alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-83,285-02

EX PARTE DARRYL EARL DANIELS, JR., Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 114-0391-C IN THE 114TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM SMITH 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 aggravated

robbery and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. The Twelfth Court of Appeals dismissed his

appeal. Daniels v. State, No. 12-15-00023-CR (Tex. App.—Tyler Feb. 11, 2015) (not designated for

publication). 

Applicant contends, among other things, that he was denied his right to appeal. Applicant has

alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984);

Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Ex parte Axel, 757 S.W.2d 369
2

(Tex. Crim. App. 1988). In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte

Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for

findings of fact. The trial court shall order trial counsel to respond. See Jones v. State, 98 S.W.3d

700, 702 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (“If the defendant decides to appeal, the attorney must ensure that

written notice of appeal is filed with the trial court.”). The trial court may use any means set out in

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d).

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent him at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

Afterreviewing trial counsel’s response, the trial court shall make furtherfindings of fact and

conclusions of law as to whether Applicant was denied his right to an appeal. The trial court shall

also make any other findings of fact and conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate

to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must be

requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court.

Filed: September 12, 2018

Do not publish.
Exhibit 10.2
 FORM OF 2010 PERFORMANCE-BASED
RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD
  
 
   Grant
 Performance Conditions




---



##### 



Vesting Restrictions
    2




---



##### 



Dividends
   Forfeiture of Earned Restricted Shares
 Custody of Certificates
  3




---



##### 



Rights as a Stockholder
 Transfer Restrictions
 Fractional Shares
 Adjustments
 Notices
 Applicable Withholding Taxes
    4




---



##### 



Applicable Securities Laws
 Acceptance of Restricted Shares
 Power of Attorney
 Compliance with Section 409A of the Code
  5




---



##### 



HORIZON LINES, INC.By:Its:Agreed and Accepted:[Name of Grant Recipient][Date]
  6
James Bernard BULL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2459

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 24, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE Christopher THORNTON

CR-17-0169

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 20, 2017

Mand. pet. denied.
Timothy STEMEN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1287

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 09, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice. Petitioner is required to make an express and distinct demand for performance, such as by filing a motion to hear and rule, before mandamus will be considered. See Al-Hakim v. State. 783 So. 2d 293, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

Additionally, any future petitions similar to the present petition must demonstrate service on the Attorney General at 3507 E. Frontage Road, Suite 200, Tampa, Florida, 33607.

KELLY, VILLANTI, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
I, Derek Ward, the President, Secretary, Treasurer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Empirical Ventures,  Inc. (the Registrant), certify that; (1)I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant;(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;(3)Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;(4)I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) for the Registrant and have:a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and(5)I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.  May 20, 2009/s/Derek WardBy:Derek WardPresident, Chief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officer
John Harvey TAYLOR, III, DOC #Y32333, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-980

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 29, 2019.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Richard P. Albertine, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Elba Caridad Martin, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, MORRIS, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
# C_2017249EN.01002101.xml

| 31.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 22 May 2017 — EUflight.de GmbH v TUIfly GmbH

(Case C-292/17)

(2017/C 249/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EUflight.de GmbH

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

Question referred

Is a flight cancellation still caused by an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/04 (1) when the circumstances (here, ‘wildcat strike’ or ‘wave of illness’) only indirectly affect the flight in question in that they prompted the air carrier to reschedule its entire flight plan and the new schedule includes the scheduled cancellation of that specific flight? Can an air carrier avoid liability under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/04 where the flight in question, had it not been rescheduled, could have been operated because the crew planned for that flight would have been available if it had not been assigned to other flights through rescheduling?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
Exhibit 23.2**Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of P.F. Chang’sChina Bistro, Inc. of our report dated February 13, 2006, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements of P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., included in the 2007 Annual Report toShareholders of P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc.We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements: (1) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-134213) pertaining to the P.F. Chang’s ChinaBistro, Inc. 2006 Equity Incentive Plan,  (2) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-132410) pertaining to the Pei Wei AsianDiner, Inc. 2001 Stock Option Plan,  (3) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-122408) pertaining to the P.F. Chang’s ChinaBistro, Inc. Key Employee Stock Purchase Plan,  (4) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-116372) pertaining to the P.F. Chang’s ChinaBistro, Inc. 1998 Stock Option Plan,  (5) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-98665) pertaining to the P.F. Chang’s ChinaBistro, Inc. 1998 Stock Option Plan, 1999 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan,  (6) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-73035) pertaining to the P.F. Chang’s ChinaBistro, Inc. 1996 Employee Stock Option Plan, 1997 Restaurant Management Stock OptionPlan, 1998 Stock Option Plan, 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and  (7) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-56618) of P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc.;of our report dated February 13, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements ofP.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of P.F. Chang’s ChinaBistro, Inc.              /s/ Ernst & Young LLP         Phoenix, Arizona
Kyonne WALKER and Curtis Walker, Jr. v. ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Mid-Western Car Carriers, Inc., Timothy D. Martin and Dionne Walker

NO. 2019-CC-0104

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 18, 2019

*85Denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-554

In Re: STEPHEN MICHAEL O'KANE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-93-145)

Submitted: June 13, 1996 Decided: June 27, 1996

Before HALL, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen Michael O'Kane, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Stephen Michael O'Kane petitions this court for an extraordinary writ or a writ of mandamus. O'Kane, a federal prison inmate,

is preparing to challenge his guilty plea to bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1344 (West Supp. 1996). He asserts that,

because of amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), he must file his

§ 2255 motion by June 27, 1996. But O'Kane alleges that he must

have certain documents from the district court and the government

before he can file his motion.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary

circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for N. Dist., 426

U.S. 394, 402 (1976). The writ is not available as a substitute for

an appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.

