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

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-20-00237-CR 

BONNIE ALLEN THOMAS AKA BONNIE ALLEN-PIERONI, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 18th District Court 

Johnson County, Texas 

Trial Court No. F50926, Honorable F.B. McGregor, Jr., Presiding 

 

November 2, 2020 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. 

Appellant, Bonnie Allen Thomas, filed a notice of appeal from the Tenth Court of 

Appeals’ mandate affirming her conviction. We dismiss the purported appeal for want of 

jurisdiction.

In 2017, appellant was convicted of carrying a weapon in a prohibited place1 and 

sentenced to five years’ confinement, suspended in favor of community supervision. The 

Tenth Court affirmed her conviction in Thomas v. State, No. 10-17-00138-CR, 2019 Tex. 

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.03(a), (g) (West Supp. 2020) (third-degree felony offense).
2

App. LEXIS 7856, at *20 (Tex. App.—Waco Aug. 28, 2019, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication), and the Court of Criminal Appeals refused her petition for

discretionary review. On July 13, 2020, the Tenth Court issued its mandate affirming the

trial court’s judgment. Thereafter, appellant filed a notice of appeal stating “[t]he justices 

at the 10th Court of Appeals have not followed the constitution their decision rendered 

7/13/20 is void.” That appeal was later transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme 

Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 

(West 2013).

We have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a judgment of conviction or where 

appellate jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law. See Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 

694, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Because an appellate court’s mandate is neither a 

judgment of conviction nor a trial court order from which an appeal is specifically 

authorized, we lack jurisdiction over such an appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 18.1 (requiring 

an appellate court clerk to issue a mandate in accordance with the appellate court’s 

judgment after the judgment becomes final). Furthermore, to the extent appellant seeks 

to challenge her conviction by this appeal, we are also without jurisdiction. Only the Court 

of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to grant post-conviction relief from a final felony 

conviction. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1991).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
STATE v. Sydney Shakur MERCER

257PA18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 5, 2019

Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Daniel K. Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defender, Sydney Shakur Mercer, for Mercer, Sydney Shakur.

Daniel O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General.

Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 4th of March 2019 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of March 2019."

*579Defendant shall have up to and including the 10th day of April 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130003 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130003 COA: 261940 Grand Traverse CC: 98-007603-FC KEVIN CARTER HOLTZER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to a ppeal the October 14, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s0522 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2006

Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 203 (Friday, October 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21065]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security


Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee; 
Notice of Open Meeting

    The Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee 
(MPETAC) will meet on November 3, 2005 at 9 a.m. in Room 3884 of the 
Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and 
Constitution Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with 
respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls 
applicable to materials processing equipment and related technology.

Agenda

    1. Opening Remarks and Introductions.
    2. Presentation of Papers and Comments by the Public.
    3. Report on September Wassenaar Experts Meeting.
    4. Report on proposed changes to the Export Administration 
Regulation.
    5. Comments on Machine Tool Export.
    6. Other Business.
    The meeting will be open to the public and a limited number of 
seats will be available. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent 
that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to 
the Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before 
or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public 
presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests 
that presenters forward the public presentation materials two weeks 
prior to Yvette Springer at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#124b6162607b7c75776052707b613c767d713c757d64"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e371d1e1c0700090b1c2e0c071d400a010d40090118">[email protected]</span></a>.
    For more information, please contact Ms. Springer at 202-482-4814.

    Dated: October 14, 2005.
Yvette Springer,
Committee Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-21065 Filed 10-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JT-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears
below constitutes and appoints ROBERT C. WOODWORTH and RONALD H. RIDGWAY, and
each of them, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full power
of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in
any and all capacities, to sign Pulitzer Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K, and
to file the same, with all exhibits thereto and other documents in connection
therewith, and any amendments thereto, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and New York Stock Exchange, Inc., granting unto said
attorneys-in-fact and agents and each of them, full power and authority to do
and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in
and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or
could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, or each of them, or their substitute or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
           Signature                                 Title                                       Date
           ---------                                 -----                                       ----
<S>                               <C>                                                       <C>
    /s/ Michael E. Pulitzer                    Director; Chairman                            March 18, 1999
 ------------------------------
       (Michael E. Pulitzer)

    /s/ Robert C. Woodworth                  Director; President and                         March 18, 1999
 ------------------------------
       (Robert C. Woodworth)                  Chief Executive Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)

    /s/ Ronald H. Ridgway            Director; Senior Vice President-Finance                 March 18, 1999
 ------------------------------
       (Ronald H. Ridgway)         (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

