alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00325-CR

In re Anthony Roberson

FROM THE 299TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-DC-95-953274, KAREN SAGE, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

Appellant Anthony Roberson, an inmate appearing pro se, has filed notice of 

appeal in this Court, seeking review of the trial court’s order under Chapter 64 of the Texas Code 

of Criminal Procedure. The reporter’s record in this appeal was due on May 13, 2024. On 

May 22, 2024, we notified appellant by letter that the reporter’s record was overdue and that,

according to the reporter, appellant had not requested preparation of the reporter’s record and 

had not paid or made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record. In response to our notice,

appellant states that he has not made payment arrangements for the reporter’s record because he 

lacks sufficient resources to pay for it. In addition, appellant has filed a declaration of inability 

to pay costs and a motion for a free record.

The appeal is abated and remanded to the trial court. The trial court shall conduct 

a hearing to determine whether appellant is presently indigent. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.2. If it 

finds that the appellant cannot pay or give security for the appellate record, it shall order the 
2

preparation of the reporter’s record at no cost to appellant. See id. In addition, the trial court 

shall consider appellant’s pending request, if any, for the appointment of appellate counsel.

1

See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 64.01(c) (providing for limited statutory right to counsel in 

Chapter 64 proceedings); see also In re King, No. 03-17-00484-CR, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 982, 

at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 1, 2018, order) (explaining that right to counsel under Chapter 64 

“does not differentiate between trial and appellate stages”); cf. id. (refusing to abate for 

appointment of appellate counsel under Chapter 64 because trial court had previously denied 

request for appointment of counsel and appellant offered no reason why trial court might 

reconsider its ruling). Following the hearing, which shall be transcribed, the trial court shall 

order the appropriate supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records—including all findings and 

orders—to be prepared and forwarded to this Court no later than July 30, 2024.

It is so ordered June 27, 2024.

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Kelly

Abated and Remanded

Filed: June 27, 2024

Do Not Publish

1

 According to the appellant, after filing his notice of appeal, he filed a motion for 

appointment of counsel in the trial court by sending it to the district clerk by certified mail. To 

date, the clerk’s record does not include a motion for appointment of counsel.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

MICHAEL AND JULIE MADISON,

 Plaintiffs, 

Case No: 09-cv-10238

vs.

BOCKSTANZ ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a 

MARLETTE CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RV, 

AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY, INC AND

UNITED WISCONSIN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendants.

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL

At a session of said Court, continued and held 

in the Federal Building in the City of Detroit, 

 State of Michigan, on October 7, 2009.____________________

PRESENT: HON. PATRICK J. DUGGAN 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

This Honorable Court, having reviewed the undersigned stipulation of the parties,

does;

ORDER that this matter be, and the same hereby is, dismissed with prejudice and

without costs to any party. 

This resolves the last pending claim and closes the case.

S/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: October 7, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

October 7, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

2:09-cv-10238-PJD-VMM Doc # 14 Filed 10/07/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 32
S/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

Stipulated to by:

s/ Nicole M. Winston

Attorney for Plaintiffs

s/ with consent of Suzanne P. Bartos

Attorney for Defendant Marlette Chrysler

s/ with consent of John E. Filcher

Attorney for Defendant United Wisconsin

2:09-cv-10238-PJD-VMM Doc # 14 Filed 10/07/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 33
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CLIFTON E JACKSON and 

CHRISTOPHER M SCHARNITZKE,

Plaintiff, Case No. 09-11529

Honorable David M. Lawson

v. 

SEGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT 

SERVICES, INC., COCA COLA 

ENTERPRISES, INC., and PAUL 

DROUILLARD,

Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

The plaintiff filed a complaint on April 23, 2009, and an amended complaint on April 29,

2009. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing the complaint fails

as a matter of law. On July 17, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended

complaint. The Court denied this motion without prejudice, finding that the plaintiff did not comply

with Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1 when it faxed a request to defense counsel that

they stipulate to the relief sought by the plaintiffs. In its order, the Court quoted the rule for the

plaintiffs’ benefit. 

