alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . P D - 0297- 08
JO H N N Y R A Y O C O N , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON S TATE ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE ELEVENTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

ECTOR CO UNTY J OHNS ON , J. , f

i l e d a c onc ur r i ng o pi ni on.
C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N
Iconcur in the judgme nt of the Court. Article 36.22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that “[n] o person

s h a ll b e p e r

mi tt e d to c o n v e r s e w it

h a ju r o r a b o u t t h e c a s e o ntr ia l e xc e p t i nthe prese nce a

nd by the per mission of the court.” T h e b o ne of c ontention is what “about the c ase”
means. The half of t he conversation that was overhea rd by defe nse counsel cer

tainly evidenc ed the juror’s f rustration with beingrequire d to perfor m one of his duties as a c itiz en: “The y ’ve g ot me on this damn jury . Idon’t know why the hell they picked me.” The juror clea rly did not like the subject2

m a t t e r o f t h e c a s e : “ I w o u l d

r a t h e r b e o na d o u b l e a x m u r d e r e r t h [ a ] nt h i s d a m nc a s e . It ’ s d i rt y, disgusting .” And he could be se en as bia sed ag ainst the d ef en d an t : “N o, unless we c onvict the bastard toda

y , then I ’m kind of st uck here.” But I do not believe that the c ontent of that half of the
conver sation is properly

called c onversing“about the c ase on tria l.” As the Court’s opinion note s, the primary g oal of Ar

ticle 36.22 is to insulate jurors from outside influence
. Cha mb lis s v . S tate , 647 S.W .2d 257, 266 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). Ba sed on the content of the known half of the conver sation at issue and its appar ent bre vity , we may assume that “B renda ” had little, if any thing, to say

“about the c ase,” which wa s descr ibed t o her, by infere nce, only as not being a double ax-murder. Nor, rea listi cally , could s he have done so. The juror did not name the de fenda

nt, state the off

ense a lleg ed, name the cour t in which the ca se wa s being tried, or
reve al any

thing a bout the testimony

prese nted. These are not the circ umstances that the le g islature wanted to pr event. Me re w hining a bout personal inconve nience d o es not constitute conver sing

“ a bo ut t he c a se .” B e c a

us e Ic on c lud e that the re wa s no vio latio n of Ar tic le 36 .2 2, Ic on c ur

on ly in the jud g me nt o f t

he Court .
Filed: June 3, 2009 Pub lis h
To whom it may concern,

This letter confirms the requirement for an outsized cargo aircraft

charter in su pport of shipping an aircraft part to Boeing Everett production. Because of time constraints related to meeting the production schedule and t he oversized dimensions of the part and shipping fixture s , the Boeing Company has an immediate need for an air charter. We have explored and eliminated all other conventional

movemen t methods including air freight , over the road trucking and rail transpor tation. Air charter is the only method that can meet our deadlines and not delay the production line. The AN124 is the only aircraft capable of handling this size of part s . The cha rter is required

on or about May 5

– May 8 , 2013 from Ft Worth, TX to Ever ett, WA

.

Regards,



## Vickie Currie

Vickie Currie Transportation Focal The Boeing Company
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00395

- CV
Siegfried Pueblitz, M.D. v. Tom Ray Lemen
On Appeal from the 93rd District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. C

- 0959

- 21

- B

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appellant ’ s amended petition for perm issive interlocu tory appeal concludes that appellant has not shown his entitlement to permissive interlocutory appeal. Accordingly , the amended petition for permissive interlo cu tory appeal is DENIED in acc ordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certified below for obser vance. December 2 1 , 2021
[Cite as R.C.H. v. Russo , 2023

- Ohio

- 4065.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

R.C.H.

, :

Relator, :

No. 11 3098

v. :

JUDGE JOHN J. RUSSO

, :

Respondent. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: COMPLAINT DISMISSED

DAT ED : November 3 , 2023

Writ of Pro cedendo

Motion No. 56 9058

Order No. 569133

Appearances:

R

. C.H

. , pro se

.

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting

Attorney, and James E. Moss , Assistant Prosecuting

Attorney

, for respondent

.

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER , J.:

On August 17, 2023, the relator, R.C.H. commenced this procedendo

action to compel the respondent judge to issue a final ruling on the relator’s motionfor expungement of criminal record that he filed on April 6, 2023, in the underlying

case, State v. R.C.H.

, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR

- 12

- 568211

- A. 1 On October 30, 2023,

the respondent judge moved for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness.

Attached to the dispositive motion is a copy of the judge’s October 26, 2023

judgment entry in which the respondent noted that he had heard the application for

expungement and granted the motion. This journal entry establishes beyond doubt

that the respondent judge has proceeded to judgment on the subject motion and that

this case is moot.

Accordingly, this court grants the respondent judge’s motion for

summary judgment and dismisse s this application for procedendo action as moot.

Respondent to pay costs; costs waived. This court directs the clerk of courts to serve

all parties notice of the judgment and its date of entry upon the journal as required

by Civ.R. 58(B).

Writ dismissed.

_________________________ EILEEN T. GALLAGHER

, JUDGE

ANITA LASTER MAYS

, A

. J., and

MICHAEL JOHN RYAN

, J., CONCUR

1 The relator named Judge Dick Ambrose as the respondent. However, he has

retired, and Judge John J. Russo now presides over the case. Pursuant to Civ.R. 21, this

court substitutes Judge John J. Russo as the proper respondent.
EXHIBIT 32.1





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





(ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)





In connection with the periodic report of Dynegy Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bruce A. Williamson, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.





Date: May 10, 2010
By:
/s/ BRUCE A. WILLIAMSONBruce A. Williamson

Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-19-00876-CV

VIP FLOORING, LLC and Philip Vipond,

Appellants

v.

Curtis WALKER,

Appellee

From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19-159

Honorable Kirsten Cohoon, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 29, 2020

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; DISMISSED

Appellants filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the 

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Because the motion does not disclose an agreement of the 

parties regarding the assessment of costs, we order all costs assessed against appellants. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.1(d)(absent agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against appellant).

PER CURIAM
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Special Interest Projects (SIP) 15-001, Integrating Self-Management Education with Cancer Survivorship Care Planning, and SIP 15-003, Using Cancer Registry Data to Promote Proactive Tobacco Cessation among Adult Cancer Survivors.

# Times and Dates:

10:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., May 12, 2015 (Closed).

10:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., May 13, 2015 (Closed).

# Place:

Teleconference.

# Status:

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

# Matters for Discussion:

The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Integrating Self-Management Education with Cancer Survivorship Care Planning, SIP 15-001, and Using Cancer Registry Data to Promote Proactive Tobacco Cessation among Adult Cancer Survivors, SIP 15-003.”

# Contact Person for More Information:

                        Brenda Colley Gilbert, Ph.D., M.S.P.H., Director, Extramural Research Program Operations and Services, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE., Mailstop F-80, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone: (770) 488-6295,                         *BJC4@cdc.gov.*

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Claudette Grant,

Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2015-08523 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
Exhibit 1a


                      INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT


To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Central Newspapers, Inc.

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated statement of financial position
of Central Newspapers, Inc. as of June 29, 1997, and the consolidated statements
of income, shareholders' equity and cash flows for the three-month and six-month
periods then ended.  These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is the
expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. 
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying financial statements as of and for the three-month
and six-month periods ended June 29, 1997 for them to be in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles.

/s/Price Waterhouse LLP
-----------------------
Price Waterhouse LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana
July 21, 1997
**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 of CTT International Distributors Inc.
      (“CTT”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Amit Sankhala, President, Chief Executive Officer of CTT and sole member of
      the
      Board of Directors, certify, pursuant to s.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, 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 represents, the financial
      condition and result of operations of CTT.








*/s/
      Amit Sankhala*


Amit
      Sankhala


Chief
      Executive Officer




November
      14, 2005






**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 of CTT International Distributors Inc.
      (“CTT”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Amit Sankhala, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of CTT, certify, pursuant
      to s.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 represents, the financial
      condition and result of operations of CTT.