    /s/ Ken J. Elkins                              Director                                  March 18, 1999
 ------------------------------
       (Ken J. Elkins)

    /s/ David E. Moore                             Director                                  March 18, 1999
 ------------------------------
       (David E. Moore)

    /s/ William Bush                               Director                                  March 18, 1999
 ------------------------------
       (William Bush)

    /s/ Emily Rauh Pulitzer                        Director                                  March 18, 1999
 ------------------------------
       (Emily Rauh Pulitzer)

    /s/ Alice B. Hayes                             Director                                  March 18, 1999
 ------------------------------
       (Alice B. Hayes)

    /s/ James M. Snowden Jr.                       Director                                  March 18, 1999
 ------------------------------
       (James M. Snowden, Jr.)
</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 10.13
 AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE
to the
Master Repurchase Agreement
dated as of September 2, 2005,
among
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as Buyer
and
NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATION, HOME123 CORPORATION, NEW
CENTURY CREDIT CORPORATION and NC CAPITAL CORPORATION, as Sellers
and
NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL CORPORATION, as Guarantor
 Amendment Effective Date Sellers Guarantor Buyer
 R E C I T A L S
 Repurchase Agreement
    Miscellaneous




---



##### 



Amendments to the Repurchase Agreement
  No Other Changes
 Representations
 Counterparts
 Governing Law; Waiver of Jury Trial
  -2-




---



##### 



BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as BuyerBy:
    
    /s/ Sean A. TobiasName:
    
    Sean A. TobiasTitle:
    
    PrincipalNEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATION, as Seller, jointly
and severallyBy:
    
    /s/ Warren LicataName:
    
    Warren LicataTitle:
    
    Senior Vice PresidentHOME123 CORPORATION, as Seller, jointly and severallyBy:
    
    /s/ Warren LicataName:
    
    Warren LicataTitle:
    
    Senior Vice PresidentNEW CENTURY CREDIT CORPORATION, as Seller, jointly
and severallyBy:
    
    /s/ Warren LicataName:
    
    Warren LicataTitle:
    
    Senior Vice PresidentNC CAPITAL CORPORATION, as Seller, jointly and
severallyBy:
    
    /s/ Warren LicataName:
    
    Warren LicataTitle:
    
    Senior Vice President




---



##### 



By:
    
    /s/ Robert K. ColeName:
    
    Robert K. ColeTitle:
    
    Chairman of the BoardNEW CENTURY FINANCIAL CORPORATION, as GuarantorBy:
    
    /s/ Stergios TheologidesName:
    
    Stergios TheologidesTitle:
    
    Executive Vice President
No. 20,605.

#### The Welsbach Street Lighting Company, *Appellant,*v. The City of Wichita, *Appellee.*

Appeal from Sedgwick district court, division No. 1; Thomas C. Wilson, judge.

Opinion denying a rehearing filed December 8, 1917.

(For original opinion of reversal see 101 Kan. 452.)

*S. B. Amidon, W. M. Dedrick,*both of Wichita, and *J. W. Dana,*of Kansas- City, Mo., for the appellant.

*Earl Blake,*and *J. N. Haymaker,*both of Wichita, for the *appellee; R. G. Foulston,*city attorney, of counsel.

opinion denying a rehearing.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dawson, *J.:*

In a petition for a rehearing some minor matters are again urged upon our attention which were not discussed in the court’s opinion in this case. (101 Kan. 452.) We note them now. No legal significance is attached to the letter of the city clerk dated November 1,1910, addressed to pláintiff, giving notice that the city “will discontinue the use of street lights furnished by your company under contract, which expired on the 31st day of June, 1910,” etc. As we have seen, the contract did not expire in June, and if plaintiff had given countenance to this letter it would have but added another circumstance to the incidents discussed in our former opinion upon which the defendant relied to establish a waiver. The same observation may be made as to the telegram of January 4, 1911, sent to plaintiff by one of the city commissioners, threatening certain consequences if plaintiff did not remove its property *within fifteen days.*That telegram did not terminate the contract. These incidents merely tend to show that the city was seeking some strategic means of getting rid of its con*5tractual relations with plaintiff. It does not fall within a court’s province to teach parties how they may effectively breach and terminate their contracts, but some reference thereto will be found in *Construction Co. v. Sedgwick County,*100 Kan. 394, 164 Pac. 281.

A suggestion is made that the.trial court will not know what judgment to enter, intimating that there is some dispute as to the proper computation of interest. This matter was not raised in the appeal, but it may be helpful to say that the defaulted payments for the lighting services performed should only draw simple interest at the 'legal rate from the dates when they were severally due under the contract. Of course, the damages for the breach of the contract do not begin to bear interest until the judgment is rendered.

Rehearing denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7123

ANTONIO SANTELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. E. LAFAVE, Lieutenant, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA99-1801-PJM) Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 19, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Santell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order denying the motion to vacate is marked as “filed” on July 30, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on August 2, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray , 803 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Antonio Santell appeals the district court’s orders summarily dismissing his civil right complaint and denying his motion tovacate. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s memorandum and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Santell v. Lafave , No. CA-99- 1801-PJM (D. Md. July 9 & Aug. 2, 1999). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
TKP

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0326

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

LAWRENCE MATTHEW BRASDA,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for an extension of time, and 

good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time

to and including December 11, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file the 

State’s response.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 5 2020

11/05/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0326
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 24.1



                                POWER OF ATTORNEY




KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears
below constitutes and appoints Jack Chen and Gary Li, jointly and severally, as
his attorneys-in-fact, each with the power of substitution, for him in any and
all capacities, to sign any amendments to this Report on Form 10-Q and to file
the same, with exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, hereby ratifying and confirming all that
each of said attorneys-in-fact, or his substitute or substitutes may do or cause
to be done by virtue hereof.


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1934, this Form 10-Q has
been signed by the following persons in the capacities and on the dates
indicated:

<TABLE>
<S>            <C>
      Signature                                Title                                Date

    /s/ Jack Chen              Chief Executive Officer and Director           November 14, 2008
---------------------
      Jack Chen

   /s/ Gary Li                        Chief Financial Officer                 November 14, 2008
---------------------
     Gary Li


</TABLE>
H. R. 5014 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten 

An Act 

To clarify the health care provided by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that constitutes minimum essential coverage. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDED BY THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS THAT CONSTITUTES 

MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Clause (v) of section 5000A(f)(1)(A) of the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 1501(b) of 

the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is amended to 

read as follows: 

‘‘(v) a health care program under chapter 17 or 

18 of title 38, United States Code, as determined by 

the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in coordination with 

the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the 

Secretary,’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) 

shall take effect as if included in section 1501(b) of the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**


**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the report of China Architectural Engineering, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of
      the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





(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.





/s/
                Luo Ken YiLuo
                Ken YiChief
                Executive OfficerAugust
                11, 2008/s/
                Wang XinWang
                XinChief
                Financial OfficerAugust
                11, 2008





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to China Architectural Engineering, Inc. and will be retained by China
      Architectural Engineering, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.
### The HONORABLE HOWARD F. SACHS, United States District Judge 1 

### for the Western District of Missouri. ___________ No. 95-3775

___________ Manuel Moreno-Perez, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. United States of America, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 19, 1996 Filed: June 26, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________
PER CURIAM.
Manual Moreno-Perez pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess wit h intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and using a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C
. § 924(c). The district court sentenced him to 123 months impr isonment and 1 four years supervised release.
Moreno-Perez then filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, contendin g that his conviction was obtained by a plea of guilty which was unlawfull y induced; that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because he was not a dvised of his right to appeal, and was "misadvised" regarding th e substantially shorter sentences received by his co-defendants; and that he was denied his

### -2-

right to appeal because he was not informed of such right. The district court denied this motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the Spanish-speaking Moreno-Perez argues for the first time that counsel faile d to arr ange for interpreters to be present during attorney-clien t interviews, and failed to ensure that Moreno-Perez understood all stages of the proceedings.

After carefully considering the record, we conclude that thes e contentions are without merit. Moreno-Perez's sworn statements at the ple a hearing -- that he was satisfied with counsel, that he understood th e consequences of his plea, and that he was pleadi ng guilty without coercion

-- confirm that his guilty plea was not involuntary. See Bramlett v
. Lockhart , 876 F.2d 644, 647 (8th Cir.), cert. de nied , 493 U.S. 941 (1989). He has not shown a re asonable probability that but for the alleged errors of counsel he would have insisted on going to trial. See English v. Unite d States , 998 F.2d 609, 613 (8th Cir.), cert. deni ed , 114 S. Ct. 573 (1993). Indeed, when given the opportunity at sentencing to move to withdraw his plea, Moreno-Perez stated that he preferred to proceed with sentencin g rather than face a trial. Finally, Moreno-Perez was informed at sentencin g of the need to file a notice of appeal within ten days.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.