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

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-21-00266-CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding

Criminal District Court No. 4 of Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1394791D

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN RE KEVIN ELIJAH STEPHEN, Relator
1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator filed this mandamus proceeding asking that we compel the trial court to 

rule on the merits of his habeas application or forward his application to the Court of 

Criminal Appeals. Relator asserts that he was arrested on a parole revocation warrant

but has not received a parole revocation hearing and that he filed an application for 

habeas relief on which the trial court has taken no action. This court has considered 

relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relief must be 

denied.

Although parole is a form of restraint from which an applicant may pursue 

post-conviction remedies under Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.07, only the 

Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to grant such relief. Tex. Code Crim. Proc.

Ann. art. 11.07; Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Ct. of App. for Eighth Dist., 910 

S.W.2d 481, 483–84 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Neither this court nor the trial court 

may determine the merits of relator’s habeas application. See Keene, 910 S.W.2d at 484;

cf. In re Belton, No. 12-13-00293-CR, 2014 WL 2003108, at *2 (Tex. App.—Tyler May 

14, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (holding that the trial court had no duty to rule 

on Belton’s mandamus petition based on parole revocation irregularities because the 

trial court had no jurisdiction to grant relief). Further, we have no authority to 

compel the trial court to rule on any matters related to relator’s pending application or 

to compel the trial court clerk to forward relator’s application to the Court of 

Criminal Appeals. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; In re Sheppard, No. 02-17-
2

00141-CV, 2017 WL 2351094, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 5, 2017, orig. 

proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (stating that this court has no mandamus 

jurisdiction over trial court clerk); In re Bluitt, No. 02-13-00420-CV, 2013 WL 

6579142, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 13, 2013, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) 

(mem. op.) (noting that applicant complaining about convicting court’s inaction on 

habeas petition should seek mandamus relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals). 

Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

Per Curiam

Delivered: September 10, 2021
**Exhibit 10.52**

** **

**AMENDMENT TOLIBRARY SERVICES AGREEMENT**

** **

This Amendment, dated as of April 26, 2005, is byand between Hallmark Entertainment, LLC, successor-in-interest to HallmarkEntertainment, Inc. (“HEI”) and Crown Media Distribution, LLC (“CMD”).

 

WHEREAS, Crown Media Holdings, Inc. (“CMH”) andHEI previously entered into an agreement, dated September 28, 2001 (the “LibraryServices Agreement”), which was extended by that certain Extension Agreementdated as of January 1, 2004 in connection with HEI’s services asadministrator and sales representative, both domestically and internationally,for the film library owned by CMH (the “Crown Library”);

 

WHEREAS, the Library Service Agreement wassubsequently assigned by CMH to CMD on December 14, 2001, following CMH’sassignment of its rights in the Crown Library to CMD; and

 

WHEREAS, CMD, as of April 26, 2005, sold andtransferred certain rights in and to the Crown Library (the “Transferred Assets”)to a third party and the parties hereto desire to amend the Library ServicesAgreement.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, CMD and HEI hereby agree as follows:

 

1.                          ThePurchased Assets (as such term is defined in the Library Services Agreement)shall, commencing as of the date hereof, exclude the Transferred Assets.

 

2.                          Notwithstandinganything to the contrary in the Library Services Agreement, the annual ServiceFee of $1,500,000 referred to in Section 4 of the Library ServicesAgreement shall be pro-rated for the period from January 1, 2005 to April 25,2005. The Service Fee for the period commencing April 26, 2005 and ending Dec. 31,2005 shall be $500,000. The Service Fee for calendar year 2006 shall be$750,000 payable in advance in quarterly installments.

 

3.                          Allother terms and conditions of the Library Services Agreement will remainunchanged and in full force and effect.

 

 
|   |   |   | HALLMARK  ENTERTAINMENT, LLC. |
|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------------|
|   |   |   |                          |
|   |   |   | By:                           | /s/  Peter Von Gal |   |
|   |   |   |                          | Name: | Peter  Von Gal |
|   |   |   |                          | Title: | COO |
|        |        |        |                               |  |  |  |

 

 
|   |   |   | CROWN  MEDIA DISTRIBUTION, LLC |
|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------|
|   |   |   |                           |
|   |   |   | By:                            | /s/  Charles L. Stanford |   |
|   |   |   |                           | Name: | CHARLES  L. STANFORD |
|   |   |   |                           | Title: | VICE  PRESIDENT |
|        |        |        |                                |  |  |  |

 

----
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MULTIMEDIA PATENT TRUST,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,

LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., AND

LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________ 

2013-1621

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of California in No. 12-CV-2731, Judge 

Marilyn L. Huff.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & 

Sullivan, LLP, of New York, New York, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With her on the brief were SANFORD I.

WEISBURST; PHILIP C. STERNHELL, of Washington, DC; 

FREDERICK A. LORIG, SUSAN R. ESTRICH, CHRISTOPHER A.

MATHEWS, and BRUCE R. ZISSER, of Los Angeles, California. 
 

MICHAEL J. MCKEON, Fish & Richardson P.C., of 

Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees. With 

him on the brief were JUSTIN M. BARNES and LARA S.

GARNER, of San Diego, California; and FRANK P. PORCELLI, 

of Boston, Massachusetts. Of counsel was JUANITA ROSE 

BROOKS, of San Diego, California; RICHARD ALEX STERBA, 

of Washington, DC; and KELLY CATHERINE HUNSAKER, of 

Redwood City, California.

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, MOORE, and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 July 17, 2014 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**ATLANTICSOUTHERN FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED**

**PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**For the Three months EndedMarch 31,****2009**

 

Eachof the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended March 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and theinformation contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| This  1st day of May, 2009 |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
|                            |   |
|                            |   |
| /s/  Mark Stevens               |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer        |   |
|                            |   |
|                            |   |
| /s/  Carol Soto                 |   |
| Chief  Financial Officer        |   |

 

----
H. Res. 371 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

April 28, 2009. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany 

the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 13) setting forth the 

congressional budget for the United States Government for 

fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for 

fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the appropriate budgetary 

levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014. All points of order 

against the conference report and against its consideration 

are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read. 

The conference report shall be debatable for one hour equally 

divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 

member of the Committee on the Budget. 
2 

•HRES 371 EH 

SEC. 2. The Chair may postpone further consideration of 

the conference report to such time as may be designated by 

the Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

April 2, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00645

- CR

Lonnie Jerome James ELLISON

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR10112C

H onorable Catherine Torres

- Stahl, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s first motion for an extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due on or before April 27, 2020

.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereun to set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 2nd day of April, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
#### Samuel SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 505-87.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

Nov. 23, 1988.

Stanley G. Schneider, Houston, for appellant.

John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty., J. Harvey Hudson and Alice Brown, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appeal is taken from a conviction for the offense of aggravated robbery, enhanced by two prior felony convictions. After finding appellant guilty, the jury assessed punishment at ninety-nine years.

On direct appeal, appellant argued the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the law concerning good time and parole, inasmuch as the charge is predicated upon an unconstitutional statute. The Court of Appeals rejected appellant’s challenge to Article 37.07, Section 4, V.A.C.C.P. *Smith v. State,*727 S.W.2d 344 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987).

In his petition for discretionary review, appellant urges the Court of Appeals erred in holding Article 37.07, Section 4, supra, is constitutional. We find appellant is correct.

In *Rose v. State,*752 S.W.2d 529 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), this Court determined that Article 37.07, Section 4, is unconstitutional. Under *Rose,*it is still necessary for the Court of Appeals to conduct a harmless error analysis under the guidelines of Tex. R.App.P. 81(b)(2).

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and this cause is remanded to that Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Case 2:17-cv-03826-DLR   Document 196   Filed 03/11/21   Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21443-21444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11925]



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

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS


Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE AND TIME: May 14, 1996; 9:00 a.m.

PLACE: Cohen Building, 330 Independence Avenue, S.W., First Floor 
Auditorium, Washington, D.C. 20547.

OPEN MEETING: The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors will 
meet in open session to exchange views with employees of the 
International Broadcasting Bureau, USIA, and the public on the policies 
and activities of U.S. international broadcasting. An open dialogue is 
welcome. Any members of the public wishing to attend should contact the 
IBB Office of External Affairs at (202) 619-2538.

CLOSED MEETING: At 11:00 a.m., The members of the Broadcasting Board of 
Governors (BBG) will meet in closed session in room 3709 to address 
internal procedural, budgetary, and personnel issues, as well as 
sensitive foreign policy issues relating to potential options in the 
U.S. international broadcasting field. This meeting is closed because 
if open it likely would either disclose matters that would be properly 
classified to be kept secret in

[[Page 21444]]

the interest of foreign policy under the appropriate executive order (5 
U.S.C. 552b. (c)(1)) or would disclose information the premature 
disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate 
implementation of a proposed agency action. (5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(9)(B)). 
In addition, part of the discussion will relate solely to the internal 
personnel issues of the BBG or the International Broadcasting Bureau. 
(5 U.S.C. 552b.(c) (2) and (6)).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Persons interested in obtaining 
more information should contact Barbara Floyd at (202) 401-3736.

    Dated: May 8, 1996.
David W. Burke,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 96-11925 Filed 5-8-96; 1:14 pm]
BILLING CODE 6155-01-M
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

In connection with the report of Spark Networks, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Adam S. Berger     
|Adam S. Berger         
|Chief Executive Officer
|May 13, 2010           
|                       
|/s/ Brett A. Zane      
|Brett A. Zane          
|Chief Financial Officer
|May 13, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5

<S>                                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                            12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                         JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                           DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                      0
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            0
<PP&E>                                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      95
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                  412
<OTHER-SE>                                               (507)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                0
<SALES>                                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            0
<CGS>                                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        1,095
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (1,095)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         0
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (1,095)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (0.00)



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Frank A. Di Giacomo, as Executor of Frank Di Giacomo, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County,

February 17, 1953.

*Vaughan & Lyons*for executor, petitioner.

*Platow & Lyon*for Hedwig Di Giacomo, respondent.

*Abraham I. Nelson*for Michael A. Di Giacomo, respondent.

*Charles J. Wallace,*special guardian.

Charles H. Griffiths, S.

Pursuant to a duly executed stipulation filed in this court on December 16, 1952, the sole issue presented at this time is the validity and effect of the widow’s right of election. The notice of election with proofs of service upon the executor was filed in this court on June 21, 1951.

The testator devised and bequeathed his entire estate to trustees and directed that one third of the net income of said trust be paid to his widow during her lifetime; the remaining two thirds of the income is payable to the children of the decedent and his widow. Upon the death of decedent’s widow the trust terminates and the remainder thereof is distributable to the issue of decedent and his widow per stirpes. In the event that the share of any one of decedent’s issue should exceed $20,000 there is a gift over of any such excess.

*17By paragraph *‘ ‘*Seventh ’ ’ of his will the decedent specifically provided that the testamentary provisions for the benefit of his widow were in lieu of dower or *‘ ‘*interest which she may or can in any wise claim or demand out of my estate ’

The testator granted broad discretionary powers to the executors and trustees but did not authorize them to invest in nonlegal or ineligible securities. The will also contains exculpatory provisions for the fiduciaries and provides that they be permitted to act without bond. •

Decedent’s widow contends that she has the right to elect because of the aforesaid provisions and also because the testamentary provisions for her benefit are illusory in view of the fact that some of the estate assets are unproductive. The trust consists of the decedent’s entire estate after deducting debts, funeral expenses, administration expenses and estate taxes. Therefore, the nonproductivity of certain estate assets does not entitle the widow to elect. *(Matter of Eddy,*173 Misc. 723, affd. 258 App. Div. 860, affd. 283 N. Y. 556.)

The authority and powers granted to the executors and trustees to administer the fund do not constitute such limitations upon the testamentary provisions for the widow’s benefit so as to entitle her to an absolute right of election. (Decedent Estate Law, § 18, subd. 1, par. [h]; *Matter of Clark,*275 N. Y. 1; *Matter of Eddy, supra.)*

The court accordingly determines that the testamentary provisions for the benefit of decedent’s widow equal her intestate share. The widow therefore is entitled to receive the sum of $2,500 outright, pursuant to section 18 (subd. 1, par. [b]) of the Decedent Estate Law. The terms of the will shall be effective in all other respects.

This matter will be restored to the regular calendar on March 17, 1953 at 10:30 a.m. for the purpose of fixing a date for the hearing of objections herein.

Settle decree accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5901 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5901

To amend the Public Health Service Act to encourage programs to address 
                     college athlete mental health.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 6, 2023

 Mr. Hudson (for himself and Mr. Allred) introduced the following bill

                            October 25, 2023

            Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Public Health Service Act to encourage programs to address 
                     college athlete mental health.

    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 ``Targeting Emotional and Mental 
Stability Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. COLLEGE ATHLETE MENTAL HEALTH.

    Section 520E-2 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb-
36b) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
            ``(13) Carrying out one or more school-based programs to 
        address mental health disorders among the college athlete 
        population, including providing access to--
                    ``(A) mental health care services for college 
                athletes, including real-time counseling and telehealth 
                services;
                    ``(B) peer-to-peer counseling;
                    ``(C) existing crisis lifeline services, including 
                the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline;
                    ``(D) training for students, faculty, athletic 
                coaches, and staff to respond effectively to students 
                exhibiting signs of mental distress or substance use 
                disorder; or
                    ``(E) campus-wide education initiatives to address 
                the stigma associated with mental health issues among 
                college athletes.''; and
            (2) in subsection (d), by adding at the end the following:
            ``(9) For an institution of higher education proposing to 
        use the grant for an activity described in paragraph (13) of 
        subsection (b), a letter of support from the athletics 
        department of the institution of higher education.''.
                                 <all>
```