alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 19
- 00320
- CR
DAVID LEN SIMS , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 13th District Court Navarro County, Texas Trial Court No. D36869
- CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

David Len Sims was convicted in 201 7 and sentenced to 82 years in prison

. His conviction was affirmed on appeal

. See Sims v. State , No. 10

- 17

- 00170

- CR, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 1036 (Tex. App.

— Waco Feb. 13, 2019 , pet. ref’d ) (not designated for publication).
Sims now requests that this Court grant Sims an out

- of

- time appeal so that he may complain about the representation of his re tained counsel

. This request was set up in the Court's system as a new notice of appeal. We lack jurisdiction to grant an out

- of

- time appeal; that authority belongsSims v. State Page 2

exclusively to the Court of Criminal Appeals through a writ of habeas corpus. See Parr v.
State , 206 S.W.3d 143, 144

- 45 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2006, no pet.). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed , and Sim s ’ motion for an out

- of

- time appeal
is dismissed as moot.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed September 1 8 , 2019 Do not publish [CRPM]
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-02-427-CV

TEXAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION	APPELLANT

	V.

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY 	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM THE 67TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

We have considered “Appellant’s Motion To Dismiss Appeal.”  It is the court's opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the party incurring the same, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d). 

PER CURIAM	

PANEL D:  LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DELIVERED:  March 27, 2003
Dismiss and Opinion Filed April 2, 2014 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-13-01071-CV WAYNE TEAGUE, Appellant V. MIKE CLIFTON, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-03939-C 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION NUNC PRO TUNC Before Justices FitzGerald, Fillmore, and Evans Opinion by Justice FitzGerald Both the filing fee and the clerk’s record in this case are overdue. By postcard dated August 5, 2013, we notified appellant the $175 fili ng fee was due. We directed appellant to remit the fee within ten days. We cautioned appella nt that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. By letter da ted December 11, 2013, we informed appellant that we had been notif ied by the Dallas County District Cl erk that the clerk’s record in this case had been prepared but had not been f iled because appellant had not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to provide the Court with written verification that he had paid for or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record or that he had been found entitled to proceed wit hout payment of costs within ten days. We cautioned appellant that if we did not receive the required verification, we might dismiss the–2– appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, provided the required verification, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regard ing the status of the filing fee or the clerk’s record. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c).

131071F.P05 /Kerry P. FitzGerald/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT NUNC PRO TUNC
WAYNE TEAGUE, Appellant
No. 05-13-01071-CV V. MIKE CLIFTON, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-03939-C. Opinion delivered by Justice FitzGerald. Justices Fillmore and Evans participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee MIKE CLIFTON recove r his costs of this appeal from appellant WAYNE TEAGUE.
Judgment entered April 2, 2014

/Kerry P. FitzGerald/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD JUSTICE
**Exhibit 31.3**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT**

**TO RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER**

**THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

 

I, Peter M. Hecht, certify that:

 

1.                   I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2017; and

 

2.                   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

Dated: April 27, 2018

 
| By:    | /s/ Peter M. Hecht      |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Peter M. Hecht          |   |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

----
Marcia Ann ZYGMUND, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. Martin Lewis ZYGMUND, Appellant.

No. ED 106410

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

FILED: April 9, 2019

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MICHAEL P. O'SHEA, 699A Trade Center Blvd., Chesterfield, MO 63005, PEDANO, O'SHEA, MCGAVIC & HOGENMILLER, LLC.

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT (Cross-Appellant): Theodore S. Schechter, 8000 Maryland, Suite 950, Clayton, MO 63105, THE SCHECHTER LAW FIRM, P.C.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J., and Mary K. Hoff, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Martin Lewis Zygmund ("Husband") appeals and Marcia Ann Zygmund ("Wife") cross-appeals from the Judgment of the trial court dissolving their marriage, classifying marital property, and awarding maintenance. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the Judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Derreaun DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106605

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: February 26, 2019

FOR APPELLANT: Gwenda Renee Robinson, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.

