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

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-87,329-02 AND WR-87,329-03

EX PARTE EDWARD FERNANDEZ MEDRANO, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. CR35988A AND CR36058A IN THE 238TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM MIDLAND COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

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 these applications for writs of habeas corpus. Ex

parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). A jury convicted Applicant of four

offenses of indecency with a child by exposure and assessed prison terms. The trial court cumulated

three of the prison terms to eight years and probated the other. Applicant appealed regarding the

stacking order, but the appellate court affirmed the convictions. Medrano v. State, Nos. 11-12-

00222-CR and 11-12-00223-CR (Tex. App.—Eastland del. Jul. 3, 2014).

In these habeas applications, Applicant contends that he was denied his right,through no fault
2

of his own, to pursue pro se petitions for discretionary review (PDRs) in this Court after his

convictions were affirmed by the appellate court. Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App.

1997). Applicant also attacks the merits of the convictions.

The trial court, adopting theState’s prepared pleadings, recommends granting late PDRs. The

findings and recommendation are supported by the habeas record except as they apply to the

probated conviction. Because the probation for that count of conviction has not been revoked, this

Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the claims related to it. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art 11.072; Ex

parte Valdez, 489 S.W.3d 462 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016).

This Court holds that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file out-of-time petitions for

discretionary review of the judgments of the Eleventh Court of Appeals in Cause Nos.

11-12-00222-CR and 11-12-00223-CR that affirmed his convictions in Cause Nos. CR35988,

CR36058–Count I, and CR36058–Count II from the 238th District Court of Midland County.

Applicant shall file his petitions for discretionary review with this Court within 30 days of the date

on which this Court’s mandates issues.

Applicant’s habeas claims attacking the merits of the non-probated convictions are dismissed.

Torres v. State, 117 S.W.3d 891 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Ex parte McPherson, 32 S.W.3d 860 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Applicant’s habeas claims regarding the conviction and probated sentence

in Cause No. CR36058–Count III are dismissed. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art 11.072; Ex parte

Valdez, supra. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal JusticeCorrectional Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division. 

Delivered: September 12, 2018

Do not publish
Bernardo OCHOA, Appellant, v. Capt. Kenneth E. STEPHENS, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4567

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 29, 2019

Bernardo Ochoa, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Damaris E. Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

In light of Appellee's confession of error, we reverse the order on appeal and remand to the lower tribunal for further proceedings.

Lewis, Wetherell, and Jay, JJ., concur.
# L_2018013EN.01002701.xml

| 18.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 13/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 13/27

---

Corrigendum to Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2017/30 of amending budget No 5 of the European Union for the financial year 2017

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 9 of 12 January 2018
  )

In the Contents page and on page 1 in the title:

for:

‘2017/30’,

read:

‘2018/30’.

---
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 16

- 00044

- CR

JEROMY S. BROOKS APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT CO URT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1400 749D

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered “ Appellant ’ s Voluntary Motion To Dismiss Appeal

, ”

which is unopposed by the State. The motion complies wi th rule 42.2(a) of the

rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). No decision of this court

having been delivered before we received this motion, we grant the motion and

dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

PA NEL: WALKER, MEIER , and GABRIEL , JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: September 29, 2016
R.W., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3701

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 31, 2019.

Patricia Alten, Tampa, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

R.W. appeals the disposition order committing him to the Department of Juvenile Justice following his adjudication of delinquency for trespass in a conveyance as a lesser included offense of burglary of an unoccupied conveyance, grand theft of a motor vehicle, grand theft, and resisting an officer without violence. We affirm the adjudication and the ensuing disposition, but we reverse the written disposition order and remand to the juvenile court to correct it to accurately reflect the oral pronouncement.

Following the adjudicatory hearing, the trial court orally found that R.W. committed the offense of trespass in a conveyance, a second-degree misdemeanor. *See* § 810.08, Fla. Stat. (2016). However, the disposition order indicates that he was adjudicated delinquent of the offense of trespass on property other than a structure or a conveyance, a first-degree misdemeanor. *See* § 810.09(2)(a). Accordingly, we reverse the disposition order and remand for entry of an order that comports with the oral pronouncement.

*883Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

LaROSE, C.J., and NORTHCUTT and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 32.2CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Craig A. McCollam, the ChiefFinancial Officer of Dionex Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to the best of hisknowledge: 1. The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2005, towhich this Certification is attached (the “Periodic Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and  2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.     By: /s/ Craig A. McCollam   Name: Craig A. McCollam  Title: Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  Date: February 9, 2006
Exhibit 13.2


                                  QUINENCO S.A.
              SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Luis Fernando Antunez, the Chief Financial Officer of Quinenco S.A. (the
"Company"), hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 that:

1.    the Company's annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31,
      2004, to which this statement is filed as an exhibit (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.


