alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Cite as State v. Coffman, 2014-Ohio-4028.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

State of Ohio, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

v. : No. 14AP-646 

 (C.P.C. No. 90CR-987) 

William Coffman, : 

 (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on September 16, 2014 

 

Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Valerie Swanson, 

for appellee. 

William Coffman, pro se. 

 

ON MOTION FOR DELAYED APPEAL 

TYACK, J. 

{¶ 1} William Coffman is pursuing a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal. 

The State of Ohio has filed a memorandum contra to the motion. 

{¶ 2} In 1990, Coffman was sentenced to a term of 8 to 25 years of incarceration 

following his plea of guilty to aggravated robbery. Almost 13 years later, he filed a motion 

requesting that his sentence be vacated on a theory he was actually guilty of robbery, not 

aggravated robbery. The trial court overruled the motion to vacate the sentence in 

December 2013. 

{¶ 3} Coffman did not file a timely appeal, but instead filed his motion now before 

us some eight months after his time for a direct appeal had run. He claims, in essence, 

that the prison system received the trial court's ruling and failed to convey it to him or 

that the trial court never forwarded the ruling at all. 
No. 14AP-646 2 

{¶ 4} A motion seeking to vacate a sentence, especially a sentence handed down 

following a guilty plea, is uniformly considered a form of petition for post-conviction 

relief. The Supreme Court of Ohio has told us in State v. Nichols, 11 Ohio St.3d 40, that 

we cannot grant motions for delayed appeal on rulings on petitions for post-conviction 

relief. 

{¶ 5} Further, we cannot verify Coffman's claim that the trial court's ruling was 

not forwarded to him. His claims in the memorandum in support of his motion that he 

received only two letters, both dated December 2014, is obviously impossible. He 

acknowledges that a family member told him the trial court had ruled months ago. 

{¶ 6} Perhaps most significantly, Coffman's trial court motion had no conceivable 

merit. As a petition for post-conviction relief, it was horribly late. Construed as a motion 

to set aside his guilty plea, he had no possibility of demonstrating a manifest injustice as 

required by Crim.R. 32.1 for a guilty plea to be set aside. 

{¶ 7} As a result, we deny the motion seeking leave to pursue a delayed appeal. 

Motion for delayed appeal denied. 

DORRIAN and LUPER SCHUSTER, JJ., concur.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:FAA - 2014 - 0522 (2014 - NM - 087 - AD)
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 5.1

                     [LETTERHEAD OF ANDREWS & KURTH L.L.P.]


                                  July 8, 1997



Board of Directors
Sterling Chemicals Holdings, Inc.
1200 Smith Street, Suite 1900
Houston, Texas 77002-4312

Gentlemen:

          We have acted as counsel for Sterling Chemicals Holdings, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), in connection with the Company's
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (the "Registration Statement") relating to
the registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, of the offering
and sale of an aggregate of up to 575,253 shares (the "Shares") of common stock
of the Company, par value $0.01 per share (the "Common Stock"). The Shares are
to be issued upon the exercise from time to time of 191,751 warrants (the
"Warrants"), each of which entitles the holder to purchase three shares of
Common Stock pursuant to the Warrant Agreement dated as of August 15, 1996 (the
"Warrant Agreement") between the Company and Harris Trust and Savings Bank
(formerly known as Key Corp Shareholder Services), as Warrant Agent.

          As the basis for the opinion hereinafter expressed, we have examined
such statutes, regulations, corporate records and documents, certificates of
corporate and public officials, and other instruments as we have deemed
necessary or advisable for the purposes of this opinion.  In such examination we
have assumed the authenticity of all documents submitted to us as originals and
the conformity with the original documents of all documents submitted to us as
copies.

          Based upon the foregoing and on such legal considerations as we deem
relevant, we are of the opinion that the Shares issuable upon exercise of the
Warrants have been duly authorized and reserved for issuance upon such exercise
and, when issued upon such exercise in accordance with the terms of the Warrant
Agreement, will be validly issued, fully-paid and nonassessable.