For Respondent: JOSH HAWLEY, Justin Moody, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Derreaun Davis appeals the motion court's judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035 without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Medco Health Solutions, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies, to the knowledge of the undersigned, that the Companys Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                  |  |  |  |     |  |                   |  |                                                           
|----------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|                  |  |  | 
|Date: May 2, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ JoAnn A. Reed
|                  |  |  |  |     |  | Name:             |  | JoAnn A. Reed                                             
|                  |  |  |  |     |  | Title:            |  | Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial
Officer

This certification accompanies this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification
will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
### The Honorable Richard H. Battey, Chief Judge, United States 1 

### District Court for the District of South Dakota. ___________ No. 96-1591

___________ Vern C. Top Bear, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of South Dakota. * United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: October 7, 1996 Filed: October 16, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. ENDFIELD

___________ PER CURIAM. Vern C. Top Bear appeals from the district court's denial of his 28 1 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, on the ground that Top Bear was not "in custody. " Aftercareful review of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclud e that denial of relief was proper. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1830 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 90 ) IV-C-5

6 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:20:56

AM Sheet 90of 232P. 2 

# uss y UNITED STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON

, D.C. 20460
FE B 2 !98 8 OFFIC E O F AI RAN D RADIATIO N
Honorabl e Tob

yRot h Unite d State s Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D.C . 2051 5 Dea r Mr . Roth : Thank yo u fo r passin g along th e comment s o f Mr . W . p . Springe r concernin g EPA' s proposa l t o requir e onboar d refueling emissio n controls . B e assure d tha t thes e comment s wil l b e considere d a s w e prepar e ou r fina l rule . W e wil l als o b e placin g the mi n th e publi c docke t fo r th e rulemakin g (Docke t No . A-87-11) . Thank yo u agai n fo r you r concer n i n thi s matter . Sincerel yyours , ORIGINA LSIGNE D B Y RICHARD D . WILSO N Richar d D . Wilso n Director , Offic eo f Mobil eSource s c c : Docke tA-87-1 1 bcc : Regio n0 5 Congressiona l Liaison/Quin n
Prepare d by : For

mLetter:sal:1/27/88:AL031 7 - ECTD , Ann Arbor , M I
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 14 April 2005

in Case C-171/04 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2001/80/EC - non-transposition)

(2005/C 143/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-171/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. van Beek and G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: H. Sevenster and J. van Bakel) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 5 April 2004 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of Chamber, N. Colneric and E. Juhász (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 106 of 30.4.2004

----
# B EFORE 

# T HE 

# US D EPARTMENT OF 

# T RANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON 

### , D.C.
**In the matter of:** Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Drug and Alcohol Testing of Certain Maintenance Provider Employees Located Outside of the United States Request by the Internatio nal Air Transport Association (IATA) for a 1 20
- day extension of the comment period The International Air Transport Association ( IATA) supports the request of Airlines for America (A4A) for an additional 120 days to respond to the Advanced Notice of Propos ed Rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning Drug and Alcohol Testing of Certain Maintenance Provider Employees Located Outside of the United States published on March 17, 2014. IATA and its 230 member airlines have a significant interest in the outcome of this rulema king process
. IATA commends DOT’s efforts to gather information on foreign local laws for the application of drug and alcohol testing at repair stations. An additional 120 days will enable IATA and other industry stakeholders to best assist the Department’s request for input from other governments as well as from private stakeholders. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request
. Sincerely,
Douglas E. Lavin Regional Vice President, North America International Air Transport Association 1 201 F St., NW Suite 650 Washington, D.C. 20004 Tel: 202
-628
-9292 Fax: 202
-628
-9448 lavind@iata.org **Docket No.: FA**  **A -** **2012 -**  **1058**
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### United States Mint

# AGENCY:

United States Mint.

# ACTION:

Notification of New Pricing Methodology for Numismatic Products Containing Platinum and Gold Coins; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The United States Mint published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of January 6, 2009, outlining the new pricing methodology for numismatic products containing platinum and gold coins. The document contained incorrect information regarding when pricing adjustments become effective.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

B.B. Craig, Associate Director for Sales and Marketing; United States Mint; 801 Ninth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500.

## Correction

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of January 6, 2009, in FR Doc. E8-31424, on page 493, in the third column, replace the last sentence to read:                    

Price adjustments as a result of this process, if any, will be effective no later than 10 a.m. E.T. on the immediately following Thursday.

Dated: March 17, 2009.

Edmund C. Moy,

Director, United States Mint.

[FR Doc. E9-6151 Filed 3-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-02-P
F OR P UB LIC AT ION 

### UN ITED STA TES C OUR T OF AP PE ALS F OR TH E N IN THC IR C U IT

B OB B Y J OE K

NI GHT , Petitioner-Appellant ,
v. P AM A H LIN , Ex ecutive Direc tor, Respondent-

Appellee

. No. 10-56211

D.C. No. 2:1 0- c v- 00 03 9- CA S- RZ ORDER WI THDRAWI

NG OPI NI ON AND DI SMI SSI

NG APPEAL Appea l from the United States District Court fo r t he Ce ntra l D istri c t of

Ca lif or nia Christina A. Snyder, D istrict J udg e, Presiding

Argued and Submitted F e br ua ry 14 , 2 01 3—Pa sa de na , Ca lif or nia Orig inal opinion filed Marc h 13, 2013 Opinion withdrawn May

21, 2013 Be fore : Alfred T . Goodwin, Andre w J . Kleinfe ld, and B arr y G. Silv e rm an, Cir c uit

Judg e s. Orde rK NI GH T V . A H LIN 2 CO UN SEL Matth e wB

. L ar s e n , D e p uty F e d e r a l P u

b li c D e f e n d e r , L os An g e le s, Ca lif

or nia , f or Pe tit ion e r- Ap pe lla

nt. Patrick D. Mora

n and Shirley S

. N. Sun, Deputy District Attorneys , L o s An g e le s , Cali f o r n ia , f or Respondent-A

ppellee.

OR DE R Th e pa rt ie s’ joi nt m oti on to dis mis s th e a pp e a l is GRANTED. B eca

use there has ce ased to be a ca se or c ontr ov ersy

be fo re thi s c ourt , w e DI SMI SS th e a pp e a l, VA CA TE the jud g me nt b e low, and REM AN D w ith direc tions to di smiss. See Log Cabin Republicans v. U nited States , 658 F.3d 1162, 1167–68 ( 9th Cir. 2011) . The pe titions for r ehea ringand reque sts f

or rehe aring en banc a

re D ENI ED a s mo ot. The Opinion filed Ma

rch 13, 2013, a

nd ap p ea ringat 709 F.3d 1296 ( 9th Cir. 2013), is WI THDRAWN. It may not be cited as prec edent by

or to this court or any

district court of the Ni nth Cir c uit

. VACA TE D AN D R

EMAN D ED W I THD I R

EC TI ONS TO D ISM ISS.
Alpena County Regional Airport

June 

### I. 2012

Mr. Dennis DeVany**Chief~** Essential 

### Air Service Division Office 

### ofAviation Analysis Department ofTransportation 

### I200 NewJersey Ave. 

### SE \Vashington, DC 20590
Reference: DOT-OST-2009-0300, Alpena 

### Michigan Air Service
Dear 

### Mr. DeVany: 1617Airport Road Alpena, Ml 49707 Phone: 989-354-2907

FAX: 989-358-9988 www.alpenaairport.com

This letter is in response to the proposals received as a result 

### ofthe fourth and final round ofRPPs for subsidized air service to Alpena, Michigan. The airport is delighted to have received lourproposals and is grateful to the Department for this opportunity.
In recent months, the County ofAlpenahas invested nearly $200,000 to discovera plausible economic development project that could have 