1979). Petitioner bears the heavy burden of showing that he has no

other means of obtaining relief and that his right to such relief

is clear and indisputable. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 860

F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).

We conclude that O'Kane has not borne this burden. As there is

no 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion pending, 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (1988) does

not entitle him to a free transcript at government expense. See

United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321-22 (1976). The district court will examine the files and records of the case when the

motion is filed. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Rule 4(b), Rules Governing

§ 2255 Proceedings. O'Kane is not required to set forth his claims

in great detail in filing the § 2255 motion. Rule 2(b), Rules

Governing § 2255 Motions. We do not have authority under 28 U.S.C.
3

§ 1651 (1988) to direct O'Kane's defense counsel to provide him

with counsel's records. See Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg

County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969).

Therefore, while we grant O'Kane leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, we deny his motion for mandamus or other extraordinary

writ. 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.

PETITION DENIED
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  Exhibit 10.1.2

                                 March 15, 2000


Mr. Brett N. Silvers
61 Ledyard Road
West Hartford, CT  06117

Dear Brett:

         Reference is made to that certain Employment Agreement (the "EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT") dated as of April 15, 1994 among Brett N. Silvers ("SILVERS"), First
International Bancorp, Inc. ("FIB") and First National Bank of New England (now
known as First International Bank) ("FIRST INTERNATIONAL"), as amended by those
certain letter agreements (collectively, the "LETTER AGREEMENTS") dated July 3,
1997 and March 31, 1999 among Silvers, FIB and First International.

         Silvers, FIB and First International agree that the first sentence in
Section 2.1 of the Employment Agreement, as amended by the Letter Agreements, is
deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted in its place:

         ""Term of Employment" shall mean the period commencing as of April 1,
1994 and ending June 30, 2001."

         Except to the extent expressly amended herein, the Employment
Agreement, as amended by the Letter Agreements, remains unmodified and in full
force and effect in accordance with its terms.

         Please sign in the space provided below to indicate your acceptance of
the foregoing, whereupon the provisions of this letter shall take effect.

                                        Very truly yours,

                                        FIRST INTERNATIONAL BANCORP, INC.



                                        By:/s/Leslie A. Galbraith
                                        -------------------------
                                           Leslie A. Galbraith
                                           Its Executive Vice President


<PAGE>   2


                                      -2-



                               FIRST INTERNATIONAL BANK



                               By:/s/Leslie A. Galbraith
                               -------------------------
                                  Leslie A. Galbraith
                                  Its President


Agreed to and Accepted this 17th day of March, 2000.



/s/Brett N. Silvers
---------------------
Brett N. Silvers
Timothy Nelson BUTLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D19-189

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 3, 2019

Timothy Nelson Butler, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE, and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

*144Affirmed. *See**Mendenhall v. State*, 48 So.3d 740, 742 (Fla. 2010) (holding that under section 775.087, Florida Statutes, "the trial court has discretion ... to impose a mandatory minimum ... even if that mandatory minimum exceeds the statutory maximum.").
B.R. and S.R., the temporary custodial care providers of T.J.S.M. and L.E.R., Petitioners, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Respondent.

No. 1D19-0023

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 22, 2019

Ross A. Keene, Pensacola, for Petitioners.

Sarah J. Rumph, Children's Legal Services, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

Because Petitioners fail to establish a departure from the essential requirements *1241of law by the trial court, the writ is DENIED .

Lewis, Makar, and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.
STATE of Louisiana v. Francis WINCHESTER

NO. 2018-KH-1804

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2019

Denied. Applicant has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review and fails to show that any exception permits his successive filing. See State ex rel. Winchester v. State, 18-0005 (La. 11/05/18), 255 So.3d 1037.

WEIMER, J., recused.
**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 interim  report of Ecotality, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Jonathan R. Read, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of
      the
      Company, and I, BarryS. Baer, acting in the capacity as the Chief Financial
      Officer of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that:





(1)   The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and





(2)   The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result ofoperations of the Company.




/s/
                Jonathan R. ReadJonathan
                R. ReadChief
                Executive Officer**May
                15, 2008**/s/
                Barry S. BaerBarry
                S. BaerChief
                Financial Officer**May
                15, 2008**
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Robert E. Swanson, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 2) of
Ridgewood Energy M Fund, LLC;


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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.



Dated:  April 5, 2007

   /s/  ROBERT E. SWANSON
 Name:  Robert E. Swanson

Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer
        (Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 13.1






Certification of Periodic Financial Report






Pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350




The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the annual report of RBS Holdings N.V. on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010, as amended by Amendment No. 1 on Form 20-F/A (such annual report, as amended, the “Report”), for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.




Jan de Ruiter, the Chairman of the Managing Board and Pieter van de Harst, the Chief Financial Officer of RBS Holdings N.V., each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:




1.      the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and




2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of RBS Holdings N.V.




Date: April 5, 2011





By:
/s/ Jan de RuiterName:Jan de RuiterTitle:   Chairman of the Managing Board





By:
/s/ Pieter van de HarstName: Pieter van de HarstTitle:   Chief Financial Officer