          We hereby consent to the use of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement and the reference to our firm under the caption "Legal
Matters" therein.

                              Very truly yours,


                              /s/ Andrews & Kurth L.L.P.


1173/1198/2608
# C_2021098EN.01003401.xml

| 22.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/34

---

Action brought on 5 February 2021 — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and Cephalon v Commission

(Case T-74/21)

(2021/C 98/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Petach Tikva, Israel), Cephalon Inc. (West Chester, Pennsylvania, United States) (represented by: D. Tayar and S. Ortoli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission decision C(2020) 8153 Final of 26 November 2020 in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission decision C(2020) 8153 Final of 26 November 2020 in its entirety;

| — | cancel the fines imposed on Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Cephalon Inc. in Article 2 of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

cancel the fines imposed on Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Cephalon Inc. in Article 2 of the contested decision;

| — | alternatively, substantially reduce the fine imposed on Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, substantially reduce the fine imposed on Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred legally and factually by characterising the agreement at issue as a restriction of competition by object. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred legally and factually by characterising the agreement at issue as a restriction of competition by object.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred legally and factually in characterising the Settlement Agreement as a restriction of competition by effect. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred legally and factually in characterising the Settlement Agreement as a restriction of competition by effect.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has erred in applying article 101, paragraph 3 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has erred in applying article 101, paragraph 3 TFEU.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the fines imposed on Teva and Cephalon should be annulled, or that, at the very least, the fine imposed on Teva should be significantly reduced. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the fines imposed on Teva and Cephalon should be annulled, or that, at the very least, the fine imposed on Teva should be significantly reduced.

---
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-64,748-08

EX PARTE DONALD WAYNE COOKS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. W04-00121-N(D) IN THE 195 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM DALLAS COUNTY 

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of deadly conduct

and sentenced to imprisonment for forty years. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed Applicant’s

conviction. Cooks v. State, No. 05-04-00620-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005)(not designated for

publication). 

After a review of the record and the trial court’s findings, we find that Applicant’s claim in

ground one is without merit. Therefore, we deny relief. Applicant’s claims in grounds two and three

are dismissed as subsequent. TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. Art. 11.07 §4(a)-(c).
Filed: May 18, 2016

Do not publish
No. 11-679.

#### Seven-Sky, aka Sevensky, et al. *v.*Holder, Attorney General.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
Order entered February 27, 2013

In The



## Court of Appeals

**Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 12

- 01096

- CR

CHARLES EDWARDS SIELOFF III

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Tex as

Trial Court Cause No. F10

- 35795

- P



### O RDER

Appellant’s February 11, 2013 motion to supplement the clerk’s record is GRANTED

.

We ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN days of the date

of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing a copy of the presentence report prepared

for this case.

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send copies of this order, by electronic

transmission, to the following:

Dallas County District Clerk Gary Fitzsimmons

The Dallas County District Clerk, Criminal Records Division

Counsel for all parties

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
# C_2021297EN.01004601.xml

| 26.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/46

---

Action brought on 27 May 2021 — CNH Industrial v EUIPO (SOILXPLORER)

(Case T-300/21)

(2021/C 297/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CNH Industrial NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Axel Karnøe Søndergaard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SOILXPLORER — Application for registration No 18 217 454

