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

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 31, 2014

NO. 03-14-00051-CV

Hong Kong Dajiang Innovation Technology Co., Ltd., Appellant

v.

Colin Guinn, individually and on behalf of Dajiang North America, LLC; and Dajiang

North America, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 200TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND ROSE

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the trial court on January 22, 2014. The 

appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court 

agrees that the motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses 

the appeal. Each party shall bear their own costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in 

the court below, and this decision shall be certified below for observance.
#### MOBLEY v. UNIVERSAL LIFE INS. CO.

No. 16189.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Jan. 25, 1937.

Jno. A. Smith, of New Orleans, for appellant.

R. O. Vorbusch, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

McCALEB, Judge.

A rehearing was granted in this matter limited, however, to the question of the amount of plaintiff’s recovery. For a discussion of the facts and law of the case, see (La.App.) 167 So. 217.

The suit was brought for the sum of $153, which is the face value of the policy of insurance issued by the defendant, and judgment was awarded by this court in favor of plaintiff for that amount. The rehearing was granted after counsel for defendant had called our attention to the fact that the assured died five months after the issuance of the policy, and that under the conditions expressed in said policy the insurance company is liable for only one-half of the full death benefit where the assured dies within twelve months from the date of the contract/ Under these circumstances, the plaintiff would be entitled to $76.50 which is the minimum death benefit.

Defendant has cited two cases, namely, Sanders v. Universal Life Ins. Co. (La.App.) 164 So. 507, and Shanchell v. Universal Life Ins. Co. (La.App.) 161 So. 339, to sustain its position.

However, counsel for plaintiff directs our attention to the fact that there is an indorsement on the policy in suit which reads:

> “Excepting provisions in conditions 12, ■ 16 and 17 this policy is in immediate full benefit from date of issue.

> "[Signed] J. E. Walker, Pres.

> “M. W. Bonner, Sec.”

It is claimed that-the foregoing indorsement had the effect of overriding the other provisions of the policy with reference to partial benefits and that, from the date the policy was issued, the beneficiary was entitled to the full benefit when death occurred, irrespective of the other stipulations contained in the contract.

*56However, counsel for defendant asserts that this indorsement can only refer to the time when the policy was to take effect and that the words “immediate full benefit,” as used therein, may not be interpreted as annulling the other provisions of the policy respecting partial benefits. But, the policy provides that it takes effect on the date of its issuance, and in the absence of conditions therein, postponing the date on which coverage is granted, it is apparent that the words “immediate full benefit” referred exclusively to the amount payable in the event of death.

Therefore, we hold that the indorsement in question had the force of placing the policy in immediate full benefit, and overrode the other conditions in the contract respecting minimum benefits payable when death occurred within twelve months from the date of issuance.

The case of Shanchell v. Universal Life Ins. Co., supra, is readily distinguishable from the case at bar because in the former it does not appear that the policy of insurance contained the indorsement which is present here.

For the reasons stated herein, our original decree is reinstated and made final.

Original decree reinstated.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Markus Ray Sneed, * From the 104th District

 Court of Taylor County,

 Trial Court No. 17763B.

Vs. No. 11-11-00121-CR * April 18, 2013

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by McCall, J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 McCall, J., and Willson, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no error in 

the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the judgment of the 

trial court is in all things 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 Annual Report of Hirsch  International  Corp.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended  January 31,  2003,  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Henry Arnberg, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, hereby 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 and 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/ Henry Arnberg
                                                   -----------------
                                                   Henry Arnberg, Chairman and
                                                   Chief Executive Officer


April 29, 2003

     This  certification  is made solely for the  purposes of 18 U.S.C.  Section
1350 and is subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any
other purpose.
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

October 22, 2010

Mr. David M. Gunn

Beck, Redden & Secrest, L.L.P.

One Houston Center

1221 McKinney Street, Suite 4500

Houston, TX 77010-2010

Mr. Adam Poncio

Poncio Law Offices, P.C.

5410 Fredericksburg Rd., Suite 109

San Antonio, TX 78229

Honorable Arnoldo Cantu Jr.

Judge, Hidalgo County Court #5 

100 North Closner

Edinburg, TX 78539

RE:Case Number:  09-1025

Court of Appeals Number:  13-09-00359-CV

Trial Court Number:  CL-08-1074-E

Style:IN RE  24R, INC., D/B/A THE BOOT JACK

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued an opinion in the above-referenced cause.  You may obtain a copy of the opinion at: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/recent.asp.  If you would like the opinion by email, please contact Claudia Jenks at claudia.jenks@courts.state.tx.us or call (512)463-1312 ext. 41367.  The stay order issued December 14, 2009 is lifted.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

**Case No. 09-1025Page 1**
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D23-100

Lower Tribunal No. 19-CA-004196

_____________________________

SFR SERVICES, LLC a/a/o WILLIAM VIRGILIO and JACQUELINE VIRGILIO,

Appellant, 

v.

TOWER HILL PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County.

Michael T. McHugh, Judge.

May 14, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

NARDELLA, WOZNIAK and SMITH, JJ., concur.

Erin M. Berger and Melissa A. Giasi, of Giasi Law, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

C. Ryan Jones and Scot E. Samis, of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry, LLP, 

St. Petersburg, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
#### Joe Dean Elliott v. State

No. 25291.

October 31, 1951.

Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing Denied (Without Written Opinion) December 12, 1951.

Hon. Robert A. Hall, Judge Presiding.

*Leonard R. Winborn*and *Piranio & Piranio,*by *Angelo Piranio,*Dallas, for appellant.

*Henry Wade,*Criminal District Attorney, and *Charles S. Potts,*Assistant Criminal District Attorney, both of Dallas, and *George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Having again examined the record in accordance with appellant’s request, we now note that the statement of facts does not bear the approval of the trial judge, as required under the statute applicable at the time of its filing in the trial court. We further observe that the statement of facts does not appear to have been agreed to by the attorney representing the state.

The statement of facts having been taken into account in the former opinions herein, such former opinions are now withdrawn.

*503The conviction is for statutory rape, with punishment assessed by a jury at 10 years in the penitentiary.

There are several bills of exception in the record, but they cannot be appraised in the absence of a statement of facts.

The bills relating to the admittedly improper argument of the special prosecutor each show that the trial court instructed the jury to disregard the complained of remarks. And it is not contended that the argument violated any constitutional or statutory provision.

Whether or not the argument was obviously hurtful and prejudicial and therefore so vicious as to warrant reversal, notwithstanding the trial judge’s instructions to disregard, must be determined in the light of the facts of the case and the punishment assessed by the jury.

Being without authority to consider the statement of facts, it follows that we are in no position to find that the argument was prejudicial, or that it resulted in harm to appellant.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Max Weissengruber, hereby certifies, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Freshwater
      Technologies, Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2010 (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 Freshwater Technologies, Inc.                                                                 

Dated: May 14, 2010

| | /s/  Max Weissengruber                
| | --------------------------------------
| | Max Weissengruber                     
| | President, Chief Executive Officer and
| | Director                              
| | (Principal Executive Officer)         

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-41623

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

ABEL BECERRA, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 7:16-CR-1048-1 

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Abel Becerra was convicted of being found in the United States after a 

previous deportation and was sentenced above the guidelines range to 28 

months of imprisonment. Becerra argues on appeal that his case should be 

remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of reforming the 

statement of reasons to match the district court’s oral justification for imposing 

his above-guidelines sentence. He contends that the district court orally 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fif h Circuit

FILED

August 31, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-41623 Document: 00514138974 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/31/2017
No. 16-41623

2 

imposed an upward variance at sentencing, but the statement of reasons 

reflects that the district court granted the Government’s motion to upwardly 

depart pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0(a)(2). 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 states, “After giving any notice it 

considers appropriate, the court may at any time correct a clerical error in a 

judgment, order, or other part of the record, or correct an error in the record 

arising from oversight or omission.” The nature of the above-guidelines 

sentence orally imposed by the district court in this case is ambiguous. 

Accordingly, the district court’s reliance in the statement of reasons on 

§ 5K2.0(a)(2) as the basis for departure cannot be characterized as a mere 

clerical error that can be reformed under Rule 36. 

In response to the Government’s argument that the district court orally 

imposed a § 5K2.0 upward departure, rather than an upward variance, Becerra 

argues for the first time in his reply brief that the district court committed 

plain error in applying a § 5K2.0(a)(2) upward departure. However, we will 

not consider this argument because it is being raised for the first time in a 

reply brief. See United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 n.2 (5th Cir. 

2006). Although Becerra contends that his argument should be considered 

because it is being made in response to the Government’s “unexpected” 

argument that the district court was imposing an upward departure, the 

Government’s brief did not address the issue whether the application of such 

an upward departure was procedurally reasonable. 

 Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 16-41623 Document: 00514138974 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/31/2017
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 11

                        CAPITOL COMMUNITIES CORPORATION
                       Computation of Earnings Per Share

                              Twelve Months Ended
                                 September 30,

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           1999          1998
                                           ----          ----
<S>                                    <C>           <C>
Shares Outstanding Beginning
 Of Period                               6,924,500     7,312,000

Shares Issued During Period
   October 7, 1997                                        38,000
   October 20, 1997                                       20,000
   October 28, 1997                                      (19,000)
   December 31, 1997                                      33,500
   April 2, 1998                                          35,000
   April 17, 1998                                       (700,000)
   April 30, 1998                                        200,000
   September 30, 1998                                      5,000
   October 1, 1998                          60,000
   December 15, 1998                       (32,305)
   December 15, 1998                       (20,000)
   February 23, 1999                       (66,667)
   June 14, 1999                        (2,839,689)
   June 30, 1999                            24,522
                                       -----------   -----------

Total Outstanding                        4,090,361     6,924,500

Weighted average number of               6,100,537     7,249,494
 shares outstanding

Shares deemed outstanding from
assumed exercise of stock options                -             -
                                       -----------   -----------
Total                                    6,100,537     7,249,494
                                       ===========   ===========

Earnings (loss) applicable to
 common shares                         $(1,022,694)  $(3,829,723)
                                       ===========   ===========

Earnings (loss) per share of
  common stock                         $    (0.168)  $    (0.528)
</TABLE>                               ===========   ===========
#### Kenneth MAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 70045.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 13, 1996.

Gary E. Brotherton, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

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

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the motion court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evi-dentiary hearing. In his Rule 24.035 motion, defendant alleges his trial counsel failed to present certain testimony from certain witnesses at his sentencing hearing. The motion court denied his motion without a hearing. We affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
----

----

**EXHIBIT        32.2**

**CERTIFICATION        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;                  and |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| November                  14, 2007 | /s/                  Richard Ivanovick         |
|------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                               | Richard                  Ivanovick                                                     |
|                               | Chief                  Financial Officer                                               |

----
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 annual report of AMB Financial Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I
Clement B. Knapp, President and 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.



Date:         April 10, 2003               /s/ Clement B. Knapp
            ------------------             -------------------------------------
                                           Clement B. Knapp
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4271

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to continue full-time-equivalent resident reimbursement for an additional one year under Medicare

for direct graduate medical education for residents enrolled in combined

approved primary care medical residency training programs.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 27, 1996

Ms. SLAUGHTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to continue

full-time-equivalent resident reimbursement for an additional one year under Medicare for direct graduate medical education for residents enrolled in combined approved

primary care medical residency training programs.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Primary Care Pro5 motion Act of 1996’’.
2

•HR 4271 IH

1 SEC. 2. MEDICARE SPECIAL REIMBURSEMENT RULE FOR

2 PRIMARY CARE COMBINED RESIDENCY PRO3 GRAMS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1886(h)(5)(G) of the So5 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(5)(G)) is amend6 ed—

7 (1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘and (iii)’’ and in8 serting ‘‘, (iii), and (iv)’’; and

9 (2) by adding at the end the following:

10 ‘‘(iv) SPECIAL RULE FOR PRIMARY

11 CARE COMBINED RESIDENCY PROGRAMS.—

12 (I) In the case of a resident enrolled in a

13 combined medical residency training pro14 gram in which all of the individual pro15 grams (that are combined) are for training

16 a primary care resident (as defined in sub17 paragraph (H)), the period of board eligi18 bility shall be the minimum number of

19 years of formal training required to satisfy

20 the requirements for initial board eligibility

21 in the longest of the individual programs

22 plus one additional year.

23 ‘‘(II) A resident enrolled in a com24 bined medical residency training program

25 that includes an obstetrics and gynecology

26 program qualifies for the period of board
3

•HR 4271 IH

1 eligibility under subclause (I) if the other

2 programs such resident combines with such

3 obstetrics and gynecology program are for

4 training a primary care resident.’’.

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

6 subsection (a) apply to combined medical residency pro7 grams in effect on or after July 1, 1996.

Æ