alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# 3F*-tS ELECTRONIC RECORD COA # 10-14-00028-CR 

## OFFENSE: Indecencywith a Child Jose Carmen Garcia, Jr. v. The State of 

### STYLE: Texas TRIAL COURT: 

## TRIALCOURTS: TRIALCOURT JUDGE: Hon. Ralph T.Strother DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED 19th District Court 2012-2360-C1

DATE: 

### March 5, 2015 PC 

### COUNTY: McLennan

S YES FOR REHEARING IS: 

## DATE: JUDGE:


### JUSTICE: Scoggins PUBLISH: DNP: YES CLK RECORD: RPTRECORD: STATE BR: APP BR: 

### 3/28/2014 9/29/2014 2/3/2015 11/3/2014 SUPPCLKRECORD: SUPPRPTRECORD: SUPP BR: PRO SE BR:



### IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS MOTION



### ELECTRONIC RECORD 

# cca# 35t •/a PRO SEL Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

### Disposition: DATE: JUDGE: 

# DATE: OV/jL^7^?/r SIGNED: PC: 

# JUDGE: ^f\rUc^^- PUBLISH: DNP: MOTION FOR REHEARING IN MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE IS: CCA IS: ON JUDGE: ON JUDGE:
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5433 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5433

 To repeal certain provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
 Care Act relating to the limitation on the Medicare exception to the 
    prohibition on certain physician referrals for hospitals and to 
transparency reports and reporting of physician ownership or investment 
                               interests.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 27, 2010

 Mr. Hastings of Washington (for himself, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Olson, Mr. 
 Sam Johnson of Texas, and Mr. Burgess) introduced the following bill; 
  which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 
    addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 repeal certain provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
 Care Act relating to the limitation on the Medicare exception to the 
    prohibition on certain physician referrals for hospitals and to 
transparency reports and reporting of physician ownership or investment 
                               interests.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND 
              AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

    Effective as of the enactment of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act, sections 6001 and 10601 (relating to limitation on 
the Medicare exception to the prohibition on certain physician 
referrals for hospitals) and section 6002 (relating to transparency 
reports and reporting of physician ownership or investment interests) 
of such Act are repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed 
by such sections are restored or revived as if such Act had not been 
enacted.
                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 16

- 00210

- CV

Ezra PLEASANT

, Appellant

v.

TRAVIS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

, Appellee

From the 331st Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas Trial Court No. D

- 1

- EX

- 11

- 000068 Honorable David Crain, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order denying Pleasant’s petition for expunction is AFFIRMED. Any costs of appeal are assess ed against Pleasant.

SIGNED September 7, 2016.

_____________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice
#### THE THANH TON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 24518

August 9, 1994

878 P.2d 986

*Mark B. Jackson,*Gardnerville, for Appellant.

*Frankie Sue Del Papa,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Scott W. Doyle,*District Attorney and *Derrick M. Lopez,*Deputy District Attorney, Douglas County, for Respondent.

*971OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, of one count of use of counterfeit coins. NRS 465.080(2). The district court sentenced appellant to serve a term of five years in the Nevada State Prison.1

On appeal, appellant contends that he was entitled to an interpreter pursuant to NRS 50.051 and NRS 50.050(l)(a). Appellant argues that the district court’s failure to appoint an interpreter pursuant to those statutes violated his right to due process.

NRS 50.051 provides;

> 50.051 Interpreters for handicapped persons: Appointment required in criminal proceedings. An interpreter must be appointed at public expense for a handicapped person who is a party to or a witness in a criminal proceeding.

NRS 50.050(1) provides in part:

> (a) “Handicapped person” means a person who, because he is deaf, mute or has a physical speaking impairment, cannot readily understand or communicate in the English language or cannot understand the proceedings.

Appellant’s contention is without merit. Appellant does not contend, nor does the record indicate, that appellant is either “deaf’ or “mute” or that he “has a physical speaking impairment.” Appellant is therefore not a “handicapped person” for the purposes of NRS 50.051 and had no right to an interpreter under that statute.

A criminal defendant has a due process right to an interpreter at all crucial stages of the criminal process, irrespective of NRS 50.051, if that defendant in fact does not understand the English language. *See*United States ex rel. Negron v. State of New York, 434 F.2d 386 (2d Cir. 1970); State v. Hansen, 705 P.2d 466 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985); Parra v. Page, 430 P.2d 834 (Okla. Crim. *972App. 1967). Handicapped or not, a criminal defendant who cannot understand the proceedings going on around him cannot adequately assist in his defense and has not received due process of law. He or she might as well have been tried in his or her absence. In the instant case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that The Thanh Ton was sufficiently fluent in the English language to understand the proceedings in a meaningful sense. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction.

1

 Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument is not warranted in this appeal.
FIRST CLOVER LEAF FINANCIAL CORP.

                                                                      Exhibit 32

      Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Dennis M.  Terry,  Chief  Executive  Officer,  and Darlene F.  McDonald,  Senior
President and Chief  Financial  Officer,  of First Clover Leaf  Financial  Corp.
(Company)  each certify in their capacity as an officer of the Company that they
have reviewed the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended September 30, 2006 (Report) and that to the best of their knowledge:

      1.    the Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

The purpose of this  statement  is solely to comply  with Title 18,  Chapter 63,
Section  1350 of the United  States  Code,  as  amended  by  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.


