alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed April 21, 2015. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 14
- 01072
- CR 

### TONY J. STEED , Appellant V. 

### THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F

- 1451467

- T

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Brown, and Stoddart Opinion by Justice Stoddart Tony J. Steed waived his right to a jury trial and entered an open pl ea of guilty to aggravated assault of a public servant with a deadly weapon. The trial court admonished appellant of his rights, received evidence, including appellant’s signed judicial confession and stipulation of evidence, found him guilty, and sentenc ed him to ten years in prison. The trial court certified appellant’s right to appeal. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. Ca lifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 811

– 12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. See Kelly v.
State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

– 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate court and– 2

– counsel in Anders cases). Appellant filed a pro se response raising several issues. After reviewing counsel’s brie f, appellant’s pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We find nothing in the record tha t might arguably support the appeal. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/ Craig Stoddart/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b) 141072F.U05– 3

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
TONY J. STEED, Appellant
No. 05

- 14

- 01072

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F

- 1451467

- T. Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart. Justices Francis and Brown participat ing. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered this 21st day of April, 2015.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 44 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 44

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF USE OF THE CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR DC SPECIAL 
              OLYMPICS LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN.

    On September 27, 2013, or on such other date as the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives and the

              

 Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate may jointly 
designate, the 28th Annual District of Columbia Special Olympics Law 
Enforcement Torch Run (in this resolution referred to as the ``event'') 
may be run through the Capitol Grounds to carry the Special Olympics 
torch to honor local Special Olympics athletes.

SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

    The Capitol Police Board shall take such actions as may be 
necessary to carry out the event.

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARATIONS.

    The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions for physical 
preparations for the event.

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

    The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 
restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of title 40, United States 
Code, concerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations on 
the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions applicable to the 
Capitol Grounds, in connection with the event.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 22, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 44

