alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ex parte Lynwood LESIKAR, Relator.

No. 95-0043.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 11, 1995.

Rehearing Overruled June 8, 1995.

Rehearing Overruled June 29, 1995.

S. Gary Werley, Mark C. Roberts, II, Fort Worth, for relator.

Jerry S. Harris, Rex A. Nichols, Gregory P. Grajczyk, Longview, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an original habeas corpus proceeding. Lynwood Lesikar was held in contempt of court for violating a purported extension of a temporary restraining order (TRO). The adjudication was for constructive contempt for alleged acts committed on or around land subject to an oil and gas lease. The contempt judgment recites that Lesikar had notice of an oral extension order. The evidence is conclusive that Lesikar had no notice of the only written extension order, which was signed in the wrong cause number, until after the alleged acts of contempt.

Extensions of temporary restraining orders, absent some special statutory authority not applicable here, must meet the limitations of Tex.R.Civ.P. 680, including in particular written orders and written extensions. An oral extension of a TRO is ineffective, and the contemnor must have notice of the actual written extension before he can be charged with contempt. *Ex parte Conway,*419 S.W.2d 827, 828 (Tex.1967).

Without hearing argument, a majority of the court grants Lesikar’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and orders him discharged because his confinement for constructive contempt is contrary to *Ex parte Conway.*Tex. R.App.P. 122.
#### In re the Marriage of Dorothy Jean BARTZ, Appellant, v. Thomas Joseph BARTZ, Respondent.

No. 54667.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

May 30, 1989.

Theodore S. Schechter, Cynthia Ann So-bel, Marie-Anne Woodruff, Clayton, for appellant.

Justin C. Cordonnier, St. Louis, for respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s judgment in a dissolution case. The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight, of the evidence. No error of law appears. *Murphy v. Carron,*536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976). An extended opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
#### Wilson CAMDEN, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 64092.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 1, 1994.

*862Raymond L. Legg, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for movant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Wilson Camden, appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evi-dentiary hearing. The judgment of conviction sought to be vacated was for possession of a controlled substance for which movant was sentenced to imprisonment for eight years.

The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit B 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1975-2 Filed 11/16/23 Page 1 of 2
	

	
		


		
	
			

		

	



	


	

 
		

!""
#!

 $
%	
 	&	'


(')!$*

*
		


+,-.,/0.1-+20/-.,3,.+,-4

56##	

 	
7$


*

 	*7



0-,.0,+.,12182,.,1/.++8,

'9	

:%
 

		30*


;828<1,0.11,,

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1975-2 Filed 11/16/23 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33097]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16235]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[I.D. 041896A]


Marine Mammals and Endangered Species; Permits

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Modification of a scientific research permit (P557D).

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Scripps Institution of 
Oceanography, Institute for Geophysics and Planetary Physics (Dr. 
Christopher W. Clark, Principal Investigator), 9500 Gilman Drive, 
LaJolla, CA 92093-0225, has been issued a modification to take (harass) 
several species of marine mammals and sea turtles for purposes of 
scientific research.

ADDRESSES: The modification and related documents are available for 
review upon written request or by appointment, in the following 
offices:
    Permits Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13130, Silver Spring, 
MD 20910 (301/713-2289);
    Director, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 W. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 
4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213 (310/980-4016); and
    Coordinator, Pacific Area Office, Southwest Region, NMFS, 2570 Dole 
Street, Room 106, Honolulu, HI 96822-2396 (808/955-8831).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 2, 1996, notice was published in 
the Federal Register (61 FR 14557) that the above-named applicant had 
submitted a request to modify a scientific research permit to conduct a 
dual frequency transmission test over a 2-week period. The requested 
modification has been issued, under the authority of the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act of 1972 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq .), the 
Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 
CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) as amended (16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the regulations governing endangered species 
permits (50 CFR parts 217-227), the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended 
(16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.) and fur seal regulations at 50 CFR part 215.
    Issuance of this modification as required by the ESA was based on a 
finding that such modification: (1) Was applied for in good faith; (2) 
will not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which 
are the subject of this permit; and (3) is consistent with the purposes 
and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

    Dated: June 14, 1996
Ann D. Terbush,
Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-16235 Filed 6-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Exhibit 32

Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under the

Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. 1350

Each of the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer, of ITC^DeltaCom, Inc., hereby certifies that, on the date hereof:



| | 1. | The annual report on Form 10-K of ITC^DeltaCom, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ITC^DeltaCom, Inc.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                                                          
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 22, 2010 |  | /s/    RANDALL E.
CURRAN                                                 
|                     |  | Randall E. Curran Chief Executive Officer                                
|                     | 
|Date: March 22, 2010 |  | /s/    RICHARD E. FISH,
JR.                                              
|                     |  | Richard E. Fish, Jr. Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 18, 2020

No. 04-19-00647-CR

Reynaldo POLENDO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CR-9032

Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Debra Doolittle’s Notification of Late Record is hereby GRANTED. The reporter’s 

record is due no later than April 11, 2020.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

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

court on this 18th day of March, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 949 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require a twothirds vote on a stand-alone bill to increase the statutory limit on 

the public debt. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 3, 2009 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER (for himself, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. 