On July 23, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for leave to file second amended

complaint. This motion contained a statement explaining the efforts taken by the plaintiffs’ counsel

to obtain concurrence. This motion complied with the local rules, and was set for a hearing. 

The plaintiffs then filed two additional motions for leave to file a revised second amended

complaint: one on July 30, 2009 and another on August 7, 2009. Missing from the latest two

2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 43 Filed 08/13/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 700
-2-

motions is any indication that the plaintiffs sought concurrence from the defendants. Thus, despite

being informed by the Court of the requirements of Local Rule 7.1 in a previous order, the plaintiffs’

counsel continues not to comply with the local rules. The Court will deny the noncompliant

motions, and direct plaintiffs’ counsel to read the local rules before filing any further motions or

taking other action in this case. See E.D. Mich. LR 83.20(a) (“A person practicing in this court must

know these rules, including the provisions for sanctions for violating the rules.”). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motions to amend [dkt. #35 & #38] are

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ counsel shall read the Local Rules for the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan before taking any further action in this

case.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: August 13, 2009

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on August 13, 2009.

s/Lisa M. Ware 

LISA M. WARE

2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 43 Filed 08/13/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 701
##### 



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
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ John E. Van ZeeJohn E. Van Zee, President and Chief Executive OfficerDated:  February 14, 2008
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 7- 30 26

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
Ja so n L. Cl ark

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 7, 2 01 8 Fi le d: Apri l 3 0, 2 01 8 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re COLLOTON, BOW MAN, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Ja so n Cl ark di rect ly ap pe al s th e be lo w-Gui de li ne s se nt en ce th e di st ric t co ur t 1 im po se d aft er he pl ed gu il ty--pu rs ua nt to a pl ea ag reem en t co nt ai ni ng an ap pe al

The Hon or ab le Gary A. Fen ne r, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.waiv er-- to dr ug an d fir earm of fen se s. His co un se l ha s m ov ed fo r le av e to wit hd raw,
an d ha s fil ed a br ie f un de r And ers v. Cal ifo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 73 8 (1 96 7) , ch al le ng in g th e
su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of Cl ark ’s se nt en ce, an d arg ui ng th at th e di st ri c t c ou rt sh ou ld ha ve de pa rte d fu rth er d own ward fro m th e cal cu la te d Gu id el in es ran ge

.

W e co nc lu de th at th e ap pe al waiv er is en fo rcea bl e. See Uni te d St at es v. Sco tt , 62 7 F.3 d 70 2, 70 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (v al id it y an d ap pl ic ab il it y of ap p e a l waiv er is

rev ie wed de no vo ). The reco rd sh ows th at Cl ark en te red in to th e pl ea ag reem en t an d th e ap pe al waiv er kn owi ng ly an d vo lu nt ari ly, th e arg um en ts on ap pe al fal l wit hi n th e
sc op e of th e waiv er, an d no m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce wou ld res u l t f r o m e nf or ci ng th e waiv er. See Uni te d St at es v. And is , 33 3 F.3 d 88 6, 88 9- 92 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (en ba nc ). Fi na ll y , h av in g in de pe nd en tl y rev ie wed th e reco rd un de r Pen so n v. Ohi o, 4 8 8 U.S. 75 (1 98 8) , we fin d no no n- fri vo lo us is su es fo r ap pe al ou ts id e th e sc op e of th e waiv er. Acco rd in gl y , we gra nt co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw, an d we d is m is s t hi s ap pe al

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPR-18-0000891 30-NOV-2018 09:58 AM

SCPR-18-0000891 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I
IN RE NELSON T. NAGAUE, Petitioner.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO RESIGN AND SURRENDER LICENSE (By Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson JJ.) Upon consideration of the petition to resign and surrender his license to practice law in the State of Hawai ' i filed by attorney Nelson T. Nagaue, pursuant to Rule 1.10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai ' i (RSCH), and the affidavits submitted in support thereof, we conclude Petitioner Nagaue has complied with the requirements of RSCH Rule 1.10. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is granted and Petitioner Nagaue’s resignation in good standing is accepted, effective December 31, 2018. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 1.10(g), that the Petitioner shall comply with the notice, affidavit, and record requirements of RSCH Rules 2.16(a), (b), (d), and (g).IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove the name of Petitioner Nelson T. Nagaue, attorney number 1335, from the roll of attorneys of the State of Hawai ' i, as of December 31, 2018. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, November 30, 2018. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
 
                     SUBSIDIARIES OF INTERIM SERVICES INC.
 
    Following is a list of the direct and indirect subsidiaries of Interim
Services Inc., a Delaware corporation. All active subsidiaries do business under
their corporate name listed below, or close derivatives thereof, except where
indicated otherwise:
 
Allround Data B.V.........................................  Netherlands (4)
Allround Industrie B.V....................................  Netherlands (4)
Allround Registratie B.V..................................  Netherlands (4)
Allround Uitzenburo B.V...................................  Netherlands (4)
Cornell Computer Corporation..............................  Arizona (3)
Interim Accounting Personnel, Inc. d/b/a Interim
 Accounting Professionals.................................  Texas (1)
Interim Assisted Care, Inc................................  Delaware (1)
Interim Financial Corporation.............................  Delaware (1)
Interim HealthCare Inc....................................  Florida (1)
Interim HealthCare of New York Inc. d/b/a Interim
 HealthCare...............................................  New York (1)
Interim Legal Services Inc................................  Florida (1)
Interim Occupational Health Inc...........................  Florida (1)
Interim Personnel Inc.....................................  Florida (1)
Interim Physicians, Inc...................................  Delaware (1)
Interim Real Estate Solutions, Inc........................  Florida (1)
Interim Services (Canada) Ltd.............................  Canada (1)(5)
Interim Services (Europe) Inc.............................  Delaware (1)
Interim Technology Inc....................................  Florida (1)
Interim Technology (UK) Limited...........................  England (1)
Interim Temporary Personnel Inc...........................  Florida (1)
Interplan Uitzenbureau Voor Kantoorpersoneel B.V..........  Netherlands (4)
Interplan Uitzenbureau Voor Technisch & Industriel
 Personeel B.V............................................  Netherlands (4)
Rich Field Agency, Inc....................................  Florida (1)
Spectrum Financial Corporation............................  Delaware (1)
Spectrum Insurance Company Ltd............................  Cayman Islands (1)
Systemp, Inc..............................................  Delaware(1)(5)
Victor Temporary Services, Ltd. d/b/a/ Interim
 Personnel................................................  Ontario (2)(5)
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
NOTES TO SUBSIDIARIES OF INTERIM SERVICES INC.:
 
(1) Wholly-owned subsidiary of Interim Services Inc.
 
(2) Wholly-owned subsidiary of Medical Personnel Pool (Canada), Ltd.
 
(3) Wholly-owned subsidiary of Interim Technology, Inc.
 
(4) Wholly-owned subsidiary of Interim Services (Europe) Inc.
 
(5) Inactive
 
                                       52
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MAURICE BOLLINI and

LISA BOLLINI,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 08-14608

v. Honorable Paul D. Borman

United States District Judge

JOHNNY BOLDEN and MICHIGAN

STATE TROOPER C. BROWN and

MICHIGAN STATE TROOPER

A. MARTIN,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER REQUIRING THE PARTIES TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE ON THE ISSUE OF

DAMAGES

On April 14, 2010, this Court issued an Opinion and Order denying Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment, granting Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and requiring the

parties to submit evidence on the issue of damages. To date, the Court has not received submissions

from either party regarding damages. The Court hereby Orders Plaintiffs to submit evidence of their

claimed damages by June 22, 2010. Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiffs’ submission on

or before July 13, 2010. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. S/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: May 26, 2010
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

May 26, 2010.

S/Denise Goodine 

Case Manager
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4144

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM JOHN CLARK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior

District Judge. (2:05-cr-00044-REM)

Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 6, 2007

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West

Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States Attorney,

Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg,

West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

William John Clark pled guilty to possession of a firearm

by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). In sentencing

him, the district court departed upward from criminal history

category III to category VI under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 4A1.3, p.s. (2006), and imposed a sentence of seventy-seven

months imprisonment. Clark appeals his sentence, arguing that the

sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to

explain why category IV or V was not sufficient. We conclude that

the decision to depart was reasonable, but agree that the district

court failed to explain adequately the extent of the departure.

The court departed based on Clark’s lengthy criminal

history, which included offenses not counted because of their age,

several lenient sentences for serious offenses, and many charges

disposed of through a diversionary disposition. A departure

sentence is reviewed for reasonableness, both with respect to the

decision to depart and the extent of the departure. United States

v. Hernandez-Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118, 123 (4th Cir. 2007). Here,

the district court adequately stated its reasons for departing.

However, the court failed to follow the incremental approach

required under United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 884 (4th Cir.

1992).

We therefore vacate the sentence and remand for

resentencing. On remand, the district court should explain why
- 3 -

categories IV and V are inadequate. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7605

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Petitioner - Appellee, 

v. 

JAMES DOW VANDIVERE, 

Respondent - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:15-hc-02017-D) 

Submitted: April 9, 2018 Decided: July 5, 2018

Before TRAXLER, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Michael W. Patrick, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL W. PATRICK, Chapel Hill, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, G. Norman Acker, 

III, Michael Bredenberg, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

James Dow Vandivere appeals from the district court’s order and judgment 

committing him to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to the Adam Walsh 

Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (“Adam Walsh Act”), 18 U.S.C. § 4248 (2012), 

as a sexually dangerous person. Vandivere argues on appeal that the district court erred 

in denying his motion to dismiss the commitment proceeding because the Government 

certified him as sexually dangerous in violation of the plain language of the four-year, 

catch-all statute of limitations set forth at 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a) (2012).*

 The statute of 

limitations set forth in § 1658(a), however, does not apply to limit the time in which the 

Government must initiate a civil commitment proceeding under the Adam Walsh Act. 

United States v. Searcy, 880 F.3d 116, 124-25 (4th Cir. 2018). Searcy thus forecloses 

Vandivere’s argument that the district court reversibly erred in denying his motion to 

dismiss. 

Vandivere also has filed three pro se supplemental briefs and motions seeking 

leave to file his pro se briefs. We grant Vandivere’s motions seeking leave to file and 

have considered all of the issues raised in his pro se briefs and conclude that they are 

without merit. We deny Vandivere’s motion seeking leave to proceed pro se, to relieve 

appointed counsel, and to have this court consider the issues raised in the first two pro se 

 * We deem abandoned Vandivere’s claim in the argument section of his opening 

brief asserting that the Government’s delay in certifying him as sexually dangerous made 

it “virtually impossible” for him to defend himself. See Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of 

the Courts, 780 F.3d 562, 568 n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 
3

briefs in place of those filed by counsel and affirm the district court’s judgment. 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. 

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 99.1

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 IOMED, Inc. (the "Company") Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert J. Lollini, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby 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:

|Date:    September 25, 2002 |  | By: | /s/ROBERT J. LOLLINIRobert J. Lollini Chief Operating Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
|--------------------------- |  | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                            |  |     |                                                                                          



QuickLinks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DONNA BLANTON,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-10844

v.

WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL, Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

a Michigan corporation,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

On March 5, 2009, Plaintiff filed a three-count complaint: Count I, violation of the

Americans with Disabilities Act; Count II, violation of the Michigan Persons with Disabilities

Civil Rights Act; and Count III, breach of contract. Diversity jurisdiction is not present. 

Although Count I is cognizable in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the remaining

allegations present claims based on state law. This court declines to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims so as to avoid jury confusion. See 28 U.S.C. §

1367(c); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966); Padilla v. City of Saginaw, 867 F.

Supp. 1309 (E.D. Mich. 1994).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Counts II and III of Plaintiff’s Complaint

are DISMISSED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Date: April 10, 2009

5:09-cv-10844-JCO-MJH Doc # 6 Filed 04/10/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 27
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on

this date, April 10, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz

Case Manager

5:09-cv-10844-JCO-MJH Doc # 6 Filed 04/10/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 28