alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00482-CV

In re Charles Christopher Lancaster

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BASTROP COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Charles Lancaster, appearing pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking

to compel the trial court clerk to forward his notice of appeal to the appropriate appellate court. The

record reflects that Lancaster waived his right to appeal in exchange for a favorable plea bargain

agreement in a separate prosecution originating out of Williamson County, Texas. The trial court

clerk contends that Lancaster’s notice of appeal need not be forwarded to this Court in light of his

waiver of the right to appeal. We disagree.

Upon receipt of a defendant’s notice of appeal, a trial court clerk “must then

immediately send one copy” to the clerk of the appropriate court of appeals. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(e).

“[F]orwarding the notice of appeal is a mandatory, ministerial duty” and failure to do so, even where

a defendant has waived his right to appeal, is subject to mandamus relief. Whitsitt v. Ramsay,

719 S.W.2d 333, 334-35 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); see also Iles v. State, 127 S.W.3d 347, 351

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (observing that even though appellant waived right

to appeal, “[o]nce appellant’s counsel filed the notices of appeal, the district clerk had a mandatory

duty to forward them to the proper appellate court.”). A trial court may not disallow the filing of a
2

notice of appeal because “[t]his Court, not any other, retains the power to determine the existence

and limits of its jurisdiction.” Perez v. State, 4 S.W.3d 305, 307 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

1999, no pet.); see also In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999,

no pet.) (“when a notice of appeal . . . is delivered to the clerk for filing, any further determination

concerning appellate jurisdiction must be made by the appellate court.”).

In light of the fact that “neither the trial court nor the district clerk has any discretion

in regard to forwarding the notice of appeal,” Whitsitt, 719 S.W.2d at 335, we conditionally grant

the petition for writ of mandamus. The writ will issue only in the event that the trial court clerk does

not act in accordance with this opinion. To the extent, however, that Lancaster’s petition may be

construed as a request that the trial court be compelled to certify that he has a right to appeal, that

request is denied.

___________________________________________

Diane M. Henson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Filed: August 22, 2008
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 on Form 10-Q of LIN Television Corporation for thethree months ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Gary R. Chapman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,and Vincent L. Sadusky, Chief Financial Officer of the Company each hereby certifies, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated: May 6, 2005 /s/ Gary R. Chapman   Gary R. Chapman   Chief Executive Officer           Dated: May 6, 2005 /s/ Vincent L. Sadusky   Vincent L. Sadusky   Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

No. 09 / 06–1745 

Filed August 22, 2008 

IN RE THE DETENTION OF SCOTT ALLEN BENNETT

SCOTT ALLEN BENNETT, 

 Appellant. 

 Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, 

Bruce B. Zager, Judge. 

 Respondent in a civil commitment proceeding appeals from civil 

commitment after a jury found him to be a sexually violent predator. 

AFFIRMED.

 Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Steven Addington, 

Michael H. Adams, and Greta Truman, Assistant Public Defenders, for 

appellant. 

 Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines and 

Rebecca Goettsch, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee. 
 2

PER CURIAM. 

After a jury found Scott Bennett to be a “sexually violent predator” 

(SVP), as defined in Iowa Code section 229A.2(11) (2005), the district 

court committed him to the custody of the department of human services 

as required by section 229A.7(5). Bennett appeals and raises several 

claims of error. On our review, we find the claims were either not 

preserved or were rejected by other decisions of this court decided during 

the pendency of this action. We affirm the decision of the district court. 

 Bennett first claims his rights to due process and equal protection 

were violated by the provision in Iowa Code section 229A.7(4) that 

entitled the attorney general to demand a jury trial. Our recent opinion 

in In re Detention of Hennings, 744 N.W.2d 333 (Iowa 2008), squarely 

addressed and rejected similar arguments. For the reasons stated in 

that opinion, the statutory right of the attorney general to demand a jury 

trial does not violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of 

our Federal and state Constitutions. 

 Next, Bennett asserts three legal errors: insufficiency of the 

evidence, admission of irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial evidence, and 

erroneous jury instructions. Bennett’s arguments supporting these three 

errors are premised on his claim that chapter 229A requires a present 

likelihood of reoffense at the time of the proposed commitment. We 

rejected such an interpretation in In re Detention of Pierce, 748 N.W.2d 

509 (Iowa 2008). Pierce is dispositive of Bennett’s claims of legal error. 

For the reasons stated in that opinion, we conclude the district court did 

not commit the legal errors asserted by Bennett. 

 We conclude Iowa Code section 229A.7(4) does not violate 

Bennett’s rights to due process and equal protection, and the district 

court did not err in interpreting and applying chapter 229A. Bennett has 
 3

failed to preserve the other issues he raises on appeal. See Meier v. 

Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002) (holding issues must be 

raised and decided in district court before we will consider them on 

appeal). We affirm the district court. 

 AFFIRMED.

 All justices concur except Baker, J., who takes no part. 

 This is not a published opinion.
STATE of North Carolina v. Scott Matthew SPIRON.

No. 3P16.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Scott Matthew Spiron, for Spiron, Scott Matthew.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Trey Robison, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 8th of January 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
STATE of North Carolina v. Gerald Telphia JACOBS, II.

No. COA15-493.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
_________________________________________ 

 

________________________________________ 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 3, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

137136 (80)(81) Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

CITIZENS PROTECTING MICHIGAN’S 

CONSTITUTION, LOWELL R. ULRICH, 

MICHAEL BISHOP, ALAN L. CROPSEY, 

VIRGIL SMITH, JR., and MIKE BRYANTON, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

 SC: 137136 

v COA: 286734 

SECRETARY OF STATE and BOARD OF 

STATE CANVASSERS, 

 Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

REFORM MICHIGAN GOVERNMENT NOW!, 

Intervening 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by the Attorney General for leave to 

participate in oral argument as amicus curiae is GRANTED. The Attorney General may 

present 10 minutes of argument following the arguments of the parties. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

September 3, 2008 

 Clerk
1)
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of LaCrosse Footwear, Inc. (the registrant);2)
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;3)
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;4)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal
control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the
registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure
controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to
ensure that material
information relating to the
registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others
within those entities,
particularly during the period
in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control
over financial reporting, or
caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be
designed under our supervision,
to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the
preparation of financial
statements for external
purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting
principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of
the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and
presented in this report our
conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of
the end of the period covered
by this report based on such
evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any
change in the registrants
internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during
the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has
materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants
internal control over financial
reporting.
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
  /s/ David P. CarlsonDavid P. CarlsonExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
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 on Form 10-Q of LIN Television Corporation for the three months ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Vincent L. Sadusky, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Richard J. Schmaeling, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 results of operations of the Company.







Dated: July 29, 2010                           /s/ Vincent L. Sadusky


Vincent L. Sadusky


President and Chief Executive Officer








Dated: July 29, 2010                          /s/ Richard J. Schmaeling


Richard J. Schmaeling


Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Joshua Donyell WALKER, Defendant.

No. COA15-340.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 20, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
# CE2004088EN.01041701.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/417 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/417

---

(2004/C 88 E/0424)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2507/03

by Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Charges in the tourist industry

Subject:

The ever closer union of the peoples of the Member States must find expression in the free movement of persons and goods in Union countries.

Under the Schengen Agreement, European citizens are entitled to move freely on Union territory without being subjected to national constraints.

In some parts of Italy (for example Tuscany) many local authorities require tourists to pay entrance fees, thus restricting de facto the free movement of persons at no charge.

Does the Commission agree that, without overstepping its powers, the Union should intervene in order to guarantee the safe, free movement of persons at no charge on Union territory and call on Member States to remove the difficulties currently preventing it?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

(16 September 2003)

The information provided in the question does not allow the Commission to have a clear and complete assessment of the problem referred.

The Commission would like to recall from a general point of view that the Court of Justice has ruled, in its judgment of 16 January 2003 (case C-388/01) with regard to entrance fees to monuments etc., that advantageous rates discriminating between foreign and national tourists without any direct link with the need to protect either public order, security or health (see Article 46 EC) or any other overriding requirement in the general interest are incompatible with Community law (Articles 12 and 49 EC).

---
STATE v. Eric Glenn LANE.

No. 606A05-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 29, 2016.

Daniel Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Lane, Eric Glenn.

Derrick Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC.

Nicholaos Vlahos, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

Matthew Delbridge, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th of March 2016 by Defendant in the Alternative for Extension of Time to Serve Proposed Record on Appeal:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of March 2016."
<PAGE>

                       RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.
                                  EXHIBIT 32.1
           CERTIFICATION OF SCOTT H. RECHLER, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD,
    CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND DIRECTOR OF RECKSON ASSOCIATES REALTY CORP.,
             THE SOLE GENERAL PARTNER OF THE REGISTRANT PURSUANT TO
        SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE


I, Scott H. Rechler, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Office and Director
of Reckson Associates Realty Corp., the sole general partner of Reckson
Operating Partnership, L.P. (the "Company"), certify pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

     1)    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
           period ended June 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the
           requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
           of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

     2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
           material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
           of the Company.


Dated: August 14, 2006
                                By             /s/ Scott H. Rechler
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                       Scott H. Rechler,
                                       Chairman of the Board, Chief
                                       Executive Officer and Director of Reckson
                                       Associates Realty Corp., the sole general
                                       partner of the Registrant


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P. and will be furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                              Washington, DC 20549

                                AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                                   FORM 10-QSB
(Mark One)

__X__ Quarterly report under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
of 1934

For the quarterly period ended September 30, 1996

_____  Transition  report under  Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act for the
transition period from __________ to ___________.

                         Commission file number 01-13470

                             BIG SMITH BRANDS, INC.
        (Exact Name of Small Business Issuer as Specified in Its Charter)

              Delaware                                        13-3005371
              --------                                        ----------
(State or Other Jurisdiction of                            (I.R.S. Employer
 Incorporation or Organization)                           Identification No.)

           7100 West Camino Real, Suite 201, Boca Raton, Florida 33433
                    (Address of Principal Executive Offices)

                                 (407) 367-8283
                (Issuer's Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

                                       N/A
         (Former Name, Former Address and Former Fiscal Year, if Changed
                               Since Last Report)

         Check whether the issuer: (1) filed all reports required to be filed by
Section 13 or 15(d) of the  Exchange  Act during the past 12 months (or for such
shorter period that the  registrant was required to file such reports),  and (2)
has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes__X__            No____

Number of shares of common stock outstanding as of November 13, 1996:  3,930,000

Transitional Small Business Disclosure Format (check one):  Yes____    No__X__


<PAGE>

Exhibit 27 to the above referenced 10QSB was not filed with the original filing.
That  error is being  corrected  by this  Amendment  No. 1. The  Exhibit  27 FDS
follows as a separate document which may be added to the original filing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                               80810
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       900568
<ALLOWANCES>                                         99116
<INVENTORY>                                         520568
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   1682228
<PP&E>                                             3406580
<DEPRECIATION>                                     2021386
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     3430075
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              1727492
<BONDS>                                            1163658
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                         496236
<COMMON>                                             18762
<OTHER-SE>                                           23927
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       3430075
<SALES>                                            5796937
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   5796937
<CGS>                                              3105118
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      3105118
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   2112174
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     11998
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  237125
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     357454
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 357454
<DISCONTINUED>                                     (685425)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    (215836)
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (542815)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.36)



</TABLE>
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 531 

AN ACT 

To repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93–531, commonly 

known as the ‘‘Bennett Freeze’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•S 531 ES

1 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF THE BENNETT FREEZE. 

2 Section 10(f) of Public Law 93–531 (25 U.S.C. 

3 640d–9(f)) is repealed. 

Passed the Senate September 18 (legislative day, 

September 17), 2008. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 531 

AN ACT 

To repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93–531, 

commonly known as the ‘‘Bennett Freeze’’.
In the Matter of J.C. and J.C.

No. 280A14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 1, 2015.

Richard Croutharmel, Raleigh, for Collins, Shannon.

W.A. Holland, Jr., Jennifer S. O'Connor, Smithfield, for Johnston County DSS.

Ryan Short, Raleigh, for Collins, Jeffrey.

Tawanda Natasha Foster, for J.C.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th of September 2014 by Petitioner:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of July 2015."
In the Matter of B.L.H. and Z.L.H., minor children.

No. 259A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 12, 2008.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C.App. ___, 660 S.E.2d 255 (2008), reversing judgments entered 25 July 2007 by Judge Marvin P. Pope, Jr. in District Court, Buncombe County. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 October 2008.

Charlotte W. Nallan, Asheville, for petitioner-appellant Buncombe County Department of Social Services.

Michael N. Tousey, Attorney Advocate, Asheville, for appellant Guardian ad Litem.

Annick Lenoir-Peek, Assistant Appellate Defender, for respondent-appellee mother.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.