OLSON, Ms. JENKINS, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. PAUL, Mr. REHBERG, Mr. 

GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. LAMBORN, Ms. GRANGER, Mrs. SCHMIDT, Mr. 

HENSARLING, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. PITTS, Mr. HARPER, Mrs. BLACKBURN, 

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. 

GOHMERT, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. AUSTRIA, Mr. 

BILBRAY, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. POSEY, Mr. JORDAN of Ohio, Mr. 

KING of Iowa, Mr. MCCARTHY of California, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. WALDEN, Mr. WITTMAN, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. HALL of 

Texas, Mr. AKIN, Ms. FALLIN, Mr. SMITH of Nebraska, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. SAM JOHNSON

of Texas, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. JONES, and Mr. GOODLATTE) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

require a two-thirds vote on a stand-alone bill to increase 

the statutory limit on the public debt. 

1 Resolved, That rule XXVIII of the Rules of the House 

2 of Representatives (relating to the statutory limit on the 

3 public debt) is amended by striking clauses 1 through 4, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 949 IH 

1 by redesignating clause 5 as clause 3, and by inserting 

2 before clause 3 the following new clauses: 

3 ‘‘1. It shall not be in order to consider any bill or 

4 joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference re5 port thereon, that increases the statutory limit on the pub6 lic debt if there is any other matter in such measure. 

7 ‘‘2. A bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto 

8 or conference report thereon, that increases the statutory 

9 limit on the public debt may not be considered as passed 

10 or agreed to unless so determined by a vote of not less 

11 than two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum being 

12 present.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3000-3001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1613]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[Docket 5-96]


Foreign-Trade Zone 25--Broward County, FL; Application for 
Subzone Status; Federal-Mogul World Trade, Inc. (Vehicle Components) 
Ft. Lauderdale, FL

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) by Broward County, Florida, grantee of FTZ 25, requesting 
special-purpose subzone status for the warehouse/distribution facility 
of Federal-Mogul World Trade, Inc. (Federal-Mogul), in Ft. Lauderdale, 
Florida. (The Federal-Mogul site is currently being operated as part of 
the general-purpose zone on a temporary basis (until 12-1-96)). 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 January 19, 1996.
    The Federal-Mogul facility (200,000 sq. ft. on 17 acres, 109 
employees) is located at 1600 North Park Drive, Fort Lauderdale 
(Broward County), Florida. It is used to warehouse and distribute 
vehicle components, such as bearings, brakes, pistons, valves, shocks, 
gaskets and water pumps. Over 90 percent of the products are 
reexported, primarily to Latin America.
    FTZ procedures would exempt Federal-Mogul from Customs duty 
payments on the foreign items that are reexported. On its domestic 
sales, the company would be able to defer Customs duties until the 
foreign items are shipped from the plant. The application indicates 
that subzone status would help to improve the company's international 
competitiveness. 

[[Page 3001]]

    In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ 
Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and 
report to the Board.
    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions 
(original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive 
Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is 
April 1, 1996. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted 
during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-
day period (to April 15, 1996.
    A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be 
available for public inspection at each of the following locations:

U.S. Export Assistance Center, 5600 NW 36th St., Suite 617, Miami, 
Florida 33166
Office of The Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Room 3716, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230

    Dated: January 22, 1996.
John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-1613 Filed 1-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
EXHIBIT 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
 
 We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8, SEC File No. 333-127773, of Linkwell Corporation and the related prospectuses of our audit report dated March 31, 2011 with respect to the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2010 and the consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows of Linkwell Corporation and its subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2010 appearing in the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.
 
 
 /s/ Sherb & Co., LLP
 Certified Public Accountants
 
 
 Boca Raton, Florida
 March 31, 2011
EXHIBIT 32.1








NET TALK.COM, INC.





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) OF THE


SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended June 30, 2010 of NetTalk.com, Inc. (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Anastasios Kyriakides, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





1.
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Anastasios KyriakidesAnastasios KyriakidesChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)Date: August 13, 2010
#### Benita Jo WILLIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, State.

No. 2-92-031-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth.

July 6, 1993.

David K. Chapman, Fort Worth, for appellant.

*852Tim Curry, Crim. Dist. Atty., Edward L. Wilkinson, Asst., Fort Worth, for appellee.

Before HILL, C.J., and DAY and FARRAR, JJ.

OPINION

HILL, Chief Justice.

Benita Jo Willis appeals from the trial court’s determination to proceed to an adjudication of guilt following a deferred adjudication. The State has filed a motion to dismiss her appeal, relying on article 42.12, section 5(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Inasmuch as that section of the Code precludes an appeal from the trial court’s determination to proceed with an adjudication of guilt following a deferred adjudication, we dismiss this appeal.

In her response to the State’s motion to dismiss, Willis refers us to her brief as the basis for her opposition to the motion. In her brief, Willis contends that the denial of her right to appeal from the trial court’s determination to proceed with an adjudication of guilt following a deferred adjudication violates her right to due process under the United States and Texas Constitutions; her right to be free of double jeopardy under both Constitutions; and her right to equal protection of the law under the United States Constitution.

The United States Constitution does not require a state to provide appellate courts or a right to appellate review at all. *Griffin v. Illinois,*351 U.S. 12, 18, 76 S.Ct. 585, 590, 100 L.Ed. 891, 898 (1956). Further, in Texas, the right to appeal is statutory, not constitutional. *Ex parte Spring,*586 S.W.2d 482, 485-86 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Consequently, we hold that the legislature’s determination not to allow Willis to appeal from the trial court’s determination to proceed with an adjudication of guilt does not violate Willis’s rights under either the United States or the Texas Constitutions.

We therefore order that Willis’s appeal be dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                                      <C>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            YEAR                      YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1998               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-31-1998               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                   240                       560
<SECURITIES>                             0                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                            15,097                    13,030
<ALLOWANCES>                             166                       85
<INVENTORY>                              6,510                     5,856
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         22,940                    20,482
<PP&E>                                   62,080                    57,025
<DEPRECIATION>                           18,543                    12,195
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           93,408                    93,639
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    24,872                    15,700
<BONDS>                                  0                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0                         0
<PREFERRED>                              0                         0
<COMMON>                                 1                         1
<OTHER-SE>                               (12,493)                  (10,361)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             93,408                    93,639
<SALES>                                  98,025                    100,737
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         98,025                    100,737
<CGS>                                    77,459                    82,732
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            89,382                    93,005
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         (51)                      874
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       10,311                    8,771
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (1,617)                   (1,912)
<INCOME-TAX>                             427                       228
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (2,044)                   (2,140)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0                         (4,841)
<CHANGES>                                0                         0
<NET-INCOME>                             (2,044)                   (6,981)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0.000                     0.000
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0.000                     0.000
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-2409

BARTON J. ADAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Board of Osteopathy; ROBERT FOSTER, individually and in his capacity as President/ Member of the Board of Osteopathy; RODENY FINK, D.O., individually and in his capacity as Vice President/Member of the Board ofOsteopathy; JOSEPH E. SCHREIBER, D.O., individually in his capacity as a Secretary/Memberof the Board of Osteopathy; KAY CHERENKO, individually and in her capacity as a member ofthe Board of Osteopathy; BEA HARVEY, individually and in his capacity as a President/ Member of the Board of Osteopathy; PAUL KLEMAN, individually and in his capacity as a President/Member of the Board of Osteopathy, Defendants - Appellees, and DOES 1-100, individuals; DOE ENTITIES 1-100, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-96-200-5)2 Submitted: January 5, 1999 Decided: January 20, 1999 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barton J. Adams, Appellant Pro Se. James J.A. Mulhall, SHUMAN, ANNAND, BAILEY, WYANT & EARLES, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing hiscomplaint with prejudice. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Adams v. State of West Virginia , No. CA-96-200-5 (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 19, 1998). Accordingly, we deny Appellees’ motions to supplement the recordand to strike Appellant’s reply brief as moot. We also deny Appellant’s request for the appointment of counsel. We dispense withoral 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
Molly C. Dwyer

Clerk of Court 

Office of the Clerk

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

Post Office Box 193939

San Francisco, California 94119-3939

415-355-8000

November 17, 2020

No.: 20-10388

D.C. Nos.:

2:18-cr-00422-SMB-1, 2:18-cr-00422-SMB-2, 2:18-cr00422-SMB-3, 2:18-cr-00422-SMB-4, 2:18-cr-00422-

SMB-6, 2:18-cr-00422-SMB-7

Short Title: USA v. Michael Lacey, et al

Dear Appellants/Counsel

A copy of your notice of appeal/petition has been received in the Clerk's office of 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The U.S. Court of 

Appeals docket number shown above has been assigned to this case. You must 

indicate this Court of Appeals docket number whenever you communicate with 

this court regarding this case. 

Motions filed along with the notice of appeal in the district court are not 

automatically transferred to this court for filing. Any motions seeking relief from 

this court must be separately filed in this court's docket. 

Please furnish this docket number immediately to the court reporter if you place an 

order, or have placed an order, for portions of the trial transcripts. The court 

reporter will need this docket number when communicating with this court.

Failure of the appellant to comply with the time schedule order may result in 

dismissal of the appeal. 

Please read the enclosed materials carefully.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1090 Filed 11/17/20 Page 1 of 1