alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-19-00154-CV

_________________

MARIA REVA WEST PRADO, Appellant

V.

MARIA DE LOURDES AYALA LEAL, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 284th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 16-12-13925-CV

________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

The appellant, Maria Reva West Prado, filed a notice of appeal and a motion 

for temporary relief from the trial court’s final judgment. The appellee, Maria de 

Lourdes Ayala Leal, filed a response to the motion for temporary relief. 

The trial court’s judgment directs the District Clerk to disburse 98.16 percent 

of funds in the trial court’s registry by check made payable to Augustina Prado Diaz 

to be sent by Federal Express to her address in Mexico, orders that the thirty-day 
2

waiting period for disbursement of funds from the registry be waived, and orders 

that the funds be disbursed immediately. The trial court’s order does not provide an 

opportunity to supersede the judgment. 

The Court finds that a temporary order is necessary to protect this Court’s 

appellate jurisdiction over the trial court’s judgment. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 

22.221(a) (West Supp. 2018). It is, therefore, ORDERED that enforcement of the 

trial court’s judgment, including sending a check payable to Augustina Prado Diaz 

by Federal Express to an address in Mexico, is STAYED until our Opinion issues or 

until further order of this Court. The Court directs the parties to file responses stating 

their positions regarding whether the trial court’s judgment is subject to being 

superseded by statute or under Rule 24 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

See generally Tex. R. App. P. 24. The responses must be filed with the Court by 

May 31, 2019. 

ORDER ENTERED May 21, 2019.

PER CURIAM

 

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SS. 1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350),
the undersigned, Corey M. Horowitz, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of
Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does
hereby certify to his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 of the
Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



/S/ COREY M. HOROWITZ
--------------------------------
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHAIRMAN
AUGUST 10, 2007
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

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

TO THE 2ND DISTRICT COURT OF CHEROKEE COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 2nd

day of September, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

RAFAEL VILLEGAS, Appellant

NO. 12-14-00269-CR; Trial Court No. 18,769

By per curiam opinion.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein, and the 

same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court 

below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for 

observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice of our Court 

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of 

Tyler, this the 28th day of December, 2015.

PAM ESTES, CLERK

By: _______________________________

Chief Deputy Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2446 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2446

              For the relief of Pyonghui Gonion Arrington.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 21 (legislative day, September 12), 1994

   Mr. Craig introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              For the relief of Pyonghui Gonion Arrington.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    In the administration of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Pyonghui Gonion Arrington shall be held and 
considered to have been lawfully admitted to the United States for 
permanent residence as of the date of this Act upon payment of the 
required visa fees.

SEC 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

    Upon the granting of permanent residence to Pyonghui Gonion 
Arrington as provided in this Act, the Secretary of State shall 
instruct the proper officer to reduce by one number during the current 
fiscal year the total number of immigrant visas available to natives of 
the country of the alien's birth under subsection (a) of section 203 of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153).
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 21.1

Earth Sciences, Inc.
Listing of Subsidiaries

                                   BENEFICIAL
NAME                          PERCENTAGE OWNERSHIP        DESCRIPTION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic Corporations and Entities
----------------------------------
ESI Chemicals, Inc. -                 100%      a dormant Colorado corporation
ESI Minerals, Inc. -                  100%      a dormant Colorado corporation

Foreign Corporations and Entities
---------------------------------
ESI Resources Limited -               100%      an Alberta, Canada private
                                                corporation
Earth Sciences Extraction Company     100%      an Alberta, Canada registered
                                                limited partnership
389337 Alberta Corp.                  100%      an Alberta, Canada private
                                                corporation
Recursos Minerales VENESI C.A.        100%      a Venezuelan private corporation
No. 10-7163.

#### Donahue Dewar, aka Kirk Dawar, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1085, 131 S. Ct. 674,

178 L. Ed. 2d 516,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9251.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 375 Fed. Appx. 90.
No. 10-6098.

#### Francisco Javier Garcia-Ramirez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 944, 131 S. Ct. 369,

178 L. Ed. 2d 238,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7602.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 379 Fed. Appx. 374.
No. 10-6916.

#### Uel Joe Freeman, Petitioner v. Troy Steele, Warden.

562 U.S. 1072, 131 S. Ct. 667,

178 L. Ed. 2d 497,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9418.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.1



STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY

ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. 1350



The undersigned, Robert E. Washburn, is the President and Chief Executive Officer of AF Financial Group (the Company).



