alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered March 30 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 00261
- CR
ROBERTO PALACIOS
- SANCHEZ, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Tri al Court Cause No. F14
- 12347
- Q



### O RDER By letter dated March 13, 2015, the Court notified the parties that it has a question concerning its jurisdiction over this appeal

. Specifically, the Court noted that the documents received from the Dallas County Dis trict Clerk reflect appellant pleaded guilty and received deferred adjudication pursuant to a plea agreement. The trial court certified that case involves a plea bargain and appellant has no right to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a), (d); Dears v.
Stat e , 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Both appellant and the State responded that there are no plea papers or other documentation to show the case involved a plea bargain agreement and there are some discrepancies in the signatures on some of the docu ments. Appellant also responds that the trial court allowed appellant to be released on an appeal bond and set conditions of that bond, appointed counsel for appeal, and ordered the court reporter toprepare the record. The parties agree that this Court should obtain findings regarding the

existence of a plea agreement, and the State also requests findings as to the signatures on the documents and whether the Dallas County District Clerk has copies of all documents relevant to the case . We agree that in order to properly determine our jurisdiction over the appeal, we require information not in the record before us. Accordingly, we ORDER the trial court to make findings regarding the following.

 Whether appellant pleaded guilty to the offense for which he r eceived deferred adjudication community supervision pursuant to a plea bargain agreement.

 If appellant pleaded guilty pursuant to an agreement, whether there is a written document, signed by all parties, memorializing the terms of the agreement.

 If appel lant pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement, whether he reserved the right to appeal any written motions ruled on before trial or whether the trial court granted permission to appeal.

 Whether the record maintained by the Dallas County District Clerk is complete, and, if not, the trial court shall determine what are true and correct copies of any missing documents pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(e).
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record containing its written findings of fac t, any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. We further ORDER that the supplemental record contain a new certification of appellant’s right to appeal that accurately reflects the trial court proceedings as evidenced in the trial court’s findings.
We ABATE the appeal to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received.
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTI CE
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

September 8, 2005

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 04-15611

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket Nos. 

04-00107-CV-AAA

03-00026-CR-AAA

RAYMOND GELINAS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

versus 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

_________________________

(September 8, 2005)

Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Raymond Gelinas appeals, pro se, the denial of a motion to attack his

sentence, under section 2255 of Title 28 of the United States Code, and alleges that

his sentencing was illegal, under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct.

2531 (2004). Gelinas argues that we should apply Blakely retroactively and

invalidate his federal sentence for possession with the intent to distribute

oxycodone. Varela v. United States, 400 F.3d 864 (11th Cir. 2005), controls

squarely the question Gelinas’s certificate of appealability presents. We affirm the

denial of his motion under section 2255. 

Gelinas pleaded guilty to two counts of possession with intent to distribute

oxycodone and was sentenced to concurrent sentences of 48 months in prison. 

Gelinas did not pursue a direct appeal. A retroactive amendment to the Sentencing

Guidelines later reduced Gelinas’s sentence to 26 months in prison. In August

2004, after the Supreme Court decided Blakely, Gelinas filed his first motion for

collateral review and argued that his sentence was illegal under Blakely. 

The district court denied Gelinas’s motion. Afterwards, the Supreme Court

made advisory the federal Sentencing Guidelines in United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Gelinas then applied for, and was granted, a

certificate of appealability to answer the following two questions: first, should we

apply Blakely “and/or” Booker retroactively to cases on collateral review; and
3

second, if that rule is retroactive, was Gelinas’s sentence enhanced improperly

based on his possession of a firearm, a fact found by the judge? We review the

issues of law de novo. Varela, 400 F.3d at 867 n.3. 

A panel of this Court has already answered the first of these questions, and

that answer is dispositive. In Varela, this Court determined that “Schriro v.

Summerlin, 542 U.S. [348], 124 S. Ct. 2519 (2004), is essentially dispositive” of

this issue and, like the new rule announced in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122

S. Ct. 2428 (2002), the “prototypical procedural rule” of Booker should not be

applied retroactively to cases on collateral review. 400 F.3d at 867. The denial of

Gelinas’s motion is, therefore, 

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Michael BUTLER, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 68654.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 23, 1996.

