alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## In t he Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 24

- 00080

- CR

LANDON PAUL WHITTEN , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 71st District Court Harrison County, Texas Trial Court No. 23

- 0167X

B efore Stevens , C.J., van Cleef and Rambin , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION

L andon Paul Whitten file d an untimely notice of appeal from his conviction for possessing a controlled substance and the resulting sentenc e of twenty months’ confinement in state jail

. 1 We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The judgment of conviction i n this matter indicates that Whitten ’ s sentence was imposed

on March 13 , 20 2 4 , and Whitten did not file a motion for new tr ial. As a r esult, Whitten’s notice of appeal was due t hirty days from the date sentence was imposed , or on or before Apri l 12,
2024

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 26.2(a)( 1 ). Whitten ’s notice of appeal was filed on April 18 , 202 4 , which is beyond the April 12 deadline. The notice of appeal, therefore, was untimely. We notified Whitten by letter that his notice of appeal appeared t o be untimely and that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction. We gave Whitten ten days to respond to our le tter and dem onst rate how we had jurisdiction over the appeal notwithstanding the noted defect. Whitten responded by filing a motion to extend the deadline for filing his notice of appeal. Rule 26.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure establishes the procedure f or

o btaining an extension of time in which to file a notice of appeal. Under Rule 26.3, an appellate court has the discretion to grant an extension of time in a criminal matter if, and only if, within fifteen days after the deadline for filing the notice of a ppeal, the appellant (1) files the notice of appeal in the trial cou rt and (2) files a motion seeking an extension of time in the appellate court.
T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 26. 3

. While Whitten satisfied the first requirement, he failed to satisfy the

1 See T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C O DE A NN

. § 481.115( b ) (Supp.)

.3

second. W hit ten did file a motion in this Court seeking an extension of the deadline for filing his
noti ce of appeal, but he did not do so within fifteen days after the deadline for filing such notice. As previously stated, the deadline for filing the notice of a p pea l was Ap ril 12 , 20 24, making April 29, 2024, the deadline for filing a motion for an extensi on of time under Rule 26.3.
Whitten’s motion was filed in this Court on May 2, 20 24 , making it untimely. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has expressly he l d th at the failure to timely file a motion for extension of time under such circumstances dep rives this Court of jurisdiction. See Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522

– 23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 209 n.3 (Tex. Crim

. App . 1998) (per curiam).
Because Whitten has not timely perfected h is appeal, we dismiss th e appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Charles van Cleef Justice
Date Submitted : May 15 , 2024 Date Decided: May 16, 2024
Do Not Publish
2004 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-11-2004

Youngblood v. DeWeese

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 03-1722

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Youngblood v. DeWeese" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 957.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/957
PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-1722

 

ROSITA C. YOUNGBLOOD; PARENTS UNITED

FOR BETTER SCHOOLS, INC.; PENN-KNOX

NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION; BUDD HOUSE

INC; EDITH WEEKS, Reverend; EDWINA BAKER

v.

H. WILLIAM DEWEESE; MICHAEL VEON,

Appellants

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 02-cv-07683)

District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner

 

Argued October 29, 2003

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and AMBRO, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed December 18, 2003 )

Andre' L. Dennis, Esquire

Danielle Banks, Esquire (Argued)

Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young 

260 One Commerce Square

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Attorney for Appellants

Anthony L. Cianfrani, Esquire (Argued)
2

Suite 1920

1500 Walnut Street

Philadelphia, PA 19102

Attorney for Appellees

ORDER AMENDING SLIP OPINION

AMBRO, Circuit Judge

It is now ordered that the published Opinion in the above case filed December 18,

2003, be amended as follows:

On page 8 of the slip opinion, three lines from the top of the page, replace the

word “is” with the word “are” so that the phrase reads: “house members are “within the

sphere ...”

On page 8 of the slip opinion, five lines from the bottom of the full paragraph,

after the cite 528, replace the long dash (“—”) with a semi-colon, followed by a space 

(“; ”).

On page 8 of the slip opinion, in the last sentence of the full paragraph replace the

word “is” with the word “are” so the sentence reads:

“Representatives DeWeese and Veon’s “deliberative and communicative

processes” in the course of exercising that legislative authority are,

therefore, privileged from judicial scrutiny.”

On page 9 of the slip opinion, in the first sentence under section V, the Conclusion,

replace the words “is a” with “are” and add an “s” to the word “act” so that the sentence

reads:

“We hold that Representatives DeWeese and Veon’s acts of allocating the

General Assembly’s office-staffing appropriation among individual

Representatives are legislative acts to which legislative immunity extends.”

By the Court,

/s/ Thomas L. Ambro, Circuit Judge

Dated: February 11, 2004
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 23-3006

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Cassandra Hope Hapip

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of North Dakota 

____________ 

Submitted: March 11, 2024

Filed: May 9, 2024 

[Unpublished] 

____________ 

Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

In 2021, Cassandra Hope Hapip served time in prison after pleading guilty to 

one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute controlled 

substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. After serving her sentence, Hapip 
-2- 

violated the terms of her supervised release. The district court1 sentenced Hapip to 

twelve months of imprisonment to be followed by a two-year term of supervised 

release. Hapip appealed and argued the district court procedurally erred and 

imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. During the pendency of her appeal, 

Hapip was released from prison. Because she only challenged her custodial sentence 

on appeal, there is no longer a case or controversy. See Owen v. United States, 930 

F.3d 989, 990 (8th Cir. 2019) (“The mere fact that [a defendant] is serving an 

unexpired, unchallenged term of supervised release does not sustain an actual 

controversy.”). Thus, we dismiss the appeal as moot. 

______________________________

1

The Honorable Daniel M. Traynor, United States District Judge for the 

District of North Dakota.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5531 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5531

   To prohibit the use of United States contributions to the United 
  Nations to support the iVerify tool developed by the United Nations 
             Development Programme, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 18, 2023

  Mr. Cline introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit the use of United States contributions to the United 
  Nations to support the iVerify tool developed by the United Nations 
             Development Programme, and for other purposes.

    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 ``End U.N. Censorship Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.

    (a) In General.--No Federal funds made available to the Department 
of State or any other department or agency may be used--
            (1) to develop, implement, or otherwise support the iVerify 
        tool developed by the United Nations Development Programme;
            (2) for any other effort that seeks to label speech or 
        expression as mal-, mis-, or dis-information;
            (3) to make any voluntary contributions to the United 
        Nations or any entity of the United Nations that--
                    (A) fund, implement, develop, or otherwise support 
                the iVerify platform or any similar platform; or
                    (B) otherwise support initiatives that seek to 
                label speech or expression as mal-, mis-, or 
                disinformation; or
            (4) to make any contribution to any other international 
        organization for the purposes of funding, implementing, 
        developing, or otherwise supporting the iVerify platform or any 
        similar effort that seeks to label speech or expression as mal-
        , mis-, or disinformation.
    (b) Rescission.--Any amounts withheld pursuant to this section--
            (1) shall be permanently rescinded as of the date on which 
        the Secretary makes the determination described in subsection 
        (a)(1);
            (2) shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury; 
        and
            (3) shall not be considered arrears to be repaid to the 
        United Nations or any entity of the United Nations.
                                 <all>
```
#### Lonnie SNELLING, Appellant, v. John BLECKMAN, Respondent.

No. 70232.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Dec. 3, 1996.

Lonnie Snelling, University City, pro se.

Robert N. Hamilton, St. Louis, for respondent.

*94RHODES RUSSELL, Judge.

Lonnie Snelling appeals from, the involuntary dismissal of his legal malpractice claim against John Bleckman for failure to comply ■with Rule 55.11 of the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. We dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction as no final judgment exists.

Snelling, acting pro se, filed his initial petition against Bleckman on August 21, 1991. The three count petition alleged that Bleck-man had committed legal malpractice during his representation of Snelling in a matter before the federal court. The petition also alleged fraud and misrepresentation.

Snelling amended the petition several times with leave of the court. After the filing of the Second Amended Petition, Bleck-man filed a motion to Make More Definite and Certain, to Strike and For Judgment on the Pleadings. The court sustained the motion and gave Snelling until September 7, 1995, to file a Third Amended Petition which would “comply with the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Snelling filed the Third Amended Petition on August 24, 1995, along with a Motion for Change of Judge. On September 6, 1995, Bleckman filed a Motion to Dismiss or Enter Judgment on the Pleadings. On November 10, 1995, the trial court again granted Snell-ing permission to amend his pleadings by substituting pages 9 and 11 of the Third Amended Petition and by striking the word “negligent” from Count II of the petition and replacing it with the word “intentional.” On November 13,1995, the Motion to Dismiss or Enter Judgment on the Pleadings was heard and submitted. On December 20, 1995, the Motion to Dismiss was granted. The trial court based the dismissal on Snelling’s continual violation of Rule 55.11 of the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. The court dismissed the petition, not the cause of action. The involuntary dismissal order did not specify whether it was with or without prejudice.

Rule 67.03 states that an involuntary dismissal shall be without prejudice unless the order specifies otherwise. A dismissal without prejudice is not a final judgment from which appeal may be taken. *Morris v. Alternatives, Inc.,*892 S.W.2d 399 (Mo.App.1995). Appellate courts only have jurisdiction over final judgments. *Thomas v. Nicks,*867 S.W.2d 676 (Mo.App.1993).

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction as the dismissal was without prejudice and was not a final judgment.

SIMON and KAROHL, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

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 of U.S. Helicopter Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30,
2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
George J. Mehm, Jr., Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
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
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: August 14, 2006

| |  | /s/ George J. Mehm, Jr.                                           | 
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| |  | George J. Mehm, Jr.Sr. Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-6967
THERON JOHNNY MAXTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD BUNDRICK, Grievance Coordinator; JAMESSAVAGE, Social Worker, MSU; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MATTOX, Officer, MSU, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph R. McCrorey, Magistrate Judge. (CA-94-3337-3-6BC) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theron Johnny Maxton, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra J. Senn, STUCKEY & KOBROVSKY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). Themagistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate r eview. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 24, 2024

NO. 03-23-00315-CR

Bobby Mitchell, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 21ST DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES SMITH AND THEOFANIS

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of 

conviction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs 

is made.
Order filed August 18 , 2016

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00574

- CV

____________ WESTVIEW DRIVE INVES TMENTS, LLC AND JACK YETIV , Appellant s
V.

LANDMARK AMERICAN IN SURANCE CO., KING

- PHILLIPS INSURANCE AGENCY, IN C. AKA INSURTRUST IN SURANCE,

AND GREGORY MCGEHEE , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 269th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 47829



### ORDER

On July 14 , 2016, this court issued an order to the Harris County District Clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record by July 24 , 2016. The court has not received the supplemental clerk’s record

. Accordingly, the Harris County District Clerk is ordered to file the ordered supplemental record by August 29, 2016 , containing the following document:2

 S how cause order signed April 21, 2015.

If the requested item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-105645, 333-103325, 333-51282, and333-38532, on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 15, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of Nuance Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) and management’s report onthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

/s/    DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

 

San Jose, California 

March 15, 2005
Exhibit 10.10.2

FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
PREMIERWEST BANKSUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN AGREEMENT
 (SERP)

This First Amendment dated December 18, 2008 (this Amendment), amends the Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan Agreement (SERP) by and between PremierWest Bancorp (Bancorp), PremierWest Bank (Bank, and together with Bancorp, Company) and Richard Hieb (the Executive) dated December 13, 2007 (the Agreement).

1.           Section 3.2 of the Agreement is amended to revise the two references to 15 years to 15 years,7 months.2.           Except as specifically set forth herein, the Agreement as previously executed shall continue infull force and effect as written. Terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have themeanings set forth in the Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.

|                                      |                               
|------------------------------------- | ------------------------------
|PREMIERWEST BANCORP                   | EXECUTIVE                     
|                                     
|                                     
|By:__________________________________ | ______________________________
|James Ford                            | Richard Hieb                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer |                               
|                                     
|PREMIERWEST BANK                      |                               
|                                     
|                                     
|By:_________________________________  |                               
|James Ford                            |                               
|President and Chief Executive Officer |                               

- 1 -

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0138

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM CURTIS SMALL,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 31, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 29 2021

09/29/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0138
#### Jose DREW, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 47269.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 11, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 1, 1994.

Application to Transfer Denied April 26, 1994.

Susan L. Hogan, Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before BERREY, C.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SMART, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from the denial of a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).