alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01

- 14

- 00225

- CV

Shamrock Management, LLC

v

.

Dune Energy, Inc.

NO. CV

- 0059024

- A IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO 1 OF GALVESTON C OUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

MT FEE
MT FEE
MT FEE
MT FEE
MT FEE
RPT RECORD
CLK RECORD
FILING
STATEWIDE EFILING $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $8,144.00 $2,421.00

$175.00 $20.00 12/05/2014
10/29/2014
08/29/2014
08/07/2014
08/06/2014
07 /14/2014
04/25/2014
04/03/2014
04/03/2014 E

- PAID
E

- PAID
E

- PAID
E

- PAID
E

- PAID

PAID
PAID
E

- PAID
E

- PAID ANT
ANT
ANT
ANT
ANT
APE
ANT
ANT
ANT



### The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are $ 10,81 0 .00.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine , Clerk o f the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do herebycertify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, this January 29, 2015

.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-94,650-01

EX PARTE EDIBERTO ANTONIO DELEON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 83201-CR-A IN THE 149 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM BRAZORIA COUNTY

Per curiam. SLAUGHTER, J. filed a concurring opinion.

O P I N I O N

Applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to seventyyears’ imprisonment. The First

Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. DeLeon v. State, No. 01-19-00695-CR (Tex.

App.—Houston [1 Dist.] Aug. 24, 2021) (not designated for publication). Applicant filed this st

application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded

it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant contends that appellate counsel failed to timely inform Applicant that his

conviction had been affirmed and advise him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary

review. Based on the record, the trial court has determined that appellate counsel’s performance was

deficient and that Applicant would have timely filed a petition for discretionary review but for
2

counsel’s deficient performance.

Relief is granted. Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Ex parte Crow,

180 S.W.3d 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Applicant may file an out-of-time petition for

discretionary review of the judgment of the First Court of Appeals in cause number 01-19-00695-

CR. Should Applicant decide to file a petition for discretionary review, he must file it with this

Court within thirty days from the date of this Court’s mandate.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the TexasDepartment ofCriminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: April 26, 2023

Do not publish
Vri( of Injunction i)enied, Opinion issued l)ecember 10. 24)12.

In Ihe 

## (!mtrt tif 

## ipia1i 

## Fift1i 

## Jiitrirt uf ixa at 

## Ia11a No. 05-12-01395-CV [N RE lIANK’S REST AURAN1’ GROUP, L.P., Relator Original Proceeding from the 366th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 366-03124-2012



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley. FitzGerald, and Myers OpinionbyJustice Myers Relator seeks a writ of injunction incorporating the tenns of the trial court’s temporary restraining orderduring an interlocutoryappeal. The facts and issues arewell knownto theparties, so we need not recount them herein. Based on the record before us, we conclude relator has not shown it is entitled to the reliefrequested. See TEX. R. App. P. 52.8(a) Walker i’. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we DENYrelator’s petitionfor writ ofinjunction and LIFT the stay imposed bythis Court’s October 15. 2012 order.

LANA MYERS JUSTICE 12 1395F.P05
No. 72-6181.

#### Plante *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000331

30-NOV-2015

08:45 AM
#### G. W. McInturff v. State.

No. 25,933.

October 8, 1952.

Hon. Lewis M. Goodrich, Judge Presiding.

*Reynolds & Hardin,*by *Guy Hardin,*Shamrock, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for the theft of a week-old calf, and the jury assessed his punishment at 2 years in the penitentiary.

The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction is not questioned.

In his brief, appellant urges that his conviction should be reversed because the state failed to establish venue, and because the district attorney “established or inferred” by his cross-examination of appellant that he had stolen hogs as well as the calf in question.

The venue question was not made an issue in the trial court, and under the statute, Art. 847, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P., this court must presume that venue was established.

We are unable to appraise the complaint concerning the questions directed to appellant on cross-examination in the absence of a bill of exception. However, we observe nothing improper in the cross-examination.

*529The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

KISHAWN DOWE , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee.

