alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Johnny Dell WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 665-88.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

Dec. 6, 1989.

Glenn 0. Lewis, Fort Worth, for appellant.

Tim Curry, Dist. Atty., and C. Chris Marshall, Asst. Dist. Atty., Fort Worth, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION OF STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Our former opinion in this cause is withdrawn and the following is substituted therefor.

Johnny Dell Williams, henceforth appellant, was convicted by a jury for commit*803ting the offense of aggravated robbery and assessed punishment at sixty (60) years’ confinement in the Department of Corrections and a $10,000 fine.

On direct appeal, appellant asserted that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to adequately and properly investigate the case; in particular he failed to locate and talk to appellant’s purported alibi witnesses.

Appellant’s court appointed attorney on appeal filed a timely and proper motion for new trial, raising this same contention. Also see *McIntire v. State,*698 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.Cr.App.1985). No hearing was held on the motion nor is there any evidence that the trial judge ever ruled on the motion for new trial.

The Fort Worth Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, see *Williams v. State,*No. 2-87-090-CR, May 18, 1988, abated the appeal and remanded the cause to the trial court, in order that the trial court could hold a hearing on the motion for new trial.

Originally, this Court refused the State’s petition for discretionary review but then granted the State’s motion for rehearing on the petition. The State argued that because the law was clear on the issue, this Court should not apply its decision of *Measeles v. State,*661 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.Cr.App.1983), which held that “Ordinarily, this Court will not entertain a petition for discretionary review from an interlocutory order of the Court of Appeals since it does not finally dispose of the case in that court.” We adhere to what we held in *Measeles,*and decline the State’s invitation to make an exception in this case. In this connection, to the extent that our holding conflicts with this Court’s decision of *Dugard v. State,*688 S.W.2d 524 (Tex.Cr.App.1985), *Dugard*is expressly overruled. In that regard, we adopt what Judge Clinton stated in the dissenting opinion that he filed in *Dugard:*

> By entering an order merely abating an appeal a court of appeals does not ‘decide a case’ nor does it deliver ‘a written opinion.’ Its decision in the case and the reason for that decision awaits outcome of whatever proceeding is to be had in the trial court, reflected in a supplemental record filed in the court of appeals. With that supplemental record before it the court of appeals may then decide the cause with a written opinion giving the reason for its decision, after which the losing party is entitled to seek review by this Court.

> Petition for discretionary review refused.

The State’s Motion for Rehearing is overruled.

McCORMICK, P.J., and DUNCAN, J., concur in the result.
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 40

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION II

No. CV-15-623

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTION; PUBLIC 

EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION 

APPELLANTS 

V.

ANDREW LEE CLINKSCALE

APPELLEE

OPINION DELIVERED JANUARY 27, 2016

ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

COMMISSION 

[NO. G004355] 

AFFIRMED

ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Chief Judge

This appeal follows the June 16, 2015 decision of the Workers’ Compensation 

Commission (Commission) that affirmed and adopted the ALJ’s January 17, 2015 opinion 

finding appellee Andrew Clinkscale to be permanently and totally disabled and also entitled 

to out-of-pocket expenses for prescriptions. Appellants argue that substantial evidence does 

not support the Commission’s decision. We find no error and issue this memorandum 

opinion affirming the Commission’s decision. See In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 

301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985). 

Memorandum opinions may be issued in any or all of the following cases:

(a) Where the only substantial question involved is the sufficiency of the evidence;

(b) Where the opinion, or findings of fact and conclusions of law, of the trial court 

or agency adequately explain the decision and we affirm; 

(c) Where the trial court or agency does not abuse its discretion and that is the only 

substantial issue involved; and
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 40

(d) Where the disposition of the appeal is clearly controlled by a prior holding of this 

court or the Arkansas Supreme Court and we do not find that our holding should be 

changed or that the case should be certified to the supreme court.

Id. at 302, 700 S.W.2d at 63. See Rector v. Healthsouth, 2014 Ark. App. 135, at 2.

This case falls squarely within categories (a) and (b). The only substantial question on 

appeal is whether the Commission’s decision was supported by sufficient evidence. The 

Commission’s opinion, which we affirm, adequately explains its decision.

It is the Commission’s duty, not ours, to make credibility determinations, to weigh 

the evidence, and to resolve conflicts in the medical testimony and evidence. Jaramillo v. 

Sys. Contracting, 2012 Ark. App. 200. We therefore affirm the Commission’s decision by 

memorandum opinion pursuant to sections (a) and (b) of our per curiam, In re Memorandum 

Opinions, supra.

