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

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-1072-19

DANIEL THOMAS BARNES Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ORDER REGARDING REPRESENTATION

GREGG COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Appellant was convicted of burglary of a habitation in cause number 48,046-A in the 188th

District Court of Gregg County. Appellant was sentenced to confinement for 40 years. The court

of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Barnes v. State, No. 06-19-00045-CR (Tex. App.

— Texarcana, delivered September 25, 2019). The State’s petition for discretionary review was

granted by this Court on December 11, 2019. Appellant is entitled to representation before this Court

at this time. See Article 1.051(a)(d)(2), V.A.C.C.P. Appellant is without representation in this
Court. Accordingly, the trial court is ordered to determine if Appellant is currently represented by

counsel, and if so, to inform this court who represents Appellant. If Appellant is not currently

represented by counsel and desires counsel, the trial court must first determine whether Appellant

is indigent. If the trial court finds Appellant is indigent, that court shall appoint an attorney to

represent Appellant before this court in regard to PDR No. PD-1072-19, in accord with the

provisions of Articles 1.051 and 26.04, V.A.C.C.P. Any hearing conducted pursuant to this order

shall be held within 30 days of the date of this order. The trial court's order appointing counsel, any

findings of fact, affidavits, or transcription of the court reporter's notes and any other

supplementation of the record shall be returned to this court within 45 days of the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 30 DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 TH

DO NOT PUBLISH
EX PARTE Marvin RUDOLPH

CR-16-0514

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
Donard Eugene JONES v. STATE

CR-16-0389

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017 Reh. denied May 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
A.L. v. D.L. and T.L.

2160168

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-26745), the Registration Statement on Form S-8
(No. 33-53561), the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-51021), the
Prospectus constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No.
333-62105), and the Prospectus constituting part of the Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (No. 33-35137) of Premark International, Inc. of our
report dated February 14, 1997 appearing as Exhibit 99.1 of this Form 10-K.



PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 19, 1999
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 25 , 2017.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 17 -00237- CV

TOKES ADLEYE, Appellant

V. MAGARET DRISCAL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 310th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2013-66224

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N This is an attempted appeal from an amended post-judgment order on certain bankruptcy issues. The post-judgment order was issued in response to an order of
this court in Cause No. 14- 14 -00822-CV. Certain limited classes of po st -judgment orders have been recognized as appealable orders. See Walter v. Marathon Oil Corp. , 422 S.W.3d 848, 855 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.). However, the trial court’s order does not fall within any of those classes. Id.On June 20, 2017, notification was transmitted to the parties of this court’s

intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless on or before July 5, 2017, appellant filed a response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal.
See Tex. R. App. P

. 42.3(a). Appellant filed no response.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Wise, and Jewell.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                            1738
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1738
<PP&E>                                           12400
<DEPRECIATION>                                     556
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   13582
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                          22000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          4619
<OTHER-SE>                                     (13037)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     13582
<SALES>                                           2666
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  2666
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                133502
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (136168)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (136168)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (136168)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
WINBAR LLC, Appellant, v. Rabia Ardan MORRIS, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2246

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EX PARTE Eric Andre JAMES

1160128 (CR-15-0776)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

January 13, 2017

Cert. denied.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION





I, Jacky K. Anderson, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Grayson Bankshares, 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)) for the registrant and have:



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



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):



(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.





Date:  May 16, 2005

/s/ Jacky K. Anderson

Jacky K. Anderson

President and Chief Executive Officer
ARER INVESTMENTS, LLC, et al., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. CHATEAU BEACH, LLC, etc., et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2097

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted. Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         2,039
<SECURITIES>                                   1,192
<RECEIVABLES>                                    679
<ALLOWANCES>                                      91
<INVENTORY>                                       29
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,436
<PP&E>                                         1,657
<DEPRECIATION>                                   631
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                10,953
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,307
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                          23
<OTHER-SE>                                     6,542
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  10,953
<SALES>                                        1,975
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,975
<CGS>                                            928
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,497
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  27
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                15
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  567
<INCOME-TAX>                                     222
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              345
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                     345
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .13



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.**

** **

**SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

** **

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that:

 

(1)           This Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of Option Care, Inc. for the period ended June 30, 2003, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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 theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of  operations of Option Care,Inc.

 
| Date: August  14, 2003 | By:    | /s/ Paul  Mastrapa                                  |   |
|------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                   |   | Paul  Mastrapa                                      |
|                   |   | Senior Vice  President and Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 1, 2021

No. 04-21-00460-CR

Andon Joseph SAMBRANO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 452nd District Court, Kimble County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-DCR-1025

Honorable Robert Rey Hofmann, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sandra Jackson's Second Notification of Late Reporter's Record is this date NOTED. 

