alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

October 2, 2018.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-18-00837-CR

IN RE LESLIE FOSTER, Relator 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

 10th District Court 

Galveston County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 16CR1600 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On September 25, 2018, relator Leslie Foster filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2017); see 

also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to appoint new counsel 

to represent him in the pending appeal of his criminal conviction, Case No. 14-17-

00893-CR.
2 

The jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to issue writs of mandamus is 

prescribed by section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code, which provides that a 

court of appeals may issue a writ of mandamus to enforce its jurisdiction or against 

certain judges identified in section 22.221(b). Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221. Because 

relator does not seek a writ of mandamus to enforce the jurisdiction of this court or

a writ against a judge, but rather asks this court to appoint new counsel, we lack

jurisdiction of relator’s petition.

Additionally, because relator is represented by counsel in his pending appeal, 

his pro se mandamus petition presents nothing for this court’s review. A criminal 

defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 

919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1995). The absence of a right to hybrid representation means that a relator’s 

pro se mandamus petition should be treated as presenting nothing for this court’s 

review. See Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 

1994, orig. proceeding).

For these reasons, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jamison, and Brown. 

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
NO. 07-06-0352-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

JULY 17, 2007

______________________________

ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 251 DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY; ST

NO. 15,828-C; HON. RICHARD DAMBOLD, PRESIDING

_______________________________

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

 _______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Pending before us is the motion for rehearing of Roberto Rodriguez. In that motion,

he contends we failed to address whether he had a constitutional right to have a jury

determine whether the elements of a foreign penal statute and a Texas Penal statute were

substantially similar. We overrule the motion for several reasons.

First, the contention was not preserved. When asked at trial whether he had any

objections to the jury charge, appellant stated “no.” Responding “no” resulted in a waiver
2

of the current complaint. See White v. State, No. 2-02-143-CR, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 2033

(Tex. App.–Fort Worth, March 6, 2003, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication) (holding

that a similar complaint was waived when the appellant stated that he had no objections

to the jury charge).

Next, and even if the issue was preserved, we note that appellant’s constitutional

argument is based on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 2362-

63, 147 L.Ed.2d 435, 455 (2000). In Apprendi, the Supreme Court held that the United

States Constitution required any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the

statutorily prescribed maximum to be submitted to a jury. Here, however, we construed

two statutes, and, as stated in our original opinion, the interpretation of statutes involves

a question of law. Hardy v. State, 187 S.W.3d 232, 236 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2006, pet.

ref’d). Thus, Apprendi was and is inapplicable. See Ex parte White, 211 S.W.3d 316 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2007) (wherein the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, as opposed to a jury,

assessed whether the two statutes were substantially similar). 

Accordingly, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

Brian Quinn 

 Chief Justice

Do not publish.
(85 South. 921)

#### Ex parte GARNETT.

(8 Div. 225.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 15, 1920.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 5, 1920.)

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

E. W. Godbey, of Decatur, for appellant.

S. A. Lynne, of Decatur, for appellee.

THOMAS, J.

Petition of W. W. Garnett for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment of said court reversing the appeal of Ophelia Rice v. W. W. Garnett, 84 South. 557. Writ denied.
#### Van Deventer *v.*Long Island City.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.*

July 18, 1890.)

Taxation—Void Assessment—Relevy by Legislature.

The legislature has power to ratify and relevy void taxes, and the power includes the interest as well as the amount of the tax originally.

Appeal from special term, Queens county.

Action by Jacob H. Van Deventer to vacate taxes on real estate in Long Island City for the years 1877 to 1886, the irregularity being that for certain of the years the assessors omitted to assess certain lands embraced in public parks, and for the years 1882 and 1883 did not assess any personal property in the city. Defendant pleaded the ratification, confirmation, and levy of all the taxes prior to 1883, by Laws 1882, c. 383, and Laws 1886, c. 656. The court refused to find that the taxes, prior to 1883, were levied, ratified, and confirmed by the acts of 1882 and 1886, and defendant appeals.

Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.

IV. *J. Foster,*for appellant. *Frank E. Blackwell,*for respondent.

Barnard, P. J.

No new principles are involved different from those presented by the cases of *People*v. *Bleckwenn,*7 N. *Y.*Supp. 914, and *Francklyn*v. *Long Island City,*32 Hun, 451, lately decided by this court. In these cases the tax was void for an omission of the assessors. The tax-roll was made out in due form, and under the statute notice, but the assessors did not annex, in one of the cases, a statute certificate. The legislature reimposed the tax by direct act. In the other case the defect was similar in principle. It was held on appeal to this court that the legislature had the power to levy, confirm, and ratify the tax, and that this power included the interest as well as the amount of the tax originally. The defect in the first case consists in the fact that the assessor left off the roll, purposely, real and personal property. The lands in the complaint were only charged with their proportionate share of the amounts directed to be raised on the city. It is very doubtful whether under these averments the whole levy would be void. If it was a void tax the legislature could validate it. *Ensign*v. *Barse,*107 N. *Y.*329, 14 N. E. Rep. 400, and 15 N. E. Rep. 401. The legislature had power to re-levy the same, and apportion the tax. *Spencer*v. *Merchant,*100 N. *Y.*585, 3 N. E. Rep. 682. It is not therefore necessary to determine the question whether the plaintiff’s cause of action is barred by the short statute of limitation, created by chapter 383, § 11, Laws 1882, and chapter 656, § 10, Laws 1886. The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, costs to abide event. All concur.
**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**