No. 4D 21

- 3112

[ April 14, 2022 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Martin S. Fein , Judge; L.T. Case No. 06

- 009164

- CF

- 10A

.
W. Charles Fletcher of Law Office of W. Charles Fletcher, Jacksonville

, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sorraya M. Solages

Jones , Ass istant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

C ONNER , C.J., G ROSS and G ERBER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 158 (Thursday, August 14, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47639-47640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18634]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Availability of Draft Alternatives Working Paper for the Proposed 
Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport, Las Vegas, Clark County, NV 
Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Draft Alternatives Working Paper, 
correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in cooperation with 
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued a notice of Availability of 
Draft Alternatives Working Paper that was published in the Federal 
Register on August 4, 2008 (73 FR 45268). That notice advised the 
public the Draft

[[Page 47640]]

Alternatives Working Paper for the Draft EIS will be made available for 
public comment pursuant to section 304 of the Vision 100 Century of 
Aviation Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-176) [49 U.S.C. 47171(I)]. This 
notice corrects the days of the comment period from 30 days to 60 days.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David B. Kessler, AICP, Project 
Manager, Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport EIS, AWP-610.1, Airports 
Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region, P.O. 
Box 92007, Los Angeles, California 90009-2007, Telephone: 310/725-3615. 
Comments on the draft Alternatives Working Paper should be submitted to 
the address above and must be received no later than 5 p.m. Pacific 
Standard Time, Friday, October 3, 2008.
    The Draft Alternatives Working Paper will be available for public 
comment for 60 days. Written comments on the Draft Alternatives Working 
Paper should be submitted to the address above under the heading FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and must be received no later than 5 p.m. 
Pacific Standard Time, Friday, October 3, 2008.

    Issued in Hawthorne, California, on August 5, 2008.
Mark A. McClardy,
Manager, Airports Division, Western-Pacific Region, AWP-600.
[FR Doc. E8-18634 Filed 8-13-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
#### In the Matter of Opening East One Hundred and Seventy-ninth Street from Third Avenue to Southern Boulevard, in the Twenty-fourth Ward, Borough of Bronx, New York City. William G. Mulligan, Appellant; Raymond C. Haff, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Ho opinion.
Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofsection 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of FairfaxFinancial Holdings Limited (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:     The Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) of theCompany fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.       /s/John C. Varnell  John C. Varnell  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  Date:  March 4, 2011 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toFairfax Financial Holdings Limited and will be retained by Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Anonymous.

Where an attorney sues out a writ of error, without the authority of the parties named as plaintiffs iii the writ, the process will be dismissed at his costs.

*Per Curiam.*

This was a motion to dismiss the writ of error, founded upon the affidavits of the plaintiffs in error, setting forth that the process had been issued without their sanction or direction. The motion will be allowed, and the writ dismissed, at the cost of the attorney who sued out the process.
IIA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 584

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 8 (legislative day, JUNE 5), 1995

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a fish

hatchery to the State of Iowa.

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

3 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF THE FAIRPORT NATIONAL

4 FISH HATCHERY TO THE STATE OF IOWA.

5 (a) CONVEYANCE.—Within 180 days after the date

6 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior
2

HR 584 RFS

1 shall convey to the State of Iowa without reimbursement

2 all right, title, and interest of the United States in and

3 to the fish hatchery described in subsection (b) for use

4 by the State for purposes of fishery resources manage5 ment.

6 (b) HATCHERY DESCRIBED.—The fish hatchery de7 scribed in subsection (a) is the Fairport National Fish

8 Hatchery located in Muscatine County, Iowa, adjacent to

9 State Highway 22 west of Davenport, Iowa, including all

10 real property, improvements to real property, and personal

11 property.

12 (c) USE AND REVERSIONARY INTEREST.—The prop13 erty conveyed to the State of Iowa pursuant to this section

14 shall be used by the State for purposes of fishery resources

15 management, and if it is used for any other purpose all

16 right, title, and interest in and to all property conveyed

17 pursuant to this section shall revert to the United States.

Passed the House of Representatives June 7, 1995.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
#### Jacob Campbell, Respondent, v. The New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, with *923costs to appellant to abide event. Held, that parol proof tending to vary or contradict the terms of the release under seal given by plaintiff to defendant was improperly received and constituted reversible error, and that the finding of the jury that an oral contract was made by the defendant with the plaintiff different from that expressed in the release itself is contrary to and against the weight of the evidence. All concurred. Spring and Kruse, JJ., on the first ground stated only.
EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in Post Effective  Amendment No. 1
to Registration  Statement No. 33-94914 on Form S-8,  Registration No. 333-30237
on Form S-8 and Registration  No. 333-22535 on Form S-3 of Hirsch  International
Corp. and Subsidiaries of our report dated May 3, 2001, appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Hirsch  International Corp. and Subsidiaries for the year
ended January 31, 2001.

/s/ BDO SEIDMAN LLP
-------------------
BDO Seidman, LLP


Melville, New York
May 9, 2001
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Amended Quarterly Report of Printing Components Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A-1 for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Herb Adams, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 3rd day of October, 2007.

HERB ADAMSHerb AdamsChief Executive Officer




































---
#### Walker’s Estate.

*Wills*— Devise—Legacy.

