alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-59,535-05

EX PARTE REGINALD TYRONE HOLLINS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1342022-A IN THE 177 DISTRICT COURT th

FROM HARRIS COUNTY 

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of the offense of

aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 

On March 5, 2015, an order designating issues was signed by the trial court. This order

designated the issues of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and ineffective assistance of appellate

counsel for resolution. The habeas record has been forwarded to this Court prematurely . We 1

 This application was properly forwarded by the district clerk in response to our 1

mandamus abatement order. The forwarding of the application is only premature as it pertains to
remand this application to the 177 District Court of Harris County to allow the trial judge to

th

complete an evidentiary investigation and enter findings of fact and conclusions of law.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must

be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: July 25, 2018

Do not publish. 

the designated issues not having been resolved by the trial court.
Exhibit
32.1





Certification of Principal
Executive 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 Quarterly Report
of Vision Acquisition II, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Antti WilliamUusiheimala, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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/
      Antii William UusiheimalaAntti
      William UusiheimalaPrincipal
      Executive OfficerAugust
                12, 2010
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302

I, Richard M. Lerner, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Annapolis Bancorp, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information
included in this annual report fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure
controls and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuers fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors:

a) All significant deficiencies
and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers
internal control over financial reporting.



|                     |  |  |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 26, 2007 |  |  |  |                        
|                     |  | 
|                     |  |  |  | /s/ Richard M. Lerner  
|                     |  |  |  | Richard M. Lerner      
|                     |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES DAVILA ,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. DAVID G. SMITH, M.D.,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 16

- 16525
D.C. No. 15

- cv - 00094

- LJO

- EPG

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill , Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8 , 2017 **

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER , and OWENS , Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Charles Davila appeals pro se from the district

court ’ s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and disability discrimination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 16525

review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

. Resnick v. Hayes , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) . W e affirm in part, vacate in part, and
remand

. The district court properly dismi ssed Davila’s deliberate indifference claim because Davila failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Smith was deliberately
indifferent to his medical issues. See Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 341

- 42 (9th
Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are li berally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Toguchi v. Chung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1057

- 60 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, neglig ence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference). The district court properly dismissed Davila’s disability discrimination claim because Davila failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Sm ith discriminat ed against him because of a disability. See Simmons v. Navajo C ounty , 609 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The ADA prohibits discrimination because of disability, not inadequate treatment for disability.”). The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Davila’s state law claims after dismissing the
federa l claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Tritchler v. County of Lake , 358 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2 004) (standard of review). However, the state law claims3 16

- 16525

should have been dismissed without prejudice. See Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’ t , 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994) (dismissal based on declining supplemental jurisdiction should be without prejudice). Accordingly, we vacate the judgment to the extent it dismisses Davila’s state law claims with prejudice and remand for the sole purpose of dismissing the state law claims without prejudice.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED
.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of

-- United Technologies Corporation Under Contract No. NOOO 19-02-C-3003 APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) ) ASBCA Nos. 59544, 60141
Terry L. Albertson, Esq. Stephen J. McBrady, Esq. Skye Mathieson, Esq.

Crowell & Moring LLP Washington, DC APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. DCMA ChiefTrial Attorney Alexander M. Healy, Esq. Stephen R. Dooley, Esq.

Trial Attorneys Boston, MA
ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute which is the subject ofthe appeals having been settled, the appeals are hereby dismissed with prejudice subject to reinstatement only in the event the settlement is not consummated. Anyrequest to reinstate the subject appeals must be filed within one year ofthe date ofthis Order. Dated: 17 May 2016

/ MARK N. STEMPCTR Administrative Judge Acting Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract AppealsI certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCANos. 59544, 60141, Appeals ofUnited Technologies Corp., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

2 JEFFREYD. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
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 

MICHAEL BAILEY 

United States Attorney 

ANNA WRIGHT

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

NATHANIEL J. WALTERS 

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

State Bar No.: 029708 

405 West Congress, Suite 4800 

Tucson, Arizona 85701-5040 

Telephone: (520) 620-7300 

E-mail: anna.wright@usdoj.gov 

E-mail: nathaniel.walters@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Scott Daniel Warren, 

 Defendant.

18-CR-223-TUC-RCC (DTF) 

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CLARIFY 

(Doc. 368) 

The United States of America, by and through its undersigned attorneys, hereby 

respectfully responds to the defendant’s Motion to Clarify Order on Redactions to Video 

Depositions. Doc. 368. The government takes no further position on the appropriate 

redactions. However, the government respectfully requests that the Court rule as soon as 

possible, because, upon information and belief, further redactions to the video depositions 

will take significant time to prepare and may cause delays during trial. 

/// 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 369 Filed 11/06/19 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 

 Respectfully submitted this 6th day of November, 2019. 

 MICHAEL BAILEY 

United States Attorney 

District of Arizona 

 /s/ Anna R. Wright & Nathaniel J. Walters

 ANNA WRIGHT &

 NATHANIEL J. WALTERS 

 Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

Copy of the foregoing served electronically or by 

other means this 6th day of November, 2019, to: 

All ECF participants 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 369 Filed 11/06/19 Page 2 of 2
Case 4:18-mj-01455-N/A-BPV Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 1 of 1
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 Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted), Russell Chaney, Chief Executive Officer of COPsync,
Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of his
knowledge:





1.


the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
September 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m or 78o(d)); 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 19, 2008
            /s/Russell
      Chaney
              Russell
      Chaney
              Chief
      Executive Officer
1 WO 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

'FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

1 O United States of America, No. 17-04376-001-PCT-DMF 

11 Plaintiff, ORDER 

12 v. 

13 Juan Gilbert Cruz, Jr., 

14 Defendant. 

15 

. 16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Defendant appeared in court with counsel. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3141 et. seq. a 

detention hearing was held. The defendant i_s ordered detained pending an intake 

assessment for placement at Crossroads in Phoenix, Arizona or other facility as . 

designated by Pretrial Services. Should defendant qualify for such placement, defendant 

spall be released upon conditions set by this Court, including pretrial residency at said 

facility, as conditions do exist which would reasonably assure the safety of others and the 

appearance of the defendant. Should defendant not so qualify, the release conditions set 

by this Court shall be vacated and defendant shall be detained pending trial as there are 

no conditions or combination of conditions which would reasonably assure the safety of 

others or the appearance of the defendant. 

The Pretrial Services Officer is ordered to timely notify this Court of the . 

defendant's intake assessment results, and if found acceptable, the date and time the 

II 
1 facility will provide transportation from the Sandra Day O'Connor Courthouse for the 

2 defendant. 

3 Dated this 22nd day of February, 2018. 

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 

- 2 -
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 11, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29530-29531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14743]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[Docket 46-96]


Foreign-Trade Zone 165--Midland, TX; Application for Expansion

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) by the City of Midland, Texas, grantee of FTZ 165, 
requesting authority to expand its zone to include a site in Fort 
Stockton (Pecos County), Texas, some 90 miles south of Midland 
International Airport (a U.S. Customs user-fee airport). The 
application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-
Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of 
the Board (15 CFR Part 400). It was formally filed on May 29, 1996.
    FTZ 165 was approved on June 29, 1990 (Board Order 477, 55 FR 
28263; 7/10/90). The zone currently consists of two sites: Site 1 (112 
acres--2 parcels) within the Midland International Airport complex; 
and, Site 2 (39 acres)--Midland Industrial Park, 5 miles east of the 
airport.
    The applicant is now requesting authority to expand the general-
purpose zone to include a site at the Pecos County Industrial Park (300 
acres) located northwest of U.S. Highway 205, within the Fort Stockton/
Pecos County Airport facility. The site is owned and operated by the 
County of Pecos, which will serve as FTZ administrator.
    In accordance with the Board's regulations (as revised, 56 FR 
50790-50808, 10-8-91), a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated 
examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board.
    Public comment (original and 3 copies) is invited from interested 
parties (see FTZ Board address below). The closing date for their 
receipt is August 12, 1996. Rebuttal comments in response to material 
submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the 
subsequent 15-day period (to August 26, 1996).
    A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be 
available for public inspection at each of the following locations:

Office of the Director of Airports, Midland International Airport, 9506 
Laforce Boulevard, Midland, TX 79711
Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Room 3716, 14th & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230


[[Page 29531]]


    Dated: May 30, 1996.
John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-14743 Filed 6-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 107 (Monday, June 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 27865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13919]



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

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS


Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE AND TIME: June 10, 1996; 8:30 a.m.

