICK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

TOM C. MARTIN,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.

(CA-97-497-5-F)

Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: July 31, 1998

Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcus Reddick, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Reddick v. Martin, No. CA-97-497-5-F (E.D.N.C. July

28, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
II 

Calendar No. 239 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3667 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 2, 2009 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

DECEMBER 17, 2009 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 16555 Springs Street in White Springs, Florida, as the ‘‘Clyde L. Hillhouse Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CLYDE L. HILLHOUSE POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 16555 Springs Street in White 

6 Springs, Florida, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Clyde L. Hillhouse Post Office Building’’. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3667 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Clyde L. Hillhouse 

5 Post Office Building’’. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 239 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3667 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostHillhouse Post Office Building’’. White Springs, Florida, as the ‘‘Clyde L. al Service located at 16555 Springs Street in 

DECEMBER 17, 2009 

Reported without amendment 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23.2


                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-18485, 333-18487, 333-18493, 333-29467,
333-33185, 333-36469, 333-90777, 333-90779, 333-90781, 333-36586, 333-97433,
333-83712) of Covance Inc. of our report dated January 30, 2001, relating to the
consolidated financial statements of Covance Inc. and its subsidiaries for the
year ended December 31, 2000 which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------

Florham Park, NJ
March 5, 2003
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 12, 2019

No. 04-19-00243-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.R., A CHILD,

Appellant

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-PA-00026

The Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file her brief is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief 

is due on or before June 17, 2019.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 12th day of June, 2019.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle,

Clerk of Court
| | EXHIBIT
99.1 | 
| | ------------ | 

Certification of Chief Executive Officer, Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

| | In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Borland Software Corporation (the Company)
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Dale L. Fuller, as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his
knowledge: | 
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

| | (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 result of operations of the Company. | 
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

| | /s/ DALE L. FULLER |  | 
| | ------------------ |  | 
| |                    |  | 

| | Dale
L. Fuller | 
| | -------------- | 

| | Chief
Executive Officer | 
| | ----------------------- | 

| | August 14, 2002 | 
| | --------------- | 

| | This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. | 
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

LEONARD D. BERNARD,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 721 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 8th day of April, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.