alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00122-CR

Stephen Wayne MCCOY,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2005-CR-5293

Honorable Sharon MacRae, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Justice

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 15, 2008 

AFFIRMED

Stephen McCoy pleaded nolo contendere to the offense of injury to a disabled individual, and

was placed on five years deferred adjudication probation for the offense. The State subsequently

filed a motion to revoke McCoy’s probation and proceed to final adjudication, alleging McCoy had

violated the terms of his probation by failing to attend anger management classes, pay administrative

fees, and report to his probation officer. After a hearing on the State’s motion, the trial court

adjudicated McCoy guilty and sentenced him to four yearsimprisonment and fined him $1,200. We

affirm.
04-08-00122-CR

-2-

McCoy’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the

record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel concludes that the

appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel provided McCoy with a copy of the brief and

informed him of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Nichols v. State,

954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177

n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). McCoy did not file a pro se brief.

After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and

without merit. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed. Furthermore, we grant appellate

counsel’s motion to withdraw. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should McCoy wish to seek further review of this case by

the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for

discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary

review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion

for rehearing that was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for

discretionary review must be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to theTexas Court

of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3; 68.7. Any petition for discretionary review should

comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX.R.

APP. P. 68.4. 

Catherine Stone, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH
Order entered December 29, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-01487-CV

No. 05-16-01488-CV

No. 05-16-01489-CV

IN RE WALTER CORTEZ, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F-0730377, F-0730378, and F-0730557

ORDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s December 19, 2016 

petition for writ of mandamus.

/s/ DAVID J. SCHENCK

JUSTICE
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3797 

To repeal an annual adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay amounts 

for retired members of the Armed Forces under age 62, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 19, 2013 

Mr. DESJARLAIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To repeal an annual adjustment of retired pay and retainer 

pay amounts for retired members of the Armed Forces 

under age 62, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT OF RETIRED 

4 PAY AND RETAINER PAY AMOUNTS FOR RE5 TIRED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES 

6 UNDER AGE 62. 

7 Section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 

8 is hereby repealed, and the provisions of law amended by 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3797 IH

1 such section are restored as if such section had never been 

2 enacted. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Sanchez, et al. v. Cobblestone HOA of Clayton, Inc.

374A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 15, 2016

J. Matthew Waters, Attorney at Law, Hope Derby Carmichael, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Cobblestone HOA Of Clayton, Inc.

Tatita Sanchez, for Sanchez, Tatita M.

Robert A. Spence, Jr., Attorney at Law, Smithfield, for Christopher, Frank.

Dennis Draughon, for Draughon, Dennis, et al.

Robert Sain, for Sain, Robert, et al.

Vincent Franks, Jr., for Franks, Vincent (Jr.).

Alexander C. Dale, Attorney at Law, Adam M. Beaudoin, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, for Community Associations Institute-North Carolina Chapter, Inc.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th of December 2016 by Community Associations Institute-North Carolina Chapter, Inc. for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2016."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS

§

IN RE: No. 08

- 17

- 00161

- CV
§
DISH NETWORK, L.L.C. AND
ECHOSPHERE L.L.C.,

RELATORS. §

§

§ AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus against Honorable Luis Aguilar, Judge of the 243rd District Court of El Paso County, Texas, and concludes that Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus should be conditionall y granted. We therefore direct the trial court to withdraw its order denying Relators’ motion to quash the deposition notice for Katherine Leyba and enter an order granting the motion to quash , in accordance with the opinion

of this Court

. If Real Party in Interest fails to file within thirty days from the date of this opinion a motion establishing she is entitled to pre

- arbitration discovery pursuant to

T EX .C IV .P RAC .&R EM .C ODE A NN

. § 171.086(a)(4) and (6) or fails to present evidence sufficient to

entitle her to a Tipps evidentiary hearing, the trial court is ordered to summarily rule on the motion to compel arbitration. The motion to compel and arbitration and any reasonable discovery must be resolved without delay . The writ of mandamus will issue shoul d the trial court fail to comply.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
State v. Sethy Tony Seam

82A14-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 30, 2016

Charles H. Harp, II, Attorney at Law, Lexington, Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Seam, Sethy Tony.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Garry W. Frank, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Staples Hughes, Durham.

Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Attorney at Law, for Seam, Sethy Tony.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th of December 2016 by Defendant to Expedite Mandate:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of December 2016."

Ervin, J. recused
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1074 

CA 11-00176 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ. 

 

JUSTINE THOMPSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

MICHAEL COOPER, ESQ., STEPHEN BARNES, ESQ., 

INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS AS THE 

BARNES FIRM AS SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST TO 

CELLINO & BARNES, ROSS CELLINO, INDIVIDUALLY 

AND AS A PARTNER IN THE LAW FIRM OF CELLINO & 

BARNES AND CELLINO & BARNES, 

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

WILLIAMS & RUDDEROW, PLLC, SYRACUSE (MICHELLE ELLSWORTH RUDDEROW OF

COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

CELLINO & BARNES, P.C., BUFFALO (ELLEN B. STURM OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Gerald J.

Whalen, J.), entered October 14, 2010. The order granted the motion

of defendants for summary judgment and dismissed the amended

complaint. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision

at Supreme Court.

Entered: November 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R ECONSIDERATION AND M OTION TO V ACATE V OID J UDGMENT

Appe llate case name: Eric Baumgart v

. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 14

- 00320

- CR

Trial court case number : 1382166

Trial court: 183rd District Court of Harris County

Party filing motion: Appellant

After construing appellant’s “ motion to vacate void judgment ” as an amendment to

appellant’s motion for en banc reconsideration, the en banc panel voted unanim ously to deny the

motion for reconsideration.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

Acting for the Court

En Banc Panel consists of: Chief Justice Ra dack and Justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley, Bland,

Massengale, Brown, Huddle, and Lloyd.

Date: February 1 1 , 2016
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Thomas J. McCartney, asPresident and Chief Executive Officer of BH/RE, L.L.C. (the “Company”), certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(A)  the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(B)  the information in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 

Dated: May 15,2009

 

 
|        | /S/ Thomas J. McCartney                                              |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Thomas J. McCartney                                                  |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal  Executive Officer) |

 

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Antwarn Lee ROGERS

No. 63A17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 15, 2017.

Constance E. Widenhouse, Assistant Appellate Defender, Wyatt Orsbon, Assistant Appellant Defender, for Rogers, Antwarn Lee.

Heather H. Freeman, Assistant Attorney General, Ben R. David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 22nd of February 2017 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of March 2017."
# C_2009006EN.01004303.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/43

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 2008 — Nölle v OHIM — Viña Carta Vieja (Puzzle)

(Case T-303/07) (1)

1

(2009/C 6/86)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.

1

---
----

----

| 1. | The      Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the Company at the end of the period covered by the Quarterly      Report. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                    |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|-------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:      May 15, 2008 |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|                    | By:    | /s/      Vladimir      Fedyunin                              |
|                    |   | Vladimir      Fedyunin                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|                    |   | Principal      Financial and Accounting Officer                                                                                                                                                               |

----
VIRGINIA:

 In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court 

Building in the City of Richmond on Thursday, the 30th day of 

November, 2000. 

Arnold Ainley Wright, III, Appellant, 

 against Record No. 001024 

 Court of Appeals No. 2306-98-2 

Commonwealth of Virginia, Appellee. 

 Upon an appeal from a judgment rendered by the Court of 

Appeals of Virginia on the 4th day of April, 2000. 

 Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and argument of 

counsel, the Court is of opinion that the Attorney General's motion 

to dismiss should be granted. 

 The defendant's sole assignment of error is: "The Circuit Court 

erred when it subsequently sentenced the Appellant to Five (5) years 

when the same Court had previously imposed the same sentence on the 

condition that the Appellant serve Twelve (12) months in the County 

Jail." 

 The defendant abandoned the foregoing issue in the Court of 

Appeals of Virginia, Wright v. Commonwealth, 32 Va. App. 148, 154, 

526 S.E.2d 784, 787 (2000), and he may not resurrect the issue here. 

Moreover, the defendant's arguments in this appeal, both on brief and 

orally, are not encompassed within the assignment of error. This 

Court considers only questions that are properly presented by an 

appropriate assignment of error. 

 Accordingly, and because the circuit court had jurisdiction to 

revoke defendant's suspended sentence at the June 25, 1998 revocation 

hearing, this appeal is hereby dismissed. 
 It is ordered that the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County 

allow counsel for the appellant a fee of $725 for services rendered 

the appellant on this appeal, in addition to counsel's costs and 

necessary direct out-of-pocket expenses. 

 The Commonwealth shall recover of the appellant the amount paid 

court-appointed counsel to represent him in this proceeding, 

counsel's costs and necessary direct out-of-pocket expenses, and the 

costs in this Court and in the courts below. 

 This order shall be published in the Virginia Reports and shall 

be certified to the Court of Appeals of Virginia and to the Circuit 

Court of Chesterfield County. 

 A Copy, 

 Teste: 

 David B. Beach, Clerk 

Costs due the Commonwealth 

 by appellant in Supreme 

 Court of Virginia: 

 Attorney's fee $725.00 plus costs and expenses 

Teste: 

 David B. Beach, Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 27, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 56446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19278]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge 
Reservation

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB), Oak Ridge 
Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 
Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in 
the Federal Register.

DATES: Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 6 p.m.

ADDRESSES: DOE Information Center, 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat Halsey, Federal Coordinator, 
Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, 
Oak Ridge, TN 37831.
    Phone (865) 576-4025; Fax (865) 576-5333 or e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#741c151807110d041e341b061b5a101b115a131b02"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="593138352a3c20293319362b36773d363c773e362f">[email protected]</span></a> or check the Web site at http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make 
recommendations to DOE in the areas of environmental restoration, waste 
management, and related activities.
    Tentative Agenda: Bethel Valley Groundwater Study
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written 
statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the 
meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to the 
agenda item should contact Pat Halsey at the address or telephone 
number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the 
meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the 
presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is 
empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the 
orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comment 
will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.
    Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the Department of Energy's Information Center at 
475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, TN between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, or by writing to Pat Halsey, Department of Energy Oak 
Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, or 
by calling her at (865) 576-4025.

    Issued at Washington, DC on September 20, 2005.
Rachel M. Samuel,
Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-19278 Filed 9-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CATHERINE V. KING

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 23

- 592

LT Case No. 2020

- CF

- 037756

- N

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. ________________________________/

Decision filed Augu st 1, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Br evard County

, Charles G. Crawford , Judge.

Matthew J. Metz , Public Defender, and
Teresa D. Sutton, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Allison L. Morris, Assistant Attorney Gener al, Daytona
Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT

, JAY and PRATT , JJ., concur.
State of North Carolina v. Seyi Odueso

No. 434P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2017

*368Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Attorney at Law, Southern Pines, for Odueso, Seyi Tayo.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 30th of November 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of January 2017."
Chad Tyler EDMUNDSON, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Thomas J. FARRIS, Darryl G. Smith and Bobby G. Abrams v. Leesa Greer LAWRENCE, M.D., and Eastern Carolina Pediatrics, P.A.

No. 26P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Jimmie R. Keel, Tarboro, for Edmundson, et al.

Jerry A. Allen, Jr., 0. Drew Grice, Jr., Goldsboro, for Lawrence, et al.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 653 S.E.2d 922.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Plaintiff on the 22nd day of January 2008 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional' question filed by the Defendants, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd day of January 2008 by Plaintiff 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 August 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 30th day of January 2008 in this matter for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 prior to a determination by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, 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 August 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 of WCA Waste Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Charles A. Casalinova, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
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
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d), as applicable, 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.




By:
              /s/ Charles
      A. CasalinovaCharles
      A. CasalinovaChief
      Financial OfficerMay
      1, 2009







The
foregoing certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18
of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the
registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.