This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the
Company of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 (the Report).



By execution of this statement, I certify that:



| | A) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | B) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This statement is
authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18
U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 1350 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.



|                        |  |  |  |                                       |  |                        |  | 
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | 
|                        |  |  |  | AF Financial Group                   
|                        |  |  | 
|Dated February 14, 2005 |  |  |  | By:                                   |  | /s/ Robert E. Washburn
|                        |  |  |  | Robert E. Washburn                   
|                        |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
No. 09-11198.

#### Leonard Jackson, Petitioner v. Lois A. Russo, Superintendent, Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center.

562 U.S. 1087, 131 S. Ct. 692,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9178.

178 L. Ed. 2d 521,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 867, 131 S. Ct. 157, 178 L. Ed. 2d 94, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6709.
# C_2014395EN.01004901.xml

| 10.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/49

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — Raffinerie Heide v Commission

(Case T-631/13) (1)

((Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances from 2013 - Decision 2011/278/EU - National implementation measures presented by Germany - Clause relating to extremely difficult cases - Freedom to conduct a business - Right to property - Proportionality))

(2014/C 395/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Raffinerie Heide GmbH (Hemmingstedt, Germany) (represented by: U. Karpenstein, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White, C. Hermes and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27) in so far as Article 1(1) thereof, read in conjunction with Annex I, Point A thereto, rejects the inscription of the installation with the identification code DE000000000000010 on the list of installations provided for in Article 11(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32), and the preliminary total annual amounts of emission allowances to be allocated for free to that installation

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Raffinerie Heide GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Raffinerie Heide GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.

---
#### Highland Capital Management, L.P., Appellant-Respondent, v Geoffrey Stern et al., Respondents-Appellants.

[66 NYS3d 603]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry R. Ostrager, J.), entered May 4, 2017, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, and denied their motion for sanctions, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant Stern’s statement to the Wall Street Journal, that plaintiff investment advisor “just took our money,” fell within the statutory privilege against libel claims for the publication of a fair and true report of a judicial proceeding (Civil Rights Law § 74; *see Alf v Buffalo News, Inc.,*21 NY3d 988, 989 [2013]; *Holy Spirit Assn. for Unification of World Christianity v New York Times Co.,*49 NY2d 63 [1979]). The statement, in the context of the article, which was about lawsuits filed against plaintiff, would be understood by an ordinary reader to refer to defendant Muirfield Capital Management LLC’s claim that plaintiff improperly withdrew money from an investment fund plaintiff managed, in which Muirfield invested *(see Aronson v Wiersma,*65 NY2d 592, 594 [1985]; *Alf v Buffalo News, Inc.,*21 NY3d 988, 990 [2013]).

Although the action lacks merit, it cannot be said that it reaches to a level of frivolousness or harassment so as to warrant sanctions *(see*22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a]; *see generally Nyitray v New York Athletic Club in*City *of N.Y.,*274 AD2d 326, 327 [1st Dept 2000]).

Concur—Renwick, J.R, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Kahn and Kern, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Pagan, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 741]

*880Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chambers, J.), rendered July 24, 2001, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered.

While the defendant’s objections regarding comments made by the prosecutor during summation were not properly preserved for appellate review, we nevertheless review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction *(see*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). During summation, the prosecutor improperly denigrated the defense by repeatedly accusing the defendant of “lying” on the witness stand and tailoring his testimony to conform to the People’s proof *(see People v Shanis,*36 NY2d 697 [1975]; *People v Washington,*278 AD2d 517 [2000]; *People v Walters,*251 AD2d 433 [1998]; *cf. Portuondo v Agard,*529 US 61 [2000]; *People v Russo,*201 AD2d 512 [1994], *affd*85 NY2d 872 [1995]), and by stating that the defense counsel had tried to “trip . . . up” and “confuse” the complainant on cross-examination and mislead the jury in summation by asking it to focus on irrelevant issues *(see People v Ortiz,*125 AD2d 502 [1986]; *People v Jackson,*143 AD2d 363 [1988]; *People v Brown,*111 AD2d 248 [1985]). In addition, the prosecutor repeatedly vouched for the complainant’s credibility, stating that he was “perfectly candid,” “being forthright,” and “very accurate,” stating that “I submit to you that [his] testimony is credible and it is also accurate,” and arguing that he had no motive to lie *(see People v Blowe,*130 AD2d 668 [1987]; *People v Ortiz,*125 AD2d 502 [1986]; *People v Ricchiuti,*93 AD2d 842 [1983]). The prosecutor also implied that the jury would have to find that the complainant had lied on the witness stand in order to acquit the defendant, which impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant *(see People v Bull,*218 AD2d 663 [1995]; *People v Langford,*153 AD2d 908 [1989]; *People v Bonaparte,*98 AD2d 778 [1983]). Finally, the prosecutor inappropriately insinuated that the defendant should not have elected to exercise his right to a trial because he was “caught red-handed” *(see People v Rivera,*116 AD2d 371 [1986]; *People v Rosado,*43 AD2d 916 [1974]).

