alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-05-0393-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

DECEMBER 21, 2006

______________________________

BARBARA STONE, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 140TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2004-407187; HONORABLE JIM BOB DARNELL, JUDGE

_______________________________

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

CONCURRING OPINION

I concur that the Court’s opinion properly applies the Court of Criminal Appeals case

law that binds us, and so join in the Court’s opinion, but I write to express my concern over

the adequacy of the Brick factors in cases like this one. Brick involved a consensual

search of a residence that followed an assertedly unlawful arrest made at another location.

Brick v. State, 738 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987). The attenuation issue in Brown

v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975), concerned an incriminating
1

 Grimaldo v. State, No. 07-04-0246-CR, 2006 WL 563027 (Tex.App.–Amarillo

March 8, 2006, no pet.)

2

 In its supplemental brief, the State argues Reasor v. State, 12 S.W.3d 813

(Tex.Crim.App. 2000), provides a standard for analysis of the attenuation issue, noting that

it dealt with a consensual search following an unlawful protective sweep of the same

premises. Despite its “taint” language, it is not clear that the opinion in Reasor was

intended to address an attenuation issue, since it gives the issue the same “short shrift”

the court criticized in Brick. See Reasor, 12 S.W.3d at 819 (“[a]ny taint from the illegal

sweep was sufficiently attenuated when appellant voluntarily consented to the search of

his residence”); Brick, 738 S.W.2d at 678 (quoting similar language from court of appeals

opinion). 

2

statement given at the police station after an unlawful arrest. Here, like in Grimaldo,

1

 the

relationship between the evidence the State introduced at trial and the unlawful police

conduct is much more direct.2 Here, police received consent to search the same

apartment that, we have concluded, they had just forcibly and unlawfully entered. The

physical evidence the police found is the same evidence whose destruction they said they

sought to prevent by their sudden entry into the apartment. It seems to me that the Brick

factors are inadequate to evaluate fully whether denying the State the use of the evidence

obtained under such circumstances fits the purposes of the exclusionary rule. See, e.g.,

Brown, 422 U.S. at 609 (Powell, J., concurring) (“The point at which the taint can be said

to have dissipated should be related, in the absence of other controlling circumstances, to

the nature of that taint.”). 

James T. Campbell

 Justice

Publish.
<PAGE>

                          EXHIBIT 23.01
                                
<PAGE>
                                
              [Letterhead of DeLoitte & Touche LLP]
                                
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We  consent  to  the incorporation by reference  in  Registration
Statement  Nos.  33-84726, 33-84728, and  333-25981  of  Paul-Son
Gaming  Corporation on Forms S-8 of our report  dated  August  8,
1997,  appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K  of  Paul-Son
Gaming Corporation for the year ended May 31, 1997.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

DELOITTE AND TOUCHE LLP
Las Vegas, Nevada
August 28, 1997
```
 
 
MSCI EAFE MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                                    Code-244041
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 07/16/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:       79,108
COMMITMENTS
  27,769    2,377    2,063   42,680   71,601   72,512   76,041    6,596    3,067

CHANGES FROM 07/09/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      1,275)
   1,622   -2,064      -30   -1,320    3,124      272    1,030    1,003      245

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    35.1      3.0      2.6     54.0     90.5     91.7     96.1      8.3      3.9

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       79)
      15        5        1       35       38       50       44
 
 
MSCI EMERGING MKTS MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                           Code-244042
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 07/16/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:      224,587
COMMITMENTS
  64,324   44,946    1,509  146,394  171,433  212,227  217,888   12,360    6,699

CHANGES FROM 07/09/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -18,264)
   2,705     -176      143  -21,543  -17,742  -18,695  -17,775      431     -489

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    28.6     20.0      0.7     65.2     76.3     94.5     97.0      5.5      3.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      161)
      36       28       12       63       63      105       97
```

----

Updated July 19, 2013
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

BRANDON JAMES ANGELCROWELL, #02157883, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

SGT. UNKNOWN PAYNE, et al., 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-47-JDK-KNM 

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Brandon James Angel-Crowell, a Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell 

for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition. 

On February 21, 2023, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that the 

Court dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s claim against the TDCJ Michael Unit for 

failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§ 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2). Docket 

No. 13. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff, who received it on February 28, 

2023, but has not filed objections. Docket No. 23. 

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de 

novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and 

Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court 

examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. 

Case 6:23-cv-00047-JDK-KNM Document 24 Filed 03/23/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 59
2 

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), 

superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to 

file objections from ten to fourteen days). 

Here, Plaintiff did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore 

reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and 

reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See 

United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 

918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the 

standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). 

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, 

the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to 

law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 13) as the findings of this Court. It is 

therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claim against the Michael Unit is DISMISSED

with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e) for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23rd March, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00047-JDK-KNM Document 24 Filed 03/23/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 60
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 04/09/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      544,632
COMMITMENTS
 100,787   37,320  126,372  296,240  363,599  523,399  527,291   21,233   17,341

CHANGES FROM 04/02/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      8,984)
   3,392    2,259   -9,152   13,235   15,820    7,475    8,927    1,509       57

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    18.5      6.9     23.2     54.4     66.8     96.1     96.8      3.9      3.2

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      155)
      43       41       64       64       64      138      140
```

----

Updated April 17, 2013
Donald J. TRUMP, President of the United States, et al., petitioners, v. JANE DOE 2, et al.

No. 18-677.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 22, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari before judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

Theundersigned hereby certifies that this report complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that theinformation contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  May 2, 2003 | By:                                    | /s/ Roger E.  Gower |
|--------------------------|----------------------------------------|---------------------|
|                     | Roger E.  Gower                        |
|                     | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer - Sarbanes-Oxley
Section 906








Pursuant
to18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned officer of Triad Guaranty Inc. (the “Company”), hereby
certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.








May
      11, 2010
            
            /s/
      Kenneth W. JonesKenneth
      W. Jones
              President
      and Chief Executive Officer
              (Principal
      Executive Officer and Principal Financial
  Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

BENJAMIN F. WHITEMAN,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§

§ No. 132, 2021

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID Nos. 30901716DI

§ 30604628DI (N)

§

§

 Submitted: July 1, 2021

 Decided: July 13, 2021

ORDER

Following the denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on June 10, 

2021, the appellant was directed to pay the Court’s filing fee by June 30, 2021, or 

else his appeal would be dismissed without further notice. The appellant has not 

paid the filing fee. The dismissal of this appeal is therefore deemed to be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2)

and 29(b), that this petition is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves

Justice
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 568 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 568

   Designating the week beginning September 16, 2012, as ``National 
                 Hispanic-Serving Institutions Week''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 19, 2012

   Mr. Menendez (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Reid, Mr. Begich, Mrs. 
Murray, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mrs. Hutchison, 
 Mr. Heller, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Schumer, 
 Mr. Bennet, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
  Rubio, Mr. Coons, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mrs. Feinstein) submitted the 
        following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Designating the week beginning September 16, 2012, as ``National 
                 Hispanic-Serving Institutions Week''.

Whereas Hispanic-serving institutions play an important role in educating many 
        underprivileged students and helping those students attain their full 
        potential through higher education;
Whereas Hispanic-serving institutions are degree-granting institutions that have 
        a full-time equivalent undergraduate enrollment of at least 25 percent 
        Hispanic students;
Whereas there are more than 300 Hispanic-serving institutions in operation in 
        the United States;
Whereas Hispanic-serving institutions serve more than half (54 percent) of all 
        Hispanic students, enrolling more than 1,300,000 students in 2010;
Whereas Hispanic-serving institutions are actively involved in stabilizing and 
        improving the communities in which the Hispanic-serving institutions are 
        located;
Whereas celebrating the vast contributions of Hispanic-serving institutions to 
        the United States strengthens the culture of the United States; and
Whereas the achievements and goals of Hispanic-serving institutions are 
        deserving of national recognition: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) recognizes the achievements and goals of Hispanic-
        serving institutions across the United States;
            (2) designates the week beginning September 16, 2012, as 
        ``National Hispanic-Serving Institutions Week''; and
            (3) calls on the people of the United States and interested 
        groups to observe the week with appropriate ceremonies, 
        activities, and programs to demonstrate support for Hispanic-
        serving institutions.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

JOHNATHAN ROY RIDGE, #87414, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Case No. 6:23-cv-306-JDK-JDL

§

GREGG COUNTY SHERRIFF OFFICE, §

et al. §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Johnathan Roy Ridge, an inmate of the Gregg County Jail proceeding 

pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the 

case. 

On September 29, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending 

that the case be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and 

1915(e)(2)(B) due to Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. 

Docket No. 13. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff, who has not filed written 

objections. 

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de 

novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of the Report and Recommendation. 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire 

1

Case 6:23-cv-00306-JDK-JDL Document 15 Filed 11/01/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 75
record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United 

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other 

grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from 

ten to fourteen days). 

Here, Plaintiff did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore 

reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and 

reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See

United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 

918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the 

standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”). 

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, 

the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to 

law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 13) as the findings of this Court. This 

case is DISMISSED with prejudice. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. 

2

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1st November, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00306-JDK-JDL Document 15 Filed 11/01/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 76
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                     133,289,933
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           133,746,381
<PP&E>                                      17,823,872
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,253,601)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             150,316,652
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,387,295
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           12,138
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       988,313
<OTHER-SE>                                 140,928,906
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               150,316,652
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,943,493
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,748,292
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,035,316
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (9,840,115)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,840,915)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,840,915)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, '

'

Plaintiff, '

'

versus ' NO. 9:23-CR-31

'

GEORGE JESUS VIVIAN (2), '

'

Defendant. '

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION

ON DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA

The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States 

Magistrate Judge, for administration of a guilty plea under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure. Judge Hawthorn conducted a hearing in the form and manner prescribed 

by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and issued his Findings of Fact and 

Recommendation on Guilty Plea Before the United States Magistrate Judge. The magistrate 

judge recommended that the court accept the Defendant’s guilty plea. He further 

recommended that the court adjudge the Defendant guilty on Counts Five and Eight of the 

Indictment filed against the Defendant.

The parties have not objected to the magistrate judge’s findings. The court ORDERS 

that the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea of the United States Magistrate 

Judge are ADOPTED. The court accepts the Defendant’s plea but defers acceptance of the 

plea agreement until after review of the presentence report. 

It is further ORDERED that, in accordance with the Defendant’s guilty plea and the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation, the Defendant, George Jesus Vivian (2), is 

adjudged guilty as to Counts Five and Eight of the Indictment charging violations of 21 U.S.C. 

Case 9:23-cr-00031-MAC-ZJH Document 46 Filed 04/08/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 169
2

§ 841(a)(1) (Possession with the Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance) and 18 U.S.C. § 

922(g)(1) (Possession of a Firearm by a Prohibited Person).

Case 9:23-cr-00031-MAC-ZJH Document 46 Filed 04/08/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 170
Quintin Antonio BELL, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-39

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                     LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   Jurisdiction
                                                                        of
Name                                                               Incorporation
----                                                               -------------
<S>                                                                <C>
F&H Pipeline Company..............................................   Delaware
Grant Gathering Company...........................................   Delaware
Vastar Holdings, Inc..............................................   Delaware
  Vastar Gas Marketing, Inc. ("VGM")..............................   Delaware
  Vastar Power Marketing, Inc. ("VPM")............................   Delaware
    Vastar Energy, Inc. (VGM 99%; VPM 1%).........................   Delaware
Vastar Offshore, Inc. ("VOI").....................................   Delaware
  Vastar Pipeline, LLC (VOI 100%).................................   Delaware
Wilburton Hub, Inc................................................   Delaware
</TABLE>
allegations." O'Guinn v. State, 118 Nev. 849, 851-52, 59 P.3d 488, 489-90 

(2002) (footnotes omitted). As Burchett has not alleged that either of 

these exceptions apply, we decline to consider this contention on direct 

appeal. 

Having concluded that Burchett is not entitled to relief, we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

Douglas 

cc: Hon. Leon Aberasturi, District Judge 

Paul G. Yohey 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Lyon County District Attorney 

District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
Shondell J. PAUL, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK.

No. 19-6955

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Judicial Department denied.