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the District of Columbia 
              Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run.
```
```

```

----

Updated November 7, 2014
Elvis Wayne JONES, Petitioner v. C. OVERSTREET, Commissioner, et al.

No. 19-7046

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

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

The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
[ARTICLE] 6
[CIK] 0000811706
[NAME] SMITH BARNEY ARIZONA MUNICIPAL INC. CLASS L
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   6-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          MAY-31-2000
[PERIOD-END]                               NOV-30-1999
[INVESTMENTS-AT-COST]                       63,135,952
[INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE]                      62,128,349
[RECEIVABLES]                                1,294,716
[ASSETS-OTHER]                                       0
[OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS]                                 0
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                              63,423,065
[PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES]                             0
[SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT]                              0
[OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES]                    3,407,646
[TOTAL-LIABILITIES]                          3,407,646
[SENIOR-EQUITY]                                      0
[PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON]                    61,520,295
[SHARES-COMMON-STOCK]                          125,212
[SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR]                          160,344
[ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT]                     (32,047)
[OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII]                               0
[ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS]                      (465,226)
[OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS]                             0
[ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC]                   (1,007,603)
[NET-ASSETS]                                60,015,419
[DIVIDEND-INCOME]                                    0
[INTEREST-INCOME]                            1,888,145
[OTHER-INCOME]                                       0
[EXPENSES-NET]                                 322,044
[NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME]                      1,566,101
[REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT]                     (465,208)
[APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT]                  (3,330,474)
[NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS]                      (2,229,581)
[EQUALIZATION]                                       0
[DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME]                       33,635
[DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS]                         2,184
[DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER]                                0
[NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD]                         33,306
[NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED]                     70,820
[SHARES-REINVESTED]                              2,382
[NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS]                     (6,981,489)
[ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR]                      (116,166)
[ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR]                      104,307
[OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR]                              0
[OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR]                           0
[GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES]                          163,280
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                                   0
[GROSS-EXPENSE]                                322,044
[AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS]                         1,582,415
[PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN]                            10.30
[PER-SHARE-NII]                                   0.22
[PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC]                         (0.58)
[PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND]                              0.21
[PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS]                         0.02
[RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL]                              0.00
[PER-SHARE-NAV-END]                               9.71
[EXPENSE-RATIO]                                   1.53
</TABLE>
Jeffrey A. CLOUSER, Petitioner, v. Kim DOHERTY, et al.

No. 19-1083.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 4, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Delaware denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.10

   AMENDMENT DATED AS OF NOVEMBER 4, 1999 TO THE CRESCENT REAL ESTATE EQUITIES
      COMPANY 1994 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN AND THE SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED
         1995 CRESCENT REAL ESTATE EQUITIES COMPANY STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

                  3.2 PAYMENT OF PURCHASE PRICE. The purchase price of any Plan
         Shares will be paid at the time of exercise of the Option either (i) in
         cash, (ii) by certified or cashier's check, (iii) by shares of Common
         Stock, if permitted by the Committee, (iv) as to Outside Directors, by
         cash or certified or cashier's check for the par value of the Plan
         Shares plus a recourse promissory note for the balance of the purchase
         price, such note to provide the right to repay the note partially or
         wholly with Common Stock and with an interest at a fixed annual rate
         based on the weighted average interest rate of the Company at the end
         of the preceding quarter plus 50 basis points, (v) as to Employees and
         Advisors, by cash or certified or cashier's check for the value of the
         Plan Shares plus a promissory note for the balance of the purchase
         price, which note will contain such terms and provisions as the
         Committee may approve, including without limitation the right to repay
         the note partially or wholly with Common Stock and to base the interest
         rate at a fixed annual rate based on the weighted average interest rate
         of the Company at the end of the preceding quarter plus 50 basis
         points, (vi) by delivery of a copy of irrevocable instructions from the
         Optionee to a broker or dealer, reasonably acceptable to the Company,
         to sell certain of the Plan Shares upon exercise of the Option or to
         pledge them as collateral for a loan and promptly deliver to the
         Company the amount of sale or loan proceeds necessary to pay such
         purchase price or (vii) as to Employees and Advisors, in any other form
         valid consideration, as permitted by the Committee in its discretion.
         If any portion of the purchase price or a note given at the time of
         exercise is paid in shares of Common Stock, those shares will be valued
         at the then Fair Market Value.
Independent Auditors Report


To the Shareholders and Board of Trustees of
the Smith Barney Income Funds:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of the Smith Barney Convertible Fund of the Smith Barney Income
Funds (Fund) for the year ended July 31, 2002, we considered its
internal control, including control activities for safeguarding
securities, in order to determine our auditing procedures for the
purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements and
to comply with the requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide
assurance on internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility,
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the
expected benefits and related costs of controls.  Generally,
controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the entity's
objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes
that are fairly presented in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Those controls include the safeguarding of assets against
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, error or
fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of any
evaluation of internal control to future periods is subject to
the risk that it may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation
may deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in internal control that might be material
weaknesses under standards established by the American Institute
of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness is a
condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the
internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low
level the risk that errors or fraud in amounts that would be
material in relation to the financial statements being audited
may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees
in the normal course of performing their assigned functions.
However, we noted no matters involving internal control and its
operation, including controls for safeguarding securities that we
consider to be material weaknesses as defined above as of July
31, 2002.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management and the Board of Trustees of the Fund and the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not intended to be and
should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.


                                                       KPMG LLP

New York, New York
September 12, 2002
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 01/07/14                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      539,488
COMMITMENTS
  95,423   22,985  144,887  279,318  359,734  519,628  527,606   19,860   11,882

CHANGES FROM 12/31/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     18,748)
  -5,261    4,035    7,528   15,334    5,886   17,601   17,449    1,147    1,299

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    17.7      4.3     26.9     51.8     66.7     96.3     97.8      3.7      2.2

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      135)
      32       32       56       66       56      128      116
```

----

Updated January 10, 2014
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Case No.

