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

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00152-CR 

No. 05-14-00153-CR 

No. 05-14-00154-CR 

MICHELE MARIA RODDY, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. F13-00676-I, F13-00677-I, F13-58422-I 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Lang-Miers 

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeals. Appellant’s counsel has approved 

the motion. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that the appeals be DISMISSED

and this decision be certified below for observance. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). 

PER CURIAM 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47 

140152F.U05 
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

MICHELE MARIA RODDY, Appellant 

No. 05-14-00152-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 2, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F13-00676-I. 

Opinion delivered per curiam before Justices 

Bridges, Francis, and Lang-Miers. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

Judgment entered July 25, 2014 
In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

MICHELE MARIA RODDY, Appellant 

No. 05-14-00153-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 2, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F13-00677-I. 

Opinion delivered per curiam before Justices 

Bridges, Francis, and Lang-Miers. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

Judgment entered July 25, 2014 
In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

MICHELE MARIA RODDY, Appellant 

No. 05-14-00154-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 2, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F13-58422-I. 

Opinion delivered per curiam before Justices 

Bridges, Francis, and Lang-Miers. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

Judgment entered July 25, 2014
#### *State, Petitioner, v. Strickland et al., Respondents,*

No. 90240-2.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, Nos. 42425-8-II and 42428-2-II, April 8, 2014, 180 Wn. App. 1023. *Denied*December 2, 2015.
No. 10-7648.

#### Pasquale Nigro, Petitioner v. Mike Evans, Warden.

562 U.S. 1203, 131 S. Ct. 1049,

178 L. Ed. 2d 870,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 951.

January 24, 2011.

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

Same case below, 399 Fed. Appx. 279.
ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

FILED 

IN RE THE PETITION OF 

JESSICA L. WEBORG 

PR 23-0004 

JUN 0 1 2023 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of montane 

ORDER 

Jessica L. Weborg has petitioned this Court for admission to active status in the 

State Bar of Montana after having been on inactive status since March 2023. 

IT IS ORDERED that upon payment of the appropriate fees to the State Bar of 

Montana, Petitioner shall be admitted to the active practice of law in the state of Montana. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to Petitioner and to the State 

Bar of Montana. 

DATED this day of June, 2023. 

For the Court, 

Chief Justice 

06/01/2023

Case Number: PR 23-0004
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 1584

_____________________________ A IRRECK W HITE , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Wakulla County

. James O. Shelfer , Judge

. October 11, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRM ED

. R AY , C.J., and B.L. T HOMAS and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Airreck White, pro se
, Appellant.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
No. 10-7527.

#### Eric Demond Holcomb, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1185, 131 S. Ct. 1011,

178 L. Ed. 2d 839,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 870.

January 18, 2011.

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

Same case below, 390 Fed. Appx. 117.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132374 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 132374 COA: 271901 St Clair CC: 05-001438-FH ROBERT CARL WEBB, SR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 12, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0723 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 30, 2007

Clerk
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 357



## ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION IV No. CR-13-1022
ROY LEE RUSSELL APPELLANT V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered June 4, 2014 APPEAL FROM THE DESHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CR2012-10-1] HONORABLE SAM POPE, JUDGE AFFIRMED
DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge Roy Lee Russell was charged by criminal information in Desha County Circuit Court with three counts of kidnapping, one count of aggravated assault, three counts of rape, one count of second-degree battery, and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. A jury acquitted Russell of all counts except the second-degree-battery charge and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Russell was sentenced as a habitual offender to fifteen years in prison and fined $10,000 for the second-degree-battery conviction; he was sentenced to forty years in prison and fined $15,000 for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively. Russell now appeals, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of second-degree battery and being a felon in possession of a firearm when the jury acquitted him of aggravated assault, a charge that arose out of the same set of facts and circumstances. We affirm. Russell frames his argument as a sufficiency argument; however, it is not a sufficiencyCite as 2014 Ark. App. 357

argument—it is an inconsistent-verdict argument. He asserts that his convictions for seconddegree battery and felon in possession of a firearm cannot stand because the jury did not also convict him of aggravated assault. This argument was never made to the circuit court; therefore, it is not preserved for appellate review. Fletcher v. State , 2014 Ark. App. 50 (holding that appellant’s inconsistent-verdict argument was not preserved for appellate review when that argument was never made to the circuit court after the jury returned its verdict or in a post-trial motion). Even if this argument had been preserved, we would affirm. “A jury may convict on some counts but not on others, and may convict in different degrees on some counts, because of compassion or compromise, and not solely because there was insufficient evidence of guilt.” Jordan v. State , 323 Ark. 628, 631, 917 S.W.2d 164, 165 (1996). “The law is clear in that ‘a defendant may not attack his conviction on one count because it is inconsistent with an acquittal on another count. Res judicata concepts are not applicable to inconsistent verdicts; the jury is free to exercise its historic power of lenity if it believes that a conviction on one count would provide sufficient punishment.’” Id . (quoting McVay v. State , 312 Ark. 73, 77, 847 S.W.2d 28, 30 (1993)). Affirmed. G RUBERand WHITEAKER , JJ., agree. Joseph P. Mazzanti, III

, for appellant. Dustin McDaniel , Att’y Gen., by: LeaAnn J. Adams , Ass’t Att’y Gen., and Richmond Giles , Law Student Admitted to Practice Pursuant to Rule XV of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of the Supreme Court under the supervision of Darnisa Evans Johnson , Deputy Att’y Gen., for appellee.