Date: June 30, 2005

                                                    /s/ Luis Fernando Antunez
                                                    Luis Fernando Antunez
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 40390 Summary Calendar

JOHNATHAN FRANKLIN , Plaintiff-Appellant

v. CHAD L. SAMUELS; JACKIE F. BUSH; MICHAEL W. STEVENS; CARL M. BURSON; RICHARD WALDRON,
Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 3:13 -CV- 230

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Johnathan Franklin , Texas prisoner # 1550282 , appeals the district court’s summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

. He also moves for the appointment of counsel. In his § 1983 complaint, Franklin alleged that a number of correctional staff were deliberately indifferent to a serious risk to his health and safety in violation of his Eighth Amendment

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fif h Circuit 

### FILED April 25, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-40390 Document: 00513967108 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/25/2017No. 15

- 40390

2 rights. He also alleged that staff retaliated against him by telling inmates that he was an informant.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, using the same standard as that employed by the district court. Carnaby v. City of Houston , 636 F.3d 183, 187 (5th Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 56(a). If the moving party establishes this, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to set forth specific evidence to support his claims. Duffie v. United States , 600 F.3d 362, 371 (5th Cir. 2010). Here, Franklin failed to bring forward any specific evidence to support his allegation that correctional staff retaliated against him or that staff were deliberately indifferent to the risk of inmate violence against him. See Duffie , 600 F.3d at 371; Adames v. Perez , 331 F.3d 508, 515 (5th Cir. 2003)

. In the absence of any evidence that the defendants had a subjective awareness of an excessive risk to Franklin’s safety or evidence to support his retaliation claim , the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendants. See Hathaway v. Bazany , 507 F.3d 312, 319 (5th Cir. 2007) ; Bradley v. Puckett , 157 F.3d 1022, 1025 (5th Cir. 1998). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. In addition, as his case does not present exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel, his motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. See Ulmer v. Chancellor , 691 F.2d 209, 212

- 13 (5th Cir. 1982)

. Case: 15-40390 Document: 00513967108 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/25/2017
EXHIBIT 31.1
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
I, Lukas Braunschweiler, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Dionex Corporation; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 9, 2005
/s/ Lukas Braunschweiler
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 Annual report of Osage Exploration and Development, Inc.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Kim Bradford, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. 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 and 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.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Osage Exploration and Development, Inc. and will be retained by Osage
      Exploration and Development, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.




Date: March
                31, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                Kim BradfordKim
                BradfordChief
                Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.1    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Justin Craig, certify that:  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Medical Design Studios, Inc.  1. 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 annual report;  2. 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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  3. I am the Companys certifying officer and am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company 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 Company is made known to me, 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 Company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the Company'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.  4. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company's auditors:  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 Company'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 Company's internal control over financial reporting.   Date: April 10, 2008 By: /s/   Justin Craig Name:  Justin Craig Title: Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 8.1

Subsidiaries of Babcock & Brown Air Limited

Name of Subsidiary


Jurisdiction of IncorporationBabcock & Brown Air Funding I Limited


BermudaBabcock & Brown Air Acquisition I Limited


BermudaJET-i 533 Leasing Limited


IrelandJET-i 548 Leasing Limited


IrelandJET-i 566 Leasing Limited


IrelandBabcock & Brown Air Funding 888 Leasing Limited


IrelandJET-i 2522 Leasing Limited


IrelandJET-i 2670 Leasing Limited


IrelandJET-i 2849 Leasing Limited


IrelandJET-i 28042 Leasing Limited


IrelandBabcock & Brown Air Funding 28595 Leasing Limited


IrelandJET-i 29945 Leasing Limited


IrelandJET-i 29946 Leasing Limited


IrelandJET-i 34293 Leasing Limited


IrelandJET-i 34295 Leasing Limited


IrelandBabcock & Brown JET-i Limited


IrelandJET-i 34898 Leasing Limited


IrelandJET-i 34899 Leasing Limited


IrelandJET-i 35089 Leasing Limited


IrelandJET-i 35211 Leasing Limited


IrelandJET-i 2728 Holdings Limited


IrelandJET-i 25232 Owner One Limited


BermudaJET-i 25232 Leasing Limited


IrelandJET-i 25233 Owner One Limited


BermudaJET-i 25233 Leasing Limited


IrelandBabcock & Brown Air Funding 733 Leasing S.A.R.L.


