alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Dale Renee BELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 890-96.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Sept. 11, 1996.

John Donahue, Houston, for appellant.

S. Elaine Roch, Assistant District Attorney, Houston, Matthew Paul, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW*

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Appellant of possession of cocaine and assessed his punishment at confinement for twenty-five years. The conviction was affirmed. *Bell v. State,*1996 WL 233736 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.], No. 14-94-00952-CR, delivered May 9, 1996).

On direct appeal, Appellant claimed that the verdict of guilt was so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence to render it manifestly unjust. At the time of its opinion, this Court’s opinion in *Clewis v. State,*922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Cr.App.1996) had been handed down but was not yet final, as rehearing was pending. The Court of Appeals refused to conduct a factual sufficiency review because the mandate had not yet issued in *Clems.*Appellant challenges the Court of Appeals’ refusal to conduct a factual sufficiency review of the evidence in ground two of his petition for discretionary review.

Our opinion in *Clewis,*in which we held that Article V, § 6 of the Texas Constitution grants the courts of appeals authority to review the factual sufficiency of the evidence, is now final and binding on the courts of appeals. Accordingly, we grant ground two of Appellant’s petition, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand to that court to address Appellant’s point of error in accord with our opinion in *Clewis,*supra. Appellant’s remaining ground for review is refused.
#### Aaron WRIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 55854.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 21, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 11, 1990.

Application to Transfer Denied Feb. 13, 1990.

Marc B. Fried, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Aaron Wright, appeals the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion after an eviden-tiary hearing. We affirm. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the motion court are not clearly erroneous and an ex*715tended opinion would serve no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 381 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 381

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        April 30, 2009.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be and are hereby elected to the 
following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
            (1) Committee on agriculture.--Mr. Murphy of New York (to rank 
        immediately after Mr. Boccieri).
            (2) Committee on armed services.--Mr. Murphy of New York, Mr. Boren.
            (3) Committee on the judiciary.--Mr. Quigley (to rank immediately 
        after Mr. Pierluisi).
            (4) Committee on oversight and government reform.--Mr. Quigley (to 
        rank immediately after Mr. Connolly of Virginia), Ms. Kaptur (to rank 
        immediately after Mr. Quigley).
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ANTONIO HESTER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-3604

[November 22, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Dennis D. Bailey, Judge; L.T. Case No. 14-009667-CF10A.

Larry R. Handfield of Law Offices Larry R. Handfield, P.A., Miami, for 

appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allen R. Geesey, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, MAY and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., CONCUR.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 

 The Court has received Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1) The Court has also received the Response to the Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus and Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order 

(Doc. 16), Petitioner’s Reply to Respondents’ Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus and Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Oder (Doc. 

17), Petitioner’s Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. 18), and Petitioner’s Notice of 

Appeal (Doc. 23) of the Court’s April 5, 2018 Order. (Doc. 20) Additionally, the Court has 

also received the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 27), and 

Respondent’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 28) 

 The Court has undertaken an extensive review of the sufficiently developed record. 

After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches the same 

conclusions reached by Judge Fine. This Court finds the Petitioner has received the 

requested relief. 

Juan Higareda-Frutos, 

 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Matthew G. Whitaker, Acting, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-18-0491-PHX-SPL 

ORDER 

 
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 

The R&R will be adopted in full. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27) is 

accepted and adopted by the Court; 

2. That the Respondent’s Objections (Doc. 28) are overruled; 

3. That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docs. 1) is denied as moot; 

4. That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

on appeal are denied because the dismissal of the Petition is justified, and reasonable jurists 

would not find the ruling debatable; and 

5. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

 Dated this 14th day of February, 2019.

Honorable Steven P. Logan 

United States District Judge
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-Q/A of Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company), for the period ending
September 30, 2015 (the Report), the undersigned officer of the Company hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such
officers 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.

Date: January 12, 2016



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Stephen Moglia                                        
|Stephen Moglia Vice President and Chief
Accounting Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part
of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6132
CALVIN EUGENE SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (CA-98-1132-5) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: May 28, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin Eugene Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Calvin Eugene Smith appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewedthe record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. United States , No. CA-98-1132-5 (S.D.W.Va. Jan. 22, 1999).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40940 

Conference Calendar

 

DENNIS W. DADE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOE DON ABERNATHY, Department Public Safety Highway

Patrol Division; WILLIAM HARLEY CONDRY, Department

Public Safety Highway Patrol Division,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:98-CV-165

- - - - - - - - - -

June 16, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

 Dennis W. Dade (TDCJ # 720238) appeals the district court’s

dismissal of his in forma pauperis (IFP) civil rights complaint

as frivolous and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). Dade’s complaint was based on

the allegedly illegal seizure of money made pursuant to his

arrest on possession-of-marijuana charges. Dade indirectly 
No. 98-40940

- 2 -

challenges the district court’s determination that his complaint

was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, arguing that

he would have initiated “these proceedings” sooner if he had

known the money was not going to be returned.

 An IFP complaint may be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) if it has no arguable basis in law

or in fact. Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir.

1997). Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) dismissals are reviewed for

abuse of discretion. Id. A dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)

for failure to state a claim is reviewed de novo, applying the

same standard used to review a dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(6). Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 734 (5th Cir. 1998). 

 Even assuming that the district court’s determination that

Dade’s complaint was time-barred was in error, the court’s

alternative holding that Dade’s claim had no constitutional basis

was not erroneous. “[D]eprivations of property caused by the

misconduct of state officials do not infringe constitutional due

process provided adequate state post-deprivation remedies exist.” 

Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir. 1994). Texas’s

tort of conversion provides such a remedy. Id. 

 The district court’s dismissal of the complaint is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Roderick Bartlett, President, Chief Executive Officer of TransAct Energy Corp., (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:  (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2016 (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 78 o(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.  Date: August 5, 2016   /s/ Rod Bartlett Roderick Bartlett President and Chief Executive Officer    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to TransAct Energy Corp. and will be retained by TransAct Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 2545]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1343]



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

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES


National Endowment for the Arts; President's Committee on the 
Arts and the Humanities: Meeting XXXV

    Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Public Law 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting 
of the President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities will be 
held on February 9, 1996 from 9:15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. This meeting will 
be held in the Mumford Room of the Library of Congress Madison 
Building, 101 Independence Avenue, S.E., Washington, DC.
    This meeting will be open to the public on a space available basis 
and will feature a discussion of possible recommendations to be adopted 
by the Committee in a report to the President on providing adequate 
financial support to the arts and the humanities.
    The President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities was 
created by Executive Order in 1982 to advise the President, the two 
Endowments, and the IMS on measures to encourage private sector support 
for the nation's cultural institutions and to promote public 
understanding of the arts and the humanities.
    If, in the course of discussion, it becomes necessary for the 
Committee to discuss non-public commercial or financial information of 
intrinsic value, the Committee will go into closed session pursuant to 
subsection (c)(4) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
    Any interested persons may attend as observers, on a space 
available basis, but seating is limited in meeting rooms and it is 
suggested that individuals wishing to attend notify the staff of the 
President's Committee in advance at (202) 682-5409 or write to the 
Committee at 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 526, Washington, DC 
20506.


    Dated: January 22, 1996.
Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 96-1343 Filed 1-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-M
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

I, Kevin R. Hoben, certify that: 

 

1.     I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2009, of Omega Flex, Inc. (the “registrant”); 

 

2.       Based on my knowledge, this 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 report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4.       The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures 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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

5.       The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

 (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 registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date:  March 31, 2009 

 

/s/ Kevin R. Hoben__________________________

 

Kevin R. Hoben

Chief Executive Officer

 

|   | Page 1 |
|--------|--------|
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Brandon Jeremy Reed v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-16-00055-CR

Trial court case number: 1444601

Trial court: 178th District Court of Harris County

Appellant has filed a motion to abate and remand to the trial court to (1) conduct a hearing 

into the court reporter’s failure to file a reporter’s record, (2) direct the district court clerk to file a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing “either an original judgment or an amended judgment 

reflecting that sentence was pronounced in open court in Appellant’s presence for the first time on 

February 26, 2016,” and (3) to conduct a hearing on why a portion of the clerk’s record has been 

ordered sealed and to make orders for counsel to have access to the complete record.

Prior to appellant’s motion, the court reporter filed an information sheet stating that the 

reporter’s record was not filed because (1) it has not been requested and (2) appellant has not paid 

or made arrangements to pay for the record and is not appealing as indigent. However, the clerk’s 

record on file indicates that the trial court found appellant indigent for purposes of appeal and the 

notice of appeal indicates that appellant is appealing as indigent.

We deny appellant’s request to abate and instead order that (1) the court reporter file the 

reporter’s record within 30 days of the date from this order and (2) the district court clerk file a 

supplemental clerk’s record within 30 days of this order containing any judgment or amended 

judgment reflecting that sentence was pronounced in open court in appellant’s presence on 

February 26, 2016. See generally TEX.R. APP. P. 35.3(c) (“The trial and appellate courts are jointly 

responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed.”). Appellant’s request to abate 

regarding the sealed record is denied because appellant’s counsel may have access to the sealed 

record.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: June 28, 2016
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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Aussie Soles Group Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended February 29, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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

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


Date:  July 15, 2008


/s/ Craig Taplin
-------------------------------------------
Craig Taplin, President and C.E.O.
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### The Bank of Monett, Respondent, v. E. E. Moulder, Appellant.

St. Louis Court of Appeals,

January 6, 1891.

Practice, Appellate: affirmance for failure to prosecute. An appellant left the state and failed to provide his attorneys with funds for the payment of the costs of the transcript, in consequence whereof the transcript was filed after the time allowed by law for the filing thereof. *Held*that no diligence was shown, and that the judgment appealed from should, on motion of the respondent, ' be affirmed for failure to prosecute.

*Appeal from the Newton Circuit Court.*— Hon. Joseph Cravens, Judge.

Affirmed.

• *French & Dams*and ./. *T. Burgess',*for appellant.

*A. V. Darroch*and *Acliel Sherwood,*for respondent.

Rombauer, P. J.

The plaintiff recovered judgment, June 5, 1890, and the defendant appealed to this court on the following day. No transcript of the record was filed in this court until September 29, following, which was less than fifteen days before the beginning of the term to which the appeal was returnable. The respondent moves for an affirmance of the judgment because the transcript was not filed within the time required by law. Affidavits are filed in opposition to the motion, which show, as sole cause for the delay, that the appellant left the state shortly after the trial, and •failed to provide his attorneys with funds to pay for the transcript. This shows no diligence on part of appellant. One who takes an appeal must make timely provisions for its prosecution. *Smith v. Merrill,*26 Mo. App. 65.

The judgment is affirmed.

All the judges concur.