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

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-07-459-CR

JOHN TIMOTHY BEGELTON	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant John Timothy Begelton entered an open plea of guilty to murder.  The trial court assessed his punishment at thirty-five years’ confinement. 

	Begelton’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion.  Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California2 by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief.  Begelton was given the opportunity to file a pro se brief, but he did not do so.

	As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is frivolous.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.).  Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).  Because Begelton entered an open plea of guilty, our independent review for potential error is limited to potential jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of Begelton’s plea, error that is not independent of and supports the judgment of guilt, and error occurring after entry of the guilty plea.  See Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666–67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

	We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief.  We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); accord Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).  We therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

							SUE WALKER

							JUSTICE

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: October 16, 2008
STATE of North Carolina v. John H. SAYRE

No. COA17-68

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 15, 2017

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Shannon Dale ISOM

No. 265P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2017

Kirby H. Smith, III, Attorney at Law, New Bern, for Isom, Shannon Dale.

Melody R. Hairston, Special Deputy Attorney General, Roxann L. Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of August 2017 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 4th of August 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 4th of August 2017 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 1st of November 2017."
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We have issued our report dated January 22, 1998,  accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and schedules  incorporated by reference or included in the
Annual Report of TF Financial  Corporation and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the
year  ended  December  31,  1997.  We hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by
reference  of  said  report  in  the  Registration  Statements  of TF  Financial
Corporation and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File No. 33-87176,  effective December
7, 1994, and File No. 333-09235, effective July 31, 1996).





/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 30, 1998
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136147 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136147 

 COA: 283166 

Isabella CC: 06-001391-FH 

VINCENTE LAMAR LIPSEY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Chief Justice, a stipulation signed by counsel for the parties 

agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the 

application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs. 

d1021 

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. 

October 24, 2008 

Clerk
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis Paul SHILLINGFORD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 77-1787

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 1, 1978.

*1107George M. Strickler, Jr., New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellant.

Robert E. Hauberg, U. S. Atty., James B. Tucker, Asst. U. S. Atty., Jackson, Miss., for . plaintiff-appellee.

Before COLEMAN, GODBOLD and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; *see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Dennis Paul Shillingford was convicted and sentenced on state and federal charges arising out of a shoot-out in Jackson, Mississippi, between state and federal officers and black “citizens” of the Republic of New Africa. Shillingford’s federal conviction was affirmed by this court and his petition for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court. *United States v. James,*528 F.2d 999 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied sub nom. Shillingford v. United States,*429 U.S. 959, 97 S.Ct. 382, 50 L.Ed.2d 326 (1976).

In November, 1976, Shillingford filed a motion for reduction of sentence under Fed. R.Crim.P. 35. The district court, after conducting a hearing, denied the motion on January 21, 1977. The denial order was filed in the record on January 24, 1977. The ten day period in which to file an appeal in a criminal proceeding, as prescribed by Fed.R.App.P. 4(b), ended on February 3, 1977; notice of appeal was not filed until February 22, 1977.

When a notice of appeal is untimely, this court is without jurisdiction. *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 224, 80 S.Ct. 282, 285, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960). Rule 4(b) does, however, provide that upon a showing of excusable neglect, the district court may extend the period for filing the notice of appeal for an additional thirty days. Since Shillingford’s notice of appeal was filed within thirty days of February 3, 1977, and in. the interest of justice, we remand this case to the district court. *United States v. Umfress,*562 F.2d 359 (5th Cir. 1977). The district court is directed to allow Shillingford thirty days in which to move for a determination whether excusable neglect entitles him to an extension of time to appeal. If the district court does grant the extension of time and this appeal is thereby perfected, no further briefing will be required. *United States v. Umfress,*562 F.2d at 360.

REMANDED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Corey Montrez MCCREE

No. 228P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2017

*543Craig M. Cooley, Attorney at Law, Cary, for McCree, Corey Montrez.

June S. Ferrell, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 10th of July 2017 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 State of NC, 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 28th of September 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th of July 2017 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 28th of September 2017."
Unassociated Document


     

    Exhibit
10.1.3

     

     

    
      Supplementary
Agreement of Labor Contract

       

       

       

       

      Party A:
Guangzhou Dongfang Hospital Limited Company

      Party B:
Wu Pifa

       

      


      Party A
and Party B signed the labor contract on February 20, 2008, which has expired by
October 30, 2010. For the sake of business, both parties reach an agreement
after negotiation, agreeing that the labor contract signed on February 20, 2008
is extended to December 31, 2011. This contract is executed at December 3,
2010.

       

       

      
 

      Party A:
Guangzhou Dongfang Hospital Limited Company

      Legal
representative: Xu Jianping

      /s/ Xu
Jianping

       

       

      Party
B:  Wu Pifa

      /s/ Wu
Pifa
IN RE: SOUTHEASTERN EYE CENTER

358A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 5, 2016

Douglas S. Harris, Attorney at Law, for Harris, Douglas S.

Scott F. Wyatt, Attorney at Law, High Point, Donavan J. Hylarides, Attorney at Law, James Mark McDaniel, Jr., for Harris, Douglas S., et al.

Byron L. Saintsing, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Nivison Family Investments, LLC, et al.

Robert E. Fields, III, Attorney at Law, Samuel Pinero, II, Attorney at Law, for Jeutter, Jr. receiver for CCSEA/SCLC/SEM/HUTA/EMS/KEPES/DRE.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 5th of December 2016 by Plaintiff (Gerald Jeutler, Jr., receiver):

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of December 2016."

Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 8th day of December 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
Exhibit 31.2



Chief Financial Officer Certification Pursuant to

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Jon D. Van Deuren, Chief Financial Officer of Aames Investment Corporation certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Aames Investment Corporation;



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 they 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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15-15(e)) for the company 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 know to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) 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; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in
the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the company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 affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



(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; and



(b) 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.



|                         |  |  |  |                                                               
|------------------------ |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|                         |  | 
|Dated: November 14, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Jon D. Van DeurenJon D. Van Deuren Chief Financial Officer
ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT

HELENA, MONTANA 59620-3003

Supreme Court No.

DA 20-0498

THOMAS JAMES BICK,

Petitioner, Obligor and Appellant,

v.

KATHLEEN JO JOHNSON,

Respondent, Obligee and Appellee,

and

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

DIVISION, EX REL.,

Respondent and Appellee.

FILED

DEC 1 7 2020

Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Suprerne Court State of Montana

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Pursuant to authority granted under M. R. App.P. 26(1), Appellant is given an extension of time

until January 20, 2021, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant's brief.

DATED this December 17, 2020

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

c: Thomas James Bick, Robert J. Waller, Timothy Charles Fox, Andrew Warlick Betson

PO BOX 203003 • HELENA MT • 59620-3003 • TELEPHONE: (406) 444-3858 • FAX: (406) 444-5705

12/17/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0498
Exhibit 32

                            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-QSB of Titan
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended January 31, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below,
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

     a)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or
          15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: and

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



Date March 2, 2005                      /s/ Ronald L. Wilder
                                        ------------------------------
                                        Ronald L. Wilder,  President
                                        (Chief  Executive  Officer)
                                        (Chief  Financial  Officer)
# Official Journal L 105/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 105 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 578 April 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 105

English edition

Legislation

Volume 578 April 2014

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EU) No 258/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 establishing a Union programme to support specific activities in the field of financial reporting and auditing for the period of 2014-20 and repealing Decision No 716/2009/EC (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| | * | Regulation (EU) No 259/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement | 9 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EU) No 258/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 establishing a Union programme to support specific activities in the field of financial reporting and auditing for the period of 2014-20 and repealing Decision No 716/2009/EC (
  1
  )

1

1

*

Regulation (EU) No 259/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement

9

| | | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) No 251/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of aromatised wine products and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/91 ( OJ L 84, 20.3.2014 ) | 12 |

Corrigenda

*

Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) No 251/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of aromatised wine products and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/91 ( OJ L 84, 20.3.2014 )

( OJ L 84, 20.3.2014 )

12

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4208 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4208

  To ensure stability in FHA maximum mortgage amount limitations for 
          areas experiencing decreases in median home prices.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 12, 2014

   Mr. Gary G. Miller of California (for himself, Mr. Sherman, Mrs. 
Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Mr. Calvert, Mr. McNerney, and Mr. King 
 of New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To ensure stability in FHA maximum mortgage amount limitations for 
          areas experiencing decreases in median home prices.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stabilizing FHA Loan Limit 
Calculations Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. FHA MAXIMUM MORTGAGE AMOUNT LIMITATIONS.

    Paragraph (2) of section 203(b) of the National Housing Act (12 
U.S.C. 1709(b)(2)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A)(i), by inserting before ``; or'' 
        the following: ``; except that with respect to 2014 and each 
        year thereafter, the median house price for any size residence 
        for an area shall, for purposes of this clause, be considered 
        to be equal to the greatest median house price for such size 
        residence for such area used by the Secretary for purposes of 
        determining the dollar amount limitation on the principal 
        obligation for purposes of this section for 2013 (pursuant to 
        section 238 of Public Law 112-55; 125 Stat. 702), or for any 
        year thereafter before the assignment of the Federal Housing 
        Administration case number for the mortgage involved''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following undesignated 
        paragraph:
            ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the 
        Secretary determines, for any geographic area that is smaller 
        than an area for which dollar amount limitations on the 
        principal obligation of a mortgage are determined under this 
        paragraph, that a higher such maximum dollar amount limitation 
        is warranted for any particular size or sizes of residences in 
        such sub-area by higher median home prices in such sub-area, 
        the Secretary may increase the maximum dollar amount limitation 
        for such size or sizes of residences for such sub-area that is 
        otherwise in effect (including pursuant to the first sentence 
        of this paragraph), but in no case to an amount that exceeds 
        the amount specified in subparagraph (A)(ii) of this 
        paragraph.''.
                                 <all>
```
STATE v. Derrick D. BOGER

158P06-15

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2017

*524Derrick D. Boger, for Boger, Derrick D.

Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, Roxann L. Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd of August 2017 by Defendant for Tort Claim:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of September 2017."
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1216 TP 13-00782 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF MARCUS AYUSO, PETITIONER,

V ORDER

MICHAEL SHEAHAN, SUPERINTENDENT, FIVE POINTS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RESPONDENT.

MARCUS AYUSO, PETITIONER PRO SE.
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (PETER H. SCHIFF OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Seneca County [Dennis F. Bender, A.J.], entered May 1, 2013) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a tier II hearing that petitioner had violated an inmate rule.
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Entered: December 27, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court