PLACE: RFE/RL, Inc., Vinohradska 1, Fifth Floor Conference Room, 110 00 
Prague 1, Czech Republic.

CLOSED MEETING: The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors 
(BBG) will meet in closed session 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 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)) The BBG meeting 
will be followed by a closed meeting of the Board of Directors of the 
RFE/RL, Inc., a nonprofit private corporation.

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

    Dated: May 30, 1996.
David W. Burke,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 96-13919 Filed 5-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6155-01-M
|   |         |   |   |   |   | RIDGEWOOD ENERGY O FUND, LLC                    |
|--------|--------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated: | May 11, 2010 | By:    | /s/    |   |   | ROBERT E. SWANSON                                    |
|   |         |   | Name:  |   |   | Robert E. Swanson                                    |
|   |         |   | Title: |   |   | Chief Executive Officer                              |
|   |         |   |   |   |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                        |
|   |         |   |   |   |   |                                                 |
|   |         |   |   |   |   |                                                 |
| Dated: | May 11, 2010 | By:    | /s/    |   |   | KATHLEEN P. MCSHERRY                                 |
|   |         |   | Name:  |   |   | Kathleen P. McSherry                                 |
|   |         |   | Title: |   |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |         |   |   |   |   | (Principal Financial Officer)                        |
|   |         |   |   |   |   |                                                 |
|   |         |   |   |   |   |                                                 |

----
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance





Exhibit 10.8




Contract for Professional Services between Minera Metalin S.A. of C.V. from now on designated in
this document as the Company, and Lics. Armando Lopez and Maria Antonieta Garza, from now on
designated in this document as the solicitors, for their representation of the Company in
litigation interposed against them by Sociedad Cooperativa de Explotación Minera Mineros Norteños
S.C.L. entered into the 15 of October of 2008, under the following terms:



The solicitors commit themselves to the defense of the interest of the Company in the Law suit
filed against the company in the Fourth Civil Court in Morelos District under file num. 1075/ 2008
until its final conclusion, including The Appeal process in any are filed. If there should arise a
need for an Amparo filing the legal services will be negotiated separately.



The services provided will be under the joint responsibility of Lic. Maria Antonieta Garza and the
office of the Lic. Armando Lopez and his legal office, from where one or several litigators will be
designated to handle filings and litigation.



The fees herein agreed to do not include payment of expenses necessary and undertaken during
representation, notary fees or expenses such as copies, telephone, or travel etc.



The fees agreed to hereunder are the amount of $250,000 Dlls, (Two hundred fifty thousand dollars
American currency) for completion of the proceedings as stated in paragraph and will be paid in the
following manner:



50% upon the presentation and filing of the response to the lawsuit. (Oct. 25, 2008)

50% upon conclusion of the court proceedings be it after resolution by the Court or after the
results of any appeal to same undertaken by any or both parties to the lawsuit.



All expenses will be reported monthly and will have to be reimbursed within fifteen days of being
presented to the company.



In the event the Court in its judgment of the case charges the plaintiff Mineros Norteños to pay
all fees and costs of litigation and this becomes effective, that is to say, is viable to execute
against Mineros Norteños, all fees and costs will become reimbursable to the company.




	 	 	 
	Minera Metalin S.A. of C.V.

	 	Lic Ma Antonieta Garza
	 
	 	 
	Roger Kolvoord
	 	 
	Legal representative

	 	Lic Armando Lopez
NUMBER 13-19-00626-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

JOSE LUIS GARCIA JR., Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 398th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

ORDER TO FILE STATE’S BRIEF

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Silva

Order Per Curiam

This cause is currently before the Court on the State’s fourth motion for extension 

of time to file the brief. Appellant’s brief was filed on February 2, 2021, and the State’s

brief was originally due to be filed thirty days thereafter. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b). This 

Court previously granted the State three extensions of time totaling 162 days to file the 
2

brief, and the State now seeks an additional 60 days, until October 12, 2021, to file the 

brief. 

The Court grants in part and denies in part the state’s fourth motion for extension 

to file the brief and orders the Honorable Gocha A. Ramirez, by and through his assistant 

district attorney, the Honorable Judith A. Solis, to file the state’s brief on or before 

September 1, 2021. The Court looks with disfavor on the delay caused by counsel’s failure 

to timely file a brief in this matter.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

24th day of August, 2021.