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

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,201

EX PARTE REGINALD MUCKLEROY, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 06F0099-005-A IN THE 5 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM BOWIE 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 this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). In separate causes, Applicant pleaded guilty

to two charges of theft and was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for each charge, to run

concurrently. As a condition of the plea, Applicant was to be brought back to the trial court within

180 days of his sentencing for consideration of shock probation on both charges. He did not appeal

his conviction. 

Applicant was brought back to the trial court and placed on shock probation in one cause,
2

but through a clerical error, this cause was omitted from the trial docket. The trial court granted

shock probation in the other cause, and although no action was taken pursuant to this cause number,

Applicant was released on shock probation. Applicant’s probation was later revoked, and the trial

court reformed the judgment in the other cause to reflect a four-year sentence. Applicant is now

serving the four-year reformed sentence in the other cause concurrently with a ten-year sentence in

this cause.

Applicant contends, inter alia, that his plea agreement was breached because he was

inadvertently brought back to the trial court, considered for and granted shock probation on only one

of the two causes. The original plea agreement contemplated consideration for shock probation on

both causes. The trial court held a hearing on this matter, and has determined that applicant plead

guilty pursuant to an agreement that this sentence would run concurrently with his other sentence,

and that both causes would be considered for shock probation. Applicant is entitled to relief. Ex

parte Rogers, 629 S.W.2d 741, 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982).

Relief is granted. The judgment in Cause No. 06F0099-005-A in the 5th Judicial District

Court of Bowie County is set aside, and applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Bowie

County to answer the charge against him.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: August 26, 2009

Do Not Publish
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

VALLEY FORGE, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

CK CONSTRUCTION, INC.

,

Appellee

. **§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§** No. 08

- 2 2

- 00 0 8 4

- C V

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 3

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20 21DCV3705 )

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s motion to extend abatement on appeal

. The

motion is GRANTED, and the appeal is abated until February 3, 2023 , to give the parties an

opportunity to settle the dispute. If the parties are able to finalize a settlement prior to February

3, 2023, the parties are directed to notify the Court of t hat fact and to file an appropriate motion

to dispose of this action.

I T IS SO ORDERED this 30 th day of January , 20 2 3

.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox and Soto , JJ.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60560 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus KENNETH EDWARD GRIZZLE, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:95-CR-37GR

- - - - - - - - - - October 3, 1997 Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Kenneth Edward Grizzle appeals his conviction and sentence for making false statements to obtain benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, in violation of 33 U.S.C. § 931. Grizzle challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the sufficiency of the indictment, the district court’s determination of the applicable loss, and the court’s imposition of restitution. Our review of the record and the arguments and authorities convinces us that no reversible error was committed.No. 96-60560 -2- The evidence was not insufficient. See United States v. Ivey , 949 F.2d 759, 766 (5th Cir. 1991). The indictment sufficiently informed Grizzle of the charges against him and of the elements of the charged crime. See United States v. Fitzgerald , 89 F.3d 218, 221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 446 (1996). Grizzle has not shown that the district court clearly erred in determining that the amount of the loss attributable to Grizzle’s conduct amounted to $48,400. See United States v. Tedder , 81 F.3d 549, 550 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering Grizzle to pay $7,000 restitution in 35 equal monthly payments. See United States v. Reese , 998 F.2d 1275, 1282 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
#### Pratik Apparels, Ltd., Appellant, v Shintex Apparel Group, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Classic Logistics, Inc., Respondent.