### a majorimpact on Alpena and surrounding communities. This development, which is gaining momentum at a rapid pace. is very dependent upon easy access to the national and international air transportation system. Alpena County Regional Airport strongly supports SkyWest Airlines' proposal for essential air service at ourcommunity. Theirproposal is comparable to the level of service we currently have and is, by far, the best option for our future economic growth.
I urge the Department to award the subsidy for Alpena's essential air service to SkyWest Airlines and allowAlpenathe opportunity to realize its economic potential, reducing and possibly eliminating 

### the need for government subsidies in years to come. Sincerely,



# /l---Li f**~-** 

# ;:?7eP?**o-zfe~h** nilli yfcRoberts ,\irport Manager

cc: Alpena County Airport Committee
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

CHRISTOPHER CURTIS MANLEY, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D16-2272

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

________________________________ )

Opinion filed May 1, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee

County; Margaret O. Steinbeck, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender,

and James Dickson Crock, Special 

Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for

Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford

Taylor, Assistant Attorney General,

Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In 2014, the State charged Christopher Curtis Manley with one count of 

second-degree murder with a firearm and two counts of aggravated battery with a 

firearm. Manley unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the information, claiming immunity 

from prosecution under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, section 776.032, Florida 
- 2 -

Statutes (2013). He was tried before a jury in 2016 and found guilty of all three 

charges. Manley has appealed the resulting judgment and sentences, arguing among 

other things that the 2017 amendment to section 776.032, see ch. 2017-72, § 1, Laws 

of Fla., applies retroactively to pending cases and that therefore the trial court should 

reconsider his immunity claim in light of that amendment.

In Martin v. State, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1016, D1017 (Fla. 2d DCA May 4, 

2018), review pending, No. SC18-789, this court held that the 2017 amendment to 

section 776.032 applies retroactively to pending cases. See also Drossos v. State, 43 

Fla. L. Weekly D2764 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec.14, 2018), review pending, No. SC19-83. As 

we did in Martin, here we reverse Manley's judgment and sentences and remand for a 

new immunity hearing under the 2017 statute. If, following the hearing, the trial court 

determines that Manley is entitled to statutory immunity, it shall enter an order to that 

effect and dismiss the information with prejudice. See Martin, 43 Fla. L. Weekly at 

D1018. If the court determines that Manley is not entitled to immunity, it shall enter an 

order so reflecting and reinstate Manley’s conviction and sentences. See id. We find 

no merit to the other issues raised in Manley’s appeal.

The Third and Fourth District Courts of Appeal have held that section 

776.032, as amended, does not apply retroactively to pending cases. Accordingly, we 

certify that this decision is in direct conflict with Hight v. State, 253 So. 3d 1137 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 2018), review pending, No. SC18-1653, and Love v. State, 247 So. 3d 609 (Fla. 

3d DCA 2018), review granted, No. SC18-747, 2018 WL 3147946 (Fla. June 26, 2018).

Reversed and remanded with instructions; conflict certified.
- 3 -

NORTHCUTT, SLEET, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7563

JAMES EDMOND WATTS, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus
LARRY HUFFMAN, Regional Director; EDDIE PEARSON, Warden of Buckingham; HENRY PONTON, Assistant Warden of Buckingham; BARBARA WHEELER, Assistant Warden of Buckingham; LIEUTENANT TERRY, Buckingham Correctional Center; LINDA CREWS, Records Office Assistant Manager; R. WHITE, Adjustment Committee Chairman; MIKE SHUPE, Operations Officer; LIEUTENANT JENKINS, Buckingham Correctional Center; SERGEANTZUMBRO, Buckingham Correctional Center; SERGEANT JONES, Buckingham Correctional Center; COUNSELOR HODGES, Buckingham Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-366-R)
Submitted: January 13, 1998 Decided: February 18, 1998
Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 James Edmond Watts, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's order granting his motion to amend and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice is not reviewable by the court unless the reasons stated for the dismissal clearly disclose that no amendment to the complaint could cure its defects. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). In the present case, the district court properly found that some of Appellant's claims were potentially cognizable, but he failed to allege suffic ient facts to support them. The order, however, dismisses the action and advises the appellant of his right to appeal. We believe these provisions are inadvertent and vacate them. Because he has a right to amend his complaint, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED