alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Edward L.



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 4, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00483

- CV

Rowland MARTIN , Jr., Appellant

v.

Edward L. BRAVENEC and 1216 West Ave., Inc., Appellee s

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- CI

- 07644 Honorable Dick Alcala, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Pending before the court are appellant’s motion for rehearing, appellees’ response to appellant’s motion for rehearing, and appellant’s supplemental motion for rehearing and motion for sanctions. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is GRANTED. This court’s prior opinion and judgment dated October 1, 2014, are WITHDRAWN, and this case is REINSTATED on the docket of this court. Appellant’s supplemental motion for rehearing and motion for sanctions are

DENIED.

Appellees’ request for alternative relief cont ained in appellees’ response to appellant’s motion for rehearing is GRANTED IN PART. Based on this court’s review of the clerk’s record and the supplemental notices of appeal filed in this court which have been forwarded to the trial

court clerk

, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.1 (a), this court construes this appeal as an accelerated, interlocutory appeal from: (1) the trial court’s order dated July 17, 2014, granting a temporary injunction, see T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE § 51.014(a)(4); and (2) the trial court’s order dated July 17, 2014, denying appellant’s motion to dismiss filed pursuant to section 27.003 of the

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code (Texas Citizens Participation Act), see id . at § 27.008.

If appellant believes this court has jurisdiction t o consider any other order contained in the clerk’s record in this appeal, appellant is ORDERED to show cause in writing no later than ten days from the date of this order why this court has jurisdiction to consider any other interlocutory order. Any such response should contain a citation to a specific statute that gives this court jurisdiction to consider such interlocutory order. If appellant elects not to file a response to this order, appellant’s brief, which must be in compliance with T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 38.1,must be filed no later than thirty days from the date of this order, and the brief must address only issues pertaining to the temporary injunction and the order denying appellant’s motion to dismiss

referenced in this order.

_________________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 4th day of December, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Quenida ANDELIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-2428-cr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 16, 2012.

*27David T. Huang, Sandra S. Glover, United States Attorney’s Office, New Haven, CT, for Appellee.

Francis L. O’Reilly, O’Reilly & Shaw LLC, Southport, CT, for Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, RAYMOND J. LOHIER JR., CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Quenida Andeliz appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Thompson, C.J.), which, among other things, sentenced her to the statutory mandatory minimum of 60 months’ incarceration for her participation in a cocaine distribution conspiracy. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Andeliz claims that the district court erred in finding her ineligible for safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3558(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. Specifically, Andeliz takes issue with the district court’s determination that she had not satisfied the fifth criterion of § 3553(f), which requires the defendant to prove to the district court that she has provided *“all*information and evidence [she] has concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5) (emphasis added); *United States v. Gambino,*106 F.3d 1105, 1110 (2d Cir.1997).

We review a district court’s factual findings regarding a defendant’s eligibility for safety valve relief for clear error, and we review any legal interpretations of the safety valve provisions de novo. *See United States v. Jeffers,*329 F.3d 94, 97 (2d Cir.2003). Here, the district court did not err in determining that Andeliz was not eligible for relief under the safety valve provisions. It is clear from the record that inconsistencies in Andeliz’s testimony with regard to her involvement with the drug conspiracy in question demonstrated to the court that Andeliz was not sufficiently forthright about her role in that conspiracy to warrant safety valve relief.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
Giraud HOPE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6165.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Paul DAVIS, petitioner, v. Sherry L. BURT, Warden.

No. 16-5739.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
The State o

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 2, 2015

No. 04-15-00513-CR

Edward HOUSTON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR7827

Honorable Kevin M. O'Connell, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On October 2, 2015, Richard B. Dulany Jr. filed a motion that included, inter alia, a 

request to withdraw as appellate counsel. After this court received a designation of new lead 

counsel from the Bexar County Public Defender’s Office, on October 8, 2015, we granted Mr. 

Dulany’s motion to withdraw. 

On October 20, 2015, Mr. Dulany filed a motion to reconsider the order granting his 

motion to withdraw. He notes that Appellant’s October 12, 2015 affidavit requests that Mr. 

Dulany continue as Appellant’s court-appointed counsel. Mr. Dulany reurged his motion for this 

court to remand this matter to the trial court for it to consider his motion. 

“‘A defendant does not have the right to choose appointed counsel . . . .’” Whitney v. 

State, 396 S.W.3d 696, 700 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013, pet. ref’d) (quoting Maes v. State, 

275 S.W.3d 68, 71 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, no pet.)). The Bexar County Public 

Defender’s office has Appellant’s file and has indicated it will pursue the appeal. 

The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 2nd day of November, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

JERMAL BIZZEL, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 639 EAL 2014 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 1st day of December, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED.
David SCHELL, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, petitioners, v. OXY USA INC.

No. 16-244.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 31.2

I, R. Jerry Giles, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Community Financial Corporation (the "Registrant");

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

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

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

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 controlsand procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report;

c) disclosed in this report any changes in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control over financialreporting.

