alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-86,450-01

EX PARTE CLEVELAND RANDY ROBINSON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 15-03869-CRF-272-A IN THE 272ND DISTRICT COURT

FROM BRAZOS COUNTY

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 this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleaded guilty to failure to comply

with sex offender registration, and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal

his conviction. 

Applicant contends that his plea was involuntary because the offense to which he pleaded

guilty was a state jail felony, and his three-yearsentence is therefore unauthorized. The State agrees

that Applicant is entitled to relief, and the trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of
2

law, recommending that relief be granted.

Relief is granted. The judgment in Cause No. 15-03869-CRF-272 in the 272nd District

Court of Brazos County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of

Brazos County to answer the charges as set out in the indictment. The trial court shall issue any

necessary bench warrant within 10 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Copies ofthis opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: March 8, 2017

Do not publish
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General *

Peter D. Keisler is substituted for former Attorney General Alberto

R. Gonzales as respondent.

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 05-2248

EFRÁIN PALMA-MAZARIEGOS,

Petitioner,

v.

PETER D. KEISLER, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL, *

Respondent.

ERRATA

The opinion of this court issued on October 2, 2007, is

amended as follows:

On page 5, line 14, replace "liability" with "liabilities".
Wendy G. BOGGESS and husband, Scott Boggess v. Ralph SPENCER and wife, Betty Spencer, R.L. Spencer, Jr., Sue S. Luffman and husband, Arvil Luffman.

No. 632P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

Franklin Smith, Elkin, for Ralph Spencer, et al.

John M. Logsdon, North Wilkesboro, for Wendy & Scott Boggess.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th day of November 2005 by Defendants 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 26th day of January 2006."
Exhibit 31.1
                                  CERTIFICATION

            Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002

I, Carmine Stella, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Capital Beverage
Corporation.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15) for the
registrant and I have:

         a) designed such internal controls to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant and its subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company") is
made known to me by others within the Company, particularly during the period in
which this annual report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's internal controls as
of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the
"Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this annual report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors:

         a) all significant deficiencies (if any) in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

6. I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,
including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses.

Date:  April 15, 2005                      /s/ Carmine Stella
                                           -----------------------------------
                                               Carmine Stella
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
**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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Stratum Holdings, Inc. (the “registrant”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, LarryM. Wright, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of this Sarbanes Oxley Actof 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

 
|   | /s/  Larry M. Wright |
|--------|----------------------|
|   |                 | Larry  M. Wright |
|   |                 | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   |                 | May 15,  2009 |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

 _______AF07-0157_____ 

IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ) 

THE MONTANA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ) O R D E R 

WITH RESPECT TO DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONIC ) nunc pro tunc 

INFORMATION ) 

___________________________________ 

On February 28, 2007, we entered an order in the above matter adopting the Majority 

Proposal to Amend Rule 26 of the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure and Related Rules to 

Facilitate Electronic Discovery. We erroneously included “26(b)(2)” in the final paragraph 

of the revised Rule 26(b)(1). The third sentence of the second paragraph erroneously 

constituted a sentence fragment. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that our February 28, 2007, Order is amended, nunc pro 

tunc, to delete the extraneous reference to “Rule 26(b)(2)” in the first paragraph of revised 

Rule 26(b)(1), and to split the third sentence of the second paragraph of revised Rule 34(b) 

into two separate sentences, as follows: 

The response shall state, with respect to each item or category, that inspection 

and related activities will be permitted, as requested, unless the request is 

objected to. An objection to the requested form or forms for producing 

electronically stored information shall state the reasons for the objection. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mail copies of this Order to each 

member of the Commission; to Gregory Petesch, Code Commissioner and Director of Legal 

Services; and, in addition, to the Executive Director of the State Bar of Montana and the 

State Law Librarian, with a request that this Order be posted to their respective web sites.

 Dated this 4th day of April 2007. 

 /S/ KARLA M. GRAY 

/S/ BRIAN MORRIS 

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON 

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART 

/S/ PATRICIA COTTER 

/S/ JOHN WARNER 

/S/ JIM RICE
**Exhibit 6.2 **

  

 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 annual report on Form 40-F of Virginia Mines Inc. for the year ended February 28, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I hereby 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 annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

2. The information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant. 

 

Date: May 26, 2009 

 

/s/ *Robin Villeneuve*Robin Villeneuve Chief Financial Officer 

  

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# L_2013056EN.01001501.xml

| 28.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 56/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 56/15

---

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

of 21 November 2012

on mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund, in accordance with point 26 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management

(2013/108/EU)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 26 thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (2),

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | The European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (the ‘Fund’) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (the ‘Fund’) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters.

| (2) | The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion.

| (3) | Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised.

| (4) | Italy submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning a disaster caused by a series of earthquakes in Italy, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Italy submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning a disaster caused by a series of earthquakes in Italy,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2012, the European Union Solidarity Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 670 192 359 in commitment and payment appropriations.

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Strasbourg, 21 November 2012.

For the European Parliament

The President

M. SCHULZ

For the Council

The President

A. D. MAVROYIANNIS

---

(1)  
  OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.

2

---
STATE v. CEARLEY.

No. COA04-1172.

Court of Appeal of North Carolina

Filed August 2, 2005.

Certification Date August 22, 2005.

Appeal from the Yadkin (03CRS1543, 03CRS1544, 03CRS1545, 03CRS1546, 03CRS1547, 03CRS1548)

Case reported without published opinion No error.
STATE v. James A. BRAGG.

No. 130P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 6, 2006.

Anne Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, C. Branson Vickory, III, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th day of March 2006 by Defendant for Notice of Belated Appeal based on Newly Discovered Evidence:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of April 2006."
In the Matter of K.M. appealed by Respondent, Cedric S.

No. 261P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Peter Wood, for Cedric S.

Antoan Whidbee, Smithfield, for Gwendolyn Mayo.

Jennifer O'Connor, Raleigh, for Johnston County DSS.

James D. Johnson, for Guardian ad Litem.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th day of May 2006 by Respondent (Cedric S.) 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 29th day of June 2006."
MARLOWE v. MARLOWE.

No. COA05-1338.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed August 1, 2006.

Certification Date August 21, 2006.

Appeal from Buncombe (04CVD3773).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Beal es and Senior Judge Annunziata

ROXANNE POTTER MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0102-11-3 PER CURIAM JUNE 7, 2011 ITT NIGHT VISION AND INDEMNITY IN SURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Roxanne Potter, pro se , on brief). (Linda D. Frith; Fr ith Anderson & Peake, PC, on brief), for appellees.
Roxanne Potter appeals a decision of th e Workers’ Compensation Commission. She contends the commission (1) overlooked the fact that complex regional pain syndrome/reflex sympathetic dystrophy (CRPS/RSD) affects her speech, but not her memory; (2) overlooked the fact that CRPS/RSD begins with trauma; (3) ove rlooked the fact that medical evidence from Dr. Marc Swanson established her trauma occurre d in ITT Night Vision’s (employer) parking lot; (4) overlooked the fact that medical evidence from Dr. Ja mes Chandler established her trauma was caused by stepping into a hole in employer’s parking lot; (5) overlooked the significance of the evidence from Breland M. Joines, PA-C and Dr. David Keilman that she had shooting pain indicating nerve da mage; (6) overlooked medical evid ence from Dr. Swanson that CRPS/RSD resulted from nerve damage she sustained in the employer’s parking lot on December 11, 2008; (7) overlooked the fact that employer’s witness was the “wrong man”;

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - (8) erred in failing to properly enter evidence sh e provided into the record ; (9) erred in failing to consider photographs she labeled with arrows pointing to the location where her accident occurred; (10) erred in overlooking the disab ilities appellant suffers as a result of her CRPS/RSD; (11) erred in overlooking evidence fr om the United States Environmental Protection Agency detailing the condition of employer’s park ing lot; (12) overlooked evidence from United States Attorney John Brownlee detailing th e many problems involved with conducting an investigation of employer; (13) failed to cons ider excerpts from the book she authored entitled How to Understand a Person with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome/ Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy ; and (14) was partial and discriminated against her because she has CRPS/RSD. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. 1 Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons st ated by the commission in its final opinion.
See Potter v. ITT Night Vision , VWC File No. VA000-0004-7064 (Nov. 30, 2010). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affi rm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th e Court and argument woul d not aid the decisiona
process. l
See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. Affirmed.