Affirmed. 

ABRAMSON and BROWN, JJ., agree. 

Robert H. Montgomery, Public Employee Claims Division, for appellant. 

J. Matthew Coe, for appellee.
H. Res. 593 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 27, 2009. 

Whereas August 21, 2009, marks the 50th Anniversary of 

President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s signing of Proclamation 3309, which admitted Hawaii into the Union in compliance with the Hawaii Admission Act, enacted by the 

United States Congress on March 18, 1959; 

Whereas Hawaii is ‘‘a place like no other, with a people like 

no other’’ and bridges the mainland United States to the 

Asia-Pacific region; 

Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack 

Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961; 

Whereas Hawaii has contributed to the diversity of Congress 

in electing— 

(1) the first Native Hawaiian to serve in Congress, 

Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana‘ole; 

(2) the first Asian-American to serve in the Senate, 

Hiram Fong; 

(3) the first woman of color to serve in Congress, 

Patsy T. Mink; 

(4) the first Native Hawaiian to serve in the Senate, 

Daniel Kahikina Akaka; and 

(5) the first Japanese-American to serve in the Senate, Daniel Ken Inouye; 
2 

•HRES 593 EH 

Whereas Hawaii is an example to the rest of the world of 

unity and positive race relations; 

Whereas Pearl Harbor is a strategic military base for the 

U.S. in the Pacific and also a historical site for the Nation, being the location of the December 7, 1941, surprise Japanese aerial attack that thrust the Nation into 

World War II; 

Whereas Hawaii is home to 1⁄4 of the endangered species in 

the United States; 

Whereas Hawaii has 8 national parks, which preserve volcanoes, complex ecosystems, a Hansen’s disease colony, and 

other sites of historical and cultural significance; 

Whereas Kilauea ranks among the most active volcanoes on 

Earth; 

Whereas President Bush nominated the Papahanaumokuakea 

Marine National Monument to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization World Heritage Centre for consideration to the World Heritage 

List; 

Whereas Hawaii has produced musical legends ranging from 

traditional favorites such as Alfred Apaka, Don Ho, and 

Genoa Keawe, to Hawaii renaissance performers such as 

Eddie Kamae, Raymond Kane, Gabby Pahinui, Israel 

Kamakawiwo‘ole, the Brothers Cazimero, and the 

Beamer Brothers, and continuing on to contemporary 

stars such as Keali‘i Reichel, Ledward Kaapana, Jake 

Shimabukuro, and Raiatea Helm; 

Whereas Hawaii is culturally rich, as the Hawaiian culture 

has been protected through Hawaiian language immersion schools, hula competitions such as the Merrie Monarch Festival, canoeing voyages undertaken by vessels 
3 

•HRES 593 EH 

like the Hokule‘a, and the continuing historic preservation of Hawaiian traditions; 

Whereas the Hawaii Statehood Commission has held a Joint 

Session of the Hawaii State Legislature in honor of 

statehood and will be celebrating this milestone with a 

public discussion and with the arrival of the USS Hawaii; 

and 

Whereas for all of these reasons Hawaii is a truly unique 

State: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes 

and celebrates the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii 

into the Union as the 50th State. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Silicon Graphics International Corp. (the
Company) for the quarter ended June 26, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Mark J. Barrenechea, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James D. Wheat, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1, 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: August 10, 2009

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 10thday of August, 2009



|                                      |  |  |  |                                       
|------------------------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------
|/s/    Mark J. Barrenechea            |  |  |  | /s/    James D. Wheat                 
|Mark J. Barrenechea CEO and President |  |  |  | James D. Wheat Chief Financial
Officer

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective
of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF BDO SEIDMAN LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

I-many, Inc. 

Edison, New Jersey 

We hereby consent to the incorporationby reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-148897, 333-139126, 333-68924, 333-76716, 333-85044, 333-88714 and 333-105088) and on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-41362, 333-60162, 333-64974, 333-86958 and 333-11651) of I-many, Inc. andsubsidiaries of our reports dated March 14, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements, and the effectiveness of I-many, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

/s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP 

BDO Seidman, LLP 

Woodbridge, New Jersey 

March 14, 2008
#### Gwendolyn D. SMITH, Appellant, v. Leeclair E. SMITH, Respondent. Gwendolyn D. SMITH, Appellant, v. Leeclair E. SMITH, Respondent.

No. WD 51052.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 11, 1996.

Leslie Ann Schneider, Columbia, for Gwendolyn Smith.