Date: February 12, 2004

/s/ R. Jerry Giles            R. Jerry GilesSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
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 CyberSource Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period
ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William S. McKiernan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes
of 18 U.S.C. Section 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                          |  |                                             
|----------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: February 27, 2009 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ William S. McKiernan
|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                          |  | William S. McKiernan Chief Executive
Officer

This certification 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 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in
such filing.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7071
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWARD ALFONZO ABBOTT, a/k/a Bibby, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-92-65, CA-95-468-6) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Alfonzo Abbott, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denyinghis motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistratejudge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Abbott , Nos. CR-92-65; CA-95- 468-6 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 2, 1992, and June 23, 1996). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. We deny the motions for bail and for appointment of counsel.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ONE UP
CORPORATION INTERIM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTERLY
PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          38,139
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  713,161
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,038,771
<PP&E>                                       1,387,112
<DEPRECIATION>                                 453,213
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,976,761
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,995,535
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,052,845
<OTHER-SE>                                   (101,571)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,976,761
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,024,049
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,061,633
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,625
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,029,484)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,045,633)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,983,851)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,983,851)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)
        

</TABLE>
Patrick DUBOSE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6424.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raynard Caraway, Appellant.

[885 NYS2d 216]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated May 8, 1995 *(People v Caraway,*215 AD2d 493 [1995]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 9, 1993.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz, 2*NY3d 277 [2004]). Florio, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Austin, JJ., concur.
### NU M BER 13- 08- 0056 5-C V 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E XAS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ IN THE INTEREST OF I. J. S. , A CHILD

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ On ap pe al f rom th e 9 4th D istrict Co urt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ch ief Ju sticeVa lde z an d Ju stice s Yañ ezan d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam Appel lan t, Jes si ca Schu lz , per fected an appeal from a jud g ment ent ered by the 94th Di str ict C our

t of Nue cesC ounty , Texas, i n c ause number 06- 1380- C. Ap pel lan t hasfil ed a not ic e of nons uitst ati ng thatsh e no lon g er des ires to prosec ute t hisappeal and that the par ti es hav e ent ered i nto a s e tt le m e nt ag re ement. ThisC our t i nter pretsthe noti ce of non suit as a request to dismiss the app eal. The Cou rt , h a ving co nsi dered th e doc umentson fil e and appel lan t’ s mot ion to dis mis s t he appe al, i s o f the opi nio n tha t t he moti on s houl d be g ra nted. SeeT EX . R. A PP .2

P. 42 .1(a). App ellant ’s m otion t o dism iss is grant ed, and the ap pea l is here by DISMISSE D. Hav ing di smi ss ed th e appea l at a p p e lla n t's req uest , no moti on for re hear ing w il l be enter tai ned, and our

mandate w il l is sue forthw it h. P E RC U R I A M Me moran dum Opi nio n del ivered and filed thi s t he 12t h day

of Febr uar

y , 200 9.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 31901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14851]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-399-002


National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Compliance Filing

June 7, 2001.
    Take notice that on June 4, 2001, National Fuel Gas Supply 
Corporation (National Fuel) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, revised pro forma tariff sheets, 
in compliance with Order Nos. 637 and 637-A.
    National Fuel states that the filing is made to revise pro forma 
tariff sheets filed in Docket No. RP00-399-000 on July 17, 2000, in 
compliance with Order No. 637, and to make other revisions to tariff 
sheets that were not included in the July 17, 2000 filing. National 
Fuel states that the revised pro forma tariff sheets are the results of 
a collaborative process involving a number of discussions among the 
parties to the proceeding.
    National Fuel states that copies of the filing were served upon its 
customers, interested state commissions and the parties on the official 
service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via 
the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-14851 Filed 6-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1766/2004

of 13 October 2004         

amending Regulation (EC) No 2199/2003 laying down transitional measures for the application in respect of the year 2004 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 as regards the single area payment scheme for the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia,

Having regard to the Act of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 41 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 2199/2003, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

‘1.   Payments shall be made once a year within the period from 16 October 2004 to 30 April 2005.’

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 16 October 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 13 October 2004.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 328, 17.12.2003, p. 21. Regulation amended by Regulation (EC) No 1111/2004 (OJ L 213, 15.6.2004, p. 3).

----
Exhibit 10.9


 


Terms of Loan made by Hin Kwok Sheung to
the Registrant on January 16, 2016


 


On January 16, 2016, Hin Kwok Sheung, the chief
executive officer, president and a director of Globalink, Ltd., made a loan to Globalink Xuzhou, the registrant’s wholly
owned subsidiary, in the amount of $232,530 (RMB1,500,000) which was used to pay expenses incurred in connection with the development
of the registrant’s ginkgo plantation in China. The loan is non-interest bearing, non-secured, and has no fixed terms of
repayment.