2
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                           [COMPANY LETTERHEAD]

March 22, 2002

United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, DC 20549

Re: Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Weatherford International, Inc. has obtained a representation from Arthur
Andersen LLP, dated as of March 22, 2002, that states:

"We have audited the consolidated financial statements of Weatherford
International, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and for the two
years then ended and have issued our report thereon dated March 16, 2001. We
represent that this audit was subject to our quality control system for the U.S.
accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the
engagement was conducted in compliance with professional standards, that there
was appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen personnel working on the audit,
availability of national office consultation, and availability of personnel at
foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen to conduct the relevant portions of the
audit."


Weatherford International, Inc.

By:      /s/ Lisa W. Rodriguez
         --------------------------------------------
         Vice President, Finance and Accounting
         (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
-       - 2020-08-12T15:07:33-0400
      - BUNN.BRADLEY.B.1229635146
Exhibit 32.1



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 AmerInst Insurance Group, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stuart Grayston, President and chief executive officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 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 Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/S/ STUART GRAYSTON                                                     
|Stuart Grayston President and chief executive
officer  November 14, 2005



18
No. 10-6727.

#### Ali Addo, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

562 U.S. 1070, 131 S. Ct. 661,

178 L. Ed. 2d 494,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9426.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 355 Fed. Appx. 672.
SECONDHAND SMOKE

TRIGGERS SEVERE

ASTHMA ATTACKS.

Jamason

High School Student

Kentucky

When Jamason was 16, secondhand smoke triggered such a severe

asthma attack, he was hospitalized for four days. If you or someone

you know wants free help to quit smoking, call 1-800-QUIT-NOW.

#CDCTips
No. 10-7691.

#### Elieten Mendoza Zaldivar, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1158, 131 S. Ct. 959,

178 L. Ed. 2d 791,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 189.

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 615 F.3d 1346.
No. 10-224.

#### National Meat Association, Petitioner v. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California, et al.

562 U.S. 1176, 131 S. Ct. 1036,

178 L. Ed. 2d 823,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 854.

January 18, 2011.

The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
# DLA Troop Support celebrates Juneteenth

/ Published June 28, 2023
PHILADELPHIA, 
Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support partnered with the Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support to celebrate Juneteenth during a ceremony held June 26. 

Originally called “Jubilee,” the observance marks the day—June 19, 1865—when Union soldiers landed in Galveston, Texas, to let still enslaved African Americans know they were free. 

In his White House memo, President Biden proclaimed: I call upon the people of the United States to acknowledge and condemn the history of slavery in our Nation and recognize how the impact of America’s original sin remains. I call on every American to celebrate Juneteenth and recommit to working together to eradicate systemic racism and inequity in our society wherever they find it.  

The theme of this year’s Juneteenth program is Celebrating Freedom. As the master of ceremonies, NAVSUP WSS Logistics Management Specialist, Equal Employment Opportunity Advisory Committee Co-Chair Jared Simms began the program addressing the importance of Juneteenth to all Americans.  

“Most importantly, [Juneteenth] represents victory over the institution of slavery and the beginning of the fulfillment of America’s promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for African Americans,” Simms said. “If we embrace our many cultures, we can create an environment unifying the workforce.”  

Pennsylvania Juneteenth Coalition President Ron Brown served as the event’s keynote speaker. Brown is a former City of Philadelphia African and Caribbean Immigrant Affairs commissioner, who founded PAJC in October, 1995, to promote Juneteenth celebrations.  

“Understanding history and working together can help create a stronger culture of acceptance both in the workplace and the world,” Brown said. “Whatever the historic ideology of oppression is, you band together to create an environment of change. Standing up against hate together and recognizing diversity gives the collective workforce a unique sense of identity.” 

Brown concluded his presentation with some words of advice. 

“Respect means accepting and celebrating differences and celebrating those differences,” Brown said. “That is how advocates get things done.”
#### Com. v. Spearman 22

03/23/2016

671 EAL (2015)

22

. Justice DONOHUE did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 505
# C_2015294EN.01000701.xml

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-87/14) (1)

1

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Organisation of working time of doctors in training))

(2015/C 294/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. van Beek and J. Enegren, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon and E. Mc Phillips and by A. Joyce and B. Counihan, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Fennelly, Barrister)

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.