*/s/
      Amit Sankhala*


Amit
      Sankhala


Chief
      Financial Officer




November
      14, 2005
22567

#### John SIJON, Appellant v. “Bob” GREEN, a/k/a Bobby Joe Green, Respondent.

(345 S. E. (2d) 246)

Supreme Court

*Eddie R. Harbin,*Greenville, *for appellant.*

*Everette Hoke Babb,*Mauldin, *for respondent.*

Submitted April 23, 1986.

Decided June 9, 1986.

*127Chandler, Justice:

John Sijon (Sijon) appeals a Circuit Court order setting aside three judgments previously entered in his favor against “Bob” Green (Green).

We reverse and remand.

On November 14, 1978, Green appeared in Greenville County Magistrate’s Court pursuant to a summons for debt filed by Sijon. Neither the plaintiff, Sijon, nor the Magistrate was present. Green requested that the Magistrate’s secretary reschedule a hearing.

On August 7,1979, a rescheduled hearing was held. Sijon appeared and presented his evidence. Green did not attend. Judgments totalling $1,175 were entered against him in his absence.

Green alleges that he received no notice of the August 7, 1979, trial date and that he was unaware of the judgments until 1984. He brings this action in Circuit Court for vacation of the judgments and a new trial.

Sijon concedes that the judgment roll contains no evidence of notice to Green of the August 7 trial.

He contends, erroneously, that Green’s claim for relief invokes and is governed by S. C. Code Ann. § 15-27-130 (1976).1 Green’s action to set aside the judgments does not fall within the purview of § 15-27-130, which applies when a judgment is entered against a party because of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.” Here, Green admits to no such conduct on his part but claims that Sijon was awarded judgments against him at a trial of which he had no notice. These were not *default*judgments, because Green had entered an oral answer. *Cf. Winnesett v. Winnesett,*287 S. C. 332, 338 S. E. (2d) 340, 341 (1985).

The Circuit Judge held that Green was entitled to notice of the August 7,1979, trial date. We agree. He held, further, that absence of such notice from the *128judgment roll required, *as a matter of law,*vacation of the judgments and a new trial. We disagree.

We hold that where a judgment roll does not contain evidence that a party-litigant received notice of the hearing or trial and a judgment is rendered, the absent party, upon motion,2 is entitled to a judicial determination of whether he received proper notice. If it be determined that the party received such notice, the judgment remains; if not, the absent party is entitled to a new trial.

Accordingly, we remand to the Circuit Court for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Ness, C. J., and Gregory, Harwell and Finney, JJ., concur.

1

 While in effect at all relevant times in this case, § 15-27-130 was repealed in July, 1985. Rule 60(b), S.C.R. Civ. P., now governs motions to set aside judgments.

2

 Rule 60(b)(4), S.C.R. Civ. P. requires that motions to set aside a judgment on the ground it is void must be brought within a reasonable time.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 78 (Friday, April 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 21225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9383]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Utah Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of 
the Utah Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by 
conference call at 10 a.m. on Thursday, May 6, 2010. The purpose of 
this meeting is to provide a brief overview of recent Commission and 
regional activities, discuss civil rights issues in the state, hear 
from a subcommittee on the Utah Anti-Discrimination Division's state 
audit report, and plan future activities and projects.
    This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-
free call-in and conference ID numbers: 1-866-364-8798; conference ID 
70344123. Any interested member of the public may call this number and 
listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls 
they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund 
any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they 
initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. 
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by 
first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing 
the Service with the conference call number and conference ID.
    To ensure that the Commission secures an appropriate number of 
lines for the public, persons are asked to register by contacting 
Evelyn Bohor of the Rocky Mountain Regional Office and TTY/TDD (303) 
866-1049 by noon on May 3, 2010.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The 
comments must be received in the regional office by June 7, 2010. The 
address is: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Rocky Mountain Regional 
Office, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 240, Denver, CO 80294. Comments may be 
e-mailed to ebohor@usccr.gov. Records generated by this meeting may be 
inspected and reproduced at the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, as they 
become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested 
in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the 
Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Rocky 
Mountain Regional Office at the above e-mail or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, 19 April 2010.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2010-9383 Filed 4-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```