alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 11, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-18-00547-CR

RICKY HAYWOOD-WATSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 339th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1494189

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant appeals his conviction for continuous sexual abuse of a child. 

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is 

wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirement of Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), presenting a professional 

evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to 

be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
2

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised 

of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford 

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). At appellant’s request, the 

record was provided to him. On October 14, 2019, appellant filed a pro se response 

to counsel’s brief. Appellant also filed a reply to the State’s brief on December 16, 

2019. 

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, appellant’s response

and reply, and the State’s brief, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and 

without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of 

the brief or pro se response would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. We 

are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se 

response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See 

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Spain.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Shawndell EVERSON, petitioner, v. NEW YORK; and Shawndell Everson, petitioner, v. New York.

No. 18-7174.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Judicial Department denied.
Robert AGUILAR, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9315.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 13

To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to

implement reforms to the Liaison and Familiarization Training Program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 6, 1999

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to implement reforms to the Liaison and Familiarization Training Program.

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

3 SECTION 1. REFORM OF FAA LIAISON AND FAMILIARIZA4 TION TRAINING PROGRAM.

5 (a) TRAVEL PROHIBITIONS.—The Administrator of

6 the Federal Aviation Administration shall implement re7 forms to the Liaison and Familiarization Training Pro8 gram in order to prohibit travel by employees of the Fed9 eral Aviation Administration under the program that—

10 (1) involves travel on leave days or days off;
2

HR 13 IH

1 (2) involves scheduled leave days off between an

2 outgoing flight and a return flight unless the Admin3 istrator (or the Administrator’s designee) determines

4 in writing that the leave is for a legitimate training

5 purpose and will not create an appearance of impro6 priety; or

7 (3) involves foreign overseas travel for any em8 ployee in a facility that does not regulate oceanic

9 airspace.

10 (b) APPROVAL OF FLIGHTS.—In addition to the re11 forms required under subsection (a), the Administrator

12 shall implement appropriate controls under the Liaison

13 and Familiarization Training program to ensure that each

14 flight under the program is approved prior to the flight

15 by supervisory personnel and that such approval is grant16 ed only if the supervisor determines that the flight meets

17 the training needs of the Federal Aviation Administration.

18 (c) REPORT.—Not later than 30 days after the date

19 of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall

20 transmit to Congress a report on reforms implemented by

21 the Administrator under this section.

Æ
Richard FUENTES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7910.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Order filed August 21, 2014. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-01048-CR

____________

EX PARTE ALEX PEREZ

On Appeal from the 177th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 773315-A

C O R R E C T E D O R D E R

The clerk’s record in this appeal was filed November 25, 2013. Our review 

has determined that a relevant item has been omitted from the clerk's record. See

Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). The record does not contain a signed, written order 

denying appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus.

A signed, written order is required for this court to obtain jurisdiction. See 

State v. Cox, 235 S.W.3d 283, 285 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, no pet.). Docket 

entries may not take the place of a separate order and a judge’s oral 

pronouncement is not appealable until a written order is signed. Ex parte Wiley, 

949 S.W.2d 3, 4 (Tex. App.—Forth Worth 1996, no pet.) (citing State v. Kibler, 
874 S.W.2d 330, 332 (Tex. App.—Forth Worth 1994, no pet.)). The appeal is 

subject to dismissal unless the record is supplemented with a signed, written order.

The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s 

record on or before August 26, 2014, containing an order signed on or about 

October 31, 2013, denying appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus.

If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is 

directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement 

that the omitted item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM
Emmanuel ADEYINKA, petitioner, v. HARRIS COUNTY JAIL, et al.

No. 18-7620.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
#### Calvin O. Black, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. First National Bank of Brooksville, Florida, J. C. Emerson and Charles Monroe Price, *Defendants in Error.*

En Banc.

Opinion filed January 16, 1929.

Petition for rehearing denied February 20, 1929.

*Hampton & Green,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Marby, Reaves & Carlton*and *Whitehurst & Whitehurst,*for Defendants in Error.

Per Curiam.

On January 26th, 1926, plaintiff in error borrowed from defendant in error $5,000.00, evidencing said borrow with his promissory note due in six months thereafter. To secure this note plaintiff in error placed with defendant in error a certain note drawn by B. H. Robinson, attorney in fact, in favor of J. C. Emerson for the sum of $23,000.00, said last named note being the property of plaintiff in error. On August 20, 1926, defendant in error mailed by registered letter to plaintiff in error notice that on the first day of September, 1926, at 12:00 o’clock noon, in its banking room at Brooksville, Florida, as authorized *21by Section 4845, Revised General Statutes of Florida, it would proceed to sell the collateral note for $23,000.00 to recover the face of the $5,000.00 note of plaintiff in error. The $23,000.00 note was sold as per terms of the notice of sale to J. C. Emerson for the sum of $5,000.00 and interest.

On September 21st, 1926, plaintiff in error brought this action for conversion of the $23,000.00 note _ naming defendant in error, the First National Bank of Brooksville, J. C. Emerson and Charles Monroe Price as defendants and laying his damages at $40,000.00. Trial was had resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in error in the sum of $50.00. Writ of error was taken to that judgment.

It is contended here that the sale of the note was illegal because, (1) The notice of sale was not given as required by Section 4845, Revised General Statutes of Florida, and (2) The sale to Emerson, a co-maker of the note at a sum much less than its face value under the circumstances shown and prior to maturity amounted to a conversion of the note.

The judgment for the plaintiff in error, plaintiff below established the liability of the defendant. No writ or error or cross writ of error was taken by the defendant. Plaintiff grounds his writ of error on the contention that the note on its face is worth $23,000.00 and that in view of this fact the damages awarded is without support in the record. As against the *prima facie*showing of the value of the note we conclude that the testimony falls far short of proving that the value of the $23,000.00 note was only $50.00 more than the $5,000.00 note it was pledged to secure.

Reversed.

Terrell, C. J. and Whitfield, Ellis, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.

Strum, J., dissents.

*22Strum, J.

(dissenting) :

• While I did not participate in the original disposition of this cause by order of affirmance, I am now of the opinion that such disposition was a proper one under the pleadings and evidence. I therefore dissent from the order of reversal.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
    
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         218,372
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,694,409
<ALLOWANCES>                                    44,000
<INVENTORY>                                  8,791,725
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,822,994
<PP&E>                                       2,642,212
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,201,850
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,790,533
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,200,612
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        23,648
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,403,594
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,790,533
<SALES>                                     21,527,857
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,527,857
<CGS>                                       13,517,603
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,517,603
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,283,642
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             787,517
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,055,124)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (236,558)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (818,566)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (818,566)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)
        

</TABLE>
Order entered May 30, 2012

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00575-CV

BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU OF METROPOLITAN DALLAS, INC., Appellant

V.

LLOYD WARD, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-11-03357-C

ORDER

The Court has before it appellee Lloyd Ward’s May 29, 2013 unopposed “Motion to 

Enlarge Time to File Motion for Rehearing.” The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS

that any motion for rehearing shall be filed by appellee on or before June 14, 2013.

/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE 

JUSTICE
```

```

----

Updated February 4, 2011
---

Exhibit 99.10

CONSENT OF EXPERT

I, Harold Bent, hereby consent to (i) the filing of the written
disclosure regarding the technical report entitled NI 43-101 Technical Report
for the Kemess Underground Project, British Columbia, Canada" dated April 1,
2013 (the Report) and the technical information in the Report related to the
project economics and mineral reserves in the Annual Information Form (the
AIF) for the year ended December 31, 2013 of AuRico Gold Inc. (the Company)
and (ii) the use of my name in the AIF and the Annual Report on Form 40-F of the
Company for the year ended December 31, 2013, filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission, and any amendments thereto, incorporating by
reference the Companys AIF and the incorporation by reference into the Form F-3
(File No. 333-189227) of the Company and any Registration Statement on Form S-8
of the Company filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission,
of the Companys AIF and Annual Report on Form 40-F.

|Dated March 3, 2014 | By: /s/ Harold
      Bent
|------------------- | -------------------------
|                    | Harold Bent              

---
Garceia COLEMAN, petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN, DISTRICT I.

No. 18-8437.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied.
Abel Heriberto FABIAN-BALTAZAR, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9044.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 4, 2019.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of *Garza v. Idaho,* 586 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 738, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2019).
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 Quarterly Report of NB&T Financial Group, Inc. (the Company), on Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2007, dated the date of this Certification (the Report), I, John J. Limbert, the President and the 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:

1. The Report 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.



|                       |  |  |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 8, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ John J. Limbert                  
|                       |  |  |  | John J. Limbert                      
|                       |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
Redmond HOWARD, petitioner, v. Daryl McCREADY, et al.

No. 18-7368.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 12.1

IPC HOLDINGS, LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED
SHARE DIVIDENDS

Our consolidated ratios of earnings to fixed charges for each of the five fiscal years ended December 31, 2007
and the nine months ended September 30, 2008, are as follows:



|                                                                          |  |                                     |        |                         |      |         |      |   |         |      |   |          |   |  |   |         |  |   |        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------- | ------ | ----------------------- | ---- | ------- | ---- | - | ------- | ---- | - | -------- | - |  | - | ------- |  | - | -------
|                                                                          |  | Nine months endedSeptember 30, 2008 |        | Year ended December 31,
|                                                                          |  |                                     | 2007   |                         | 2006 |         | 2005 |   |         | 2004 |   | 2003    
|                                                                          |  | ($ in thousands)                   
|Net income (loss)                                                         |  | $                                   | 46,740 |                         | $    | 385,412 |      | $ | 394,585 |      | $ | (623,399 | ) |  | $ | 138,613 |  | $ | 260,629
|Preferred share dividends                                                 |  |                                     | 12,846 |                         |      | 17,128  |      |   | 17,176  |      |   | 2,644    |   |  |   |        |  |   |       
|Fixed charges                                                             |  |                                     |       |                         |      |        |      |   |        |      |   |         |   |  |   |        |  |   |       
|Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred share dividends |  |                                     | 3.6: 1 |                         |      | 22.5: 1 |      |   | 23.0: 1 |      |   | (1       | ) |  |   |        |  |   |       



|(1) | Earnings for the year ended December 31, 2005 were insufficient to cover combined fixed charges and preferred share
dividends by $626.0 million.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

## **CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**(AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of First Financial Service Corporation(the “Corporation”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,that:

 

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

 

2.                                       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Corporation;

 

 
| Date: November 10, 2008 | By:    | /s/ B. Keith Johnson                |
|------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|
|                         |   | B. Keith Johnson                    |
|                         |   | Chief Executive Officer             |
|                         |   |                                |
| Date: November 10, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Steven M. Zagar                 |
|                         |   | Steven M. Zagar                     |
|                         |   | Chief Financial  Officer & |
|                         |   | Principal Accounting  Officer       |

 

1

----
Stacy Michael MEAUX, petitioner, v. LOUISIANA.

No. 17-9191.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
```
  
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 06/15/10          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      186,763
COMMITMENTS
  42,042   37,826   37,647   85,694   77,359  165,383  152,833   21,380   33,930

CHANGES FROM 06/08/10 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      1,244)
   1,324    2,611   -1,287    4,527    2,367    4,564    3,691   -3,320   -2,447

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    22.5     20.3     20.2     45.9     41.4     88.6     81.8     11.4     18.2

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      191)
      47       46       63       61       68      149      153
```

----

Updated June 18, 2010
EXHIBIT 32

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Golden Key International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending May 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Norm
Blair, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
23rd day of July, 2007.


/s/ Norm Blair
-------------------------
Chief Executive Officer &
Chief Financial Officer
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1377

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service at 13234 South

Baltimore Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, as the ‘‘John J. Buchanan Post

Office Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 13, 1999

Mr. WELLER (for himself, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. HASTERT, Mr.

CRANE, Mr. HYDE, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. PORTER, Mr. EWING, Mr.

SHIMKUS, Mr. EVANS, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. BLAGOJEVICH, Mrs.

BIGGERT, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. RUSH, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. LAHOOD, and Mr. PHELPS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

at 13234 South Baltimore Avenue in Chicago, Illinois,

as the ‘‘John J. Buchanan Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo5 cated at 13234 South Baltimore Avenue in Chicago, Illi6 nois, is hereby designated as the ‘‘John J. Buchanan Post

7 Office Building’’. Any reference to such facility in a law,
2

•HR 1377 IH

1 regulation, map, document, paper, or other record of the

2 United States shall be considered to be a reference to the

3 ‘‘John J. Buchanan Post Office Building’’.

Æ