alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered April 8, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01506-CR

THERON WAYNE JOHNSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-82005-2011

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant 

has been deprived of the reporter’s record because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any 

other reason.

• The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If 

the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute this appeal, it shall 

make a finding to that effect.

• If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall next 

determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs 

for the reporter’s record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the 

trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial 

court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective 

representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds 

appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the 

appeal.
• The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who 

recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay 

in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can 

be filed. 

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a supplemental record, containing the written 

findings of fact, any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY 

DAYS of the date of this order.

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. It shall be 

reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the supplemental record is received, 

whichever is earlier.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 129069 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 129069 COA: 259734 Genesee CC: 81-030181-FC WILLIAM B. KISSANE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 24, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). To the extent that the defenda nt challenges the denial of relief under MCL 770.16, the application is considered, and it is DENI ED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1219 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.

December 27, 2005

Clerk
#### Frederick E. Friedman, Appellant, *v.*Charles Bender, as President of Local Union No. 43, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Respondent.

*Friedman*v. *Bender,*180 App. Div. 920, affirmed.

(Argued October 15, 1918;

decided October 29, 1918.)

Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme. Court in the fourth judicial department, entered October 20, 1917, unanimously affirming, a judgment of Special Term in so far as appealed from by the plaintiff, who was an electrician and had been expelled from defendant union. The action was brought in equity to compel his restoration to membership; to enjoin defendant and its officers from interfering with his employment and to recover damages. The court at Special Term awarded judgment in favor of plaintiff upon the first two counts but denied any award of damages.

*Frank Hopkins*for appellant. ■

*Ray B. Smith*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin and Andrews, JJ.
Case 1:07-cr-00373-SHS Document 7 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cr-00373-SHS Document 7 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cr-00373-SHS Document 7 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 3 of 3
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135003 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: 135003 

 COA: 267945

 Kent CC: 04-012450-FC 

SHAWN WILSON, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 21, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l1119 

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. 

November 29, 2007 

 Clerk
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 6 Filed 05/18/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### GODLEY v. COUNTY OF PITT

No. 140 PC.

Now No. 87 PA 82.

Case below: 54 N.C. App. 324.

Petition by defendants (Town of Winterville and Great American Insurance) for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 3 March 1982.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15 - 50014 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff- Appellee v. LUIS MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ - LICEA , Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:14 - CR - 521 - 1 Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Luis Miguel Rodriguez - Licea appeals his 70 - month within - guidelines range sentence for illegal reentry into the United States following removal. Rodriguez - Licea argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the sentence was greater than necessary to achieve the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He asserts that a presumption of reasonableness should not be applied to his within - guidelines - range sentence because the Guideline on

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 10, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-50014 Document: 00513188204 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/10/2015No. 15 - 50014

2 which it was based, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, is not empirically based, but he acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed. He asserts that his guidelines range was greater than necessary because § 2L1.2 double counted his prior convictions and because his offense was a mere trespass. He maintains that the sentence failed to reflect his personal histo ry and characteristics because he and his mother are both ill and because he wishes to return to Mexico where work opportunities are available to him. A discretionary sentence imposed within the advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. Unit ed States v. Campos - Maldonado , 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). As Rodriguez - Licea acknowledges, his assertion that we should not apply a presumption of reasonableness because § 2L1.2 is not empirically based is foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte , 569 F.3d 528, 529 - 31 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court weighed the sentencing factors, rejected Rodriguez Licea ’s personal arguments, and imposed a within - guidelines - range sentence based primarily on Rodriguez - Licea ’s criminal history. The internation al trespass and double - counting - of- prior - convictions arguments that Rodriguez Licea raises have both been previously rejected. See Duarte , 569 F.3d at 529 - 31; United States v. Aguirre - Villa , 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006). As Rodriguez - Licea was sente nced within the guidelines range, the sentence is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness, and Rodriguez - Licea has not shown sufficient reason for us to disturb that presumption. See United States v. Gomez - Herrera , 523 F.3d 554, 565 - 66 (5th Cir. 2008) . AFFIRMED. Case: 15-50014 Document: 00513188204 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/10/2015
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-86,503-01

EX PARTE BOBBY JOE HICKMAN, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 09-02-01908-CR-(1) IN THE 9TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of injury to a child 

and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that he was denied the opportunity to file an appeal. Counsel filed an

affidavit with the trial court. The trial court found her affidavit credible and determined that

Applicant did not have the opportunity to file an appeal. We conclude that there was a breakdown

in the system. Ex parte Riley, 193 S.W.3d 900, 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 
2

We find that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal of the

judgment of conviction in Cause No. 09-02-01908-CR-(1) from the 9th District Court of

Montgomery County. Applicant is ordered returned to that time at which he may give a written

notice of appeal so that he may then, with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. 

It appears that Applicant is represented by counsel. Within ten days of the issuance of this

opinion, the trial court shall determine if Applicant is represented by counsel, and if not, whether

Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court

shall immediately appoint an attorney to represent Applicant on direct appeal. 

All time limits shall be calculated as if the sentence had been imposed on the date on which

the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant desire to prosecute an appeal, he 

must take affirmative steps to file a written notice of appeal in the trial court within 30 days after the

mandate of this Court issues.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division. 

Delivered: March 29, 2017

Do not publish
Case 1:07-cv-03439-WHP Document 3 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03439-WHP Document 3 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03439-WHP Document 3 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03439-WHP Document 3 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 4 of 4
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          13,097
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,646
<ALLOWANCES>                                       645
<INVENTORY>                                     13,119
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,673
<PP&E>                                          38,193
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,815
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  74,582
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,295
<BONDS>                                          3,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           200
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,136
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    74,582
<SALES>                                         29,760
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,760
<CGS>                                           11,760
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,760
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,828
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (90)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,890
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,510
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,510
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.46


</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-03373-SHS Document 5 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Steven D. Goldby, Chief Executive Officer of Symyx Technologies, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | By: |  | /s/STEVEN D. GOLDBYSteven D. Goldby
Chairman of the Board,
Chief Executive Officer
March 8, 2005
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I,
Jeryl L. Hilleman, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Symyx Technologies, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | By: |  | /s/JERYL L. HILLEMANJeryl L. Hilleman
Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer
March 8, 2005
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
Case 1:07-cv-03386-LBS     Document 7      Filed 08/14/2007     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-03386-LBS     Document 7      Filed 08/14/2007     Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Korn/Ferry International, a Delaware corporation (the
Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

(a) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
October 31, 2007 (the Report) of the Company 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.

Dated: December 10, 2007



By:

/s/ GARY D. BURNISONName:

Gary D. BurnisonTitle:

Chief Executive Officer and DirectorBy:

/s/ STEPHEN J. GIUSTOName:

Stephen J. GiustoTitle:

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-30373 (Summary Calendar)

GERALD DAVIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(99-CV-420)

- - - - - - - - - - October 3, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellant Gerald Davis appeals from the district

court’s order remanding the case to the Commissioner for failure to

develop the record regarding Davis’s mental retardation fully and

fairly. Davis argues that the district court abused its discretion

in failing to reverse the Commissioner’s decision and order an

award of benefits. Davis also argues that the administrative law

judge (ALJ) was biased, requesting that the case be remanded to a

different ALJ if the district court’s remand order is affirmed.2

Contrary to the Commissioner’s argument, Davis may appeal the

district court’s remand order because Davis sought reversal as well

as remand. S ee Forney v. Apfel

, 524 U.S. 266, 269 (1998). We have

reviewed the record and hold that the district court did not abuse

its discretio n in ordering the remand pursuant to the fourth

sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Under the standard of abuse of

discretion that we apply when rev iewing the district court’s

refusal to order that, on remand, this case be heard by a different

ALJ, we refuse to disturb that ruling. Davis has failed to

demonstrate the required high degree of antagonism toward his

representative on the part of the ALJ to make impossible the ALJ’s

rendering of a fair judgment. Accordingly, the judgment of the

district court is in all respects

AFFIRMED.
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

###### Office of Research and Development

# AGENCY:

Office of Research and Development, VA.

# ACTION:

 Notice of Government Owned Invention Available for Licensing.

# SUMMARY:

The invention listed below is owned by the U.S. Government as represented by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and is available for licensing in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 and 37 CFR part 404 and/or Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA) Collaboration under 15 U.S.C. 3710a to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of Federally-funded research and development. Foreign patents are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for U.S. companies and may also be available for licensing.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Technical and licensing information on the invention may be obtained by writing to: Amy E. Centanni, Department of Veterans Affairs, Director, Technology Transfer Program, Office of Research and Development, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420; fax: 202-254-0255; e-mail at:                         *amy.centanni@mail.va.gov.*

Any request for information should include the Number and Title for the relevant invention as indicated below. Issued patents may be obtained from the Commissioner of Patents, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, DC 20231.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The invention available for licensing is: U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/702,874 “Agents for Inhibiting Lymphocyte or Tumor Proliferation and Methods Thereof.”

Dated: November 22, 2005.

Gordon H. Mansfield,

Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

[FR Doc. 05-23463  Filed 11-28-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
Exhibit 32.1





KINDER MORGAN, INC.

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-Q of Kinder Morgan, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended
June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date 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:



(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.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Kinder Morgan, Inc. and will be retained by Kinder Morgan, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





|                        |  |                                                       
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|Dated:  August
	8, 2006 |  | /s/ Richard D. Kinder                                 
|                        |  | Richard D. Kinder
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

                         BIOMET, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                for the years ended May 31, 1997, 1996 and 1995
                   (in thousands, except earnings per share)

                              ___________________


Computation of EPS based on simple capital
structure without regard to common stock
equivalents:                                                    
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                1997                     1996                    1995
                                                                ----                     ----                    ----
<S>                                                         <C>                       <C>                     <C>
    Net income applicable to common shares                  $106,454                  $94,106                 $79,200

    Weighted average number of shares
    outstanding during the year                              113,765                  115,461                 115,459

    Primary earnings per common share                           $.94                     $.82                    $.69
</TABLE>



Computation of EPS using stock options as
common stock equivalents:

A computation of EPS using stock options is not presented since their inclusion
would not result in a different earnings per share amount for the years ended
May 31, 1997, 1996 and 1995.
#### ZIGLAR v. DU PONT CO.

No. 353 PC.

Case below: 53 N.C. App. 147.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 November 1981.