alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The STATE of Texas, Appellee, v. Bradley Todd EARLEY, Appellant.

Nos. 1036-93, 1037-93, 1038-93 and 1039-93.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 30, 1994.

Ross Teter, Dallas, for appellant.

John Vanee, Dist. Atty., and Karen R. Wise, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Robert Hut-tash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW*

WHITE, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of two offenses of burglary of a building (Cause Nos. 1036-93 & 1037-93), and the offense of theft (1038-93). See TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 30.-02(a)(1) and 31.03(a). The trial court deferred a finding of guilt in the burglary cases and assessed the maximum sentence of ten years confinement for the theft conviction. The trial court later assessed a term of probation on the theft conviction after sending appellant to boot camp. At the time appellant received the deferred probations and sentence, the trial court advised appellant that if he “fouled up” his probation he would probably be given the maximum sentence allowable. The appellant was subsequently convicted of burglary of a vehicle (1039-93). See TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.04(a).

*759Following the appellant’s commission of burglary of a vehicle, the trial court revoked appellant’s probation and assessed the following sentences: twenty years confinement and a $1,000 fine for each burglary conviction; ten years confinement for the theft conviction; and ten years confinement and a $1,000 fine for the burglary of a vehicle conviction. The trial court ordered the four sentences to run consecutively. The Court of Appeals *reversed*and remanded all four convictions, holding that the trial judge was biased and prejudged the eases before listening to the evidence. *Earley v. State,*855 S.W.2d 260 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1993).

On October 20, 1993, this Court granted the State’s petition for discretionary review on the three grounds presented: (1) that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the convictions for alleged prejudgment of the eases by the trial court because appellant waived the error by failing to object on this issue at trial; (2) that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the convictions for alleged prejudgment of the cases by the trial court because the trial court specifically stated that it considered all the evidence before assessing punishment; and (3) that the Court of Appeals erred in failing to consider the State’s erosspoint and thereby reform the judgment in Cause No. 1036-93 (Court of Appeals No. 13-92-00332-CR).

We now find that our decision to grant the State’s petition for discretionary review was improvident. See Tex.R.App.P. 202(k).

With this understanding, we dismiss the State’s petition for discretionary review.

It is so ordered.

MILLER and OVERSTREET, JJ., dissent.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 977 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 977

   Honoring Navy SEALs Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe, Petty 
  Officer 2nd Class Jonathan Keefe, and Petty Officer 1st Class Julio 
 Huertas for their heroic actions in the capture of Ahmed Hashim Abed, 
   the mastermind behind of one of the most notorious crimes against 
                           Americans in Iraq.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 16, 2009

Mr. Poe of Texas (for himself, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Capuano, Mr. 
  Manzullo, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Royce, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Wilson of 
   South Carolina, Mr. Calvert, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. 
Olson, Mrs. Lummis, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Latta, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Lee of 
New York, Mr. Nye, Mr. Jones, Mr. Coble, Mr. Hall of Texas, Ms. Fallin, 
Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Ms. Granger, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. King of 
Iowa, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. Carter, Mr. Conaway, Mr. 
   McCaul, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, Mr. 
 Bartlett, Mr. Pitts, Mrs. Schmidt, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Marchant, Mr. 
 Shadegg, Mr. Posey, Mr. Akin, Mr. Hunter, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Barton of 
 Texas, and Mr. Wittman) submitted the following resolution; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Honoring Navy SEALs Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe, Petty 
  Officer 2nd Class Jonathan Keefe, and Petty Officer 1st Class Julio 
 Huertas for their heroic actions in the capture of Ahmed Hashim Abed, 
   the mastermind behind of one of the most notorious crimes against 
                           Americans in Iraq.

Whereas in 2004, four Americans working for a security company in Iraq were 
        ambushed and killed;
Whereas their bodies were set on fire, mutilated, dragged through the streets, 
        and hung from a bridge in Falluja, Iraq;
Whereas three United States Navy SEALs, Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe, 
        Petty Officer 2nd Class Jonathan Keefe, and Petty Officer 1st Class 
        Julio Huertas, successfully captured Ahmed Hashim Abed, the alleged 
        mastermind behind the killings; and
Whereas Mr. Abed spearheaded a number of other insurgent attacks against members 
        of the United States Armed Forces and murdered innocent Iraqi civilians: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors Petty Officer 
2nd Class Matthew McCabe, Petty Officer 2nd Class Jonathan Keefe, and 
Petty Officer 1st Class Julio Huertas for their heroic actions in 
capturing one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>


                                   EXHIBIT 11

                   KSL RECREATION GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE

(in thousands, except share and per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                            1999           1998             1997
                                                                            ----           ----             ----
<S>                                                                      <C>             <C>              <C>
 NET INCOME (LOSS):
   Income before extraordinary item .............................        $ 23,332        $ 14,114         $  2,801

   Extraordinary loss on early extinguishment of debt ...........               -               -           (3,164)
                                                                         --------        --------         --------

   Net income (loss) ............................................        $ 23,332        $ 14,114         $   (363)
                                                                         ========        ========         ========

DATA AS TO NUMBER OF COMMON AND COMMON
EQUIVALENT SHARES:
   Weighted average number of common shares outstanding .........           1,000           1,000            1,000
   Common equivalent shares .....................................               -               -                -

   Weighted average number of common and common equivalent shares
   Outstanding ..................................................           1,000           1,000            1,000
                                                                         ========        ========         ========

Earnings (loss) per share - Basic & Diluted
Income per share before extraordinary item ......................        $ 23,332        $ 14,114         $  2,801

Extraordinary loss per share ....................................               -               -           (3,164)
                                                                         --------        --------         --------

EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE - Basic & Diluted .....................        $ 23,332        $ 14,114         $   (363)
                                                                         ========        ========         ========
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 104 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 104

 To prohibit authorized committees and leadership PACs from employing 
  the spouse or immediate family members of any candidate or Federal 
               office holder connected to the committee.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 6, 2009

  Mr. Vitter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
         referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit authorized committees and leadership PACs from employing 
  the spouse or immediate family members of any candidate or Federal 
               office holder connected to the committee.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON EMPLOYMENT OF FAMILY MEMBERS OF A CANDIDATE 
              OR FEDERAL OFFICE HOLDER BY CERTAIN POLITICAL COMMITTEES.

    (a) In General.--Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 324 
the following new section:

``SEC. 325. PROHIBITION ON EMPLOYMENT OF FAMILY MEMBERS OF A CANDIDATE 
              OR FEDERAL OFFICE HOLDER BY CERTAIN POLITICAL COMMITTEES.

    ``(a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any authorized 
committee of a candidate or any other political committee established, 
maintained, or controlled by a candidate or a person who holds a 
Federal office to employ--
            ``(1) the spouse of such candidate or Federal office 
        holder; or
            ``(2) any immediate family member of such candidate or 
        Federal office holder.
    ``(b) Immediate Family Member.--For purposes of subsection (a), the 
term `immediate family member' means a son, daughter, stepson, 
stepdaughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, mother, father, stepmother, 
stepfather, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother, sister, stepbrother, 
or stepsister of the Member.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 2. SPOUSE LOBBYING MEMBER.

    Section 207(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(10) Spouses.--Any person who is the spouse of a Member 
        of Congress and who was not serving as a registered lobbyist at 
        least 1 year prior to the election of that Member of Congress 
        to office and who, after the election of such Member, knowingly 
        lobbies on behalf of a client for compensation any Member of 
        Congress or is associated with any such lobbying activity by an 
        employer of that spouse shall be punished as provided in 
        section 216 of this title.''.
                                 <all>
```
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i at e f orpubl i c at i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). A P / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T LUI S R OM ER O ROD RI GU EZ ; AN T ON I A C OR DO VA R OME R O, P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E RJr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 06- 70067 A ge nc yN os . A 075- 475- 746

A 075- 475- 750 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r atio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 16, 2010 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , P R E G E R S O N , an dR A W L IN S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L ui s R om er o R od ri gu ezand A nt on i a C ordo va R om er o, hu sband andw i fe and na t i ve s and c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i on f

orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of

I m m i gr at i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rde ny i ng the i rm ot i on t o r e ope n r e m ova lpr oc e e di ngs . O ur 

# FI LED MA R 25 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSA P/ Res ea r ch 06- 70067 2 j ur i s di c t i on i s gove rne d by8 U . S . C . § 1252. R e vi e w i ng f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on, I tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 3 2 1 F . 3 d8 8 9 , 8 9 4 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ), w e d en y i n p artan dd i sm i ss in p art th e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w . T he B IA ac t ed w i thi n i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng pet i t i on er s’ m ot i on as u n tim e lyb e c au s e it w a s f ile da lm o s t tw o y e ar s a f te rth e B I A ’s f

in a l r e m o v a l o r d e r . See 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (c)(2 ) (m o t i o n t o reo p en m u stb e fi l edn o l at er th an 9 0 d ays a f te rth e f in a l a d m in is tr ativ e d e c is io n w a s r e n d e r e d ) . W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the B I A ’ s de c i s i on nott o e xe r c i s e i t s s ua sp o n t e au th o ri ty t o reo p en p et i t i o n ers’ case, an dw e n o tp ersu ad edb y p et i t i o n ers’ a tte m p ts to c ir c u m v e n t th is ju r is d ic tio n a l b ar . Se e Eki m i a n v . I NS , 303 F . 3d 1153, 1159 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( not i ng that“ the de c i s i on of the B I A w he the rt o i nvoke i t s s ua spon t e autho ri ty i s c om m i tt ed t o i t s unfett er ed di sc re t i on ”) (i t al i cs and i nt ernal c itatio n s o m itte d ) . P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.
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

PICCARRETA DAVIS KEENAN FIDEL PC

2 East Congress Street, Suite 1000

Tucson, AZ 85701

(520) 622-6900

Michael L. Piccarreta

State Bar No. 003962

Email: mlp@pd-law.com

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

6. Andrew Padilla,

 (Counts 1-51)

 Defendant.

NO. CR-18-00422-06-PHX-SPL

DEFENDANT PADILLA’S JOINDER IN 

DEFENDANTS LACEY’S AND 

LARKIN’S OPPOSITION (DOC. 408) TO 

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR 

ACCESS TO THE JOINT 

REPRESENTATION AND JOINT 

DEFENSE AGREEMENTS (DOC. 354)

Defendant Andrew Padilla, by and through his undersigned attorney, hereby joins in 

Defendants Lacey’s and Larkin’s Opposition (Doc. 408) to Government’s Motion for 

Access to the Joint Representation and Joint Defense Agreements (Doc. 354). Mr. Padilla 

adopts the positions set forth in the opposition as if fully set forth herein as in all respects said 

opposition applies to him.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 12th day of December, 2018.

PICCARRETA DAVIS KEENAN FIDEL PC

By: /s/ Michael L. Piccarreta

Michael L. Piccarreta

Attorney for Andrew Padilla

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 418 Filed 12/12/18 Page 1 of 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

2

On December 12, 2018, a PDF version

of this document was filed with the

Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF

System for filing and for Transmittal

of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the

following CM/ECF registrants:

Reginald Jones, reginald.jones4@usdoj.gov

Peter Kozinets, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov

John Kucera, john.kucera@usdoj.gov

Margaret Perlmeter, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov

Kevin Rapp, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov

Patrick Reid, Patrick.Reid@usdoj.gov>

Andrew Stone, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov

Amanda Wick, Amanda.Wick@usdoj.gov

Paul Cambria, pcambria@lglaw.com

Tom Bienert, tbienert@bmkattorneys.com

Bruce Feder, bf@federlawpa.com

Michael Kimerer, mdk@kimerer.com

Stephen Weiss, sweiss@karpweiss.com

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 418 Filed 12/12/18 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT
      23.2**





**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**




We
        consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
        333-45949, 333-68855, 333-77111, 333-73240, 333-86796 and 333-115426 of PMA
        Capital Corporation on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-84764
        of PMA
        Capital Corporation on Form S-3 of our reports dated March 16, 2005, relating
        to
        the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of
        PMA
        Capital Corporation, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of PMA
        Capital
        Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2006.
 
 We
        also
        hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the above Registration
        Statements of our reports dated June 10, 2005 relating to the consolidated
        financial statements of PMA Capital Insurance Company and the financial
        statements of Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Company, which
        also appear in this Form 10-K.


/s/
      DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Philadelphia,
      PA


March 13, 2007
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

 Before the Court is Counsel’s 1 Emergency Motion to Stay Seizure of Attorneys’ 

Fees and Joinder in Defendant Padilla and Vaught’s Emergency Motion to Stay Seizure 

of Attorneys’ Fees and Request for Immediate Hearing. (Doc. 365) Counsel requests a 

stay of one seizure warrant directed at funds in two accounts held in Alliance Bank of 

Arizona. (Doc. 365-1 at 2) For good cause appearing, 

IT IS ORDERED that the relief requested in Counsel’s Emergency Motion to 

Stay Seizure of Attorneys’ Fees and Joinder in Defendant Padilla and Vaught’s 

Emergency Motion to Stay Seizure of Attorneys’ Fees and Request for Immediate 

Hearing (Doc. 365) is temporarily granted pending a hearing on the motion which is 

scheduled for November 16, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 501, 401 West Washington 

Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Steven P. Logan; 

 

1

 The Emergency Motion was submitted by attorney Anne Chapman, but the Emergency Motion does not identify the defendants or parties on behalf of which the 

Emergency Motion was filed. 

United States of America, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Michael Lacey, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CR-18-00422-PHX-SPL

ORDER 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 369 Filed 11/13/18 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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall have until 4:00 p.m. PST 

on November 14, 2018 to file its Response Brief, and the unnamed defendants, parties or 

witnesses shall have until 12:00 p.m. PST on November 15, 2018 to file his Reply Brief. 

 Dated this 13th day of November, 2018. 

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 369 Filed 11/13/18 Page 2 of 2
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 17

- 00340

- CR
Ricardo Rodriguez v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 347th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. 15

- CR

- 1401

- H

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this ca use on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. March 15, 2018
Exhibit J 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-10 Filed 06/14/18 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-10 Filed 06/14/18 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-10 Filed 06/14/18 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATE 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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-Q of Creative Waste Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jared Robinson, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d)), as amended; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                   
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.               







|Date: May 22, 2017 | By: | /s/ Jared Robinson                                               | 
|------------------ | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                   |     | Jared Robinson                                                   | 
|                   |     | Chief Executive Officer, President
(Principal Executive Officer) |