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

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Nos. 04-13-00658-CR, 04-13-00659-CR & 04-13-00660-CR

George Edward PURDY,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 4482, 4958 & 4959

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 13, 2013

DISMISSED

The trial court’s certification in each of these appeals states that “this criminal case is a 

plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record for each appeal 

contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment 

recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial court’s 

certifications accurately reflect that the underlying cases are plea-bargain cases. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 25.2(a)(2). 
04-13-00658-CR, 04-13-00659-CR & 04-13-00660-CR

Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “The appeal must be 

dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part 

of the record under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). On October 3, 2013, we ordered that 

these appeals would be dismissed pursuant to rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court 

certification showing that the appellant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate 

record in each appeal by November 4, 2013. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Dears v. 

State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio 2003, no pet.). No response was filed. In the absence of an amended trial court 

certification showing that the appellant has the right of appeal, rule 25.2(d) requires this court to 

dismiss these appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

- 2 -
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

KYLE DYLAN MORAN, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D13-530 

 ) 

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

 ) 

Opinion filed May 6, 2015. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Kimberly Fernandez, 

Judge. 

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and 

Maureen E. Surber, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Susan M. Shanahan, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee. 

CASANUEVA, Judge. 

 Kyle Dylan Moran appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant 

to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Mr. Moran's motion alleged that he 

received a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for a 

first-degree murder that he committed when he was sixteen years old. The motion was 
- 2 -

denied based on Geter v. State, 115 So. 3d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), and Gonzalez v. 

State, 101 So. 3d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), which held that Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 

2455 (2012), did not apply retroactively. The Florida Supreme Court has recently held 

that the Miller decision applies retroactively to all juvenile offenders whose convictions 

and sentences were final when Miller was decided. Falcon v. State, 40 Fla. L. Weekly 

S151, S151 (Fla. Mar. 19, 2015). Accordingly, we reverse the postconviction court's 

order summarily denying the claim. 

 We note that the Florida Supreme Court has further held in Horsley v. 

State, 40 Fla. L. Weekly S155, S155 (Fla. Mar. 19, 2015), that the proper remedy in 

cases involving juvenile offenders whose sentences are unconstitutional under Miller is 

to apply chapter 2014–220, Laws of Florida. The court concluded that "applying chapter 

2014–220, Laws of Florida, to all juvenile offenders whose sentences are 

unconstitutional under Miller is the remedy most faithful to the Eighth Amendment 

principles established by the United States Supreme Court, to the intent of the Florida 

Legislature, and to the doctrine of separation of powers." Id. at S160. The relevant 

provisions of chapter 2014–220 have been codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 

921.1402, Florida Statutes (2014). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Mr. 

Moran's motion and remand for a resentencing proceeding consistent with this new 

juvenile sentencing legislation. See Horsley, 40 Fla. L. Weekly S155; Falcon, 40 Fla. L. 

Weekly S151. 

 Reversed and remanded with directions. 

WALLACE and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

THADDEUS PRYOR,

Appellant,

v.

THE CADLE COMPANY,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-1317

[October 3, 2019]

Appeal of non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth 

Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Scott Kerner, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502017CA009862.

Paul K. Silverberg and Kraig S. Weiss of Silverberg & Weiss, P.A., 

Weston, for appellant.

Riley W. Cirulnick of Rice Pugatch Robinson Storfer & Cohen, PLLC, 

Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, TAYLOR and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Darwin Jose RAUDA-BONILLA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40583 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 20, 2018

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Darwin Jose Rauda-Bonilla, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Darwin Jose Rauda-Bonilla has moved 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 (5th Cir. 2011). Rau-da-Bonilla 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 *474issue 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 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-20-00217-CV

__________________

IN RE ETHAN TODD STEWART

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 19-06-08032

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Ethan Todd Stewart seeks to compel the 

trial court to rule on his challenge to the constitutionality of Chapter 841of the Texas 

Health and Safety Code.1 Generally, trial courts have a ministerial duty to consider 

and rule on matters before them within a reasonable time.2 But here, Stewart never 

served the petition he filed on the defendant, so the trial court had no duty to consider 

his claims challenging the validity of the statute he wanted the court to overturn. 

1 See generally Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 841.001-.153 (West & 

Supp. 2019).

2 See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Tex. 1992) (orig. 

proceeding) (mandamus conditionally granted to compel trial court to conduct a 

hearing).
2

The documents Stewart filed with the petition for mandamus fail to show that 

he either requested or obtained service on the State of Texas, the defendant that he 

sued.