Defendant

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

 Eastern District of Texas

Headwater Partners II LLC

Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, et al

2:24cv007-JRG-RSP

Headwater Partners II LLC

07/17/2024 /s/ Andrea L. Fair

Andrea L. Fair; Texas Bar No. 24078488

1507 Bill Owens Parkway

Longview, Texas 75604

andrea@wsfirm.com

(903) 757-6400

(903) 757-2323

Case 2:24-cv-00007-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 07/17/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 447
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

PAUL A. SHINALL, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-175

§

DONALD MUNIZ, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Paul A. Shinall, a prisoner confined at the Wainwright Unit of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. 

On November 15, 2023, the magistrate judge recommended granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss

and dismissing the action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). To

date, the parties have not filed objections to the report.

The court received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings and all available

evidence. After careful review, the court finds that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of

the United States Magistrate Judge are correct. 

Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are

correct, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (#8) is

Case 9:23-cv-00175-MAC-ZJH Document 10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 10
ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (#7) is GRANTED. A final judgment will be entered

in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge’s recommendation. 

2

________________________________________

MARCIA A. CRONE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 5th day of January, 2024.

Case 9:23-cv-00175-MAC-ZJH Document 10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 11
Terry G. WATSON, Petitioner, v. Andrew M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security.

No. 19M30

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Motion for leave to proceed as a veteran denied.
```
 
 
WHEAT-HRSpring - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                          Code-001626
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 07/22/14                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       60,856
COMMITMENTS
  18,035    8,895    3,264   28,215   34,813   49,514   46,972   11,342   13,884

CHANGES FROM 07/15/14 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        957)
   1,092        9      923     -993      -50    1,022      882      -65       75

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    29.6     14.6      5.4     46.4     57.2     81.4     77.2     18.6     22.8

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       86)
      20       14       15       41       31       71       53
```

----

Updated July 25, 2014
Arturo DELACRUZ, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7695.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
**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 G & L Realty Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel M. Gottlieb, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies 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.
III 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 111 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 30, 2014 

Received 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make 

certain corrections in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 3230. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 3230, 

3 the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the 

4 following corrections: 

5 (1) In section 101(a)(1)(B)(i), insert before the 

6 period at the end the following: ‘‘, including any 

7 physician furnishing services under such program’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HCON 111 RDS 

1 (2) In section 101(d)(3)(A), insert after 

2 ‘‘1395cc(a))’’ the following: ‘‘and participation 

3 agreements under section 1842(h) of such Act (42 

4 U.S.C. 1395u(h))’’. 

5 (3) In section 101(d)(3)(B)(i), strike ‘‘provider 

6 of service’’ and insert ‘‘provider of services’’. 

7 (4) In section 101(d)(3)(B)(i), insert before the 

8 semicolon the following: ‘‘and any physician or other 

9 supplier who has entered into a participation agree10 ment under section 1842(h) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

11 1395u(h))’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Order filed July 3, 2012 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00248-CV

____________

EDWARD PAUL CELESTINE, Appellant

V.

COURTYARD OF THREE FOUNTAINS ASSOCIATION AND KRJ 

MANAGEMENT, INC., Appellees

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1006812

O R D E R

This appeal is from an order signed February 28, 2012. Appellant filed a notice of 

appeal on March 23, 2012. On May 3, 2012, the trial court denied the contest to 

appellant’s pauper’s affidavit and determined that appellant may proceed on appeal 

without payment of costs. 

Accordingly, appellant is deemed indigent and is entitled to proceed without 

payment of costs. This court’s order dated June 12, 2012 ordering appellant to pay the 

appellate filing fee is withdrawn. 
PER CURIAM
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Eastern District of Texas

9/22/2023

Case 4:23-cv-00844-SDJ Document 4 Filed 09/22/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 87
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 4:23-cv-00844-SDJ Document 4 Filed 09/22/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 88