The record is due December 31, 2021, with no further extensions absent extenuating 

circumstances.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

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

court on this 1st day of December, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Gary P. PARADYSZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3705

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 17, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Stanley R. TSUJI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-15105

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 23, 2017

Stanley R. Tsuji, Pro Se -

- John L. Knorek, Esquire, Attorney, Austin F. McCullough, Torkildson, Katz, Moore, Hetherington & Harris, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Stanley R. Tsuji appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his employment action alleging claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Smith v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist.,*727 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir. 2013), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Tsuji’s discrimination claim because Tsuji failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was disabled, and whether defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating his employment were pretex-tual. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1) (defining disability); *Smith,*727 F.3d at 955 (setting forth elements of a prima facie case of ADA discrimination); *Snead v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.,*237 F.3d 1080, 1093-94 (9th Cir. 2001) (outlining requirements for showing that termination was pretextual).

The district court'properly granted summary judgment on Tsuji’s failure-to-accommodate claim because Tsuji failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether he was disabled. *See Allen v. Pac. Bell,*348 F.3d 1113, 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth elements of prima facie case under the ADA for failure-to-accommodate).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Tsuji’s retaliation claim because Tsuji faked to raise a triable dispute as to whether there was a causal link between Tsuji’s protected activity and his termination, and whether defendant’s reasons for terminating his employment were pretextual. *See Brown v. City of Tucson,*336 F.3d 1181, 1187-88 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth elements of a prima facie case of ADA retaliation, and requirements for establishing pretext).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

*553Tsujfs motion to vacate his reply brief is denied as -unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                             CERTIFICATE 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 Annual Report of Compuprint, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David R. Allison,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respect, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

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

/s/ David R. Allison
------------------------
Chief Financial Officer

April 14, 2005
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A1299. ROLANDAS MILINAVICIUS v. THE STATE.

Following a jury trial,Rolandas Milinavicius was convicted of two counts each

of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm

during the commission of a felony. His convictions were affirmed on appeal. See

Milinavicius v. State, 290 Ga. 374 (721 SE2d 843) (2012). In 2018, Milinaviciusfiled

a pro se motion seeking, among other things, copies of the grand jury proceedings and

the indictment in his case pursuant to the Georgia Open Records Act. The trial court

dismissed the motion, and Milinavicius then filed the instant direct appeal.

Under our Constitution, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over

“[a]ll cases in which a sentence of death was imposed or could be imposed.” Ga.

Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (8). Because a penalty of death can be

imposed for the crime of malice murder, jurisdiction is proper in the Supreme Court. 

See OCGA § 16-5-1 (a), (e) (1); Neal v. State, 290 Ga. 563, 572 (722 SE2d 765)

(2012) (Hunstein, C. J., concurring). The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over murder

cases includes appeals from orders resolving post-judgment motions in such cases.

See Simpson v. State, 292 Ga. 764, 764-765 (740 SE2d 124) (2013).

February 01, 2019
Accordingly, Milinavicius’s appeal is herebyTRANSFERRED 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.

02/01/2019
Exhibit 32.1

ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC.

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Annual Report of
Encore Capital Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/S/    J. BRANDON
BLACK              
|J. Brandon Black                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer

February 14, 2011







|                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------
|/S/    PAUL
GRINBERG                                           
|Paul Grinberg                                                  
|Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

February 14, 2011

This certification accompanies the above described Report and is being
furnished pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall be not be deemed filed as part of the Report.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1508 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 21, 2021 

Received 

AN ACT 

To require a guidance clarity statement on certain agency 

guidance, 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, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1508 RDS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Guidance Clarity Act 

3 of 2021’’. 

4 SEC. 2. GUIDANCE CLARITY STATEMENT REQUIRED. 

5 (a) REQUIREMENT.—Each agency, as defined in sec6 tion 551 of title 5, United States Code, shall include a 

7 guidance clarity statement as described in subsection (b) 

8 on any guidance issued by that agency under section 

9 553(b)(3)(A) of title 5, United States Code, on and after 

10 the date that is 30 days after the date on which the Direc11 tor of the Office of Management and Budget issues the 

12 guidance required under subsection (c). 

13 (b) GUIDANCE CLARITY STATEMENT.—A guidance 

14 clarity statement required under subsection (b) shall— 

15 (1) be displayed prominently on the first page 

16 of the document; and 

17 (2) include the following: ‘‘The contents of this 

18 document do not have the force and effect of law 

19 and do not, of themselves, bind the public or the 

20 agency. This document is intended only to provide 

21 clarity to the public regarding existing requirements 

22 under the law or agency policies.’’. 

23 (c) OMB GUIDANCE.—Not later than 90 days after 

24 the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Of25 fice of Management and Budget shall issue guidance to 

26 implement this Act. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 1508 RDS

1 SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

2 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

3 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 

4 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

5 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

6 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

7 by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, pro8 vided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 

9 vote on passage. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 20, 

2021. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS