alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-20-00179-CV

DAVID KERR AND GAIL KERR,

Appellants

V.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON 

TRUST COMPANY, N.A. AS TRUSTEE 

ON BEHALF OF CWABS ASSETBACKED CERTIFICATES TRUST 2007-

12 AND CARRINGTON MORTGAGE 

SERVICES, LLC, Appellees

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 141st District Court

of Tarrant County (141-301419-18)

April 15, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice 

Womack

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

It is further ordered that Appellants David Kerr and Gail Kerr shall bear the 

costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. 
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dana Womack

 Justice Dana Womack
#### James GOFORTH, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 65731.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 16, 1994.

Emmett D. Queener, 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 REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

James Goforth (“Defendant”) appeals from the dismissal of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

We have reviewed the record and find the judgment of the motion court is based on findings that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would serve no jurisprudential purpose. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
Exhibit 31.2





CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report (the “Report”) on the Form 10-Q of Sona Resources Inc. (the “Company”) for the six months ended March 31, 2010 and for period from January 18, 2007 (date of inception) to March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ajeeta Pinheiro, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





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





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








April 6, 2010                                                                           AJEETA PINHEIRO


Ajeeta Pinheiro


Chief Executive Officer,


President and Director














-1-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

ANGIENEL ASTACIO IRIZARY A/K/A/ ANGIENEL ASTACIO VALDEZ, AND

MOISES VALDEZ

v.

M & R PROPERTY INVESTMENT & MANAGEMENT, LLC, MODESTA MOLINA AND ORLANDO RODRIGUEZ, MOHAMMAD QUADIR,MOHAMMAD

ASHRA FUZZMAN, CITYWIDE COMMUNITY SERVICES; JOSE RUIZ

PETITION OF: CITYWIDE COMMUNITY SERVICES, MODESTA MOLINA AND

ORLANDO RODRIGUEZ :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 106 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 7th day of October, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
EXHIBIT 32



<PAGE>


      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tongji Healthcare Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Yun-hui Yu, the
Company's Principal Executive Officer and Wei-dong Huang, the Company's
Principal Financial 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 to the best of their 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 the Company.


                                    TONGJI HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC.


October 31, 2008                By:  /s/ Yun-hui Yu
                                     --------------------------------
                                     Yun-hui Yu, Principal Executive Officer


October 31, 2008                By:  /s/ Wei-dong Huang
                                     -------------------------------
                                     Wei-dong Huang, Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   I, Dempsey K. Mork, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Animal Cloning Sciences, Inc., Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the six months ended June 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Animal Cloning Sciences, Inc., Inc.  Date: April 3, 2008  /s/ Dempsey K. Mork Dempsey K.  Mork President/Chief Executive Officer
No. 12,824.

#### State of Louisiana vs. Israel Rogers.

No bill of exceptions was reserved necessary to attest the supposed error.

There was no error apparent on the face of the record. In the absence of any bill of exceptions or assignment of error of any sort, or error apparent on the face of the papers, the verdict and decision of the trial court are not reviewable.

AN APPEAL from the Sixteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Livingston. Reid, *J.*

*760
      *M. J. Cunningham,,*Attorney General, and *D. S. Kemp,*District Attorney (P. *A. Simmons, Jr.,*of Counsel), for Plaintiff, Appellee.

Defendant, Appellant, unrepresented by counsel in tbe Supreme Court.

Submitted on briefs June 3, 1898.

Opinion handed down June 13, 1898.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Breaux, J.

A bill of indictment was found against the defendant charging him with cutting with a dangerous weapon, with intent to kill and murder.

The indictment sets forth all the elements needful to constitute the crime.

So far as the record discloses it was found by a grand jury that had been regularly empaneled.

The accused was arraigned. He plead not guilty.

The case was assigned, and on the day he was tried by jury he was found guilty as charged.

He applied to the court for a new trial on a number of grounds.

The motion was overruled. He was sentenced to the State penitentiary for a period of twelve months. He appealed from the verdict and sentence. The accused reserved no bills of exceptions. There was no evidence taken in support of his grounds for a new trial which required evidence to sustain them.

On appeal no assignment of errors was filed. He is not here represented by counsel.

It is settled by numerous decisions, where there is not of record a bill of exceptions or assignment of error, the judgment will be affirmed.

We have read over the record carefully and have found no ground upon which the accused is entitled to relief.

It is. ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from in this case is affirmed.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 520

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to double the maximum

benefit under the special estate tax valuation rules for certain farm,

etc., real property.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 13, 1995

Mr. THOMAS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to double

the maximum benefit under the special estate tax valuation rules for certain farm, etc., real property.

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

3 SECTION 1. DOUBLING OF MAXIMUM BENEFIT UNDER SPE4 CIAL ESTATE TAX VALUATION RULES FOR

5 CERTAIN FARM, ETC., REAL PROPERTY.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section

7 2032A(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating

8 to limitation on aggregate reduction in fair market value)
2

•HR 520 IH

1 is amended by striking ‘‘$750,000’’ and inserting

2 ‘‘$1,500,000’’.

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

4 subsection (a) shall apply to decedents dying after the date

5 of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### James Prenderville, Respondent, v. Coney Island and Brooklyn Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, on the authority of *Prenderville*v. *Coney Island*& *Brooklyn R. R. Co. (ante,*p. 303), decided herewith. Jenks, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred; Hirschberg, P. J., and Woodward, J., dissented.
**Exhibit 3.2**

**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF**

**THE RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION**

**OF**

**DSP GROUP, INC.**

DSP Group, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, 

DOES HEREBY CERTIFY: 

FIRST: That at aspecial telephonic meeting of the Board of Directors of DSP Group, Inc. duly held on June 1, 1999, resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation, declaring saidamendment to be advisable and calling a meeting of the stockholders of said corporation for consideration thereof. The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows: 

RESOLVED, that, subject to the approval of the stockholders of this Corporation, the first paragraph of Article IV of this Corporation’s RestatedCertificate of Incorporation be amended to read in full as follows: 

“This Corporation is authorized to issue two classes of stock tobe designated, respectively, Preferred Stock, par value $.001 per share (“Preferred”), and Common Stock, par value $.001 per share (“Common”). The total number of shares of Common that the Corporation shall have the authority toissue is 50,000,000. The total number of shares of Preferred that the Corporation shall have authority to issue is 5,000,000. The Preferred Stock may be issued from time to time in one or more series.” 

SECOND: That thereafter, pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors, the annual meeting of the stockholders of said corporation was duly called andheld, upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, at which meeting the necessary number of shares as required by statute was voted in favor of the amendment. 

THIRD: That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State ofDelaware. 

FOURTH: That the capital of said corporation shall not be reduced under or by reason of said amendment. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, DSP Group, Inc. has caused this certificate to be signed by Moshe Zelnik, its VicePresident of Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary this 19th day of July, 1999. 

 
BY:  /s/ Moshe Zelnik 
Moshe Zelnik

Vice President of Finance, ChiefFinancial Officer

and Secretary
#### Thomas Wesley NELSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eugene STRATTON, Attorney at Law, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 72-2645

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 20, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 11, 1972.

Thomas Wesley Nelson, pro se.

Eugene Y. Stratton, pro se.

Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and GOLDBERG and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir., Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Wesley Nelson has appealed from the district court’s dismissal of his Civil Rights1 complaint which named as defendant the attorney who represented him in a criminal ease. We affirm the ruling below.

The appellant has alleged that the attorney did not accord effective legal representation in several enumerated respects, as the result of which Nelson was convicted of a felony in a Texas state court. Nelson further alleges that the attorney was retained for him by his former employer.

The district court held that the complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, since a retained counsel is not acting under color of state law within the purview of the statute. We agree. United States ex rel. Gittlemacker v. Commonwealth of Pa., E.D. Pa.1968, 281 F.Supp. 175, affirmed 3rd Cir. 1969, 413 F.2d 84, cert. denied 396 U.S. 1046, 90 S.Ct. 696, 24 L.Ed.2d 691. Our statement in O’Brien v. Colbath, 5th Cir. 1972, 465 F.2d 358, [1972] that “in our opinion [§ 1983] was never intended as a vehicle for prosecuting malpractice suits against court-appointed attorneys” is all the more applicable to suits against one’s former privately-retained counsel. The order appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
#### Ex Parte C. C. Dooley

No. 25731.

February 27, 1952.

Hon. George L. Davenport, Judge Presiding.

*Doyle Pevehome,*Corsicana, for relator.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is an original application for the writ of habeas corpus, by which relator seeks his discharge from the penitentiary because of the following facts:

On November 13, 1947, relator was convicted in the district court of Eastland County in two ordinary felony cases, being numbered 10,512 and 10,534 upon the docket of said court, with punishment fixed at eight and ten years, respectively, in the penitentiary.

The judgment entered in each case shows upon its face that relator pleaded guilty to the offense charged, and that guilt was adjudged and punishment fixed by the trial judge. The plea was not before a jury.

*58There is an entire absence in the judgments of any reference to the requirements of Arts. 10a and 12, C. C. P., as amended, such as waiver of trial by jury and consent and approval of the court and state’s counsel for a trial before the court. These requirements are mandatory, and requisite to a valid judgment, upon a plea of guilty before the court in an ordinary felony case. Thompson v. State, 154 Tex. Cr. R. 273, 226 S. W. 2d 872.

It follows that each of the judgments and the sentences imposed upon relator thereunder are void, and, for that reason, relator is entitled to be discharged from custody.

The invalidity of the judgments does not affect the indictments, which, for all this record shows, are yet pending.

It is ordered, therefore, that relator be delivered by the penitentiary authorities of this state into the custody of the sheriff of Eastland County to answer the accusations pending against him. Ex Parte Traxler, 147 Tex. Cr. R. 661, 184 S. W. 2d 286.

Opinion approved by the court.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Peng Kim, Appellant, v Community Living Corporation et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[677 NYS2d 818]

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed June 13, 1996, which ruled, *inter alia,*that claimant did not sustain a causally related disability and denied his claim for benefits.

Claimant sustained a back injury in October 1992 during the course of his employment which resulted in claimant losing some time from work. On February 8, 1993, with the consent of his doctor, claimant returned to work full time; however, he was discharged on or about May 12, 1993 for misconduct. After his application for unemployment insurance benefits was denied, claimant applied for workers’ compensation benefits contending that he was unable to work due to his October 1992 back injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board, finding that claimant was terminated for cause and that claimant failed to establish that there was a further casually related disability subsequent to May 13, 1993, denied claimant’s application for disability benefits. This appeal ensued.

*912We affirm. Ample evidence in the record, including claimant’s own testimony, supports the Board’s finding that claimant’s loss of employment was due solely to his misconduct.* Given that the circumstance surrounding claimant’s loss of employment was unrelated to his 1992 back injury, “claimant had the burden of establishing by substantial evidence that the limitations on his employment due to his disability were a cause of his subsequent inability to obtain employment” *(Matter of Dudlo v Polytherm Plastics,*125 AD2d 792, 793). The medical report of Richard Semble, a physician who examined claimant in December 1993, concluded that no causally related disability existed and was based in part on a November 13, 1992 X ray indicating a normal spine. Although claimant’s physician disagreed, it is well settled that it is within the purview of the Board to resolve conflicting medical opinions *(see, Matter of Kapogiannis v Vassar Coll.,*141 AD2d 947, 948). Semble’s report, together with the fact that claimant’s treating physician permitted him to return to full-time work, provide substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that claimant failed to establish a further causally related disability following the termination of his employment *(see generally, Matter of Kapogiannis v Vassar Coll.,*supra;*see, Matter of Mazziotto v Brookfield Constr. Co.,*40 AD2d 245). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Peters, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

*

 It should also be noted that claimant’s attorney conceded in his proposed record list that claimant was terminated for cause.
The State of



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 3, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00083

- CR

John COLEMAN

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR10029

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellant ’ s motion for extension of time to file the brief is GRANTED. Time is

extended to July 1, 2015.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barna rd, Justice

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

court on this 3rd day of June, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### Margaret W. Swanson, appellant, v. Charles P. Megan, Trustee, et al., appellees.

298 N. W. 160

Filed May 16, 1941.

No. 31039.

*579*McKenzie & Dugan,*for appellant.

*Wymer Dressler, Robert D. Neely*and *Hugo J. Lutz, contra.*

Heard before Simmons, C. J., Rose, Eberly, Paine, Carter and Yeager, JJ.

Rose, J.

This is an action by Margaret W. Swanson, plaintiff, to recover $3,000 for personal injuries as a result of alleged negligence of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, defendant, in causing a collision between a locomotive at the crossing of a public street and an automobile in which plaintiff was riding as a guest. The issues tried before the jury were negligence of the railroad company and negligence of the driver of the automobile. At the close of the trial the district court sustained a motion by defendant to excuse the jury and dismiss the case for want of sufficient evidence to support a judgment in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed from the nonsuit.

The evidence in this case is the same as in *Walsh v. Megan, ante,*p. 575, 298 N. W. 158, wherein it was held that actionable negligence of defendant was not proved. The judgment from which the appeal was taken is therefore

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on August 8, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. 

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present. 

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting. 

Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session, and determined that no earlier notice thereof was possible. 

The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for August 8, 2008 will be: Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; and other matters related to enforcement proceedings. 

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. 

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: 

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400. 

Dated: August 8, 2008. 

Florence E. Harmon, 

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-18796 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
----

----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| May      14, 2009 | /s/      James Roszel |
|-------------------|-----------------------|
|              | James      Roszel     |
|              | President             |

----