[946 NYS2d 507]

Motion by the appellant for leave to reargue an appeal from *923an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 31, 2011, which was determined by decision and order of this Court dated October 25, 2011.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

Ordered that the motion is granted and, upon reargument, the decision and order of this Court dated October 25, 2011 (see *Pratik Apparels, Ltd. v Shintex Apparel Group, Inc.,*88 AD3d 974, 975 [2011]) is recalled and vacated, and the following decision and order is substituted therefor:

Appeal by the plaintiff, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Saitta, J.), dated March 31, 2011, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Classic Logistics, Inc., which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

*“A*contractual forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court. Absent a strong showing that it should be set aside, a forum selection agreement will control” *(Hluch v Ski Windham Operating Corp.,*85 AD3d 861, 862 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; *see Bernstein v Wysoki,*77 AD3d 241, 248-249 [2010]; *Stravalle v Land Cargo, Inc.,*39 AD3d 735, 736 [2007]). “Forum selection clauses are enforced because they provide certainty and predictability in the resolution of disputes, particularly those involving international business agreements” *(Brooke Group v JCH Syndicate 488,*87 NY2d 530, 534 [1996]). Here, the forum selection clause contained in the subject bill of lading submitted by the defendant Classic Logistics, Inc. (hereinafter Classic), conclusively established that the plaintiff’s action against Classic must be brought in federal court *(see*CPLR 3211 [a] [1]; *W.J. Deutsch & Sons, Ltd. v Charbaut Am., Inc.,*57 AD3d 529, 530 [2008]). The plaintiff failed to show that enforcement of the forum selection clause would be unreasonable, unjust, or would contravene public policy, or that the clause is invalid because of fraud or overreaching *(see Bernstein v Wysoki,*77 AD3d at 249-250; *Best Cheese Corp. v All-Ways Forwarding Int'l. Inc.,*24 AD3d 580, 581 [2005]; *Koko Contr. v Continental Envtl. Asbestos Removal Corp.,*272 AD2d 585, 586 [2000]).

*924The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of Classic’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Angiolillo, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7754

DONNIE GEORGE MORTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

FRANK L. PERRY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:15-cv-00319-CCE-LPA)

Submitted: May 24, 2016 Decided: May 27, 2016

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donnie George Morton, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, 

III, Nicholaos George Vlahos, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Donnie George Morton seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Morton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

Morton’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           3,986
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  588,693
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    109,405
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               781,436
<PP&E>                                         630,336
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,448,987
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          847,135
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        36,513
<OTHER-SE>                                    (34,900)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,448,987
<SALES>                                      3,341,480
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,341,480
<CGS>                                        2,056,752
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,210,730
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              92,838
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (137,340)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (138,940)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 30,487
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (108,453)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.004)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.004)


</TABLE>
PAY THE PROPOSED PENALTY NOW

TIME LINE: Within 30 days of your receipt of our preliminary assessment letter 

• To pay the amount shown at the top right hand corner of the PAL letter, fill out 

the enclosed payment form and make a check or money order payable to the “U.S. 

Coast Guard”. 

• To ensure that the payment is credited to the proper account, write the Activity 

Number from the PAL letter on your check. The Activity Number is located in the 

top right corner below our address on the PAL letter. 

• If paying by Master Card or Visa, fill out the appropriate areas of the payment form. 

Your signature is required. 

Mail your payment to one of the below addresses as applicable: 

Regular Mail Address: 

U.S. COAST GUARD- CIVIL PENALTIES

P.O.Box 979123

St. Louis, MO 63197-9000

If you wish to FedEx or overnight your payment please mail to: Bank of America 

U.S. Bank Government Lockbox

Lockbox Number 979123 (CFP)

1005 Convention Plaza

Attn: Government Lockbox, SLMOC1 GL

St. Louis, MO 63101

Wire Transfer: 

Please see your Payment Form in your Preliminary package for wire transfer directions.
Executive Order 14044

# Amending Executive Order 14007

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to expand the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, it is hereby ordered as follows:

**Section 1**. *Amendment to Executive Order 14007.* The first sentence of section 2(b) of Executive Order 14007 of January 27, 2021 (President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology), is hereby amended to read as follows: “(b) The PCAST shall be composed of not more than 32 members.”.

**Sec. 2**. *General Provisions.* (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

[FR Doc. 2021-20164

Billing code 3295-F1-P
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 177 (Thursday, September 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 51706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19989]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #17145 and #17146; NEW JERSEY Disaster Number NJ-
00063]


Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public 
Assistance Only for the State of New Jersey

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of New Jersey 
(FEMA-4614-DR), dated 09/05/2021.
    Incident: Remnants of Hurricane Ida.
    Incident Period: 09/01/2021 through 09/03/2021.