Elton W. Fay, Columbia, for Leeclair E. Smith.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and HANNA and SPINDEN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Both Husband and Wife appeal from an Order of Legal Separation. The issues are the amount of maintenance, child support and the division of property.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Case 2:17-mj-00476-MHB Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:17-mj-00476-MHB Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:17-mj-00476-MHB Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:17-mj-00476-MHB Document 1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 4 of 4
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350, ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Columbia EquityTrust, Inc, (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), each of the undersigned hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuantto section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.     /s/ Oliver T. Carr, III       Oliver T. Carr, III     President and Chief Executive OfficerDate: November 14, 2005     /s/ John A. Schissel       John A. Schissel     Executive Vice President and     Chief Financial OfficerDate: November 14, 2005
40
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

JON M. SANDS 

Federal Public Defender 

District of Arizona 

850 W. Adams, Suite 201 

Phoenix, Arizona 85007 

Telephone: 602-382-2700 

MARIA TERESA WEIDNER; #027912 Asst. Federal Public Defender 

Attorney for Defendant 

maria_weidner@fd.org 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Gabriel Quinn Enos, 

 Defendant 

No. CR-18-207-PHX-SMB 

MOTION TO CONTINUE 

DISPOSITION HEARING 

(Fifth Request) 

 Defendant, through undersigned counsel, respectfully requests that 

this Court continue the currently set disposition hearing in the above-caption case 

for a period of at least sixty (60) days from the current date of April 14, 2020. This 

request is made to permit defendant to explore the possibility of a combined 

resolution to both the instant case and related case, CR-19-834-PHX-SMB. 

 Defense counsel has contacted Assistant United States Attorney 

Raynette Logan regarding this motion and the government has no objection to the 

requested continuances. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:18-cr-00207-SMB Document 63 Filed 03/06/20 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

 Excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(H) may result from 

this motion or from an order based thereon. 

 Respectfully submitted: March 6, 2020. 

 JON M. SANDS 

 Federal Public Defender 

 s/Maria Teresa Weidner 

 MARIA TERESA WEIDNER 

 Asst. Federal Public Defender 

Case 2:18-cr-00207-SMB Document 63 Filed 03/06/20 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 10.22**

 

ADDENDUM TO AMENDED AND RESTATED OFFICE LEASE

 

THIS Addendum to Amended andRestated Office Lease dated this 16th day of May 2002 is entered into betweenMUM II, LLC (“Landlord”) and Horizon Dairy, Inc. (“Tenant”)

 

WHEREAS,simultaneously herewith the parties are entering into the Amended and RestatedOffice Lease for the rental of a portion of the Horizon Building  (the “Restated Lease”); and,

 

WHEREAS,toward the end of the negotiations for the Restated Lease but prior to thepreparation of Exhibit C attached to the Restated Lease, Tenant requested thatthree new window openings be made to the area depicted on Exhibit C and thatfour new skylights be installed on the roof of the area depicted on Exhibit C;and,

 

WHEREAS, theBase Rent set forth in the Restated Lease was based upon the Premises withoutthe three new window openings and four new skylights; and,

 

WHEREAS, thenew window openings and skylights will cost the Landlord an additional $22,500to install; and,

 

WHEREAS, theparties have agreed on how this extra cost will be shared between the partiesand wish to set forth that agreement in this Addendum;

 

IT ISTHEREFORE AGREED as follows:

 

1.                                       Inconsideration of the extra windows and skylights described above, Tenant shallpay Landlord the sum of $11,250 plus interest thereon at the rate of 7.15%  per annum in sixty payments of $223.56 permonth beginning August 1, 2002  andending on July 1, 2007.

 

2.                                       Thesums set forth in paragraph 1 above shall be due regardless of whether theRestated Lease is terminated and the obligation to pay such sums shall survivethe termination of the Restated Lease if the termination is due to the defaultof Tenant.

 

3.                                       Tenantacknowledges that cutting the openings in the existing concrete walls and roofin order to add the three new window openings and four skylights will cause agreat deal of noise that will exceed the noise created by the otherconstruction activity necessary to complete the work set forth on Exhibit C tothe Restated Lease.  Landlord shall usecommercially reasonable methods to minimize such noise, if feasible.  Nothing in this paragraph will affectTenant’s rights under Section 11 of  the  Restated Lease.

 

IN WITNESSWHEREOF the parties have executed this Addendum on the day and year first abovewritten.

 
|   |   |   | HORIZON  ORGANIC DAIRY, INC. |
|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------|
|   |   |   |                         |
|   |   |   | By:                          | /s/ Tom Briggs |
|   |   |   |                         | Name:  Tom Briggs |
|   |   |   |                         | Title:  CFO |
|   |   |   |                         |   |
|   |   |   | MUM II, LLC                  |
|   |   |   |                         |   |
|   |   |   | By:                          | /s/ Donald W. Unkefer |
|   |   |   |                         | Donald W.  Unkefer, Jr., Manager |
|   |   |   |                         |   |
| 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of the Company      as of and for the period covered by thisReport. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    | /s/      Robert J. Stroh, Jr.                                          |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Robert      J. Stroh, Jr.                                              |
|   |   | Chairman,      Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial      Officer |
|   |   | February      9, 2009                                                  |

----
#### Mark Allen ZIMMERLEE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 09-89-029-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont.

Aug. 31, 1989.

William F. Griffin, Conroe, for appellant.

Thomas D. Glenn, Conroe, for appellee.

*792OPINION

BURGESS, Justice.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of driving while intoxicated — subsequent offense. He pleaded true to the enhancement paragraphs of the indictment which alleged non-DWI offenses, and the court assessed punishment at twenty-five years in the Texas Department of Corrections. Appellant perfected this appeal urging in a single point of error the verdict is contrary to the evidence.

Appellant argues a variance between the dates of the prior DWI convictions alleged in the indictment and the evidence presented at trial renders the evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction.

The indictment read, in pertinent part, as follows:

> [P]rior to the commission of the aforesaid offense the said Defendant was convicted of the offense of Driving While Intoxicated at least two times, namely: 1. On the 15th day of March, 1986, in Cause No. 445159 in the 228th District Court of Harris County, Texas. 2. On the 29th day of September, 1985, in Cause No. 856171 in the County Court at Law No. 5 of Harris County, Texas_

At trial the state introduced exhibits which reflect appellant was convicted on April 4, 1986, in Cause No. 445159 in the 228th District Court of Harris County, Texas, of an offense which occurred on March 15, 1986, and also convicted on September 30,1985, in Cause No. 856171 in the County Court at Law No. 5 of Harris County, Texas, of an offense which occurred on September 29, 1985.

Allegations of prior convictions for enhancement need not be alleged with the same particularity as charging of the original offense. *Watson v. State,*605 S.W.2d 877, 883 (Tex.Crim.App.1979). The variance between the indictment and the evidence must be material. *Plessinger v. State,*536 S.W.2d 380 (Tex.Crim.App.1976). To be material the variance must be such as to surprise or mislead the party to his prejudice. *Freda v. State,*704 S.W.2d 41 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). The purpose of the enhancement allegations is to provide the accused with notice of the prior conviction to be relied on and avoid surprise. *Cole v. State,*611 S.W.2d 79 (Tex.Crim.App.1981). The proof reveals the necessary succession of offense and final conviction. *See Brown v. State,*692 S.W.2d 146 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1985), *aff'd on other grounds,*757 S.W.2d 739 (Tex.Crim.App.1988). Appellant does not contend he was surprised, mislead to his prejudice, or harmed in any manner by the dates stated on the indictments. *See, Vasquez v. State,*756 S.W.2d 830 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1988, no pet.); *Selvage v. State,*737 S.W.2d 128 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1987, pet. ref’d).

Any variance between the indictment and the proof of the prior convictions was not misleading and was harmless. We overrule the point of error and affirm the judgment.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

CONSUMERS U.S., INC.
STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF RATIOS
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 5, 1997
TO DECEMBER 31, 1997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                                    <C>
EARNINGS -

Loss before extraordinary item                                         $   (271)

Interest and amortization of debt expense                                18,281

Rental expense representative of interest factor                          5,849
                                                                       --------

Total earnings                                                         $ 20,346
                                                                       ========

FIXED CHARGES -

Interest and amortization of debt expense                              $ 18,281

Rental expense representative of interest factor                          5,849
                                                                       --------

Total fixed charges                                                    $ 24,130
                                                                       ========


RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED
CHARGES                                                                      --
                                                                       ========

DEFICIENCY OF EARNINGS AVAILABLE
TO COVER FIXED CHARGES                                                 $    271
                                                                       ========
</TABLE>

For the purposes of computing the ratio of earnings to fixed charges and the
deficiency of earnings available to cover fixed charges, earnings consist of
income (loss) before income taxes, extraordinary items and cumulative effect of
change in accounting, plus fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest and
amortization of debt expense plus a portion of operating lease expense.