alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
M A N D A T E

TO THE 85TH DISTRICT COURT of BRAZOS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 12th day of 

February, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

JESSE TIRADO LOPEZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-13-00080-CR (Tr.Ct.No. 12-01541-CRF-85)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 12, 2015.



WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal 

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 22nd day of July, 2015.

Cecile Foy Gsanger, CLERK
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7710

MUHAMMAD ABD SALEEM EURY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MR. KEELIN, Assistant Warden; MR. GIBBS;

LIEUTENANT ROSS; SERGEANT BERNARDO; SERGEANT

SHAFER,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

JOHN TAYLOR, Warden; MR. MOREHEAD,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District

Judge. (CA-00-415-2)

Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: March 1, 2001

Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Muhammad Abd Saleem Eury, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Muhammad Abd Saleem Eury appeals the district court’s order

dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.

2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Eury v. Keelin, No.

CA-00-415-2 (E.D. Va. Nov. 21, 2000). 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
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 21444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11771]



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


COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED

Procurement List; Proposed Additions

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled.

ACTION: Proposed Additions to Procurement List.

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

SUMMARY: The Committee has received proposals to add to the Procurement 
List services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons 
who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED ON OR BEFORE: June 10, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled, Crystal Square 3, Suite 403, 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Arlington, Virginia 22202-3461.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Milkman (703) 603-7740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 
U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested 
persons an opportunity to submit comments on the possible impact of the 
proposed actions.
    If the Committee approves the proposed additions, all entities of 
the Federal Government (except as otherwise indicated) will be required 
to procure the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing 
persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
    I certify that the following action will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors 
considered for this certification were:
    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, 
recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other 
than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the 
Government.
    2. The action does not appear to have a severe economic impact on 
current contractors for the services.
    3. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish 
the services to the Government.
    4. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would 
accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-
48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the 
Procurement List.
    Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should 
identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they 
are providing additional information.
    The following services have been proposed for addition to 
Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

Recycling Service

Basewide, Dobbins Air Reserve Base, Georgia
NPA: Georgia Diversified Industries, Inc., Cartersville, Georgia

Switchboard Operation

Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
NPA: The Oklahoma League for the Blind, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Beverly L. Milkman,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 96-11771 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
#### Farmer *v.*The State.

Fish, C. J.

The accused was convicted of murder, with a recommendation to life imprisonment. He moved for a new trial on the usual general grounds that the verdict was contrary to law and' without evidence to support it, and on the further ground that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury as to the law of voluntary manslaughter, embodied in the Penal Code (1910), §§ 64, 65. His motion for a new trial was overruled, and be excepted. There was evidence amply sufficient to support the verdict. Neither the evidence nór the statement of the *487accused to the jury authorized an instruction as to the law of voluntary manslaughter as embodied in the sections of the Penal Code above cited. The court did not err in refusing a new trial.

No. 3308.

November 17, 1922.

Indictment for mur-der. Before Judge Wright. Chattooga superior court. June 10, 1922.

*B. E. Neal*and *Rosser & Shaw,*for plaintiff in error.

*George M. Napier, attorney-general, Eugene 8. Taylor, solicitor-general, Seward M. Smith, assistant attorney-general, J. F. Kelly,*and *F. W. Copeland,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
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 this Quarterly Report of General Finance & Development Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Kieger,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to
the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Sec. 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; and2.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.   By:
    /s/   William KiegerWilliam Kieger
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer Dated: August 12, 2005
FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JAN 12, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 16939 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 1 9 9 - CR- T- 3 0 TBM U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s V I R G I L I O A N T O N I O R O D R I Q U E Z P O M A R E , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 12, 2007) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: S cottK al i sc h, coun se l for V i rgi l i o A nt on i o R od ri gu ez P om ar e(" R od ri gu ez ") i n thi s di re ctappeal , has m ov ed t o w i thd ra w fr om further

re pres ent at i on of the appel l antand fi l ed a bri ef pu rs uantt o A nd er s v. C al i forni a, 386 U . S . 738, 87 S . C t . 1396, 18 L . E d. 2d 493 ( 1967) . O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the e nt i r e r e c or d r e ve a l s tha tc ouns e l ’ s a s s e s s m e ntof the r e l a t i ve m e r i tof

the appe a l i s c orr e c t . B e c aus e i nde pe nde nte xa m i na t i on of the e nt i r e r e c or d r e ve a l s no arg u ab l e i ssu es o f m eri t , co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , a nd R od ri gu ez ’ s c on vi ct i on s and se nt ence ar e AF F I RME D.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 96 (Thursday, May 16, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 24785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12310]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-228-001]


Mobile Bay Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

May 10, 1996.
    Take notice that on May 7, 1996, Mobile Bay Pipeline Company (MBPC) 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised 
Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to be effective June 1, 1996:

Title Page
First Revised Sheet No. 272

    MBPC states that the tariff sheets listed above are being filed to 
make minor correction to the May 2, 1996 filing in the above referenced 
docket. MBPC's May 2, 1996, filing included tariff changes to format 
the title page and delete references to Mcfs, in accordance with the 
Commission's Order No. 582. The corrections in the instant filing 
revise the title page to reflect the same information as the electronic 
version. Moreover, as part of deleting references to Mcfs in its 
tariff, MBPC deleted an additional Mcf reference on Tariff Sheet No. 
272.
    MBPC also states that the revised tariff sheets are being served 
upon all its customers, States Commissions, and other interested 
parties.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's regulations. All such protests must be filed as provided 
in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-12310 Filed 5-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Barbara Ann HURD Appellant, v. Marie MAXWELL Appellee.

