alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Bobby Carl Lennox aka Bobby Carl 

Leanox, Appellant

No. 06-19-00164-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 6th District Court of 

Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 28256). 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, 

Justice Burgess and Justice Stevens 

participating. Concurring Opinion by 

Justice Burgess.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find reversible error in the judgment of 

the court below. Therefore, we reform the judgment of the trial court to reflect that the appellant 

was convicted of three class B misdemeanor offenses under Section 32.21(e-1)(2) of the Texas 

Penal Code. Because the appellant received sentences outside the punishment range for class B 

misdemeanors, we reverse the sentences only and remand the cause to the trial court to conduct a 

new trial on punishment for the class B misdemeanors.

We further order that the appellee, the State of Texas, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 23, 2020

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
# C_2010011EN.01004201.xml

| 16.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/42

---

Action brought on 6 November 2009 — U v Parliament

(Case F-92/09)

2010/C 11/80

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: U (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Moyse and A. Salerno, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Parliament to dismiss the applicant and compensation for the non-material loss suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of 6 July 2009 whereby the appointing authority decided to dismiss the applicant with effect on 1 September 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of 6 July 2009 whereby the appointing authority decided to dismiss the applicant with effect on 1 September 2009;

| — | award compensation for the non-material loss suffered, quantified, subject to any amendment in the course of the proceedings, in the sum of EUR 15 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

award compensation for the non-material loss suffered, quantified, subject to any amendment in the course of the proceedings, in the sum of EUR 15 000;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

---
# C_2010080EN.01001702.xml

| 27.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/17

---

Action brought on 22 January 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-36/10)

2010/C 80/32

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures to correctly transpose the second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (1), as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 (2), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures to correctly transpose the second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (1), as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 (2), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

2

| — | order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the European Commission claims that the defendant did not correctly implement the provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Directive 96/82/EC in the Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Brussels-Capital Region). In order to prevent major accidents and to limit the consequences of such accidents, that provision creates the obligation that the Member States ensure that their land use takes account of the need, in the long term, to maintain appropriate distances between establishments covered by the directive and areas such as residential areas, buildings and areas of public use or leisure areas covered by Article 12 of that directive. However, it is apparent from an examination of the provisions implemented by the authorities of Brussels that those provisions concern only the procedures for granting planning permission or for division into plots, which inevitably takes place after the creation of a land-use policy. Thus, the regional measures are incomplete in so far as they do not cover the procedures for defining and implementing that policy.

---

(1)  OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13.

1

(2)  Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 97).

2

---
UMPQUA BANK


(Herein called "Bank")












SECOND NOTE REVISION AGREEMENT







	
ORIGINAL NOTE INFORMATION

	
AMOUNT


 

	
NOTE DATE

	
CURRENT MATURITY DATE


	
$20,000,000.00


 

	
June 5, 2017

	
June 1, 2018









               This Agreement is effective as of:  May 18, 2018.


ORIGINAL OBLIGATION:


This Agreement refers to the loan evidenced by the above Master Revolving Note dated June 5, 2017 in favor of Bank executed by OWENS REALTY MORTGAGE, INC., a Maryland corporation ("Borrower"), in the original principal amount of $20,000,000, payable in full on June 1, 2018.


CURRENT OBLIGATION:


The unpaid outstanding principal balance of said Note as of the beginning of the day on May 16, 2018 is $3,340,053.33.


REVISION:


The undersigned Borrower hereby requests Bank to revise the terms of said Note, in the following manner:  The Maturity Date of the Note is changed from "June 1, 2018" to "September 1, 2018".


In consideration of Bank's acceptance of the revision of said Note, all as set forth above, the Borrower does hereby acknowledge and admit to such indebtedness, and further does unconditionally agree to pay such indebtedness together with interest thereon within the time and in the manner as revised in accordance with the foregoing, together with any and all attorney's fees and cost of collection.


This Agreement is a revision only, and not a novation; and except as herein provided, all of the terms and conditions of said Note and all related documents shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.


This Modification may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument







	
 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


The foregoing is accepted.


 


UMPQUA BANK


 


 


By: /s/ Howard Cheung

 Name: Howard Cheung


Title: Vice President

  

	
OWENS REALTY MORTGAGE, INC.,

a Maryland corporation

  


By: /s/ Bryan H. Draper

         Bryan H. Draper, President and

     Chief Executive Officer
# C_2012049EN.01002102.xml

| 18.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/21

---

Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 22 November 2011 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-356/10) (1)

1

2012/C 49/36

Language of the case: English

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.

1

---
·C'· 

'1 

, . 

§i 

@' 

. --)?: 

@ • <=;:> . 

. ~ . ~ ,: rEJ· '\: 

: rJil 

~· .. §) . 

. t= . 

. . ~i 

. ·~ 

. ., 

.. ·. 
i • ~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

r 

·--· 

§l·.. -G 

I. 

. . . . 

:· ~· ~. :1 I. 

. ~·. '. ; .. . . 

~ 

j 

j 

\ 

. ..) 

'·"...) 

"" 

.) ' ,.,'J 

"'-.) 

c 

_.:;. 

., 

'-, 

c, .... ---::· 

\._.-, 

\ j 

f 

··~~ .;)\ 

) 

'~~ 

~ 

\' 

.o \ ··' 

\./ \ -.) 

<:..L ·-· 

c:....-L .) 

-~ 

"_~ -
II-00804

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Josiah Heyman <jheyman@elp.rr.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:13 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Josiah Heyman

1200 Galloway Dr.

E1 Paso, TX 79902
# C_2010328EN.01006002.xml

| 4.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/60

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — Lebedef and Jones v Commission

(Case F-29/09) (1)

1

(Civil Service - Officials - Remuneration - Article 64 of the Staff Regulations - First subparagraph of Article 3(5) and Article 9 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations - Weighting - Equal treatment)

2010/C 328/97

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Georgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) and Trevor Jones (Ernzen, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti and J.-Y. Vergnaud, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Zieleśkiewicz and M. Bauer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision refusing to bring the purchasing power of remunerations in Luxembourg to a level equivalent to that of the purchasing power of remunerations in Brussels and, in the alternative, application for annulment of the applicants’ remuneration statements issued with effect from 15 June 2008.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Lebedef and Mr Jones to pay all the costs, with the exception of those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Lebedef and Mr Jones to pay all the costs, with the exception of those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union, intervener, to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union, intervener, to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009, p. 21.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

(18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350)

 

In connection withthe Annual Report of Empyrean Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the"Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2006 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, William Melchiori,Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to Sect. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (18 U.S.C. Sect. 1350), that to my knowledge: 

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and 

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company. 

 

 

/s/ William Melchiori

William Melchiori

Chief Financial Officer

 

Dated: March 28, 2007
In Re Phillip A. BROWN, II, petitioner.

No. 16-1463.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
**Exhibit
32**
 
 **CERITIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 USC SECTION 1350**
 
 
   **CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE** **SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002**
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
OF CUSTODIAN
 
 In
connection with the Annual Report of GYK
Ventures, Inc. a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), on 10-KSB for the December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, J. Dan
Sifford , Sole
Officer Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to 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:
March 30, 2005  by
 
 
 
 /s/ J.
Dan Sifford
 J. Dan
Sifford
 Officer/Director
Exhibit 32.1
                                                                   ------------
                                 ALPHATRADE.COM
                              A Nevada corporation

                            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 AlphaTrade.com. (the "Company") on Form
10K-A for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gordon Muir, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 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 and belief:

            (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: October 25, 2010           /s/ Gordon J. Muir
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  Chief Executive Officer, President, Chairman,
                                  and Director



























                                Exhibit 32.1 - 1
#### Dan M. NEE, Collector of Internal Revenue, Appellant, v. ACME AUTO LIVERY COMPANY, a Corporation.

No. 13041.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Feb. 6, 1945.

Maurice M. Milligan, U. S. Atty., and Sam O. Hargus, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.

Lancie L. Watts, of Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from District Court docketed and dismissed without the taxation of costs in favor of either of the parties in this Court, on motion of appeilant.
Mazen ALOTAIBI, petitioner, v. NEVADA.

No. 17-1128.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada denied.
# C_2011355EN.01001702.xml

| 3.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2011 — Bayerische Asphaltmischwerke v OHIM — Koninklijke BAM Groep (bam)

(Case T-426/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark BAM - Earlier national figurative mark BAM - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - No similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 355/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bayerische Asphaltmischwerke GmbH & Co. KG für Straßenbaustoffe (Hofolding, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Koninklijke BAM Groep NV (Bunnik, Netherlands) (represented by: initially, J. van Manen, subsequently, J. van Manen and M. van de Braak, and lastly, J. van Manen and R. Sjoerdsma, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 August 2009 (Case R 1005/2008-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Bayerische Asphaltmischwerke GmbH & Co. KG für Straßenbaustoffe and Koninklijke BAM Groep NV

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bayerische Asphaltmischwerke GmbH & Co. KG für Straßenbaustoffe to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Koninklijke BAM Groep NV, including, as regards the latter, the costs necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bayerische Asphaltmischwerke GmbH & Co. KG für Straßenbaustoffe to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Koninklijke BAM Groep NV, including, as regards the latter, the costs necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.

1

---
COLORADO, petitioner, v. Bernardino FUENTES-ESPINOZA.

No. 17-1084.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Colorado denied.
Anthony RUCANO, petitioner, v. NEW YORK.

No. 17-7914.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Second Judicial Department denied.
Alvin Leon ROUNDTREE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9574.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# C_2009180EN.01006401.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/64

---

Action brought on 17 April 2009 — Knöll v Europol

(Case F-44/09)

2009/C 180/118

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Brigitte Knöll (Hochheim am Main, Germany) (represented by: P. de Casparis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer her a permanent post, and the decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the defendant informed the applicant that it could not offer her a permanent post and the decision of 7 January 2009 in response to a complaint, stating that the applicant’s objections to the decision of 12 June 2008 were unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the defendant informed the applicant that it could not offer her a permanent post and the decision of 7 January 2009 in response to a complaint, stating that the applicant’s objections to the decision of 12 June 2008 were unfounded;

| — | order Europol to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Europol to pay the costs.

---
Lynn M. JOHNSON, petitioner, v. BAE SYSTEMS, INC., et al.

No. 16M52.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record granted.
Karim DAVIS, aka Wise, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7441.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
James E. McWILLIAMS, petitioner, v. Jefferson S. DUNN, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 16-5294.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 13, 2017.

*809Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.
Titus K. DILLARD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6680.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Geoffrey Thomas GATTIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8044.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Vincent WILKERSON, petitioner, v. Jay LANE, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Fayette, et al.

No. 17-7437.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Andrew HALL, et al., petitioners, v. Jose FLORES, et al.

No. 17-1101.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.