We agree with the defendant that the cumulative effect of the prosecutor’s improper summation comments deprived him of his right to a fair trial *(see People v Calabria,*94 NY2d 519 [2000]; *People v Jamal,*307 AD2d 267 [2003]). Since the evi*881dence in this case was less than overwhelming, we cannot deem this error harmless, and a new trial is required *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]; *People v Bonaparte, supra; People v Alston,*77 AD2d 906 [1980]). Prudenti, P.J., S. Miller, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

  CERTIFICATION OF INTERIM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C.ss.1350),
the  undersigned,  Edward  James,  Interim  Chief  Executive  Officer  and Chief
Financial Officer of Network-1 Security Solutions,  Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 of the
Company (the "Report") fully complies with the  requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and the information  contained in
the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition
and results of operations of the Company.

                     /s/ Edward James
                     ----------------
                     Edward James
                     Interim Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
                     October  31, 2003
```
No. 10-536.

#### Donald J. McGuire, Petitioner v. Wisconsin.

562 U.S. 1110, 131 S. Ct. 832,

178 L. Ed. 2d 558,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9715.

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied.

*559Same case below, 328 Wis. 2d 289, 786 N.W.2d 227.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7487
JOHN WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROBERT P. CROUCH, JR., U.S. Attorney Western District of Virginia; JOSEPH W.H. MOTT, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Western District of Virginia; ALBERTO GONZALEZ, U.S. Attorney General; JORGE L. PASTRANA, Warden F.C.I. Miami; GEORGE BUSH, President of U.S.A., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States Dist rict Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:07-cv-00433-jct) Submitted: June 5, 2008 Decided: June 25, 2008 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.-2- PER CURIAM: John Wilson appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his complaint, which was construed as an action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2000). In his informal brief, Wilson fails to address the district court’s ruling that his action could not proceed because a favorable outcome of the lawsuit would undermine the validity of his conviction, citing Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Therefore, Wilson has waived appellate review of that issue. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s ruling. 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. AFFIRMED
No. 10-7430.

#### Hermelindo Angeles-Trejo, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1116, 131 S. Ct. 840,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9755.

178 L. Ed. 2d 571,

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 395 Fed. Appx. 84.
RIESGO MÁS ALTO DE CAÍDAS MORTALES

Junio del 2020

LOS TECHADORES 

TIENEN

10X la tasa de caídas

mortales de todas las

demás ocupaciones en la

construcción combinadas

LAS CAÍDAS DESDE 

LOS TECHOS 

representan

el 

33%

de todas las 

muertes por 

caídas en la 

construcción

LAS CAÍDAS HACIA UN 

NIVEL DE MENOR

ALTURA SON LA CAUSA 

#1 de muertes 

en la 

construcción

PLANIFIQUE. PROPORCIONE. ADIESTRE.

Tres pasos sencillos para prevenir caídas.

¡Únase a la campaña para 

acabar con las caídas 

en la construcción!

www.stopconstructionfalls.com

Fuente: The Construction Chart Book, Section 44, Charts 44c and 44e. 

https://www.cpwr.com/sites/default/files/publications/The_6th_Edition_Construction_eChart_Book.pdf Haga una pausa laboral para la seguridad.
No. 10-5553.

#### Jack W. Graham, Petitioner v. Board of Trustees of the California State University System, et al.

562 U.S. 928, 131 S. Ct. 317,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7437.

178 L. Ed. 2d 207,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.