No. 11-88-186-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Eastland.

Dec. 8, 1988.

*701Thomas M. Goff, San Angelo, for appellant.

David Adkins, Bradbury, Tippen, Rollins, Adkins & Hamilton, Abilene, for appellee.

OPINION

McCLOUD, Chief Justice.

On April 13,1988, the trial court signed a divorce decree dissolving the marriage between Barbara Ann Hurd and James Robert Hurd. The court appointed Marie Maxwell, the paternal grandmother, managing conservator of Jennifer Rene Hurd, the child of Barbara and James Hurd. The mother and father of the child were appointed possessory conservators with “reasonable visitation” rights. The mother filed a motion for new trial. On June 24, 1988, the trial court entered an order granting a new trial “solely on the issue of the Possessory Conservators’ rights of possession of the child.”

The mother appeals urging that the trial court erred in failing to grant a new trial on the issue of conservatorship. We dismiss the appeal because a final judgment was not entered.

An appeal, with certain statutory exceptions, may be prosecuted only from a final judgment which disposes of all issues and parties. *North East Independent School District v. Aldridge,*400 S.W.2d 893 (Tex.1966).

The trial court, pursuant to TEX.R. CIV.P. 320,1 granted a new trial only on the issue of the possessory conservators’ rights to possession of the child.

In *Vautrain v. Vautrain,*646 S.W.2d 309 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1983, writ dism’d), the court, while discussing the rule that the issue of divorce and the issue of property division are neither separable nor severable, stated:

> The trial court may, under Rule 320 separate some of the issues and grant a partial new trial on certain property issues, but if it does so, as above indicated, the order granting the divorce and any other matters is interlocutory and not final. *There may of course be only one final judgment in any case, including divorce cases.*(Emphasis added)

After granting the partial new trial, the trial court did not sever the issue of the conservators’ possessory rights from the other issues in the case. See TEX.R. CIV.P. 41.

The mother attempts to appeal a nonap-pealable interlocutory order. The appeal is dismissed.

1

. Rule 320 provides in part:

> When it appears to the court that a new trial should be granted on a point or points that affect only a part of the matters in controversy and that such part is clearly separable without unfairness to the parties, the court may grant a new trial as to that part only.
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________ No. 07 - 19 - 00181 - CV

________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF P.M. , A CHILD On Appeal from the 223rd District Court

Gray C ounty, Texas Trial Court No. 39,143 ; Honorable Jack M. Graham , Presiding

J une 26 , 201 9 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER , JJ. P ending before this c ourt is the Motion to Dismiss Appeal filed by Appellant, C.V. , an intervenor in the underlying proceeding to terminate the parental rights existing between M.M. , a presumed father, and P.M. 1 Without passing on the merits of the appeal, C.V. ’ s motion is granted 2 and the appeal is dismissed. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a)(1).

1 To protect the privacy of the parties, we refer to them by their initials . See T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 109.002(d) (West Supp. 2018). See also T EX . R. A PP . P . 9.8(b).

2 We invoke Appellate Rule 2 to suspend the operation of Appellate Rule 9.5(d) as C.V. ’ s motion to dismiss did not contain proof of service or a certificate of service . See T EX . R. A PP . P . 2; 9.5(d), (e).2

Having dismissed this appeal at C.V. ’ s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith. Per Curiam
#### Edd C. BLACKWOOD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 941-91.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

Dec. 16, 1992.

Bruce R. Hardesty, Austin, for appellant.

John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty. and Kathleen Braddock, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*696OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was surety on a bond for Ronald Lynn Nash. The trial court ordered the bond forfeited and entered a final judgment against appellant and others in the amount of $110,645. This judgment was affirmed. *Nash v. State,*811 S.W.2d 698 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th] 1991).

Appellant filed a petition for discretionary review of this opinion. The petition was granted October 16, 1991, to determine the effect of *Matyastik v. State,*811 S.W.2d 102 (Tex.Cr.App.1991), on the validity of Article 22.16(a), V.A.C.C.P. Appellant has now filed a motion to dismiss his petition. We grant appellant’s motion.

Appellant’s petition for discretionary review is dismissed.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Quinetta COLBERT, Appellant.

No. WD 41865.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 24, 1990.