DATES: Issued on 09/10/2021.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/04/2021.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/06/2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of New 
Jersey, dated 09/05/2021, is hereby amended to include the following 
areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties: Essex, Hudson, Mercer, Union.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Barbara Carson,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2021-19989 Filed 9-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Section 1350 Certifications**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Chris E. Paterson, President and Chief Executive Officer of Patient Infosystems, Inc. (the “Company”), and Glen A. Spence, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certify that, to the best of their knowledge:

|   | **1.** | The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2006, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Annual Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | **2.** | The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Annual Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Annual Report. |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**In Witness Whereof**, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 28th day of June, 2006.

| /s/ Chris E. Paterson  

Chris E. Paterson

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer) | /s/ Glen A. Spence

Glen A. Spence

Executive Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer) |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

This certification “accompanies” the Annual Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Annual Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1








Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 1350 of


Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. 1350)





In connection with the Annual Report of Canadian Natural Resources Limited (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steve W. Laut, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





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





2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





DATED this 25th day of March, 2015.











SIGNED “STEVE W. LAUT”


Steve W. Laut


President (Principal Executive Officer),


Canadian Natural Resources Limited
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

DECISION OF THE 

VICE COMMANDANT 

v. 

ON APPEAL 

• NO. 

MERCHANT MARINER LICENSE ~v 1 3 

Issued to: OL YMPIO BORGES SCOTO Jr. : 

APPEARANCES 

For the Government: 

Mr. Gary F. Ball, Esq. 

Mr. James P. Fink 

Suspension and Revocation National Center of Expertise 

For Respondent: 

Mr. Terrence S. Cox, Esq. 

Courtney M. Crawford, Esq. 

Cox, Wooten, Griffen, Hanson & Poulos, LLP 

Administrative Law Judge: Parlen L. McKenna 

This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. Chapter 77, 46 C.F.R. Part 5, and 33 

C.F .R. Part 20. 

By a Decision and Order (hereinafter "D&O") dated November 7, 2011, an Administrative 

Law Judge (hereinafter "ALJ") of the United States Coast Guard ordered the suspension of 

Respondent's Coast Guard-issued Merchant Mariner License for one month upon finding proved 

one allegation of misconduct. The Coast Guard properly appealed. I have learned that Respondent 

passed away following the filing of the Coast Guard's appeal. 
SC OTO NO. 

Past Commandant's Decisions on Appeal have held that when a Respondent dies during 

the pendency of his appeal, the ALJ's order should be vacated and the Coast Guard's Complaint 

against his mariner credential should be dismissed. Appeal Decision 2684 (SCARBOUGH) 

(2009);Appeal Decision 2134 (JOHNSON) (1978) (citing Melrose Distillers, Inc. v. United States, 

359 U.S. 271, 272 (1959)). This result mirrors the custom in Federal practice to abate the 

proceeding ab initio when the defendant dies. "The only fair and reasonable disposition [of the 

pending litigation when a Respondent dies] is to wipe the slate clean" by dismissing the matter. 

JOHNSON at 3. 

This case is distinguishable from the two precedents cited in that the Government rather 

than the Respondent has lodged the appeal. The result should, nonetheless, remain the same. See 

DiOrio v. Nicholson, 216 Fed.Appx. 974 (2007) (when the Government appealed a veteran's 

benefit decision and the veteran died during the pendency of that appeal, the decision was 

vacated). 

Accordingly, the Coast Guard's appeal is DISMISSED. 

ORDER 

The ALJ's Order dated November 7, 2011, is VACATED and the Complaint against 

Respondent is DISMISSED. 

Charles D. Michel 

Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard 

Vice Commandant 

Signed at Washington, D.C. this s-4""- day of J A.Vv -..~'t 

2 

fo 

'201.a..