1

---
# C_2014024EN.01003201.xml

| 25.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/32

---

Action brought on 20 November 2013 — Levi Strauss v OHIM — L&O Hunting Group (101)

(Case T-604/13)

2014/C 24/58

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Levi Strauss & Co. (San Francisco, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Schmitt, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: L&O Hunting Group GmbH (Isny im Allgäu, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 September 2013 given in Case R 1538/2012-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 September 2013 given in Case R 1538/2012-2;

| — | Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and the intervener, in case it was to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and the intervener, in case it was to intervene.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘101’ for goods in Classes 13, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 9 446 634

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 26 708 of the word mark ‘501’ for goods in Classes 16, 18 and 25

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
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 Lexon Technologies, Inc. (“Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“Report” ), I, Hyung Soon Lee, Principal
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief:





(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 result of operations of the Company.








Date: May
20, 2009





/s/ Hyung Soon
Lee


Principal
Executive Officer


Principal
Financial Officer
west virainia dewadment of environmental ~rotection
Executive Office 601 57'hStreet SE Charleston,WV 25304 Phone: (304) 926-0440 Fax: (304) 926-0446 September9,2008 Joe Manchin 111, Governor Randy C.Huffman, CabinetSecretary www.wvdep.org

Mr. Donald S. Welsh Regional Administrator U.S. EPA, Region I11 (3RA00) 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19 103-2029 Re:

Dear Administrator Welsh: Final Parkersburg, WestVirginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule (40 CFR 51, SubpartZ)

In a letter dated June 13, 2008, this agency submitted a proposed revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State ofWest Virginia to meet its obligationsunder the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Federal Clean Air Fine ParticleImplementation Rule, for the Parkersburg PM2.5nonattainrnent area (annual standard). The proposed submittal expressly addressed the pertinent requirements of the CAA, Part D and the associated requirements of the Fine Particle Implementation Rule beginning at 40 CFR 51.1000. We have now completed the public participation process and are herein submitting the final SIP. We certify that the public hearing required by 40 CFR 951.102(a) 

### was held in accordance with the applicable state laws and the requirements of40 CFR 95 1.102(d).

The State of West Virginia requests that the EPA approve this Parkersburg attainment demonstration, with a projected attainment date of April 2010, as a revision to the SIP. If you have any questions regarding this submittal or require additional information, please contact John A. Benedict, Director of the Division ofAir Quality, at (304) 926-0462.
Sincerely, 

# Ly% Randy C. Huffinan

Enclosure

cc: Judith Katz, EPA John

### A. Benedict, DEP Cabinet Secretary

Promoting a 

### healthy environment.
# Baseline

# Rev A

# Sheet2

# Sheet3
SUPERVISOR - EMPLOYEE CHECKLIST

- this space intentionally left blank -

Other

DLA FORM 1866, JUL 2004 PDF (DLA)

Employee Name Supervisor Name 

The following checklist is designed to ensure that the teleworker and supervisor are properly oriented to the

polices and procedures of the Telework Program. Questions 4, 5, and 6 may not be applicable to the telework

employee. If this is the case, state non-applicable or N. A.

1. Employee/Supervisor has read DLA Telework Policy and Procedure

2. Employee has been provided with a schedule of work hours.

3. Employee has has not been issued government furnished equipment. (If equipment has

 been issued, complete items 4 and 5 below. If not, enter N. A. in the date block and skip to item 6.

4. Equipment issued by DLA is documented and properly receipted. Check as applicable:

5. Policies and procedures for care of equipment issued by the Agency have been explained and are 

 clearly understood.

Computer

Modem

Fax machine

Telephone

6. Policies and procedures covering classified, secure, or Privacy Act data have been discussed and

 are clearly understood.

7. Requirements for an adequate and safe office space and/or area have been discussed, and the

 employee certifies those requirements are met.

8. Performance and conduct expectations have been discussed and are understood.

9. Employee understands that the supervisor may terminate employee participation, in accordance

 with established administrative procedures and union-negotiated agreements.

10. Employee has participated in training.

11. Supervisor has participated in training.

12. Telework Agreement has been completed and signed.

YES NO

SUPERVISOR'S SIGNATURE DATE 

EMPLOYEE'S SIGNATURE DATE 

ITEM DATE

DATE
AD-ID: VCDC1400000H

SPOT TITLE: John B_Don’t Quit Quitting Tip_AVO2_30_URL

LENGTH: :30

AS-RECORDED SCRIPT:

ART CARD: A TIP FROM A FORMER SMOKER® 

 

Super: John, 61, South Carolina 

 

We see John talking to camera in his home.

 

JOHN: I’m John. I wanted to quit smoking for years. I tried several different times, nothing seemed to work for me. 

Cut to John sitting on a bed and putting shoes on.

JOHN: But I didn’t give up. 

Cut to John talking to camera in his home.

JOHN: Eventually, I found the right doctor. 

Cut to John opening a mirrored medicine cabinet. He opens a bottle of pills and takes 

one.

JOHN: And together we came up with a plan that finally worked by using two 

quit-smoking medicines and getting counseling. 

 

Cut to John speaking to camera 

JOHN: My tip is...keep trying. You only have to quit for good, once.

ANNCR: You can quit. For free help, visit CDC.GOV/TIPS 

ART CARD: You can quit. For free help, visit CDC.GOV/TIPS

Logo/legal: CDC

Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

#CDCTips