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

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-21-00307-CR 

NO. 09-21-00308-CR

NO. 09-21-00309-CR

NO. 09-21-00310-CR

________________

RALPH WILLIAM GALLAGHER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 221st District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause Nos. 20-07-08653-CR, 20-07-08704-CR, 

21-08-10997-CR, 21-08-10998-CR

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER

The trial court appointed Mark Phillips to represent Ralph William Gallagher, 

appellant, on appeal in four cases. The clerk’s records in the above styled and 

numbered causes were filed January 14, 2022, and the reporter’s records were filed

February 7, 2022. On June 3, 2022, the Court granted a fourth extension of time to 

file the brief, noting that the extension was a “final extension.” On July 11, 2022, 
2

the appellant’s court-appointed attorney, Mark Phillips, was notified that neither the 

brief of the appellant nor a motion for extension of time to file the brief has been 

filed, and we warned him that unless we received a satisfactory response we would 

order the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why no brief has been filed.

We granted appellant’s request for an additional extension of time to July 26, 2022, 

to file the appellant’s brief. Although the brief of the appellant was due to be filed

July 26, 2022, the brief has not been filed.

We abate the appeals and remand the cases to the trial court to conduct a 

hearing at which a representative of the State, counsel for the appellant, and the 

appellant shall be present. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(3). We direct the trial court 

to determine whether or not appellant desires to pursue his appeals. If appellant 

desires to pursue his appeals, we direct the trial court to determine why the brief of 

the appellant has not been filed and whether good cause exists for appointed counsel, 

Mark Phillips, to be relieved of his duties as appellate counsel and replaced by 

substitute counsel. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.04(j)(2). If the trial court 

determines that good cause exists to relieve appointed counsel of his duties, we direct 

the trial court to appoint substitute counsel.

The record of the hearing, including any orders and findings of the trial court 

judge, shall be sent to the appellate court for filing. The transcription of the court 
3

reporter’s notes from the hearing and the recommendations of the trial court judge 

are to be filed on or before August 31, 2022.

ORDER ENTERED August 1, 2022.

PER CURIAM

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  OF NEVADA ENERGY  COMPANY,  INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
AUGUST  31,  1996 , AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO  SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS             
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                               MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                 AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                                75 
<SECURITIES>                                           0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                        530
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                           52
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     702 
<PP&E>                                             7,128
<DEPRECIATION>                                       336
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     9,185
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                863     
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0 
<PREFERRED>                                            1
<COMMON>                                              17     
<OTHER-SE>                                         7,397   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       9,185
<SALES>                                              855
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     855
<CGS>                                                469
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      1,669 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       3                                     
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    13
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (776)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (776) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (776)    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.08)  

        

</TABLE>
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1775 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Thiacloprid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 21, 2005 

Mr. HULSHOF introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Thiacloprid. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. THIACLOPRID. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.05.54 [3-[(6-Chloro-3-pyridinyl)- 

methyl]-2-thiazolidinylidene]- 

cyanamide (thiacloprid) 

(CAS No. 111988–49–9) 

(provided for in subheading 

2934.10.10) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•HR 1775 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 4038** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. TIERRENCE MARCELLE SMALL , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. William L. Osteen, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:11

- cr - 00144

- WO

- 1 )

Submitted : November 7, 2012 Decided: November 16, 2012

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, G reensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Tierrence Marcelle Small pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felo n, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) (2006). In the plea agreement, Small reserved his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered during a traffic stop
. On appeal, Small argues that he was unreasonably seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that any evidence resulting from such seizure should have been suppressed. We affirm. We review factual findings underlying the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress for clear error a nd its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Foster , 634 F.3d 243, 246 (4th Cir. 2011). When a suppression motion has been denied, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. United States v. Farrior , 535 F.3d 21 0, 217 (4th Cir. 2008). This court grants great deference to factual findings based on credibility determination s. See United States v. Moses , 540 F.3d 263, 268

- 69 (4th Cir. 2008). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court di d not err in resolving the conflicting testimony and denying the suppression motion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials bef ore th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:14-cr-23-TLS-SLC

)

ROBERT LEE )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Susan Collins, on

August 19, 2015, with the written consents of the Defendant, counsel for the Defendant, and

counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the Defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and

of counsel for Defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the Defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that the Defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and Defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by the Defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that Defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that the Defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for the Defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept the Defendant’s plea of guilty and that the

Defendant be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in the single-count Indictment, and have

sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Findings and

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 19th day of August, 2015.

s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins

United States Magistrate Judge

2
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T P I E R R E L . HO F F MAN, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. C H A R L E S D . L E E ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 16737 D . C . N o . 5 : 0 8 -cv -0 4 4 9 9 -JW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J a m e s W ar e , C hi e f

Judge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r10, 2012 ** B efo re: W A R D L A W , C L IF T O N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C al i forni a s t at e pri soner P i erre L . H offm an appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c o u rt’s s u m m aryju d g m e n t in h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n a lle g in g d e lib e r a te i nd i ff er ence t o h i s s er i ou s m edi ca l needs and sa fe ty. W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 