*869Carl W. Bussey, Kansas City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Frank A. Jung, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and SHANGLER and TURNAGE, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from conviction on four counts of forgery, § 570.090, RSMo 1986, and sentence to five years imprisonment with the sentences to run concurrently.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 21468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11743]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY


Open Meeting, Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 10 (a) (2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, FEMA announces the following committee 
meeting:

    Name: Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy.
    Dates of Meeting: June 27-29, 1996.
    Place: Building G Conference Room, National Emergency Training 
Center, Emmitsburg, Maryland.
    Time: June 27, 1996, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. June 28, 1996, 8:30 
a.m.-9:00 p.m. June 29, 1996, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
    Proposed Agenda: June 27-29: Conduct the On Campus Program 
Survey and Review the Fiscal Year 1996 and 1997 Budgets.
    Supplementary Information: The meeting will be open to the 
public with seating available on a first-come, first-served basis. 
Members of the general public who plan to attend the meeting should 
contact the Office of the Superintendent, National Fire Academy, 
U.S. Fire Administration, 16825 South Seton Avenue, Emmitsburg, MD 
21727, (301) 447-1117, on or before June 10, 1996.
    Minutes of the meeting will be prepared and will be available 
for public viewing in the Office of the Administrator, U.S. Fire 
Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emmitsburg, MD 
21727. Copies of the minutes will be available upon request 30 days 
after the meeting.

    Dated: April 12, 1996.
Carrye B. Brown,
U.S. Fire Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-11743 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-01-P
Exhibit
10.5


November 8, 2006


Brian Stewart

4354 Mariota Ave.

Toluca Lake, CA  91602


Re: Amendment to
Employment Agreement


Dear Mr. Stewart:


This will confirm our
agreement to amend your employment agreement with Crown Media Holdings, Inc.,
dated July 24, 2006 (the “Agreement”), as follows:


1.  Your title and job responsibilities,
described in Paragraph 1(a) of the Agreement, are changed to that of Executive
Vice President, Finance, and Chief Financial Officer of Crown Media Holdings,
Inc.


2.  Paragraph 3(a) of the Agreement is amended to
provide for payment to you of an annual salary of $350,000 during the remainder
of the Term, subject to adjustment, in the sole discretion of Crown Media
Holdings, Inc. on November 8, 2007.


Except as amended herein,
all other terms of the Agreement will remain in full force and effect.


	
   

  	
   

  	
  Very truly yours,

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Crown Media Holdings, Inc.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Charles L. Stanford

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Executive Vice President, General Counsel

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title

  
	
  Accepted and Agreed to

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Brian Stewart

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Brian Stewart
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, being the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Venoco, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Issuer"), hereby certify that
the report on Form 10-Q (the "Report") of the Issuer for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Issuer.

|/s/TIMOTHY M. MARQUEZTimothy M. Marquez Chief Executive Officer and ChairmanAugust 14, 2006 | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|/s/DAVID B. CHRISTOFFERSONDavid B. Christofferson Chief Financial OfficerAugust 14, 2006    | 

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32

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 Venoco, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/TIMOTHY M. MARQUEZ                                              |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|Timothy M. Marquez Chief Executive Officer and ChairmanMay 9, 2008 |  | 

|/s/TIMOTHY A. FICKER                                 |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Timothy A. Ficker Chief Financial OfficerMay 9, 2008 |  | 

---



QuickLinks
#### Kevin SMITH and Cathleen Smith, Petitioners, v. Jack W. GRAY and Phyllis Gray, Respondents.

No. 94-1110.

Supreme Court of Texas.

March 2, 1995.

*445John M. Weaver, Dallas, for petitioners.

Martha L. Strother, Dallas, for respon-!n^s'

PER CURIAM.

Kevin and Cathleen Smith purchased a house from Jack and Phyllis Gray. Upon taking possession of the house on February 6, 1989, the Smiths discovered major structural damage consisting of cracks and separations in the walls, floors, and foundation. The Smiths filed a claim with their insurance company that same day. On May 28, 1989, while investigating the claim, the insurance company discovered that prior to the time of sale, the Grays knew about the sewer leak that caused the damage, but failed to have it repaired or to disclose its existence to the Smiths.

The Smiths filed suit on July 11, 1991, alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices — Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), TexBus. & Com.Code §§ 17.46(b)(5), (7), & (23). The Grays filed a motion for summary judgment contending that the statute of limitations barred the claim. The Smiths provided affidavits stating that they did not know and had no reason to suspect that the Grays had deceived them until late July or early August of 1989. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment based on limitations. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the statute of limitations had commenced on February 6, 1989, the date on which the damage was discovered. *Smith v. Gray,*882 S.W.2d 103 (Tex.App.1994).

In denying the application for writ of error, a majority of the Court neither approves nor disapproves of the court of appeals’ analysis of the statute of limitations under the DTPA, Tex.Bus. & Com.Code § 17.565.