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d));                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: April                12, 2006 |                                                                                 | /s/ ROBERT                T.                FABER                         |
|                                     | Robert                T. Faber*President                and Chief Executive Officer* |

----
**EXHIBIT
        99.7**
 **[ENGLISH
        TRANSLATION]**
 
 **Supplementary
        Property Transfer Agreement**
 
 **S****eller:**Shanxi Suo’ang Biological Science and Technology Company
                  Limited
              (Party
                  A)**Buyer:**Hanzhong Si Xiong Ke Chuang Business Company Limited
              (Party
                  B)
 
 According
        to the status of property transfer of “ **Hanzhong
        City International Trade Center Building for the 1** **st** **to 3** **rd** **floors** ”,
        Party
        A and Party B mutually agreed the followings:
 
 Item
        1:
 Party
        A
        will transfer the title of the properties to Party B when Party B pays the
        remaining balance of approximately RMB8,200,000 before the date of May 31,
        2007.
  Item
        2:
 Party
        B
        will pay the remaining balance of approximately RMB8,200,000 before the date
        of
        May 31, 2007.
 
 Item
        3:
 This
        contract shall be effective after each party’s signature and has the same legal
        effect with the Property Transfer Agreement.
 
 Item
        4:
 This
        contract is in quadruplicate. Party A and party B hold one contract
        respectively. Each contract has the same legal effect with this
        contract.
 
 Party
        A:
        Shaanxi Suo’ang Biological Science & Technology Co., Ltd.
  Signature:
        /s/ Ren Baowen
  Date:
        March 25, 2007
 
 
 Party
        B:
        Hanzhong Si Xiong Ke Chuang Business Company Limited
  Signature:
        /s/ Yanjun Zhao
  Date:
        March 25, 2007
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brian P. Robideau, Appellant.

Weiss, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Turner, Jr., J.), rendered April 28, 1986, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the third degree.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea bargain resulting in a reduced charge, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of burglary in the third degree and waived his right to appeal. He received a sentence of *IV2*to 4 Vi years’ imprisonment. On this appeal, defendant maintains that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, that the plea allocution was insufficient, and that the sentence was harsh and excessive.

Initially, we observe that defendant waived his right to appeal from the sentence *(see, People v Mayes,*133 AD2d 905 [decided herewith]; *People v Harvey,*124 AD2d 943, *lv denied*69 NY2d 746). Moreover, since defendant neither moved to withdraw his plea nor to vacate his conviction, he has failed to preserve for appeal any question bearing on the sufficiency of the plea allocution *(see, People v Martinez,*125 AD2d 829). In any event, our review of the record confirms that the plea was knowingly and intelligently made with the advice of counsel and not improvident under the circumstances *(see, People v Langhorn,*119 AD2d 844, *lv denied*68 NY2d 758; *People v Taliaferro,*109 AD2d 943, 945; *cf., People v Maye,*129 AD2d 204). As we said in *People v Maye (supra),*we note our disapproval of County Court’s method of conducting the plea allocution and reiterate that it is the function of the court, not the prosecuting attorney, to conduct this inquiry.

Finally, we agree that defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not waived and is properly before us *(cf., People v Harvey,*124 AD2d 943, *supra).*This contention is grounded on the premise that counsel failed to move for dismissal of the indictment on speedy trial grounds *(see,*CPL 30.20, 30.30). There is, however, no basis in this record indicating that defendant was entitled to such relief. The record otherwise confirms that defendant was accorded meaningful representation.

*904Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Weiss, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.
- Home
- Careers

# Recruiting Team

**Recruiting@uscp.gov**

**(202) 593-4252**

## **Recruiting Team:**

                  - Sgt. April Aranyosi -  April.Aranyosi@uscp.gov 
                  - Ofc. Dareick Barr -  Dareick.Barr@uscp.gov
                  - Ofc. Amanda Aigle -  Amanda.Aigle@uscp.gov

## **Want to see what our Department is all about? Follow us on social media.**

*Twitter*

*Facebook*

*Instagram*

*YouTube*

## Careers

              - Overview
              - Career Opportunities
              - Eligibility & Hiring
              - Videos
              - Equity, Diversity & Inclusion
              - Recruiting Team
              - FAQS
#### DEXTER et al. v. ADLER et al.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

April 13, 1894.)