1 Because we are affirming the commission’s decision on the merits, we need not address employer’s motion to dismiss for fail ure to comply with Rule 5A:25.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                                      5
<CIK>                                                 0001020424
<NAME>                          Convergence Communications, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                          U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                        Jan-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                         Dec-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                              1.0
<CASH>                                                 4,315,281
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            432,868
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                              205,408
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      10,126,717
<PP&E>                                                 9,059,258
<DEPRECIATION>                                         (534,737)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        42,473,044
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 14,096,138
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                  101
<COMMON>                                                  11,738
<OTHER-SE>                                            10,672,687
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          42,473,044
<SALES>                                                3,113,482
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       3,113,482
<CGS>                                                  1,876,133
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         13,735,384
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       677,188
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (10,230,796)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (10,230,796)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              (.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              (.87)
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.3

INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM CONSULTANT'S CONSENT

The undersigned firm of Independent Petroleum Consultants of Calgary, Alberta, Canada has prepared an independent evaluation of the interests of MarkWest
Resources Canada Corp.in certain Canadian oil and gas properties and hereby gives consent to the use of its name and to the said estimates.
The effective date of the evaluation isJanuary 1, 2002.

In
the course of the evaluation, MarkWest Resources Canada Corp. provided Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd. personnel with basic information which included land data, well
information, geological information, contract information, operating cost data, financial data and discussions of future operating plans. Other engineering, geological or economic data required to
conduct the evaluation and upon which this report is based, was obtained from public records, other operators, and from Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd. nonconfidential files. The extent and
character of ownership and accuracy of all factual data supplied for the independent evaluation, from all sources, has been accepted as represented. Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd. reserves the
right to review all calculations referred to or included in this report and to revise the estimates in light of erroneous data supplied or information existing but not made available which becomes
known subsequent to the preparation of this report.

The
accuracy of any reserves and production estimate is a function of the quality and quantity of available data and of engineering interpretation and judgement. While reserves and
production estimates presented herein are considered reasonable, the estimates should be accepted with the understanding that reservoir performance subsequent to the date of the estimate may justify
revision, either upward or downward.

Revenue
projections presented in this report are based on December 31, 2001 pricing information as supplied by MarkWest Resources Canada Corp. Present values of revenues
documented in this report do not necessarily represent the fair market value of the reserves evaluated herein.

|PERMIT TO PRACTICEGILBERT LAUSTSEN JUNG ASSOCIATES LTD.                                                 |  |                 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------
|Signature:                                                                                              |  | /s/[ILLEGIBLE]  
|Date:                                                                                                   |  | February 4, 2002
|PERMIT NUMBER: P 2066The Association of Professional Engineers,
Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta |  |                 
|                                                                                                        |  |                 

3

---
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this o pinion should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt exc ept under the limite d circumstances set forthin5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40622 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee v. M AR T I N P ER EZ
- P AD RO N, D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U S D C N o .2:0 9 -C R -1 4 9 -1 B ef ore K IN G , JO L L Y , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * A p p ea l i n g th e j u d gm en t in a cr i m i n a lca se, M a rti n P ere z-P a d ron pr ese n ts ar gum ent s t hat he c onc ede s ar e f or ec l os ed by Un i t ed S t ate s v. Cepeda
- R i os , 530 F . 3d 333 , 335
- 36 ( 5th C i r. 200 8) , w h i ch h el d that even aft er L opez v. G on zal es , 549 U . S . 4 7 ( 200 6) , a secon d st ate conv i ct i on forsi m pl e p osses si on of a control l ed subs t ance qual i f

i es as an aggr avat ed f el ony t hats upport s t he i m pos i t i on o f an e ig h t -l e v e l e n h a n c e m e n tu n d e rU .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 (b )( 1 )( C ). T h e a p p e ll a n t ’s u n opp osed m ot i on f

or s u m m ary di sposi t i on i s G R A N T E D , an d t h e j u dg m en tof t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

15, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk