alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO.

COURT OF APPEALS NO. 06-14-00165-CR

in the KfcCEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPALS

MAY 22 2015

BARNEY SAMUEL BRADSHAW, A( ,A

Appellant/Petitioner Abel AcOSta, Cleit

THE STATE OF TEXAS, FILED IN

Appellee/Respondent COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

; MAY 2<J2G»5

On appeal from the Sixth Court of Appeals

Texarkana, Texas Abel Acosta, Clerk

PETITIONER'S MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR

FILING HIS PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

NOW COMES, BARNEY SAMUEL BRADSHAW, Appellant/Petitioner, and

respectfully requests that the time for the filing of Petitioner's

Petition for Discretionary Review in the above styled and numbered

cause be extended. In support of this motion Petitioner would show

the Court the following:

I.

Petitioner was convicted of continuous sexual assault of a

child and was sentenced to 60 years' imprisonment. On May 5, 2015,

in Opinion No. 06-14-00165-CR, the Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed

the judgment of the trial court.
The Petitioner's Petition for Discretionary Review is due on

or before June 4, 2015. Petitioner respectfully requests an ex

tension of time until August 3, 2015.

in.

No previous extensions of time has been requested.

IV.

Petitioner would show the Court that he is currently incar

cerated in the Mark W. Michael Unit of the TDCJ-CID and has lim

ited access to the law library.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner respectfully re

quests that the time for filing the Petitioner's Petition for Dis

cretionary Review be extended until August 3, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

BARNEY SAMUEL BRADSHAW

PETITIONER

TDCJ No. 01942978

Mark W. Michael Unit

2664 FM 2054

Tennessee Colony, Texas 75886

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the fore

going motion has been served by placing same in the United States

Mail, postage prepaid, on the 15th day of May, 2015, addressed to:

Rusk County District Attorney and State Prosecuting Attorney.

BARNEY SAMUEL BRADSHAW

PETITIONER
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Martice Deshawn Wallace,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Todd Riggs, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-17-04126-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial (Doc. 284). No 

Defendant has filed a response. For the following reasons, the Motion is denied.

In February 2022, a three-day trial was held on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim,

and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants. (Doc. 282). Plaintiff requests that 

the Court vacate the judgment and order a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

59(a). (Doc. 284).

Courts may grant motions for new trial “for any reason for which a new trial has 

heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a). 

Trial courts have “large” authority to grant or deny new trials. Gasperini v. Ctr. for 

Humans., Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 433 (1996). In considering a motion for new trial, the Court 

“is not obliged to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and it is free 

to weigh the evidence and evaluate for itself the credibility of the witnesses.” United 

States v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084, 1097 (9th Cir. 2000).

Plaintiff argues a new trial is warranted for three reasons: (1) the verdict is contrary 

Case 2:17-cv-04126-DJH Document 294 Filed 08/29/22 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to the evidence presented at trial, (2) the jury did not take a proper amount of time to 

deliberate, and (3) the verdict is “a miscarriage of justice.” (Doc. 284 at 1). The Court 

rejects all three reasons.

First, there was substantial evidence showing that Defendants’ actions were 

reasonable. Although Plaintiff argues that certain evidence was underappreciated, several 

witnesses gave compelling testimony that supported a finding in Defendants’ favor. 

Second, the jury’s time spent deliberating is not necessarily an indication that they ignored 

the evidence. Given the strength of the evidence in Defendants’ favor, it is reasonable for 

a jury to have come to a verdict in less than an hour. Third, given the reasonableness of 

the Jury’s verdict, the Court finds no miscarriage of justice.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial (Doc. 284) is 

denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Status Update (Doc. 293) 

is granted.

Dated this 29th day of August, 2022.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

Case 2:17-cv-04126-DJH Document 294 Filed 08/29/22 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    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, Edward L. Masry, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report of Save the World Air, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Save the World Air, Inc.

Dated: March 25, 2004                  By: /s/ EDWARD L. MASRY
      ---------------------                -----------------------------
                                           Edward L. Masry, Esq.
                                           Chairman of the Board and
                                           Chief Executive Officer

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

        I, Eugene Eichler, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report of Save the World Air, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Save the World Air, Inc.

Dated: March 25, 2004                   By: /s/ EUGENE E. EICHLER
      ---------------------                -----------------------------
                                           Eugene Eichler, CPA
                                           Chief Financial Officer and
                                           Chief Operating Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Save the World Air, Inc. and will be retained by Save the World Air,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 102 (Friday, May 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26229-26234]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13052]



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

[[Page 26230]]


OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

Cumulative Report on Rescissions and Deferrals

May 1, 1996.
    This report is submitted in fulfillment of the requirement of 
Section 1014(e) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act 
of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-344). Section 1014(e) requires a monthly report 
listing all budget authority for the current fiscal year for which, as 
of the first day of the month, a special message had been transmitted 
to Congress.
    This report gives the status, as of May 1, 1996, of 24 rescission 
proposals and six deferrals contained in six special messages for FY 
1996. These messages were transmitted to Congress on October 19, 1995; 
and on February 21, February 23, March 5, March 13, and April 12, 1996.