                                  By: /s/ Dennis M. Terry
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Dennis M. Terry
                                      President and Chief Executive Officer



                                  By: /s/ Darlene F. McDonald
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Darlene F. McDonald
                                      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date:  November 14, 2006
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 23
                          [PASTE-UP LETTERHEAD HERE]

                                March 26, 1997

San Juan Basin Royalty Trust
Bank One, Texas
7th Floor, Suite 704
Fort Worth, Texas 76102

Gentlemen:

  Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc. hereby consents to the use of the oil
and gas reserve information in the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust Securities &
Exchange Commission Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996 and in the
San Juan Basin Royalty Trust Annual Report for the year ended December 31,
1996 based on reserve reports dated March 25, 1997 prepared by Cawley,
Gillespie & Associates, Inc.

                                          Sincerely,

                                          /s/ Cawley, Gillespie & Associates,
                                           Inc.

                                          Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc.
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 Veterans Affairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Pub. L. 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission has scheduled a meeting for Thursday, November 17, 2005, and Friday, November 18, 2005, in hearing room 340, House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. The meeting will begin each day at 9 a.m. and end at 4 p.m. The meeting is open to the public. 

The purpose of the Commission is to carry out a study of the benefits under the laws of the United States that are provided to compensate and assist veterans and their survivors for disabilities and deaths attributable to military service. 

The agenda for the meeting will include a review of the Statement of  Work for contracting with the Center for Naval Analyses for Commission approval and a discussion of potential field hearings to be conducted by Commission members during calendar year 2006. 

                    Interested persons may attend and present oral statements to the Commission. Time for oral presentations will be limited to five minutes or less, depending on the number of participants. Interested parties may provide written comments for review by the Commission prior to the meeting, by e-mail to:                     *veterans@vetscommision.intranets.com*                     or by mail to: Mr. Ray Wilburn, Executive Director, Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission, 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20004.                 

Dated: October 25, 2005.

By direction of the Secretary. 

E. Philip Riggin, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05-21775 Filed 11-1-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

          - [FEMA-1607-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-1607-DR), dated September 24, 2005, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

October 17, 2005. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 24, 2005: 

Lafayette Parish for Public Assistance [Categories C-G] (already designated for Individual Assistance and debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B] under the Public Assistance program, including direct Federal assistance.) 

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs, 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.) 

R. David Paulison, 

Acting Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 05-21505 Filed 10-27-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

November 20, 2012

s1113

Order 

November 20, 2012

145403 & (22)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145403

COA: 307703

Wayne CC: 07-006304-01

JUSTIN CHRISTOPHER BLACKSHERE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 8, 2012 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). The motion to 

remand is DENIED.
#### PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE BLUE RIDGE; Herbert C. Jones, Jr., M.D.; Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington; Virginia League for Planned Parenthood; Hillcrest Clinic; Richmond Medical Center for Women; Thomas Gresinger, M.D.; Commonwealth Women’s Clinic; Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Virginia, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. James L. CAMBLOS, in his official capacity as Commonwealth’s Attorney for the County of Albemarle, and as a representative of all the Commonwealth’s Attorneys in Virginia, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 97-1853.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Oct. 20, 1997.

ORDER

On March 22, 1997, the Governor of Virginia signed into law Virginia’s Parental Notification Act. Va.Code Ann. § 16.1-241(V). The Act prohibits a physician from performing an abortion on an unemancipated minor unless one of the minor’s parents or a guardian has been notified within twenty-four hours prior to the procedure or unless the minor receives judicial approval to forgo notification. *Id.*

Before the law was to go into effect on July 1,1997, plaintiffs, several Virginia physicians and interest groups, brought suit in the Western District of Virginia requesting that the operation of the statute be enjoined. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, and the Commonwealth that same day petitioned Judge Luttig for a stay of the district court’s injunction. The stay was granted on June 30, 1997, and plaintiffs-appellees now move the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(c) and Local Rule 27(f) to vacate the stay of the district court’s order pending appeal. The motion was referred to the Court for consideration.

On a poll of the Court, Chief Judge Wilkinson, Judge Russell, Judge Widener, Judge Wilkins, Judge Niemeyer, Judge Luttig and Judge Williams voted to deny the motion to vacate the stay. Judge Hall, Judge Mumaghan, Judge Ervin, Judge Michael and Judge Motz voted to grant the motion to vacate the stay. Judge Hamilton abstained from voting.

As a majority of the Court has voted to deny the motion to vacate the stay of the district court’s order pending appeal, the plaintiffs-appellees’ motion is hereby denied.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.M., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, 

PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD,

Philadelphia, PA, Employer 

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0386

Issued: March 31, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas R. Uliase, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On January 25, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a December 22, 

2020 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of 

the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 21-0386.

In a letter dated and received March 4, 2021, counsel requested that the appeal be 

dismissed.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that counsel’s request for the 

dismissal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, 

 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the dismissal of the appeal is 

granted. The appeal docketed as No. 21-0386 is dismissed.

Issued: March 31, 2021

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees' Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees' Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees' Compensation Appeals Board
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Chicago, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0952 

Issued: December 13, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 6, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a May 13, 2022 

merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 22-0952.

In a letter dated and received November 16, 2022, appellant through counsel, requested 

that the appeal be withdrawn. 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.
2

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that appellant’s request for the 

withdrawal of the appeal should be granted.2 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the withdrawal of the appeal 

is granted. The appeal docketed as No. 22-0952 is dismissed.

Issued: December 13, 2022

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

2 The Board’s decisions and orders are final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance. 20C.F.R. 

§ 501.6(d).
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40577

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

DAVID TORRES-MENDEZ, also known as David Leonel Torres-Mendez,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:19-CR-282-1

Before JONES, HIGGINSON, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent David TorresMendez seeks leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Torres-Mendez has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 14, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-40577 Document: 00515310511 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2020
No. 19-40577

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 19-40577 Document: 00515310511 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/14/2020