Where a testator devises land to one person with a direction that if the devisee shall at any time sell the land for an amount in excess of a sum named, the overplus should be paid to another person, and the devisee dies without having sold the land, whatever interest the other person had under the will, comes to an end.

Argued Oct. 28, 1907.

Appeal, No. 16, Oct. T., 1907, by Oliver F. Bostwick, from decree of O. C. Allegheny Co., May T., 1905, No. 189, dismissing petition for citation in Estate of Edward G. Walker, deceased.

Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.

Affirmed.

Petition for citation.

The petition prayed the court to award a citation to Charles Marthens, Mrs. Samuel Aldrich, Charles Marthens, Jr., William Marthens, Walker Marthens, Lida Marthens and Louis Kabel and Charles Marthens, executor of Edward G. Walker, to appear and show cause why the amount of a legacy to Mrs. Mary E. Bostwick should not be ascertained and payment made to petitioner, and in default of payment to show cause why certain property should not be sold and said legacy paid, and for such other relief as the court may deem proper and just.

The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.

The court in an opinion by Hawkins, P. J., dismissed the petition.

*Error assigned*was the decree of the court.

*Morton Hunter,*for appellant.

*182
      *J. McF.*Carpenter, with him *Geo. N.*Chalfant, *J. E. McKelvy*and *J. Merrill*Wright, for appellees.

November 11, 1907:

Per Curiam,

The testator devised a house to Mrs. Marthens “ with the provision that if she should at any time sell the said property for over $5,000 the overplus to be paid over and given to Mrs. M. E. Bostwick.” This is a perfectly plain and simple devise of the house to Mrs. Marthens, with a pecuniary legacy to Mrs. Bostwick, contingent on the sale of the house by the devisee for more than the sum named. The legacy did not impair or incumber the fee given to the devisee and a sale by her would have carried a good title to the purchaser without regard to the amount of the purchase money. All the discussion about powers or trusts, the value of the house, etc., is outside of the case. The testator imposed no obligation on his devisee to sell, and no court had authority to do so for him, either directly or indirectly, by an inquiry into the value of the house and a demand on the devisee to account for the estimated surplus upon a supposititious sale. The devisee in her lifetime could not have been called upon either to sell or to account on the basis of a sale, and when she died without having sold, all possibility of the happening of the contingency passed and the interest of Mrs. Bostwick came to an end.

Decree affirmed.
----

----

**EXHIBIT        32.1**

**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. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| October                  31, 2007 | /s/                  James Roszel      |
|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                              | James                  Roszel                                   |
|                              | President                                                       |

----
#### SANDERS v. LIFE INS. CO. OF VIRGINIA.

No. 14701.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 28, 1934.

Solomon S. Goldman, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Joseph Bardis, of New Orleans, for appel-lee.

JANVIER, Judge.

In 1912 the Life Insurance Company of Virginia issued a policy of life insurance to Eugene Sanders. The premiums were paid up to and including December 26, 1932. Thereafter no further premiums were paid. In the policy the assured was given the option, in the event of the lapse of the policy, of demanding the cash surrender value at any time within thirteen weeks of the lapse. The assured has not died, but long after the expiration of thirteen weeks made demand for the cash surrender value. This was refused by the defendant insurer. The purpose of this suit is to force defendant company to pay the said cash surrender value; the contention being that under Act No. 193 of 1906 an insurance company, such as defendant, is not per*39mitted to forefelt a policy for non-payment of premiums, but is required to pay to the insured, or to his beneficiaries in the case of death, the cash surrender value.

We have to-day held, in the matter of Succession of Watson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 156 So. 29, that the act referred to does not require the payment of a cash surrender value.

It may be that the insured, in the case before us, is entitled to extended insurance or paid up insurance; but since he has not exercised the option granted him by the company to demand the cash surrender value within thirteen weeks, and since that option has expired, there is neither legal nor contractual obligation in defendant company to pay the cash surrender value.

The exception of no cause of action should have been maintained.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that.the judgment appealed from be and it is annulled, avoided, and reversed, and it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the exception of no cause of action be sustained and plaintiffs suit be and it is dismissed at his cost.

Reversed..
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 5, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20134 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FEDERICO LUERA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CR-133-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Federico Luera raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter , 238 F.3d 580, 582-84 (5th Cir. 2000), which held that Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not render 21 U.S.C. § 841 unconstitutional on its face. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**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 on Form 10-Q of Panhandle Eastern Pipe
      Line
      Company, LP (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Julie H. Edwards, as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
      Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (i) the Report fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.





/s/
      JULIE H. EDWARDS


Name:
      Julie H. Edwards


Title:
      Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date:
      August 7, 2006














This
      Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not 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 this Report, irrespective of any
      general incorporation language contained in such filing.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documents
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, 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.