Rescissions (Attachments A and C)

    As of May 1, 1996, 24 rescission proposals totaling $1.4 billion 
had been transmitted to the Congress. Congress approved eight of the 
Administration's rescission proposals in Public Law 104-134. A total of 
$963.4 million of the rescissions proposed by the President was 
rescinded by that measure. Attachment C shows the status of the FY 1996 
rescission proposals.

Deferrals (Attachments B and D)

    As of May 1, 1996, $2,693.2 million in budget authority was being 
deferred from obligation. Attachment D shows the status of each 
deferral reported during FY 1996.

Information From Special Message

    The special messages containing information on the rescission 
proposals and deferrals that are covered by this cumulative report are 
printed in the editions of the Federal Register cited below:

60 FR 55154, Friday, October 27, 1995
61 FR 8691, Tuesday, March 5, 1996
61 FR 10812, Friday, March 15, 1996
61 FR 13350, Tuesday, March 26, 1996
61 FR 17915, Tuesday, April 23, 1996
Alice M. Rivlin,
Director.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

[[Page 26231]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24MY96.145



[[Page 26232]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24MY96.146



[[Page 26233]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24MY96.147



[[Page 26234]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24MY96.148



[FR Doc. 96-13052 Filed 5-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-M
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

S U P R E M E C O U R T

144072(80 )

ITALO PARISE

, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v

DETROIT ENTERTAINMENT, LLC

Defendant

- Appellee

.

________________________________

STATEMENTS REGARDING RULING ON MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION

JANUARY 19, 2012

Y OUNG , C.J. I deny plaintiff’s renewed motion seeking my disqualification. I deny plaintiff’s additional claim regarding the all eged donations made to Candi ce Miller

for Congress, followed by Candi ce Miller for Congress ’ alleged donations to the Michigan Republican Party, followed by the alleged donation by the Michigan Republican Party to my Supreme Court campaign in 2010. Even if true, this new allegation is one degree of separation further than the subject matter of the previous motion for disqualification. Accordingly, it too is insufficient to give rise to an appearance of impropriety. Moreover, plaintiff’s allegations regarding professional and consulting relations hips, even if true, are too attenuated to give rise to an appearance of impropriety. Plaintiff still does not claim that I am actually biased for or against either party in this matter. Because I am not biased for or against either party in this matter, I deny plaintiff’s motion seeking my disqualification.

M ARY B ETH K ELLY , J. I deny plaintiff’s motion seeking my disqualification. Plaintiff’s allegation that Candice Miller for Congress contributed donations to the2 Michigan Republic an Party, which then al legedly made donations to my 2010 Supreme Court campaign, is insufficient to give rise to an appearance of impropriety. Additionally, plaintiff has not raised any specific allegation that I am biased against either party in this matter. Accordingly, beca use I am not actually biased for or against either party, and because plaintiff has not alleged a sufficient basis demonstrating an appearance of impropriety, I deny plaintiff’s motion for my disqualification.
#### In the Matter of Anonymous.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Oneida County,

July 6, 1956.

*209
      *Francis P. Valone*for petitioner on behalf of an infant under 16 years of age.

*Pirnie Pritchard, County Attorney (Ira M. Ball*of counsel), for Oneida County Children’s Court, respondent.

E. Howard Ringrose, J.

Upon the complaint of the attendance supervisor of Rome schools that the aforesaid infant was ‘ *‘*illegally absent from Rome Junior High School five whole days between Sept. 9, 1955 to Jan. 31, 1956 ”, she was found by the Children’s Court of Oneida County to be delinquent and was placed on probation until the further order of the court. From the above determination the petitioner has appealed and moves on behalf of the infant pursuant to section 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a certificate of reasonable doubt.

The respondent relies upon the memorandum decision in *Matter of Giroffi*(283 App. Div. 890) to defeat the motion. In a similar application in a like proceeding the court held: “ An adjudication of juvenile delinquency is not a criminal conviction. (Children’s Court Act, § 45; L. 1922, ch. 547; *People*v. *Lewis,*260 N. Y. 171.) Consequently, there is no authority for the issuance of a certificate of reasonable doubt. (Cf. *People*v. *Lewis, supra.)*” In denying the motion on jurisdictional grounds the court held: ‘ ‘ If it be assumed, however, that such a certificate may be issued on an appeal of this nature, this court is not authorized to issue it. (Cf. Code Crim. Pro., §§ 527, 529.) ”

Section 45 of the Children’s Court Act makes applicable to Children’s Court all statutes and laws, including the provisions of the Penal Law or Code of Criminal Procedure not inconsistent with or repugnant to the provisions of the Children’s Court Act. Section 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits the issuance of a certificate of reasonable doubt under the conditions specified where there is pending an appeal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court from a judgment of conviction or other determination.