Deborah B. Wafer, Dist. Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jill C. LaHue, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The State charged defendant with first degree murder, § 565.020.1, RSMo 1994, and first degree burglary, § 569.160. A jury found him guilty of second degree murder, § 565.021, and first degree burglary. Pursuant to the jury’s verdicts, the trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of life and fifteen years.

On appeal, defendant alleges the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

*507The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
EXHIBIT 32.8



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UCFH II FINANCE, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the quarterly report of UCFH II Finance, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 2, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Short, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: November 15, 2005



By:

/s/ MICHAEL J. SHORTMichael J. ShortTreasurer (Principal Financial Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 110 (Thursday, June 6, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 28839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14159]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[Order No. 825; Subzone 124A]


Revision of Grant of Authority; TransAmerican Natural Gas 
Corporation (Oil Refinery) Destrehan, LA

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board) authorized 
subzone status at the oil refinery of TransAmerican Natural Gas 
Corporation, in Destrehan, Louisiana, in 1988, subject to conditions 
(Subzone 124A, Board Order 379, 53 FR 11539, 4/7/88);
    Whereas, the South Louisiana Port Commission, grantee of FTZ 124, 
has requested, pursuant to Sec. 400.32(b)(1)(i), a revision (filed 3/
25/96, A(32b1)-3-96; FTZ Doc. 39-96, assigned 5/8/96) of the grant of 
authority for FTZ Subzone 124A which would make its scope of authority 
identical to that recently granted for FTZ Subzone 199A at the refinery 
complex of Amoco Oil Company, Texas City, Texas (Board Order 731, 60 FR 
13118, 3/10/95); and,
    Whereas, the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, acting 
for the Board pursuant to Sec. 400.32(b)(1), concurring in the findings 
and recommendations of the FTZ Staff and Executive Secretary, approves 
the request;
    Now therefore, subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, 
including Sec. 400.28, Board Order 379 is revised to replace the two 
conditions currently listed in the Order with the following conditions:
    1. Foreign status (19 CFR 146.41, 146.42) products consumed as fuel 
for the refinery shall be subject to the applicable duty rate.
    2. Privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41) shall be elected on 
all foreign merchandise admitted to the subzone, except that non-
privileged foreign (NPF) status (19 CFR 146.42) may be elected on 
refinery inputs covered under HTSUS Subheadings #2709.00.1000-
#2710.00.1050 and #2710.00.2500 which are used in the production of:

--petrochemical feedstocks and refinery by-products (FTZ staff 
report, Appendix B);
--products for export; and,
--products eligible for entry under HTSUS # 9808.00.30 and 
9808.00.40 (U.S. Government purchases).

    3. The authority with regard to the NPF option is initially granted 
until September 30, 2000, subject to extension.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of May 1996.
Paul L. Joffe,
Acting, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

    Attest:
John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-14159 Filed 6-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The
Board of Directors
Crown Media Holdings, Inc.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-37588) on Form S-8 of Crown Media Holdings, Inc. of our
report dated March 3, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Crown Media Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2009 and 2010, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' deficit, and cash flows, for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, which report appears in the
December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of Crown Media Holdings, Inc.

/s/
KPMG LLP

Denver,
Colorado
March 3, 2011

---
Exhibit 4.6

                               AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                     TO
                            NN BALL & ROLLER, INC.
                              STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

      As adopted by the Board of Directors on February 26, 1999 and approved by
the stockholders of the Company on May 13, 1999 as required in Section 23 of the
Stock Incentive Plan, the NN Ball & Roller, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan is hereby
amended as follows:

      Section 4(a) shall be amended in its entirety to read as follows:

            "4.   NUMBER AND SOURCE OF SHARES SUBJECT TO THE PLAN.

