alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lynwood LESIKAR, Petitioner, v. Jenny Lou Lewis RAPPEPORT, Individually, and d/b/a L & G Oil Company, Fay Jeter Lewis, John Robbins, Dorothy Kennedy, Betty Lloyd, and H.R. McGookin, Respondents.

No. 95-0015.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 11, 1995.

Rehearing Overruled June 29, 1995.

*655S. Gary Werley, Kristin M. Jenkins, Fort Worth, for petitioner.

Jerry S. Harris, Gregory P. Grajczyk, Longview, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of an interlocutory order. In an unpublished opinion the court of appeals concluded that the order from which appeal was sought was a temporary restraining order, for which there is no provision for an interlocutory appeal, rather than a temporary injunction, from which an interlocutory appeal is statutorily authorized. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The sole point in the application is that the court of appeals erred in holding it lacked jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction to determine whether the court of appeals correctly decided its jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal. *Del Valle Ini. School Dist. v. Lopez,*845 S.W.2d 808, 809 (Tex.1992); *Long v. Humble Oil & Ref. Co.,*380 S.W.2d 554, 555 (Tex.1964).

During the pendency of the appeal, the trial court has heard the temporary injunction application and granted a temporary injunction effectively converting the temporary restraining order into a temporary injunction. Respondents urge this makes the appeal moot. That is true only if all matters in controversy between the parties which depend upon the validity of the extension order have been otherwise resolved.

Today we have held that the contempt judgment rendered against Lesikar for violating the extension order is otherwise void, and we have ordered him discharged from custody. *Ex parte Lesikar,*899 S.W.2d 654. This is the only matter *appearing of*record which may be affected by the validity vel non of the extension order. With our disposition of this companion habeas corpus proceeding, we agree the matters in controversy are now moot.

Without hearing argument, a majority of the court grants the application for writ of error and, without reference to the merits, dismisses the cause as moot. Tex. R. App. P. 170.
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 21.1

                           Subsidiaries of the Company


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Subsidiary                                                                             State of Incorporation
----------                                                                             ----------------------
<S>                                                                                    <C>

Associated Suppliers, Inc.                                                                     Oregon
Atlantic Industrial Supply Co., Inc.                                                        Massachusetts
Austin Ford Logan, Inc.                                                                       New York
B&J Industrial Supply Company                                                                Washington
Buford Bros., Inc.                                                                            Tennessee
Cardinal Machinery, Inc.                                                                      Tennessee
Cramer Industrial Supplies, Inc.                                                              New York
The Distribution Group, Inc.                                                                   Georgia
Dynamic Tool & Abrasives, Inc.                                                                Michigan
E.C. Blackstone Company                                                                        Georgia
Hawley Industrial Supplies, Inc.                                                             Connecticut
IDG-Mexico, Inc.                                                                               Georgia
IDG Real Properties, Inc.                                                                      Georgia
Industrial Distribution Group - California, Inc.                                             California
The Innovative Distributor Group, Inc.                                                          Ohio
J.J. Stangel Co.                                                                              Wisconsin
L.D. Supply, Inc.                                                                              Georgia
Mel's Industrial Supplies, Inc.                                                              California
The New England Group Industrial Distributors, Inc.                                         New Hampshire
Northern Tool & Supply, Inc.                                                                  Michigan
Petry & Morrow, Inc.                                                                        Pennsylvania
Refco, Inc.                                                                                    Georgia
Shearer Industrial Supply Co.                                                               Pennsylvania
Tri-Star Industrial Supply, Inc.                                                              Missouri
</TABLE>
#### $445.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY AND ONE 1976 CHEVROLET AUTOMOBILE VIN 1Z37L6S428075, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 2-92-293-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth.

July 6, 1993.

*853David L. Richards, Fort Worth, for appellant.

Tim Curry, Criminal Dist. Atty., Susan Hargis, Asst., Fort Worth, for appellee.

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

OPINION

HILL, Chief Justice.

John P. Wright appeals from the forfeiture of one 1976 Chevrolet automobile. He contends in a sole point of error that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a note pad, supposedly containing “dope notes,” that was found in the vehicle. He contends that the note pad constituted hearsay testimony.

We affirm because the State admitted the note pad to show that the vehicle contained a pad with “dope notes,” and was not offering the pad to establish the truth of the “dope notes” contained within the pad. Consequently, as “hearsay” is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, to prove the truth of the matter asserted, the note pad containing the “dope notes” did not constitute hearsay evidence. TEX.R.CIV.EVID. 801.

A forfeiture such as this is governed by civil rules. *See*TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 59.05(b) (Vernon Supp.1993). Therefore, we may assume, in any event, that the trial court disregarded any incompetent evidence. *Gillespie v. Gillespie,*644 S.W.2d 449, 450 (Tex.1982).

Additional evidence was introduced showing Wright’s connection to cocaine trafficking, in relation to this vehicle, including several small plastic baggies containing cocaine found in a gray jewelry box in a black bag on the passenger’s seat; evidence by an officer with training in the field of narcotics who expressed his opinion that the baggies were for sale or distribution; and evidence that there were 4.58 grams of powder, of which 3.61 grams were tested and found to be cocaine. Also, testimony that the pad contained “dope notes” was admitted without objection pri- or to the pad’s admission into evidence. We hold that in view of this evidence any error in the admission of the note pad was not such an error as was reasonably calculated to cause or that probably did cause the rendition of an improper judgment in this case. We overrule the sole point of error.

The judgment is affirmed.
1

Filed 8/14/15 P. v. Allen CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SHAQUON MICHAEL ALLEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

C078309

(Super. Ct. No. 14F00138)

Appointed counsel for defendant Shaquon Michael Allen asked this court 

to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. 

(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result 

in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

I

On March 27, 2014, defendant pleaded no contest to robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) 

and admitted personally using a firearm during the commission of his crime (Pen. Code, 

§ 12022.5). The trial court subsequently sentenced defendant to an aggregate term 
2

of seven years in state prison, imposed various fines and fees, and awarded defendant 

125 days of presentence credit. 

On December 11, 2014, defendant filed in the trial court a Penal Code 

section 1170.18 petition for redesignation of his sentence pursuant to Proposition 47. 

The trial court denied the petition, ruling that defendant’s current conviction for second 

degree robbery was not eligible for redesignation. 

II

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and 

asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable 

issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised 

by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing 

the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from 

defendant.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error 

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 MAURO , J.

We concur:

 BLEASE , Acting P. J.

 DUARTE , J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

MISC. NO. 08-mc-51041

-vsHON. ROBERT H. CLELAND

AMIRA CHAHINE,

Respondent.

_____________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION TO 

ENFORCE IRS SUMMONS

Petitioner having advised the Court that respondent, Amira Chahine, has complied

with the Internal Revenue Service Summons served upon her on April 10, 2008, by

providing the Revenue Officer with the information sought in the summons;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition to enforce IRS summons brought

against respondent, Amira Chahine, by the petitioner is hereby dismissed without

prejudice and without costs.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 10, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on

2:08-mc-51041-RHC-SDP Doc # 8 Filed 03/10/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 24
this date, March 10, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

_

2:08-mc-51041-RHC-SDP Doc # 8 Filed 03/10/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 25
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Annual Report of Akesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Jay B. Lichter, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, and John T. Hendrick,
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) of the Company, each 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 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: February 8, 2007



/s/    JAY B. LICHTER

Jay B. Lichter

President, Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal Executive Officer)



Date: February 8, 2007



/s/    JOHN T. HENDRICK

John T. Hendrick

Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)



THIS CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANIES THE ANNUAL REPORT, IS NOT DEEMED FILED WITH THE SEC AND IS NOT TO BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO ANY FILING OF THE COMPANY UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, OR THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED (WHETHER MADE BEFORE OR AFTER THE DATE OF THE ANNUAL REPORT), IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY GENERAL INCORPORATION LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN SUCH FILING. A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS CERTIFICATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY
AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE COMPANY AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
II 

Calendar No. 143 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1211 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

60 School Street, Orchard Park, New York, as the ‘‘Jack F. Kemp 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 9, 2009 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mrs. GILLIBRAND) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs 

JULY 30, 2009 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 60 School Street, Orchard Park, New York, 

as the ‘‘Jack F. Kemp Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. JACK F. KEMP POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 60 School Street, Orchard Park, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1211 RS

1 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Jack 

2 F. Kemp Post Office Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Jack F. Kemp Post 

7 Office Building’’. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 143 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1211 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postfice Building’’. Park, New York, as the ‘‘Jack F. Kemp Post Of- al Service located at 60 School Street, Orchard 

JULY 30, 2009 

Reported without amendment 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2/12/2018 www.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/generate_civil_js44.pl

http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/generate_civil_js44.pl 1/2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Civil Cover Sheet

This automated JS-44 conforms generally to the manual JS-44 approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September

1974. The data is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. The information contained

herein neither replaces nor supplements the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law. This form is authorized for

use only in the District of Arizona.

The completed cover sheet must be printed directly to PDF and filed as an attachment to the

Complaint or Notice of Removal.

Plaintiff(s): Fernando Gastelum Defendant(s): KUBER-RAMDAS INVESTMENTS

LLC

County of Residence: Pinal County of Residence: Maricopa

County Where Claim For Relief Arose: Maricopa

Plaintiff's Atty(s): Defendant's Atty(s):

Peter Strojnik 

Strojnik P.C.

2375 E. Camelback Rd. Suite 600

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

602-524-6602

II. Basis of Jurisdiction: 3. Federal Question (U.S. not a party)

III. Citizenship of Principal

Parties (Diversity Cases Only)

Plaintiff:-N/A

Defendant:-N/A

IV. Origin : 1. Original Proceeding

V. Nature of Suit: 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - Other

VI.Cause of Action: 42 USC 12101

VII. Requested in Complaint

Class Action:No

Dollar Demand:

Jury Demand:Yes

VIII. This case is not related to another case.

Signature: Peter Strojnik /s/

Case 2:18-cv-00470-GMS Document 1-1 Filed 02/12/18 Page 1 of 2
2/12/2018 www.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/generate_civil_js44.pl

http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/generate_civil_js44.pl 2/2

 Date: 2/12/2018

If any of this information is incorrect, please go back to the Civil Cover Sheet Input form using the Back button in your browser

and change it. Once correct, save this form as a PDF and include it as an attachment to your case opening documents.

Revised: 01/2014

Case 2:18-cv-00470-GMS Document 1-1 Filed 02/12/18 Page 2 of 2
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 Derycz Scientific, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter Derycz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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




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





/s/ Peter DeryczPeter DeryczChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)May 16, 2011
Page 1

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

29

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v.

Joye Vaught,

Defendant.

 CR-2018-0422-SMB

ORDER

Upon Motion of the Defendant, with good cause appearing, 

IT IS ORDERED granting the Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Appear by 

Phone at March 20, 2023 Hearing. 

SO ORDERED this ___ day of March, 2023.

_______________________

United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1543-1 Filed 03/18/23 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 2H

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 498-9 Filed 03/12/19 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 498-9 Filed 03/12/19 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 498-9 Filed 03/12/19 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 498-9 Filed 03/12/19 Page 4 of 4
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellant,

v.

JESUS ALBERTO GERARDO,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 13

- 00142

- CR

Appeal from

384th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 20120D03572)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on The State’s motion to dismiss and concludes the

motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed, in accordance with the opinion of

this Court. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We further order that this decision be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM ALLEN GARRETT,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

ANDRES RUIZ; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-55635

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-02540-IEGWVG

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Irma E. Gonzalez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 23, 2014** 

Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. 

William Allen Garrett appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his

constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo, Billington v. Smith, 292 F.3d 1177, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.

FILED

OCT 7 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Garrett’s

excessive force claim because Garrett failed to raise a genuine dispute of material

fact as to whether defendants’ actions were objectively unreasonable under the

circumstances, including the undisputed facts that Garrett was apprehended during

the course of a night-time burglary, Garrett admitted he was armed with a knife

and was attempting to evade arrest by flight, and the events happened very quickly. 

See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97 (1989) (determining the

reasonableness of a particular application of force requires “careful attention to the

facts and circumstances of each particular case,” taking into account the

“split-second judgments” in circumstances that are “tense, uncertain, and rapidly

evolving”). 

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Garrett’s claim

that defendants violated his privilege against self-incrimination because Garrett

seeks to re-litigate issues previously decided during his state criminal proceeding. 

See Ayers v. City of Richmond, 895 F.2d 1267, 1270-72 (9th Cir. 1990) (applying

California issue preclusion law to prevent plaintiff’s re-litigation of a suppression

determination in a subsequent § 1983 action).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Garrett’s discovery

motions because Garrett failed to demonstrate that he suffered any prejudice. See

2 13-55635
Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (providing standard of review

and noting the trial court’s broad discretion in discovery matters).

We reject Garrett’s contentions concerning alleged due process violations

and the district court’s alleged bias and incorrect application of the summary

judgment standard because they are unsupported by the record. 

Defendants’ motion to transmit evidence, filed on September 16, 2013, is

denied.

Garrett’s pending requests, filed on May 14, 2014, June 30, 2014, and

September 12, 2014, are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 13-55635
EXHIBIT 32.02



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 Interwoven, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David M. Allen, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my 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. | that information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Interwoven, Inc. for the fiscal periods
presented therein.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                                  
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 15, 2004 |  | /s/ DAVID M. ALLEN                               
|                      |  | David M. Allen                                   
|                      |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Interwoven, Inc. and will be retained by Interwoven, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.