3 Without service of process, the trial court had no ministerial duty to consider 

the claims Stewart is complaining about on appeal, the alleged unconstitutionality 

of the statute that governs sexually violent predators.

4 For that reason, the trial court 

did not abuse its discretion by failing to conduct a hearing on Stewart’s claims. 

Because Stewart’s petition for mandamus lacks merit, it is denied.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on October 7, 2020

Opinion Delivered October 8, 2020

Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.

3 See Tex. R. Civ. P. 99, 106.

4 See In re Wigley, No. 14-19-00749-CV, 2019 WL 5078650, at *2 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 10, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (Denying 

mandamus relief where the relator failed to show that he strictly complied with the 

rules governing citation.).
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32

                            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 ChrisKen Partners Cash Income Fund
L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, John F. Kennedy, President (Principal Executive
Officer) of ChrisKen Income Properties, Inc., the Managing General Partner of
the Partnership, and Robert Mayer, Acting Principal Financial Officer of
ChrisKen Income Properties, Inc., the Managing General Partner of the
Partnership, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Partnership.

Date: May 13, 2005

                                 By: /s/ John F. Kennedy
                                     --------------------
                                     John F. Kennedy
                                     President
                                     ChrisKen Income Properties, Inc.,
                                       Managing General Partner
                                     ChrisKen Partners Cash Income Fund L.P.

                                 By: /s/ Robert Mayer
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Robert Mayer
                                     Acting Principal Accounting Officer
                                     ChrisKen Income Properties, Inc.,
                                       Managing General Partner
                                     ChrisKen Partners Cash Income Fund L.P.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis RAMIREZ-HEBERT, also known as Jose Luis Ramirez, also known as Jose Luis Ramirez-Herbert, also known as Jose L. Ramirez, also known as Manahel Parcio, also known as Armando Ramirez, also known as Jose Luis Ramirez-Herbet, also known as Jose Herbert Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-20207 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 20, 2018

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jose Luis Ramirez-Hebert, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Luis Ramirez-Hebert has moved 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.*
      *462
      *Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ramirez-Hebert 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 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
No. 12M20.

#### Baez *v.*United States.

Motion for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record granted.
Exhibit 35
                                  ----------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWALT, INC.
                       ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-OA19
             MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-OA19


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer
of Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing
LP (the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to
Section 3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned
Series (the "Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                      Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN TEIXEIRA; STEVE NOBRIGA;

GARY GAMAZA; CALGUNS

FOUNDATION, INC., (CGF);

SECOND AMENDMENT

FOUNDATION, INC., (SAF);

CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF

FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES,

(Cal-FFL), 

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 v.

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; ALAMEDA

COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,

as a policy making body; WILMA

CHAN, in her official capacity; NATE

MILEY, in his official capacity; KEITH

CARSON, in his official capacity, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-17132

D.C. No. 3:12-cv-03288-WHO

Northern District of California, 

San Francisco

ORDER

THOMAS, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that

this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a)

FILED

DEC 27 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as

precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit. 

2
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 326 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 326

Permitting the use of the rotunda of the Capitol on September 23, 1998, 
    for the presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal to Nelson 
                          Rolihlahla Mandela.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 14, 1998

