alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order filed August 31, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-21-00315-CV

___________

SOLA ENERGY SOURCES, LLC, Appellant

V.

SILVERBOW RESOURCES OPERATING, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 127th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 321010127

O R D E R

No reporter’s record has been filed in this case. The official court reporter 

for the 127th District Court informed this court that appellant had not made 

arrangements for payment for the reporter’s record. On June 22, 2021, the clerk of 

this court notified appellant that we would consider and decide those issues that do 

not require a reporter’s record unless appellant, within 15 days of notice, provided 

this court with proof of payment for the record. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c). 

Appellant filed no reply. 
Accordingly, we order appellant to file a brief in this appeal within thirty 

days of the date of this order. If appellant fails to comply with this order, the court 

will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Spain, and Wilson.
STATE v. Jeffrey Neal DUKE.

No. 57A04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2005.

Benjamin Dowling-Sendor, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Duke.

William N. Farrell, Jr., Senior Deputy Attorney General, Michael K. Lands, District Attorney, Mikko Red Arrow, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th day of June 2005 by Attorney General for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Attorney General (State of NC) shall have up to and including the 23rd day of August 2005 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 30th day of June 2005."
STATE v. HURST.

No. COA05-1189.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed May 16, 2006.

Certification Date June 5, 2006.

Case without published opinion. No error.
STATE v. Julius McLEOD, Jr.

No. 600P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 2, 2006.

Kathleen U. Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, Belinda J. Foster, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th day of October 2005 by Defendant for "Notice of Appeal":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 2nd day of March 2006."
IN RE L.O.

No. COA05-1495.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 18, 2006.

Certification Date August 7, 2006.

Appeal from Wake (05J336).

Case without published opinion. Vacated and remanded.
CHAVIS v. TLC HOME HEALTH CARE.

No. 531A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 3, 2006.

Gregory M. Martin, J. Michael Riley, Raleigh, for Leigh Ann Chavis.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th day of October 2005 by Defendants to Dismiss Appeal:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of January 2006."
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We haveissued our reports dated March 5, 2008, accompanying the consolidated financial statementsand schedule included in the Annual Report of INX Inc. (formerly I-Sector Corporation) on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2007. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of saidreports in the Registration Statements of INX Inc. (formerly I-Sector Corporation) on Forms S-8(File No. 333-41001, effective November 25, 1997, and FileNo. 333-60320, effective May 7, 2002) and Forms S-3 (FileNo. 333-146632, effective January 22, 2008, and File No. 333-146710, effective February6, 2008)./s/ GRANT THORNTON LLPHouston, Texas
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 10-K
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          19,965
<SECURITIES>                                     7,041
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,093
<INVENTORY>                                     15,272
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,331
<PP&E>                                          46,136
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,509
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,627
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,197
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        67,225
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,494
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   100,413
<SALES>                                         58,494
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                58,494
<CGS>                                           34,967
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,967
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,972<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   150<F2>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   8
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,001)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (741)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,260)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (3,069)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        (989)<F3>
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,318)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53
<FN>
<F1>Research and Development
<F2>Provisions for Bad Debt
<F3>Cummulative Effect of Accounting Change
</FN>


</TABLE>
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-89,790-01 & WR-89,790-02

EX PARTE LUKE HAMPTON, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. 14-00033A-86-F & 14-00034A-86-F

IN THE 86 DISTRICT COURT FROM KAUFMAN COUNTY TH

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for writs of habeas corpus. Ex

parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child. He was and sentenced to fifty years’ and ten

years’ imprisonment respectively. The Fifth Court of Appeals modified and affirmed his

convictions. Hampton v. State, Nos. 05-15-00509-CR & 05-15-00510-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas June

13, 2016)(not designated for publication). 

Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel

failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed and failed to advise him of
2

his right to petition pro se for discretionary review. We remanded these applications to the trial court

for findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Appellate counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court and mail logs were obtained from the

prison where Applicant was housed. Based on those records, the trial court has entered findings of

fact and conclusions of law that appellate counsel failed to timely notify Applicant that his

conviction had been affirmed and failed to advise him of his right to petition for discretionary review

pro se. The trial court recommends that relief be granted. Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1997).

We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file out-of-time petitions

for discretionary review of the judgments of the Fifth Court of Appeals in Cause Nos. 05-15-00509-

CR & 05-15-00510-CR that affirmed his convictions in Cause Nos. 14-00033-86-F & 14-00034-86-

F from the 86 District Court of Kaufman County. Applicant shall file his petitions for discretionary

th

review with this Court within 30 days of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Delivered: October 23, 2019

Do not publish
STATE of North Carolina v. Joseph David HENDRICKS.