FranceBabcock & Brown Air Funding 747 Leasing S.A.R.L.


FranceJET-i 2728 Leasing S.A.R.L.


FranceBabcock & Brown Air Acquisition 26101 Leasing Limited


IrelandBabcock & Brown Air Acquisition 28560 Leasing Limited


IrelandBabcock & Brown Air Acquisition 29669 Leasing Limited


IrelandBabcock & Brown Air Acquisition 3151 Leasing Limited


IrelandBabcock & Brown Air Acquisition 34953 Leasing Limited


IrelandBabcock & Brown Air Acquisition 403 Leasing Limited


IrelandBabcock & Brown Air Acquisition 2397 Leasing Limited


Ireland


---
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-32320]



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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[FE Docket No. 94-102-NG]


Union Gas Limited; Order Granting Blanket Authorization To Import 
and Export Natural Gas, Including Liquefied Natural Gas, From and To 
Canada

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of order.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Fossil Energy of the Department of Energy gives 
notice that it has issued an order granting Union Gas Limited blanket 
authorization to import from Canada, for subsequent export to Canada, 
up to 100 Bcf of natural gas, including liquefied natural gas (LNG), 
and to export up to 100 Bcf of natural gas, including LNG, to Canada, 
over a two-year term beginning on the date of first import or export 
after December 31, 1994.
    This order is available for inspection and copying in the Office of 
Fuels Programs Docket Room, 3F-056, Forrestal Building, 1000 
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-9478. The 
docket room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 21, 1994.
Clifford P. Tomaszewski,
Director, Office of Natural Gas, Office of Fuels Programs, Office of 
Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 94-32320 Filed 12-30-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Joshua Michael MEJIA, petitioner, v. Martin BITER, Warden.

No. 12-9779.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Derricko LEONARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3604

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 21, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 00 40 -C R

______________________________ CHAD COL EMAN, Appe llant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the 124th J udicial District Court

Gre g gCounty , Texas Trial Court No. 35803-B

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Me mor and

um O pin ion

by Chi e f Jus tic e Mo rr iss2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Cha d Co le man h a s a

pp e a le d f ro m hi s o pe n p le a

of guil ty to t he of fe ns e of dri vin gwh ile int oxic ate d ( DWI ), su

bs e qu e nt o ff

e ns e . H e wa s se nte nced by the tr ia l c ourt

to t e n ye ars '
c on fi ne me nt. On appe al, Coleman conte n d s h i s sentence is disproportionate to the cr ime, citing, a mong other c ases, Harmelin v. M ichigan , 501 U.S. 957 (1991), and So le m v . H

e lm , 463 U.S. 277 (1983). To pr e se rv e su c h c omp la int fo r a pp e llate re vie w, Col e man mu st h ave pr e se nte d to the tr ia l c ourt a timely reque st, objection, or motion that state d t h e spec ific g rounds for the desired r uling, or the complaint must be appar ent from the c ontext . SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 33 .1 (a )( 1) ; Ha rri so n v . S tate , 187 S.W. 3d 42 9, 43 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05 ); W ill iam s v . S

tate , 1 9 1 S. W. 3 d

242, 2 6 2 ( T e x. Ap p. —Aus tin

20 06 , n o p e t.) (c la ims of c ru e l and unus ua l puni shme nt mus t be pr e se nte d in tim e ly
manner); Nic ho las v . S

tate , 56 S.W .3d 760, 768 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2001, pet. re f' d) (fa ilure to complain to trial cour t that sentence s were crue l and unusual wa ived claim of e rror for appellate revie w). We h av e re v i ew ed the re cords of the trial proc eedingand the he aringon the motion for new tria l. No rele vant re quest, objection, or motion was made. And, while this Court has held that a

motion for new tria l is an appropr iate wa y to preser ve this ty pe of c laim for re view ( see W ill iam so n v. Sta te , 175 S.W .3d 522, 523–24 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, no pet.); Delacruz
v . S tate , 167 S.W .3d 904 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 20 0 5, no pet.)), Colema

n' s motion for new trial3

did not contain an alleg ation that the sentenc e wa s disproportionate to t h e o ff en s e. He ha s not pr e se rv e d s uc h a

n is su e fo r a

pp e a l. Th e re fo re , w e a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ' s ju dg me nt.

J o s hR
. M o r

r i s s , III Chief J ustice Date Submitted: September 4, 2008 Date D ecide d: September 5, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh