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

No. 04-11-00878-CR

Michelle ALMANZA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-CR-2918

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 12, 2012

AFFIRMED

Michelle Almanza was charged with possession of a controlled substance, namely heroin, 

in an amount less than one gram. After her pre-trial motion to suppress was denied, Almanza 

pled no contest and received two years of deferred adjudication community supervision and a 

$1,200 fine. Almanza now appeals the denial of her motion to suppress. We affirm the trial 

court’s judgment.
04-11-00878-CR

- 2 -

Almanza’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional 

evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and a 

motion to withdraw. In the brief, counsel raises no arguable appellate issues, and concludes this 

appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the Anders requirements. See id.; see also 

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1969). As required, counsel provided Almanza with a copy of the brief and motion 

to withdraw, and informed her of her right to review the record and file her own pro se brief. See 

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

v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Almanza did not file 

a pro se brief.

After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we conclude there is no reversible error 

and agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 

824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

See id. Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns,

924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Almanza wish to seek further review of 

this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a 

petition for discretionary review or must 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 is 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 the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. 
04-11-00878-CR

- 3 -

See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the 

requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH
**Exhibit32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Jackson Hewitt Tax ServiceInc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2005,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Mark L. Heimbouch, as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best ofmy knowledge, that:

 

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ MARK L. HEIMBOUCH                              |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Mark L. Heimbouch                                  |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |
| March 16, 2005                                |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4116 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4116

  To direct the Librarian of Congress to obtain a stained glass panel 
 depicting the seal of the District of Columbia and install the panel 
  among the stained glass panels depicting the seals of States which 
   overlook the Main Reading Room of the Library of Congress Thomas 
                          Jefferson Building.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 27, 2014

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on 
  Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Librarian of Congress to obtain a stained glass panel 
 depicting the seal of the District of Columbia and install the panel 
  among the stained glass panels depicting the seals of States which 
   overlook the Main Reading Room of the Library of Congress Thomas 
                          Jefferson Building.

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

SECTION 1. INCLUDING STAINED GLASS PANEL DEPICTING SEAL OF DISTRICT OF 
              COLUMBIA IN LIBRARY OF CONGRESS THOMAS JEFFERSON 
              BUILDING.

    The Librarian of Congress shall obtain a stained glass panel 
depicting the seal of the District of Columbia and install the panel 
among the panels depicting the seals of States which overlook the Main 
Reading Room of the Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson Building.
                                 <all>
```
Table of Contents


EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Telemig Celular Participações S.A. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
  Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Roberto Oliveira de Lima, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
  my knowledge:

(i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: June 27, 2008.

|    |                             
|--- | ----------------------------
|By: | /s/ Roberto Oliveira de Lima
|    | Roberto Oliveira de Lima    
|    | Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 193 (Thursday, October 6, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 58472]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20137]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Alavita Callida Genomics

    Notice is hereby given that, on August 23, 2005, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Alavita/Callida Genomics 
(``Alavita/Callida'') has filed written notifications simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
(1) the identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and 
objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties 
to the venture are: Alavita, Inc., Mountain View, CA; and Callida 
Genomics, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA. The general area of Alavita/Callida's 
planned activity is to develop and demonstrate nanoscale barcodes for 
genome-wide SNP scoring.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 05-20137 Filed 10-5-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
*The Honorable Pasco M. Bowman stepped down as Chief Judge of the United

States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at the end of the day on April 23, 1999.

He has been succeeded by the Honorable Roger L. Wollman.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-3555

___________

Kathryn J. Martin Gan, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Algonquin Golf Club, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: April 23, 1999

Filed: April 28, 1999

___________

Before BOWMAN,* Chief Judge, ROSS, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kathryn J. Martin Gan appeals the district court's ruling granting Algonquin Golf

Club's motion to enforce its version of the settlement in Gan's action for discrimination

based on her age and gender. Having reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we

conclude the district court's decision was correct. We thus affirm on the basis of the

district court's ruling without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1123/2006

of 20 July 2006         

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of common wheat issued in Regulation (EC) No 936/2006

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 14 to 20 July 2006 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat issued in Regulation (EC) No 936/2006.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 21 July 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 July 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

(2)OJ L 172, 24.6.2006, p. 6.

(3)OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last modified by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

----
**Exhibit 32.2**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Merisant Worldwide, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended June 30, 2006 (the “Report”),the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

 

 
|        | /s/ Anthony J. Nocchiero |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Anthony J. Nocchiero     |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer  |   |
|   | August 11, 2006          |   |

 

----
2001 OK JUD ETH 6.

#### JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINION 2001-6.

Oklahoma Judicial Ethics Advisory Panel.

March 30, 2001.

T0 QUESTION 1: Should a judge prohibit a member of the judge's staff from soliciting or offering to sell goods for charitable or religious purposes (e.g., Girl Scout cookies for staff member's daughter) during office hours at the staff member's desk?

11 WE ANSWER: YES.

12 Canon 2; "A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all of the Judge's Activities"

T3 Canon 2B: "... A judge should not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others...."

4 Canon 3C(1): "A judge should diligently discharge the judge's managerial responsibilities. ..."

15 Canon 3C(2): "A judge should require staff ... and others subject to the judge's direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge...."

T6 Canon 4C@B)(b): "A judge .... (IV) should not use or permit the use of the prestige of the judicial office for fund raising or membership solicitation."

17 As we stated in J.E.A.P. Opinion 2001-4, the Canons do not apply to the staff of a judge, but the judge has managerial duties and must require the staff to comply with certain ethical standards. The purpose of these Canons is to avoid misuse of the judge's office and to prevent the appearance of impropriety. Attorneys having business before the Court and litigants may be intimidated by solicitation by the judge's staff, or may expect advantages in future litigation by acts of generosity to staff members. Reasonable observers of such conduct could assume the solicitation was endorsed or encouraged by the judge and create a public perception that the judge was using the power and prestige of the office to induce contributions.

8 On the other hand, judges are expected to use some common sense and in the sale of Girl Seout cookies, for example, or items of comparable value, a judge. might very well apply the Latin maxim: "De minimis mon curat lex."

9 Robert L. Bailey, Chairman

Robert A. Layden, Vice-Chairman

Milton C. Craig, Secretary
#### Darren MACK v. Lisa DIMARCO.

No. 2003-CC-2254.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 13, 2003.

In re Mack, Darren; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 564-313; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 2003-C-824.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jerry Lewis Tekimeam BIAS, Jr.

No. COA17-1236

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 19, 2018

NO ERROR.
STATE of North Carolina v. Holly JO FOOR

No. COA17-1316

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 7, 2018

NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR AT TRIAL. REMANDED FOR NEW RESTITUTION HEARING.
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
ECB Bancorp, Inc.


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of ECB
Bancorp, Inc. on Form S-8 relating to the ECB Bancorp, Inc. Omnibus Stock
Ownership and Long-Term Incentive Plan, of our report dated February 4, 2000,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of ECB Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiary
as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated statements of
income, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1999, which report appears in the December
31, 1999 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of ECB Bancorp, Inc.

                                                                        KPMG LLP

Raleigh, North Carolina
March 23, 2000
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on October 18, 2004, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), the Technologies for Target Assessment (“TATS member firm Icoria, Inc.”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Agilent Technologies, Inc., Santa Clara, CA has been added as a party to this venture and LION Bioscience, Inc., Cambridge, MA has withdrawn as a party to this venture. Also, Paradigm Genetics, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC has changed its name to Icoria, Inc.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and TATS member firm Icoria, Inc. intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On August 1, 2002, TATS member firm Icoria, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on September 12, 2002 (67 FR 57853).                

Dorothy B. Fountain,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 05-1977 Filed 2-1-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4589 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4589

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude dividends from 
controlled foreign corporations from the definition of personal holding 
   company income for purposes of the personal holding company rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2014

 Mr. Reichert (for himself and Mr. McDermott) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude dividends from 
controlled foreign corporations from the definition of personal holding 
   company income for purposes of the personal holding company rules.

    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 ``Personal Holding Company Tax Parity 
and Reinvestment Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF DIVIDENDS FROM CONTROLLED FOREIGN CORPORATIONS 
              FROM THE DEFINITION OF PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY INCOME 
              FOR PURPOSES OF THE PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY RULES.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 543(a) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as 
        subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively, and
            (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
                    ``(C) dividends received by a United States 
                shareholder (as defined in section 951(b)) from a 
                controlled foreign corporation (as defined in section 
                957(a)),''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall apply to 
taxable years ending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
J

- S31005

- 19

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

THOMAS MICHAEL LUCAS

Appellant :
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1037 WDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 7, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 10

- SA

- 0000036

- 2018

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.: FILED JUNE 25, 2019

Appellant, Thomas Michael Lucas, appeals from the judgment of

sentence entered on June 7, 2018, in the Butler County Court of Common

Pleas . Appellant failed to preserve any issues for appell ate review, as such,

we affirm.

On June 7, 2018, Appellant pled guilty to the summary charge of driving

while operating privilege is suspended or revoked. 1 The trial court sentenced

Appellant to pay the costs of prosecution, a $500.00 fine, and 60 days o f

house arrest with electronic monitoring. On July 5, 2018, Appellant filed a

notice of appeal. On July 27, 2018, the trial court , in compliance with

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), directed Appellant to file a concise statement of matters

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(b)(1)J

- S31005

- 19

- 2

-

complained of on appeal wit hin 21 days or risk waiver of his claims. Appellant

failed to file a concise statement. Accordingly, Appellant has waived his

claims. 2 See. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Commonwealth v. Lagenella , 17 A.3d

1257, 1265 (Pa. Super. 2011), reversed on other grounds , 8 3 A.3d 94 (Pa.

2013); Commonwealth v. Kimble , 756 A.2d 78, 80 (Pa. Super. 2000).

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 6/25/2019

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

2 Moreover, Appellant’s one

- page, handwritten brief fails in its entirety to comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, including the failure to present any issues or provide any argument

. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111, 2114

- 2119.J

- S31005

- 19

- 3

-
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

 

 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors 

Valley Bank

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-126298 and 333-46488) on Form S-8 and in the registration statements (Nos. 333-156683 and 333-120311) on Form S-3 of Valley Financial Corporation and subsidiaries of our report dated March 23, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Valley Financial Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders’ equity and cash flows for the years then ended, which appear in the December 31, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of Valley Financial Corporation and subsidiaries.

 

/s/  Elliott Davis, LLC

 

Galax, Virginia

March 27, 2009
STATE v. Jesse Dean HOPPES

191P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

David Weiss, Attorney at Law, Jesse Dean Hoppes, for Hoppes, Jesse Dean.

Isham F. Hicks, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mike Miller, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of June 2018 by Defendant for Petition for En Banc Rehearing:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."

Ervin, J. Recused