                  (a)   The Company may grant Awards under the Plan with
                        respect to not more that 1,625,000 Shares, (subject,
                        however, to adjustment as provided in Section 22
                        hereof), which Shares may be provided from any or a
                        combination of the Company's treasury, the issuance
                        of authorized but unissued Shares, and/or the
                        purchase of outstanding Shares in the open market or
                        in private transactions.

      Except as expressly amended by the Board of Directors and stockholders as
set forth above, the NN Ball & Roller, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan is hereby
ratified and confirmed in all respects.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, NN Ball & Roller, Inc., acting by and through its
officer hereunto duly authorized has executed this Amendment as of the 13th
day of May, 1999.

                              NN BALL & ROLLER, INC.


                              By:  /s/   RODERICK R. BATY
                              Name:   Roderick R. Baty
                              Title:  Chief Executive Officer and President



                                       10
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 107 (Monday, June 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 27933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13763]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[MT-921-06-1320-01-P; MTM 85105]


Coal Exploration License Application MTM 85105; Notice of 
Invitation

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Montana State Office.

    Members of the public are hereby invited to participate with Decker 
Coal Company in a program for the exploration of coal deposits owned by 
the United States of America in the following-described lands located 
in Big Horn County, Montana:

T. 8 S., R. 40 E., P.M.M.
    Sec. 27: S\1/2\SW\1/4\SW\1/4\
    Sec. 28: S\1/2\SW\1/4\SW\1/4\, NE\1/4\SE\1/4\NE\1/4\
    Sec. 34: W\1/2\W\1/2\NE\1/4\, W\1/2\
T. 8 S., R. 41 E., P.M.M.
    Sec. 29: SW\1/4\NE\1/4\SW\1/4\
T. 9 S., R. 40 E., P.M.M.
    Sec. 3: W\1/2\ of Lot 2, W\1/2\SW\1/4\NE\1/4\, W\1/2\NW\1/
4\SE\1/4\, SE\1/4\NW\1/4\SE\1/4\, N\1/2\SW\1/4\SE\1/4\, SW\1/4\SW\1/
4\SE\1/4\, W\1/2\SE\1/4\SE\1/4\, SE\1/4\SE\1/4\SE\1/4\
    Sec. 4: Lot 4, SW\1/4\NW\1/4\
    Sec. 5: Lots 3, 4, S\1/2\NW\1/4\, N\1/2\SW\1/4\ 870.55 acres

    Any party electing to participate in this exploration program shall 
notify, in writing, both the State Director, Bureau of Land Management, 
P.O. Box 36800, Billings, Montana 59107-6800; and Decker Coal Company, 
P.O. Box 12, Decker, Montana 59025. Such written notice must refer to 
serial number MTM 85105 and be received no later than 30 calendar days 
after publication of this Notice in the Federal Register or 10 calendar 
days after the last publication of this Notice in the Big Horn County 
News, whichever is later. This Notice will be published once a week for 
2 consecutive weeks in the Big Horn County News.
    The proposed exploration program is fully described and will be 
conducted pursuant to an exploration plan to be approved by the Bureau 
of Land Management. The exploration plan, as submitted by Decker Coal 
Company, is available for public inspection at the Bureau of Land 
Management, Montana State Office, Granite Tower Building, 222 North 
32nd Street, Billings, Montana, during regular business hours (9 a.m. 
to 4 p.m.) Monday through Friday.

    Dated: May 22, 1996.
Larry E. Hamilton,
State Director.
[FR Doc. 96-13763 Filed 5-31-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DN-P
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 21, 2020

No. 04-19-00708-CR

Imelda BARRERA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Brooks County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18-06-11255-CRSI

Honorable Federico Hinojosa, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On April 7, 2020, appellant filed a “Motion to Abate Appeal and Remand for Out of 

Time Motion for New Trial” in which appellant asserts she wishes to file an out-of-time motion 

for new trial based on the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. 