No. 91P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2006.

Kevin P. Bradley, Durham, for Joseph D. Hendricks.

J. Bruce McKinney, Assistant Attorney General, Valerie M. Asbell, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st day of February 2006 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of May 2006."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7105

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

CARL LAMONT DEAN, a/k/a Jermaine Dean, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

District Judge. (3:96-cr-00046-FDW-3) 

Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 21, 2009 

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Carl Lamont Dean, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Carl Lamont Dean appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). Dean asserts that the district court erred 

by failing to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 706 to the 

Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

(“USSG”) § 2D1.1(c) (2007 & Supp. 2008), USSG App C, Amend. 706. 

“Amendment 706 . . . amended § 2D1.1 of the Sentencing 

Guidelines by reducing the offense levels associated with 

[cocaine base] quantities by two levels.” United States v. 

Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 232 (4th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. 

filed, ___U.S.L.W. ___ (U.S. Aug. 7, 2009) (No. 09-5868). 

Because of the statutorily-mandated minimum sentence to which 

Dean was subject, his Guidelines’ imprisonment range was 240 to 

293 months. He was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment. On 

account of the statutory minimum, Amendment 706 did not have the 

effect of lowering Dean’s Guidelines range. See USSG § 1B1.10, 

p.s., cmt. n.1(A). Accordingly, a reduction in Dean’s sentence 

is not authorized under § 3582(c)(2). We therefore affirm the 

district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
STATE v. WINDLESS.

No. COA05-1225.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed June 6, 2006

Certification Date June 26, 2006

Appeal from Guilford (04CRS68329, 04CRS68330, 04CRS65873)

Case without published opinion. No error.
IN RE B.C.

No. COA05-856.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 18, 2006.

Certification Date May 8, 2006.

Appeal from the Mecklenburg, (04J886).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# L_2017018EN.01004801.xml

| 24.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 18/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 18/48

---

POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION (CFSP) 2017/113

of 10 January 2017

extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Advisory Mission for Civilian Security Sector Reform Ukraine (EUAM Ukraine) (EUAM UKRAINE/1/2017)

THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,

Having regard to the Council Decision 2014/486/CFSP of 22 July 2014 on the European Union Advisory Mission for Civilian Security Sector Reform Ukraine (EUAM Ukraine) (1), and in particular Article 7(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Decision 2014/486/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising the political control and strategic direction of the European Union Advisory Mission for Civilian Security Sector Reform Ukraine (EUAM Ukraine), including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Decision 2014/486/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising the political control and strategic direction of the European Union Advisory Mission for Civilian Security Sector Reform Ukraine (EUAM Ukraine), including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.

| (2) | On 7 January 2016 the PSC adopted Decision EUAM UKRAINE/1/2016 (2), appointing Kęstutis LANČINSKAS as Head of Mission of EUAM Ukraine from 1 February 2016 to 31 January 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 7 January 2016 the PSC adopted Decision EUAM UKRAINE/1/2016 (2), appointing Kęstutis LANČINSKAS as Head of Mission of EUAM Ukraine from 1 February 2016 to 31 January 2017.

| (3) | The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed to extend the mandate of Kęstutis LANČINSKAS as Head of Mission of EUAM Ukraine from 1 February 2017 to 30 November 2017, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed to extend the mandate of Kęstutis LANČINSKAS as Head of Mission of EUAM Ukraine from 1 February 2017 to 30 November 2017,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The mandate of Kęstutis LANČINSKAS as Head of Mission of EUAM Ukraine is hereby extended until 30 November 2017.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 10 January 2017.

For the Political and Security Committee

The Chairperson

W. STEVENS

---

(1)  
  OJ L 217, 23.7.2014, p. 42.

1

(2)  Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2016/49 of 7 January 2016 on the appointment of the Head of Mission of the European Union Advisory Mission for Civilian Security Sector Reform Ukraine (EUAM Ukraine) (EUAM UKRAINE/1/2016) (OJ L 12, 19.1.2016, p. 47).

2

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Stratum Holdings, Inc. (the “smallbusiness issuer”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, D. Hughes Watler, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the small business issuer,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of thisSarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the small business issuer.