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2021 in Case R 386/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in its entirety and allow the trade mark to be published for opposition purposes in respect of all the goods applied for, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the EUIPO in order that it may adopt the consequent measures; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in its entirety and allow the trade mark to be published for opposition purposes in respect of all the goods applied for, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the EUIPO in order that it may adopt the consequent measures;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by attributing an incorrect meaning to the trade mark applied for and by failing to consider the mark as filed; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by attributing an incorrect meaning to the trade mark applied for and by failing to consider the mark as filed;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by incorrectly assessing the descriptive character of the mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by incorrectly assessing the descriptive character of the mark;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by incorrectly assessing the distinctive character of the mark. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by incorrectly assessing the distinctive character of the mark.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 19932]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07234]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 
1817(j)(7)).
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in paragraph 7 of the Act.
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than April 21, 2022.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Karen Smith, Director, 
Applications) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. The Estate of H.L. Baker, Jr., Sheri Barnhart, individually, and 
as executrix, the John R. Barnhart III Trust, the Matthew Barnhart 
Trust, and the Samantha Barnhart Trust, John Barnhart, Jr., 
individually, and with Sheri Barnhart, as co-trustees of all the 
trusts, all of Lake Jackson, Texas; to become the Barnhart Family 
Group, a group acting in concert, to retain voting shares of Austin 
Colony, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of First 
National Bank, both of Lake Jackson, Texas.
    In addition, the Baker Management Trust, Sheri Barnhart, as 
trustee, both of Lake Jackson, Texas; to join the Barnhart Family Group 
to acquire voting shares of Austin Colony, Inc., and thereby indirectly 
acquire voting shares of First National Bank.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 1, 2022.
Ann E. Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2022-07234 Filed 4-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0172

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

MITCHELL LEE JOYCE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 18, 2022, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 13 2022

01/13/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0172
#### Fernando BARRAZA, Plaintiff-Appellant v. KING, University of Texas Medical Branch Employee; University of Texas Medical Branch, Defendants-Appellees

No. 17-20064 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 27, 2018

Fernando Barraza, Pro Se

Christopher Lee Lindsey, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Law Enforcement Defense Division, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Fernando Barraza, Texas prisoner # 825835, appeals the district court’s *sua sponte*dismissal of his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit with prejudice and its denial of his motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Barraza has failed to raise in his initial appellate brief, thereby abandoning, a challenge to the district court’s dismissal on jurisdictional grounds of his claims against the University of Texas Medical Branch. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

We review *de novo*the district court’s dismissal of the claims against Latabita King for failure to state a claim. *Rogers v. Boatright,*709 F.3d 403, 406-07 (5th Cir. 2013). When, as here, a prisoner proceeds *in forma pauperis*("IFF’), the district court has the power on its own motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. *Brown v. Taylor,*829 F.3d 365, 370 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii)). However, if the dismissal is with prejudice, “basic fairness” generally requires that the district court must first “giv[e] the plaintiff notice of the perceived inadequacy of the complaint and an opportunity for the plaintiff to respond.” *Id.*Courts typically give such notice through a hearing or a questionnaire. *Eason v. Thaler,*14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994). Here, the district court did.not do so.

After his complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, Barraza timely filed an unsuccessful Rule 59(e) motion and sought to supplement his original complaint’s allegations by filing an amended complaint, the viability of which he has continued to urge in this appeal. Although the district court denied Rule 59(e) relief as futile based on the reported inability of the Texas Attorney General’s Office to contact King, we note that King’s last *366known personal address was filed under seal in the district court, which is obligated to direct a United States marshal or deputy marshal or a specially appointed person to effect service in this IFP case. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3).

In light of the foregoing, we AFFIRM the dismissal of Barraza’s claims against the University of Texas Medical Branch; VACATE the district court’s dismissal of Barraza’s claims against King, without expressing any opinion on their merits; and REMAND for further proceedings.

*

 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.
EXHIBIT 23(A)

                     PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
Nos. 33-49367, 33-50199, 33-51309, 333-02763 and 333-44991 of Public Service
Electric and Gas Company on Form S-3 of our report dated February 12, 1999
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Public Service Electric and Gas
Company for the year ended December 31, 1998.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Parsippany, New Jersey
February 22, 1999
Exhibit
32.2























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 The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 27, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Kevin D. Bastien, Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, certify to the
best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.








/s/ Kevin D.
Bastien


Chief Financial Officer


The Jones Financial Companies,
L.L.L.P.


May 8, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ITEM 1 OF 10-Q FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,664
<SECURITIES>                                    34,374
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,426
<PP&E>                                          11,692
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,945
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,128
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,268
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            9,207
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            58
<OTHER-SE>                                         191
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,128
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,380
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,793
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,413)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,413)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,413)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.28)
        

</TABLE>