The reference in the section to an appeal from a judgment of conviction or other determination might well be construed to include a determination by the Children’s Court, except that section 529 of the Code of Criminal Procedure unequivocally limits the jurisdiction of the court to grant the certificate to those cases where an appeal is pending from a conviction of a felony or misdemeanor. It necessarily follows that the application should be denied.

Ordered accordingly.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 98-20090

_____________________________________ AMERICAN NURSES FOR NURSES, INC., doing business as Medical Services, Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA.; ET AL.,

VERSUS NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA.; AI MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY CLAIM ADJUSTERS, A DIVISION OF AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL AJUSTMENT COMPANY, INC;

SMITH BELL & THOMPSON, INC., Defendants-Appellees.

______________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(H-94-CV-4392)

______________________________________________________ December 8, 1998 Before DAVIS, SMITH AND WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Based on our review of the record, the briefs and oral argument, and for essentially the reasons stated by the district court, we affirm the court's judgment.
AFFIRMED.2
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21451-21452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11691]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-45-003]


Northern Border Pipeline Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

May 6, 1996.
    Take notice that on May 2, 1996, Northern Border Pipeline Company 
(Northern Border) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become 
effective June 1, 1996:

Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 108
Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 117

    Northern Border asserts that the purpose of this filing is to 
comply with the Commission's order issued December 29, 1995, in Docket 
No. RP96-45-000. On November 16, 1995, Northern Border filed proposed 
tariff sheets, pursuant to Natural Gas Act, Section 4, in Docket No. 
RP96-45-000 and reserved the right to file a later motion to place the 
proposed tariff sheets into effect at the end of a suspension period 
ordered by the Commission. On December 29, 1995, the Commission issued 
an order in Docket No. RP96-45-000 accepting and suspending certain 
filed tariff sheets for the maximum allowable period of five months to 
take effect, subject to refund, on June 1, 1996. Northern Border 
Pipeline Company, 73 FERC para. 61,399 (1995).

[[Page 21452]]

    Accordingly, with this filing Northern Border moves to effectuate 
the tariff sheets accepted by the Commission in its December 29, 1995 
order.
    Northern states that copies of this filing have been served upon 
all parties in this proceeding and upon all of Northern Border's 
contracted shippers and affected state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and 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 the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-11691 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00247-CR

Marcus Edward Click

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 355th District Court

of Hood County (CR12270)

February 26, 2015

Opinion by Justice Meier

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bill Meier 

 Justice Bill Meier
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                               JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                        18,232,000
<SECURITIES>                                  25,189,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,552,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                     542,000
<INVENTORY>                                    1,471,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              58,351,000
<PP&E>                                        16,476,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4,290,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               277,947,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         11,539,000
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                         280,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   244,134,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 277,947,000
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              29,039,000
<CGS>                                          1,765,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 77,888,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,890,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,804,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (49,388,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     500,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (49,888,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (49,888,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (2.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (2.36)



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
        10.5
 
 
 November
        27, 2006
 
 James
        Kaufman, President
 ICrystal,
        Inc.
 1305
        Krameria Street
 Suite
        H-167
 Denver,
        Colorado 80220
 
 Re:
        Legal
        Services
 
 Dear
        Jim:
 
 This
        will
        memorialize our oral agreement whereby we agreed to perform $20,000 in legal
        services on behalf of ICrystal, Inc. in consideration of 500,000 shares of
        common stock.
 
 Should
        the foregoing accurately reflect our agreement, you need not respond to this
        letter.
 
 Thank
        you
        for the opportunity to be of services.
 
 Sincerely,
 
 /s/
 Eric
        Newlan
 
 EN/akh
#### Courtney Michelle DAVIDSON, et al., Appellants, v. Nathan E. JOLES, et al., Respondents.

No. WD 42523.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 27, 1990.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 29, 1990.

William H. Pickett, Marcia J. Lamkin, Kansas City, for appellants.

Thomas R. Hill, James R. Wyrsch, Kansas City, for respondents.

Before KENNEDY, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and TURNAGE, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs appeal a summary judgment in favor of defendant Sinclair Marketing, Inc., in plaintiffs’ personal injuries claim.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 99.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

                        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 Barrington Foods International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").
I, Rendal Williams, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 result of operations of
          the Company.


/s/ Rendal Williams
-----------------------------
    Rendal Williams
    Chairman of the Board
    Chief Executive Officer
    Secretary/Treasurer


Date April 15, 2003