 

 
|   | /s/D. Hughes Watler, Jr.                         |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |     D.  Hughes Watler, Jr.   |
|   |     Chief  Financial Officer |
|   |     November  12, 2007       |

 

----
Exhibit
99.1





REPORT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM ON SCHEDULE





Board of
Directors and Stockholders INX Inc.





We have
audited in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (United States) the consolidated financial statements of INX
Inc. and subsidiaries referred to in our report dated March 4, 2009 (except for
Note 16, as to which the date is September 2, 2009), which is included in the
Company’s 2008 Form 10-K/A. Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming
an opinion on the basic financial statements taken as a whole. Schedule II for
the years ended December 31, 2006, 2007 and 2008 is presented for purposes of
additional analysis and is not a required part of the basic financial
statements. This schedule has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied
in the audit of the basic financial statements, and in our opinion, is fairly
stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements
taken as a whole.





/s/ GRANT
THORNTON LLP





Houston,
Texas


March 4,
2009








86
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 30, 2015

a0622 

# Order

Clerk June 30, 2015

150317

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150317

COA: 313539

Macomb CC: 2011

- 003034

- FH

CHARLES JOSEPH PRIKOPA II,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 22, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Marketing WorldWide, Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
Marvin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my
knowledge 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.

/S/ JAMES MARVIN
-----------------------
James Marvin
Chief Financial Officer
Date: October 25, 2005
#### In the Matter of Lorna D., Respondent, v Colin Anderson A., Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 847]

In a paternity proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Chun, J.), dated July 6, 2004, which, inter alia, denied the motion of Colin Anderson A. to vacate an order of filiation entered by the same court (Milsap, H.E.), dated January 11, 2002, adjudging him to be the father of the subject child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly denied the appellant’s motion to vacate the order of filiation as nothing in the record indicates that the appellant’s admission to paternity of the subject child was anything other than knowing and voluntary *(see Matter of Maldonado v Reyes,*2 AD3d 526 [2003]; *Matter of Sidoti v Velez,*278 AD2d 498 [2000]; *Matter of McLeod v Emanuel,*268 AD2d 434 [2000]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Fisher, JJ., concur.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 10, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-1545 Lower Tribunal No. 19-35962

________________ 

### Dr. James Eric McDonough ,

Appellant,
vs. 

### City of Homestead, et al. ,

Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Pedro P. Echarte, Jr., Judge. Dr. James Eric McDonough, in proper person. Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman, P.L., and Edward G. Guedes and Samuel I. Zeskind (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee City of Homestead. Before LOGUE, HENDON and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See Fla. Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP, 221 So. 3d 1260, 1263 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (“The proper standard utilized in reviewing a trial court’s decision on a petition for writ of mandamus is abuse of discretion.”); Florida Holding 4800, LLC v. Lauderhill Lending, LLC, 275 So. 3d 183, 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (“[A] party cannot successfully complain about an error for which he or she is responsible or of rulings that he or she has invited the trial court to make.” (quoting Millsaps v. Kaltenbach, 152 So. 3d 803, 805 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014))); Vidal v. Liquidation Props., Inc., 104 So. 3d 1274, 1276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (finding that if an “issue was waived, it cannot be grounds for reversal on appeal”).
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-50857

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JULIO LEMOS-ZAMORA, also known as Carlos Aldana-Soriano,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:11-CR-494-1

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Julio Lemos-Zamora appeals the 46-month within-guidelines sentence

imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1326. Lemos-Zamora argues that his sentence is unreasonable as

measured by the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He also argues that his withinguidelines sentence is not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness because

the illegal reentry Guidelines are not empirically based. As acknowledged by

Lemos-Zamora, that argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte, 569

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 15, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-50857 Document: 00511855684 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/15/2012
No. 11-50857

F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d

357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Because Lemos-Zamora’s arguments fail under either a plain error or an

abuse of discretion standard of review, we need not decide whether, despite his

arguments in the district court in support of a downward variance, LemosZamora’s failure to object to the reasonableness of his sentence results in plain

error review.

The record reflects that the district court considered Lemos-Zamora’s

mitigation arguments, weighed the § 3553(a) factors, and provided a reasoned

basis for its decision. Lemos-Zamora’s disagreement with the district court’s

balancing of the § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to establish error on the district

court’s part. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir.

2008). Lemos-Zamora has failed to establish that his sentence, which is entitled

to a presumption of reasonableness, was the result of error, much less plain

error. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); Mondragon-Santiago,

564 F.3d at 366-67. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 11-50857 Document: 00511855684 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/15/2012