alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Affirmed and Opinion Filed July 25, 2014 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01246-CR 

ALEXANDER JAMES GABRIEL, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 401-81517-10 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Myers and Evans 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

Alexander James Gabriel appeals from the adjudication of his guilt for robbery. See TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.02 (West 2011). The trial court assessed punishment at fourteen years’ 

imprisonment. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is 

wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in 

effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–12 

(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We 

advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. See 
‐2‐ 

Kelly v. State, 2014 WL 2865901 (Tex. Crim. App. June 25, 2014) (identifying duties of 

appellate courts and counsel in Anders cases). 

 We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree 

the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably 

support the appeal. 

 We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47 

121246F.U05 /Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
‐3‐ 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

ALEXANDER JAMES GABRIEL, 

Appellant 

No. 05-12-01246-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 Appeal from the 401st Judicial District 

Court of Collin County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 

401-81517-10). 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright, 

Justices Myers and Evans participating. 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered July 25, 2014
Troy L. LOCKHART, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5302

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Austin LOVE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1802

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 17, 2018

Candice K. Brower, Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Gainesville, and Michael J. Titus, Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Lewis, Roberts, and Jay, JJ., concur.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                        Pomeroy Computer Resources, Inc.
                 Exhibit 11 - Computation of Earnings Per Share
                    (in thousands, except per share amounts)

                                                   Three              Six
                                               Months Ended       Months Ended
                                                  July  5,         July  5,
                                              ----------------  ----------------
                                               1999     2000     1999     2000
                                              -------  -------  -------  -------
<S>                                           <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>
BASIC
Weighted average common shares
Outstanding                                    11,697   12,077   11,691   11,980
                                              =======  =======  =======  =======

Net income                                    $ 5,680  $ 7,605  $10,748  $13,891
                                              =======  =======  =======  =======

Net income per common share                   $  0.49  $  0.63  $  0.92  $  1.16
                                              =======  =======  =======  =======

DILUTED
Weighted average common shares
Outstanding                                    11,697   12,077   11,691   11,980

Dilutive effect of stock options outstanding
during the period                                  94      163      129      208

Total common and common equivalent            -------  -------  -------  -------
shares                                         11,791   12,240   11,820   12,188
                                              =======  =======  =======  =======

Net income                                    $ 5,680  $ 7,605  $10,748  $13,891
                                              =======  =======  =======  =======

Net income per common share                   $  0.48  $  0.62  $  0.91  $  1.14
                                              =======  =======  =======  =======
</TABLE>


<PAGE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 18294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07389]

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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

Sunshine Act Meeting

ACTION: Notice of an Open Meeting of the Board of Directors of the 
Export-Import Bank of the United States. This notice replaces the 
notice of the partially open meeting of April 10, 2014 which has 
subsequently been cancelled.

TIME AND PLACE: Thursday, April 10, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. The meeting will 
be held at Ex-Im Bank in Room 321, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, 
DC 20571.

OPEN AGENDA ITEM: Item No. 1: Content Review Initiatives: Services 
Policy, Annual Content Certification and Co-financing.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: The meeting will be open to public observation 
for Item No. 1 only.

FURTHER INFORMATION: Members of the public who wish to attend the 
meeting should call Joyce Stone, Office of the Secretary, 811 Vermont 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565-3336 by close of business 
Tuesday, April 8, 2014.

Cristopolis Dieguez,
Program Management Analyst.
[FR Doc. 2014-07389 Filed 3-28-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION * IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

OF MARYLAND * OF MARYLAND * * Petitioner

* Misc. Docket AG * v. * No. 43 * MARILYN D. DIMAS * September Term, 2014 * * Respondent *

*********************************************

ORDER Upon consideration of the Joint Petition for Disbarment by Consent filed herein pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-772, in which Respondent admits she committed p rofessional misconduct

in violation of Rule 1.15 and 8.1(c ) and (d) of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct, it is this 2 1st day of October, 2014, ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that Respondent, Marilyn D. Dimas,

be and she is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Maryland, effective fortyfive (45) days from the date of this Order; and it is further ORDERED, that, forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order, the Clerk of this Court shall remove the name of Marilyn D. Dimas from the register of attorneys in the Court and certify that fact to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and clerks of all judicial tribunals in this State in accordance with Maryland Rule 16-772(d).