Action by Samuel P. Dexter and others against Louis Adler and others.

No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with §10 costs. See 27 "N. Y. Supp. 1126, mem.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### International Trade Administration 

Pursuant to section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether an instrument of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instrument shown below is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the United States. 

Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and be filed within 20 days with the Statutory Import Programs Staff, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. 

*Docket Number:*                     01-009.                     *Applicant:*                     University of Virginia, Department of Psychology, 102 Gilmer Hall, P. O. Box 400400, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4400.                     *Instrument:*                     Electron Microscope, Model JEM-1010.                     *Manufacturer:*                     JEOL Ltd., Japan.                 

*Intended Use:*                     The instrument is intended to be used for ultrastructural examination of animal or postmortem human neural material prepared for basic neurobiology research and teaching purposes. In addition, the instrument will be used in training graduate and undergraduate students on ultrastructural approaches in neurobiology.                     *Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs:*                     April 2, 2001.                 

Gerald A. Zerdy, 

Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs Staff. 

[FR Doc. 01-10155 Filed 4-23-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32(2)

             Written Statement of the Acting Chief Financial Officer
                            of CNA Surety Corporation
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
          (As adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of CNA Surety Corporation (the
"Company"), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

        - The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
        March 31, 2005 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange
        Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
        13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated: May 2, 2005

/s/ John F. Corcoran
-------------------------------------------------
John F. Corcoran
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
#### NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee, v. NORTH ARKANSAS WOOD, INC.; Jo Ann Petray, Appellants, Deltic Timber Corporation, Defendant.

No. 11-1151.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 15, 2011.

Filed: Sept. 20, 2011.

*630Beverly Ann Rowlett, Munson & Rowlett, Little Rock, AR, for Appellee.

Robert R. Cortinez, II, Law Offices of Robert R. Cortinez II, Little Rock, AR, for Appellants.

Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this diversity-based declaratory judgment action, North Arkansas Wood, Inc., and Jo Ann Petray appeal from the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment, in which the court concluded that Nautilus Insurance Company had no duty to defend them with respect to third-party claims asserted in Arkansas state-court litigation. Upon de novo review of the summary judgment decision and the district court’s interpretation of Arkansas law, *see Pioneer Indus., Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.,*639 F.3d 461, 465 (8th Cir.2011) (standards of review), we affirm for the reasons discussed in the district court’s order. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
* Witnesses listed alphabetically.

Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules Public Hearing

Proposed Amendments to Federal Rules of Evidence 611, 613, 801, 804, and 1006

January 27, 2023 – 9:00 A.M. (ET) – Via Videoconference

Confirmed Witness List*

1. Ryan W. Babcock, The Babcock Law Firm, P.C.

2. W. Mark Lanier, Lanier Law Firm

3. William A. Rossbach, Rossbach Law Firm

4. Brian Sanford, Sanford Firm

5. Tad Thomas, Thomas Law Offices 

6. Tiega-Noel Varlack, Varlack Legal Services
List of Subsidiaries of Metal Storm Limited
 Percentage
    
    Jurisdiction ofName of Subsidiary
    
    Owned
    
    FormationMetal Storm Inc
    
    (a)
    
    DelawareMetal Storm U.S.A. Limited
    
    100% (b)
    
    DelawareProCam Machine LLC
    
    100% (c)
    
    WashingtonDigigun LLC
    
    100% (d)
    
    Delaware
 
 (a)
    
    Metal Storm Limited directly owns 49% of Metal Storm Inc. and officers
of Metal Storm Limited who are U.S. citizens own the remaining 51% of
the company through a trust.(b)
    
    Metal Storm Limited directly owns 100% of Metal Storm U.S.A. Limited.
Metal Storm U.S.A. Limited was incorporated in Delaware on March 31,
2004.(c)
    
    Metal Storm Limited directly owns 100% of ProCam Machine LLC. Metal
Storm Limited sold the assets and liabilities of ProCam to Monroe
Machine Products, Inc. on June 1, 2005.(d)
    
    Metal Storm Limited directly owns 100% of DigiGun LLC, which was
formed in Delaware on May 6, 2004.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. sec.1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of IWTTesoro Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Forrest P. Jordan, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 
| Dated: May 6, 2005 | /s/ Forrest P. Jordan   |   |
|--------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|               | Forrest P. Jordan       |
|               | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7451

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ADRIAN HOWARD JACKSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (CR-98-1126-JFA)

Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 30, 2005

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adrian Howard Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Adrian Howard Jackson appeals the district court’s order

dismissing without prejudice his motion, filed in his criminal

case, to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See United States v. Jackson, No. CR-98-1126-JFA (D.S.C.

Sept. 8, 2005). 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.

AFFIRMED