alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered December 13, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01203-CV

IN RE GOLDFARB, PLLC, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 301st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-16-03747

ORDER

Before Justices Lang-Miers, Fillmore, and Stoddart

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus. Consequently, relator’s October 11, 2018 motion to stay and its November 15, 2018 

motion for expedited consideration of its motion to stay are DENIED as moot.

/Craig Stoddart/

CRAIG STODDART

JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6767

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL T. MCGEE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:13-cr-00023-FPS-RWT-1; 

5:16-cv-00102-FPS-RWT)

Submitted: October 17, 2019 Decided: October 22, 2019

Before MOTZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael T. McGee, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael T. McGee seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief 

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists 

would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or 

wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that 

the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McGee has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### George E. ARCHER, Appellant, v. TREASURER OF the STATE OF MISSOURI, as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent.

No. 64885.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

March 29, 1994.

Lynn D. Barnett, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Maria W. Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GARY M. GAERTNER, C.J., and PUDLOWSKI and SIMON, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, George E. Archer, appeals from a final award entered by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission reversing the awai'd of the Administrative Law Judge and finding there was no liability on the part of respondent, the Second Injury Fund. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the findings and conclusions of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission are not clearly erroneous. As we further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s award pursuant to Rule 84.-16(b). A memorandum solely for the use the parties here involved has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.
H. Res. 925 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

March 21, 2010. 

Whereas aviators in the Armed Forces, including pilots, navigators, bombardiers, weapons control officers, and other 

aircraft crew members, have served the United States 

with great courage and distinction in every major conflict 

during the 20th and 21st centuries; 

Whereas thousands of aviators in the Armed Forces have 

been forced down while performing their missions, as a 

result of hostile action, mechanical failures, or other 

problems; 

Whereas many of these aviators overcame long odds and 

great hardships to return to their units and resume their 

service to the United States; 

Whereas some of these aviators tried to evade enemy forces, 

but were captured, and some of these aviators were compelled to endure arduous confinement, retaliation, and 

even death as a result of their efforts to evade capture 

or escape; 

Whereas these aviators faced the added responsibility of 

maintaining the secrecy of their escape and evasion methods in order to protect the lives of people who assisted 

them and other aviators; and 
2 

•HRES 925 EH 

Whereas the need to maintain secrecy initially may have prevented these aviators from being publically recognized for 

their meritorious service in avoiding capture, in escaping 

from captivity, or for their efforts to escape: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that— 

(1) aviators in the United States Armed Forces 

who, as a result of hostile action, mechanical failures, or 

other problems, were forced to evade or escape enemy 

capture, were captured but subsequently escaped to return to their units and resume their service to the 

United States, or were compelled to endure arduous confinement, retaliation, and even death as a result of their 

efforts to evade capture or escape should be publically 

recognized for their extraordinary service; and 

(2) the Secretaries of the military departments 

should consider these aviators for appropriate recognition within their branch of the Armed Forces. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
`
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 White Dental Supply, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three month periods ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nancy White, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Michael White, acting in the capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.

 

 

/s/ Nancy White 

     Nancy White

     Chief Executive Officer

     May 15, 2008

 

 

/s/ Michael White

     Michael White

     Chief Financial Officer

     May 15, 2008

 

 

 
`
#### Dorothy E. NUNEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 47051.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 17, 1993.

Lew A. Kollias, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from the dismissal of a Rule 24.-035 motion for postconviction relief.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### City of Cleveland *v.*Nagle.

(No. 22661

Decided June 10, 1931.)

*Mr. Harold H. Burton,*director of law, *Mr. Henry S. Brainard*and *Mr. Norman A. By an,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Louis Femberg*and *Mr. Leo Weil,*for defendant in error.

*60By the Court.

Joseph Nagle was convicted in the municipal court of Cleveland on a charge of unlawful possession of liquor, contrary to the provisions of an ordinance of that city. On proceedings in error that judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeals by a majority decision (one of the judges dissenting) upon the ground that “there is no evidence to show trafficking in liquor.”

The record discloses that police officers went to the place of residence of the defendant after numerous complaints had been made that he was harboring girls and women; that upon inquiry defendant denied that there was any ground for such complaint, but promptly informed the officers that he had liquor in his basement; that thereupon he conducted the officers to the basement, where there was a room about eighteen by twenty-two feet, with tables and chairs; that on one side of the room there was a bar and two barrels of beer tapped and ready for service; and that there were also in the room a five-gallon can containing about three gallons of whisky, three other jugs about half full, a separate pint bottle of whisky, many empty whisky bottles, together with beer glasses, whisky glasses, pretzels and all kinds of soft drinks. It was described by the officers as a “regular bar outfit.” The defendant admitted ownership of the establishment and of the beer and liquor, and also admitted its intoxicating character.

Upon such state of facts the conviction was supported by *Ciano*v. *State,*105 Ohio St., 229, 137 N. E., 11; *Rosanski*v. *State,*106 Ohio St., 442, 140 N. E., 370; *State*v. *Sabo,*108 Ohio St., 200, 140 N. E., 499. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore *61reversed and the judgment of the municipal court is affirmed.

*Judgment reversed.*

Mabshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00328-CV 

FRED LAMOND HARRIS APPELLANT

V.

YVETTE HENRY-HARRIS APPELLEE 

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

FROM THE 233RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered appellant's letter requesting that we dismiss his 

appeal, which we construe as a motion to dismiss. It is the court’s opinion that 

the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ. 

DELIVERED: December 12, 2013

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 19, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00209

- CR

Ramon DAVIDSON

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009CR11312W

Honorable Lorina I. Rummel, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

This appeal is reinstated on the docket of the co urt. We order appellant’s brief due July

20, 2015

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 19th day of June, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09

- 16

- 00125

- CR

________________

JORGE GEOVANNY VALLECILLO , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________ __________________________

On Appeal from the 410th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 15

- 03

- 03037

- CR

________________________________________ __________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jorge Geovanny Vallecillo has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. See Tex.

R. App. P. 42.2. A request to dismiss the appeal is signed by appellant personally

and joined by counsel of record. No opinion has issued in this appeal. The motion

is granted, and the appeal is therefore dismissed.2 APPEAL DISMISSED.

________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submitted on July 26, 2016

Opinion Delivered July 27, 2016

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Krege r and Horton, JJ.
Exhibit 4.7.2

(AUSTRAL PACIFIC LOGO)

May 24, 2007

PRIVATE &
CONFIDENTIAL

Mr. Thompson
B. Jewell
385 Birchcliff Road
Birchcliff AB T4S 1R6
Canada

Dear Thom,

Further to my
letter of April 23, 2007 and negotiations with you, this letter records matters
agreed with you, as required by that original letter of offer. Those matters of
record are:

|                        |  |                                                                                                                                                                    
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Initial
  Compensation: |  | After review
  of base salary on arrival, minimum annual base salary is adjusted to
  NZ$409,000, to apply from 1 May 2007, subject to an annual review;           
|                        |  |                                                                                                                                                                    
|Housing                 |  | The period
  of time agreed for rental property costs to be met by the Company is to be 1
  year, to a maximum level of NZ$1,200 (plus GST) per week for 12 months.

Please
indicate your acceptance of these matters below.

Yours truly,

David Newman
Chairman

AGREED AND
ACCEPTED 
this ____ day of ________  ______

|                     | 
|-------------------- | 
|                     | 
|Thompson B.
  Jewell | 

|                                                                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                                        
|Austral Pacific Energy Ltd.                                                                                             
|                                                                                                                        
|Incorporated in British Columbia, Canada                                                                                
|                                                                                                                        
|Level 3, 40 Johnston Street, P O Box 5337, Lambton Quay, Wellington,
  New Zealand PH: +64 4 495 0888FAX: +64 4 495 0889
|                                                                                                                        
|EMAIL:
  mail@austral-pacific.com WEBSITE:
  www.austral-pacific.com                                                    
|                                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                                        

---
IV 

House Calendar No. 121 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 830 

[Report No. 111–301] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2442) to amend the Reclamation 

Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to expand the 

Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 14, 2009 

Ms. MATSUI, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2442) to amend 

the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study 

and Facilities Act to expand the Bay Area Regional 

Water Recycling Program, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution 

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3 2442) to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Ground4 water Study and Facilities Act to expand the Bay Area 

5 Regional Water Recycling Program, and for other pur6 poses. All points of order against consideration of the bill 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 830 RH 

1 are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of 

2 rule XXI. The amendment printed in the report of the 

3 Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 

4 considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be con5 sidered as read. All points of order against provisions in 

6 the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question 

7 shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, 

8 to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 

9 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 

10 and ranking minority member of the Committee on Nat11 ural Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 

12 without instructions. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 121 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 830 

[Report No. 111–301] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2442) 

gram, and for other purposes. the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling ProGroundwater Study and Facilities Act to expand to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and 

OCTOBER 14, 2009 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 864 

Congratulating President Obama for winning of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 23, 2009 

Mr. GRAYSON submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating President Obama for winning of the 2009 

Nobel Peace Prize. 

Whereas the Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to 

award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 to President 

Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen 

international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples; 

Whereas the Norwegian Nobel Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a 

world without nuclear weapons, and his ability to create 

a new climate in international politics; 

Whereas the Norwegian Nobel Committee lauded the fact 

that multilateral diplomacy that has regained a central 

position in the foreign policy of the United States, with 

emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other 

international institutions can play; 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 864 IH 

Whereas the Norwegian Nobel Committee has espoused the 

common view that dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult 

international conflicts; 

Whereas the Norwegian Nobel Committee has recognized that 

President Obama’s vision of a world free from nuclear 

arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms 

control negotiations; 

Whereas thanks to President Obama’s initiative, the United 

States is now playing a more constructive role in meeting 

the great climatic challenges the world is confronting; 

Whereas the Norwegian Nobel Committee has proclaimed 

that democracy and human rights are to be strengthened; 

Whereas the Norwegian Nobel Committee stated, ‘‘Only very 

rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for 

a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept 

that those who are to lead the world must do so on the 

basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population’’; 

Whereas the Norwegian Nobel Committee stated that for 108 

years it has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is 

now the world’s leading spokesman; and 

Whereas the Norwegian Nobel Committee endorsed Obama’s 

appeal that ‘‘Now is the time for all of us to take our 

share of responsibility for a global response to global 

challenges.’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives con2 gratulates President Barack Hussein Obama for winning 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 864 IH 

1 the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, on behalf of all the people 

2 of the United States. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 788 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 788

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       October 1, 2009.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3183) making 
appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes. All points of 
order against consideration of the conference report are waived. The conference 
report shall be considered as read. All points of order against the conference 
report are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
conference report to its adoption without intervening motion except: (1) one 
hour of debate; and (2) one motion to recommit if applicable.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CFO CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      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)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or
caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our
supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    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; andd)
    
    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;
and
  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; andb)
    
    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.
  By:
    
    /s/ Robert Copple

Robert Copple
Chief Financial Officer