/s/ Glenn T. Harrell, Jr. Senior Judge
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6247 

To modify the scope of the Office of the Special Inspector General for 

Afghanistan Reconstruction. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 6, 2023 

Mr. MILLS (for himself and Mr. ISSA) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the 

Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To modify the scope of the Office of the Special Inspector 

General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATIONS TO THE OFFICE OF THE SPE4 CIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AFGHANI5 STAN RECONSTRUCTION. 

6 Section 1229(m)(1)(B) of the National Defense Au7 thorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110– 

8 181; 5 App.) is amended by striking ‘‘the reconstruction 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6247 IH

1 of Afghanistan’’ and inserting ‘‘assistance for the benefit 

2 of the Afghan people’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
EXHIBIT 10.12
   Event
    
    FeesAnnual Retainer:For those Directors with
participation in less than three
board of Directors committees.
    
    $24,000 annually, payable on a monthly basis ($2,000).For those Directors with
participation in more than three
Board of Directors committees.
    
    $42,000 annually, payable on a monthly basis ($3,500).Secretary of the Board of Directors
    
    $6,720 annually, payable on a monthly basis ($560).Chairman of the Audit Committee
    
    $6,000 annually, payable on a monthly basis ($500).Secretary of the Audit Committee
    
    $12,000 annually, payable on a monthly basis ($1,000).Audit Committee Financial Expert
    
    $6,000 annually, payable on a monthly basis ($500).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6371

JOSEPH V. PURANDA, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director V.D.O.C., Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-03-389) Submitted: May 13, 2004 D ecided: May 20, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph V. Puranda, Appellant Pro Se. Amy L. Marshall, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Joseph V. Puranda seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). * An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Puranda has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
Exhibit
      23.1








**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Nos.
      333-106521, 333-107548, and 333-124568 on Form S-8 of our report dated February
      15, 2006, relating to the financial statements of Shumate Industries, Inc.,
      which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Shumate Industries, Inc.
      for the year ended December 31, 2005.








/s/
      Malone & Bailey, PC





Malone
      & Bailey, PC


www.malone-bailey.com


Houston,
      Texas





March
      28,
      2006
FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ar c h 6, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O RT H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 12441 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 4 9 4 - C R - T - 2 6 - MAP U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s J O S E R U I Z - Z A R A G O Z A , D e f e n d an t- A p p e llan t.

________________________ A pp ea lfr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 6, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T an dH IL L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E RC U R I A M: D ui l i o A . E spi no sa -M on t alban, appo i nt ed coun se lfor J ose Rui z- Z ar agoza,2

h a s f ile dam o tio n to w ith d r aw o n ap p e a l, s up p o rte db yab r ie f p r e p ar e dp u r s u an t to A nde r s v. C a l i f

orni a , 386 U . S . 738, 87 S . C t . 1396, 18 L . E d. 2d 493 ( 1967) . O ur i nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of

the e nt i r e r e c or d r e ve a l s tha tc ouns e l ’ s a s s e s s m e ntof the r e l a t i ve m e r i tof

the appe a li s c orr e c t . B e c aus e i nde pe nde nte xam i na t i on of the e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls n o ar g u ab le is s u e s o f m e r it, c o u n s e l’s m o tio n to w ith d r aw is G R A N TED , and R ui z- Z ar agoza’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence ar e AF F I RME D.
Exhibit 32.1


                    STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350

     In connection  with the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September  30,  2007  (the  "Form  10-Q")  of  Grayson  Bankshares,   Inc.  (the
"Company"),  we, Jacky K. Anderson,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Blake M.  Edwards,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of the  Company,  hereby  certify
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:

          (a)  the Form 10-Q fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
               13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

          (b)  the information  contained in the Form 10-Q fairly  presents,  in
               all material  respects,  the  financial  condition and results of
               operations of the Company as of and for the periods  presented in
               the Form 10-Q.