 Mr. Houghton submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
              referred to the Committee on House Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Permitting the use of the rotunda of the Capitol on September 23, 1998, 
    for the presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal to Nelson 
                          Rolihlahla Mandela.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used on September 
23, 1998, for the presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal to 
Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela. Physical preparations for the ceremony shall 
be carried out in accordance with such conditions as the Architect of 
the Capitol may prescribe.
                                 <all>
```
ljitt(rr,ttiris;'rrìrrri?\SrA.lF(ft-[]Elr.AwAlrllDEF,ARTMEN].OFNATTJTìALRT:SOTJRCFSA¡¿T)ET\¡VIRONMEN-TALCONTRl)LflflKrN(,:,;Ill(.i1wA/r-.,(rvt.tr,llE'.Aw^Rr.M'lO¡April23,2015Mr.ShawnGarvin(3R400),RegionalAdministratorU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,RegionIII1650ArchStreetPhiladelphia,PA19103DearMr.Garvin:IampleasedtosubmittheenclosedrevisiontotheStateofDelawareStateImplementationPlan(SIP)entitled"Delaware201IBaseYearStateImplementationPlan(SIP)Emissionlnventoryunderthe2008OzoneNationalAmbientAirQualityStandard(NAAQS)'.TheeffectivedateofthisrevisionisAugustIl,2014.AccordingtoSectionI82(aXl)ofCAAandEPA'simplementationruleforthe2008ozonestandard(ProposedRule,June6,2013,78F-R34178),DelawareisrequiredtosubmittoEPAinJuly2014aSIPrevisionwhichcompilesDelaware201Iemissionsofvolatileorganiccompounds(VOC),oxidesofnitrogen(NOx),andcarbonmonoxide(CO)fromfivesourcesectors:stationarypointsources,stationarynon-pointsources,on-roadmobilesourcesandnon-roadmobilesources.ThesubjectdocumentcontainsDelaware'sbaseyearemissioninventoryStateImplementationPlan(SlP)revisionunderthe8-hourozoneNationalAmbientAirQualityStandard(NAAQS)setflorthbyUSEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)in2008.TherequirementsoftheCAASectionIl0(a)(2)(A)havebeenmetthroughthenormalpublichearingprocessestablishedbytheStateofDelawarewithpropernotification(30days)priortotheconveningofthepublichearing.AttachmentsAandBarecopiesofaffidavitsasproofofpropernotification.ItisthepositionoftheStateofDelawarethatallminimumrequiiementssetforthinthe1990CleanAirActAmendmentshavebeenmet.WelookforwardtocontinuingthecooperativeeffortbetweenDelawareandEPAinthisimportantwork.Asalways,feelfreetocontactmeorAliMirzakhalili,Director,at(302)739-9402,ifyouhaveanyquestionsconcerningtheencloseddocuments.Sincerely,DavidS.SmallSecretaryEnclosurescc:MatthewColip,EPAw/oencl.DianaEsher,EPAw/encl.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997             JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996             FEB-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996             OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                         132,028                 132,028
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,804,128              14,804,128
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                 33,480,211              33,480,211
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            50,050,577              50,050,577
<PP&E>                                      51,262,253              51,262,253
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,692,251              12,692,251
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              90,827,545              90,827,545
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       25,456,616              25,456,616
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        74,660                  74,660
<OTHER-SE>                                  27,577,859              27,577,859
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                90,827,545              90,827,545
<SALES>                                     47,040,920             141,551,278
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            47,040,920             141,551,278
<CGS>                                       35,721,533             107,238,791
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               35,721,533             107,238,791
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,999,605              32,604,090
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             919,251               2,640,494
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (599,469)               (932,097)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (205,460)               (316,913)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (394,009)               (615,184)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (394,009)               (615,184)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.06)                  (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-1342.

#### West Virginia Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis Fund *v.*Stacy, Surviving Spouse of Stacy, et al.

C. A: 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
SummaryofDirectorCompensation


Exhibit 10.25


SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
OF 
STATE BANK FINANCIAL CORPORATION


Directors who are employees of State Bank Financial Corporation (the “Company”) do not receive additional compensation for serving as directors of the Company. The following table sets forth current rates of cash compensation for the Company’s non-employee directors.


	
		
	Annual retainer
	$40,000 (payable in quarterly installments)

	Fee for attending each Board meeting in person
	$1,000

	Fee for attending each Board meeting by telephone
	$500

	Fee for attending each Committee meeting in person or by telephone
	$500

	Additional annual retainer for Chairs of the Audit Committee, Independent Directors Committee and Risk Committee
	$10,000 (payable in quarterly installments)






Each non-employee director also receives a grant of 1,000 shares of restricted stock on the first business day following the date of each annual meeting of shareholders. The shares vest in full on the date of the next annual meeting of shareholders following the date of grant.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Landmark Skate and Fun LLC ) 

) 

Under Contract No. NNA250-1 l-C-0020 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 59174 

Ms. Donna Baudendistel 

Owner 

Ronald J. Borro, Esq. 

Navy Chief Trial Attorney 

Cynthia R. Martin, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

Navy Exchange Service Command 

Virginia Beach, VA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The parties have settled and request that the appeal be dismissed. Accordingly, 

ASBCA No. 59174 is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 12 June 2014 

Administrat · e Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59174, Appeal of 

Landmark Skate and Fun LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
# Sequestration Order for Fiscal Year 2023 Pursuant to Section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as Amended

By the authority vested in me as President by the laws of the United States of America, and in accordance with section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (the “Act”), as amended, 2 U.S.C. 901a, I hereby order that, on October 1, 2022, direct spending budgetary resources for fiscal year 2023 in each non-exempt budget account be reduced by the amount calculated by the Office of Management and Budget in its report to the Congress of March 28, 2022.

All sequestrations shall be made in strict accordance with the requirements of section 251A of the Act and the specifications of the Office of Management and Budget's report of March 28, 2022, prepared pursuant to section 251A(9) of the Act.

[FR Doc. 2022-06939

Billing code 3395-F2-P