# FI LED SEP 19 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 16737 2 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o , T oguc hiv . Chung , 391 F . 3d 1051, 1056 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) , an dw e a f f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y grant ed sum m ary j ud gm entbecause H offm an f a i l e d t o r a i s e age nui ne di s put e of m a t e r i a l f

a c ta s t o w he the rde f

e ndant s kne w of an dd is r e g ar d e dan e x c e s s iv e r is kto h is h e a lth o rs a f e ty . Se e id. a t1058 ( pr i s on offi ci al s a ctw i th d el i bera t e i nd i ff er ence on l y i f they kno w of and d i sr egar d an e xc e s s i ve r i s k t o i nm a t e he a l th ors a f e ty , and am e r e di f

f e r e nc e of opi ni on c o n c e rn in g th e ap p r o p r ia te c o u r s e o f tr e a tm e n t d o e s n o t a m o u n t to d e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e ) . H offm an’ s m ot i on for def aul t , re ce i ved o n January7, 20 11 , i s order ed fi l ed an dis d e n ie da s m o o t. AF F I RME D.
#### Maxim Leavitt, as Executor of Dorothy Richman, Deceased, Respondent, v New York City Transit Authority, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. General Motors Corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, third-party defendant General Motors Corporation appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hellenbrand, J.), dated September 12, 1984, which denied its motion to dismiss the third-party complaint without prejudice or, in the alternative, to sever the third-party action from the main action.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that, notwithstanding the third-party plaintiff’s inordinate and unjustified delay in commencing its third-party action, the denial of the third-party defendant’s motion to sever that action from the main action did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion (CPLR 1010; *Rago v Nationwide Ins. Co.,*110 AD2d 831; *Fries v Sid Tool Co.,*90 AD2d 512). Both actions involve common issues of law and fact, making a single trial appropriate. *908Moreover, the third-party defendant was afforded an adequate opportunity to complete its discovery without unduly delaying the trial.

However, because this appeal was necessitated by the New York City Transit Authority’s delay in commencing its third-party action, we have denied costs. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

DANIEL AWALD, )

) CAUSE NO: 1:15-CV-0212

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

HOLY FAMILY CATHOLIC CHURCH, )

NEW ALBANY, INC. and DIOCESE )

OF FORT WAYNE-SOUTH BEND, INC. )

)

Defendant. )

JOINT STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Daniel Awald (“Awald”) and Defendant Diocese of Fort Wayne – South Bend, 

Inc. (“the Diocese”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by their respective counsel, hereby stipulate to 

the dismissal, with prejudice, of all of Awald’s claims against the Diocese in the above-captioned 

matter. Furthermore, the Parties stipulate that each party shall be responsible for its own costs.

By: s/ Scott Hall

 Scott Hall, Esq. (12060-49)

 HALL & GOODEN LLP

 810 South Calhoun Street, Suite 100

 Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802

 Telephone: (260) 422-2035

 Facsimile: (260) 424-2541

 Email: shall@hallgooden.com

 

 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

By: s/ Heather Falks

 Heather Falks (29907-41)

 STEWART & STEWART 

 931 S. Rangeline Rd.

 Carmel, Indiana 46032

 Telephone: (317) 846-8999

 Facsimile: (317) 843-1991

 Email: heatherf@getstewart.com

 

 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00212-SLC document 31 filed 09/29/16 page 1 of 1
Shawn Bernard DOBY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10157.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
**Exhibit32.2**

**ASPYRA, INC.**

**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 thefiling of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended March 31,2007 (the “Report”) by Aspyra, Inc. (“Registrant”), the undersigned herebycertifies that to their knowledge:

1.     The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

2.     Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant as of and forthe periods presented in the Report.
| Date: August 20, 2007                      |
|--------------------------------------------|
|                                       |
| /S/ Anahita Villafane                      |   |
| Anahita Villafane, Chief Financial Officer |

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toAspyra, Inc. and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          21,993
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   96,649
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (4,583)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               121,231
<PP&E>                                         170,712
<DEPRECIATION>                               (106,480)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 355,267
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           92,519
<BONDS>                                          1,848
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           289
<OTHER-SE>                                     240,571
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   355,267
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               334,702
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  297,818
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,053
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,548
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,047
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,166
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,166
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1
                                                                    ------------

           WINTHROP RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATES III, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
           ----------------------------------------------------------
                         FORM 10-QSB SEPTEMBER 30, 2003
                         ------------------------------


Supplementary information required pursuant to section 9.4 of the partnership
agreement:

1.   Statement of Cash Available for Distribution for the three months ended
     September 30, 2003:

       Net loss                                                       $(132,000)
       Add:     Depreciation                                             50,000
                Equity in losses of Local Limited Partnerships           71,000
                Cash from reserves                                       38,000
                                                                       --------
       Cash available for distribution                                 $ 27,000
                                                                       ========
       Distributions allocated to General Partners                     $  2,000
                                                                       ========
       Distributions allocated to Limited Partners                     $ 25,000
                                                                       ========


2.   Fees and other compensation paid or accrued by the Partnership to the
     General Partners, or their affiliates, during the three months ended
     September 30, 2003:


    Entity Receiving                     Form of
      Compensation                    Compensation                      Amount
-------------------------    ------------------------------           ---------

General Partners             Interest in Cash Available for           $   2,000
                             Distribution

WFC Realty Co., Inc.
(Initial Limited Partner)    Interest in Cash Available for           $       5
                             Distribution