The issue appellant seeks to develop can be properly raised in a post-conviction 

application for writ of habeas corpus. See Pettway v. State, 4 S.W.3d 390, 391 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, order) (per curiam) (holding that defendant failed to show good cause 

to suspend appellate rules to allow him to file out-of-time motion for new trial when defendant 

could raise ineffectiveness claim in post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding); Fuentes v. State, 

No. 01-04-01018-CR, 2006 WL 2640807, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 14, 2006, 

no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (denying defendant’s motion to abate because 

ineffectiveness issues defendant sought to develop could “properly be raised in a post-conviction 

writ of habeas corpus [proceeding]”); see also Griffith v. State, 507 S.W.3d 720, 723 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2016) (Hervey, J., concurring) (ineffective-assistance claims may “be addressed on 

habeas”). This court has previously held that it will not abate an appeal for this purpose because 

ineffective assistance may be raised in a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding. see also

Bowler v. State, 822 S.W.2d 334, 335 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1992, pet. ref’d).

Appellant’s “Motion to Abate Appeal and Remand for Out of Time Motion for New 

Trial” is DENIED.
On April 7, 2020, appellant also filed a motion for extension of time requesting an 

additional seven (7) days from the date of an order denying her motion to abate. Appellant’s 

motion for an extension of time is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due on or before April 28, 

2020.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

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

court on this 21st day of April, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title
18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of Synova Healthcare Group, Inc., (the Company) does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the
Report) that:



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



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



|                   |  |  |  |                        
|------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 17, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Stephen E. King    
|                   |  |  |  | Stephen E. King        
|                   |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
**Exhibit        32.01**

**Certification        Pursuant to **

**Section        1350 of chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code**

|                                           |                                                                        |                                     |
|------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|                                      |                                                                   |                                |
| Dated: November                  14, 2005 | By:                                                               | /s/ Peter                  J. Rizzo |
|                                           | Peter                    J. RizzoChief                    Executive Officer |

|         |                                                                                 |                                            |
|--------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|    |                                                                            |                                       |
|         | By:                                                                        | /s/ Eugene                    C. Wielepski |
|         | Eugene                      C. WielepskiChief                      Financial Officer |
DISTRICT JUDGE'S MINUTES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA – TUCSON

Senior U.S. District Judge: Raner C. Collins Date: October 29, 2019

USA v. Scott Daniel Warren Case Number: CR-18-00223-TUC-RCC (DTF)

Assistant U.S. Attorney: Anna Wright/Nathaniel Walters

Attorney for Defendant: Gregory Kuykendall (Retained)

Deputy Clerk: Sherry Gammon

Court Reporter: Erica McQuillen

Interpreter: N/A 

Defendant: ☐ Present ☒ Presence Waived ☒ Released ☐ Custody ☐ Summons ☐ Writ

Status Conference

Matter comes before the Court for further Status Conference re: jury questionnaires. 

Counsel and the Court having reviewed jury questionnaires, the Court excuses for cause the 

following jurors: 5, 6, 8, 11, 15, 17, 19, 26, 28, 30, 35, 38, 41, 42, 51, 55, 57, 60, 62, 65, 71, 75, 86, 

87, 89, 90, 91, 98, 107, 112, 113, 123, 128, 130, 131, 132, 137, 138, 143, 149, 153, 154, 155, 163, 

167, 168, 170, 175, 182, 187, 188, 189, 191, 195, 198, 204, 207, 212, 219, 220, 225, 227, 229, 233, 

237 and 238. 

Counsel present oral objection as to additional jurors they request to be stricken for cause and 

previously denied by the Court. Following oral argument, the Court additionally strikes jurors 2, 4, 7, 

37, 106, 165, 166, 183 and 186.

Counsel and the Court discuss the prospective trial schedule. Trial will not be held Monday, 

11/18/2019 and will only be held on Monday, 11/25/2019 if necessary. 

The Court instructs counsel to shred all copies of the jury questionnaires for jurors stricken for cause. 

The Court further instructs counsel to inform one another if their research uncovers anything in a 

juror’s social media post that they believe is grounds for striking. 

Status Conference: 1 Hour 23 Minutes

Start: 1:30 p.m. Stop: 2:53 p.m.

 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 361 Filed 10/29/19 Page 1 of 1