         By:      /s/ Jacky K. Anderson         Date:  November 14, 2007
                  -----------------------
                  Jacky K. Anderson
                  Chief Executive Officer



         By:      /s/ Blake M. Edwards          Date:  November 14, 2007
                  -----------------------
                  Blake M. Edwards
                  Chief Financial Officer
##### 



1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Chromcraft Revington, 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; andc)
    
    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; andb)
    
    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: August 13, 2007
    /s/ Benjamin M. Anderson-RayBenjamin M. Anderson-RayChairman and
Chief Executive Officer
T.G. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160454

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 31, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
*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.

1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 14, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 05-41618

Summary Calendar

_______________________

MINERVA G. ZAMORA, also known as Minnie Zamora,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HIDALGO COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants,

HIDALGO COUNTY,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

(USDC No. 7:04–CV–130–RC)

__________________________________________________________

Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
2

Hidalgo County appeals the district court’s judgment entered on a jury verdict that

awarded Zamora damages in her lawsuit under the Family and Medical Leave Act (the

“Act”). We affirm for the following reasons:

1. There is legally sufficient evidence in the record of a causal connection

between Zamora’s decision to take leave under the Act and the County’s decision to

terminate Zamora’s employment. There is also sufficient evidence that the County’s given

reason for terminating Zamora was pretextual. Faced with the inconsistencies in Ms.

Cedillo’s testimony and the conflicting and contrary testimony of advisory board members

Casarez and Quintanilla, the jury was free to disbelieve the County’s proffered explanation,

and in the absence of that explanation to conclude that the only basis for Zamora’s

termination wasthe exercise of her rights under the Act. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing

Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 148, 120 S. Ct. 2097, 2109 (2000) ("a plaintiff's prima facie case,

combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer's asserted justification is false,

may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated.")

2. Fairly read, Zamora’s First Amended Complaint included a claim of retaliation.

3. The jury’s finding that the County did not act in good faith is not clearly

erroneous. See Nero v. Indus. Molding Corp., 167 F.3d 921, 928-29 (5th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gary E. LAROCK, Jr., Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10351 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Gary E. Larock, Jr., Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gary E. Larock, Jr., has *901moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 2011). Larock has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *901published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### John Henry BESAW, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-70264

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 14, 2017

John Henry Besaw, Pro Se

Robert Joel Branman, Esquire, Bruce R. Ellisen, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

John Henry Besaw appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision, following a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of deficiencies and penalties. Wé have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court’s legal conclusions and for clear error its factual findings. *Hardy v. Comm’r,*181 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.

The Tax Court did not clearly err in determining that Besaw failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate his entitlement to deductions. *See Sparkman v. Comm’r,*509 F.3d 1149, 1159 (9th Cir. 2007) (taxpayer bears burden of showing right to claimed deduction). Contrary to Resaw’s contention, the Tax Court did not err in failing to shift the burden of proof to the Commissioner. *See*26 U.S.C. § 7491(a) (requirements for shifting burden of proof to Commissioner).

The Tax Court did not err by imposing penalties for Resaw’s underpayment of tax due to his substantial understatement of income tax. *See*26 U.S.C. § 6662(a), (b)(2) (authorizing penalty equal to 20% of the underpayment for, among other things, a substantial understatement of income tax); *id.*§ 6662(d)(1)(A) (defining substantial understatement); *DJB Holding Corp. v. Comm’r,*803 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2015) (standard of review).

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in not admitting certain documents, including those created during the audit. *See Clapp v. Comm’r,*875 F.2d 1396, 1403 (9th Cir. 1989) (tax court’s determination of a tax deficiency is a de novo proceeding on the merits); *Sparkman,*509 F.3d at 1156 (standard of review for evidentiary rulings).

We reject as unsupported by the record Besaw’s contention that the Tax Court erred in not granting his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED,

**

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