alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 16 - 00180 - CR

STEVEN BLANCHARD APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 432ND DISTR ICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1409 007D

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appellant Steven Blanchard appeals from a judgment conv icting him of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentencing him to fifteen years’ confinement. Blanchard’s court
- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel avers that in h is

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

professio nal opinion, the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of
the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See
386 U. S. 738, 87 S. C t. 1396 (1967). In compliance with Kelly v. State , counsel notified Blanchard of his motion to withdraw, provided him a copy of the motion and brief, informed him of his right to file a pro se response, informed him of his right to seek discretionary
revie w should this court hold the appeal is frivolous, and took concrete measures to facilitate Blanchard’s review of the appellate record. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court informed Blanchard that he could file a pro se response , and he did so. The State did not submit a brief. Once an appellant’s court

- appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders , this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State , 904 S.W.2d 920, 922

– 23 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw . See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 7 5, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully reviewed t he record , counsel’s brief, and Blanchard’s
response . W e agree with counsel that this appeal is who lly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal

. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also3

Meza v. State , 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, w e grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Bill Meier BILL ME IER JUSTICE PANEL: MEIER, KERR, and PITTMAN, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: March 2 3 , 2017
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**P&F INDUSTRIES, INC.**

**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 thequarterly report on Form 10-Q of P&F Industries, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, RichardA. Horowitz, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, that:

 

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

 

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

 
|                         | /s/ RICHARD A. HOROWITZ       |
|------------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                         | Richard A. Horowitz           |
| Date: November 13, 2009 | *Principal Executive Officer* |

 

1

----
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.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### U.S. Geological Survey

# AGENCY:

U.S. Geological Survey.

# ACTION:

Notice of Meeting.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to Public Law 96-472, the National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (NEPEC) will hold a meeting. The meeting location is the Hilton Palm Springs Resort, 400 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California 92262-6605. The Committee is comprised of members from academia and the Federal Government. The Committee shall advise the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on proposed earthquake predictions, on the completeness and scientific validity of the available data related to earthquake predictions, and on related matters as assigned by the Director.

The Council will receive a briefing on the Colaboratory for Study of Earthquake Predictability (CSEP), a report on a workshop on Episodic Tremor and Slip held last winter, and short reports and updates on several other topics. The Council will also discuss the potential need to provide advisory reports on short notice if natural observations suggest an increased earthquake risk, and the form and content of such reports.

Meetings of the National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council are open to the public.

# DATES:

September 10, 2008, commencing at 1 p.m. and adjourning at 4 p.m. on September 11, 2008.

*Contact:*                         Dr. William Leith, U.S. Geological Survey, MS 905, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia 20192, (703) 648-6786,                         *wleith@usgs.gov.*

Dated: August 20, 2008.

Suzette M. Kimball,

Associate Director for Geology.

 [FR Doc. E8-19727 Filed 8-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4311-AM-P
#### Jose A. LIMA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-7368.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.

Decided Nov. 15, 2002.

Jose A. Lima, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*170PER CURIAM.

Jose A. Lima, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Lima has not made the requisite showing. *See Lima v. Virginia,*No. CA-02-392-AM (E.D. Va. filed July 29, 2002; entered July 30, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6230 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6230

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate lead oxide, 
 antimony, and sulfuric acid as taxable chemicals under the Superfund 
                             excise taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 9, 2021

 Mr. Meuser (for himself, Mr. Moolenaar, Mrs. Hartzler, and Mr. Long) 
 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 eliminate lead oxide, 
 antimony, and sulfuric acid as taxable chemicals under the Superfund 
                             excise taxes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``USA Batteries Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) The Superfund fee established in Public Law 117-58 
        makes American manufacturing less competitive by imposing a tax 
        on chemicals used in domestic battery production that is not 
        levied on imported batteries.
            (2) America's lead battery industry has a $23.6 billion 
        domestic economic impact annually and creates more than 25,000 
        direct jobs in 38 States.
            (3) Lead batteries have a 99 percent recycling rate and are 
        a truly sustainable energy storage technology.
            (4) Lead batteries are critical for many sectors, including 
        defense, transportation, logistics, telecommunications, and 
        energy generation.
            (5) Increased taxes on domestic production create a 
        disadvantage for American manufacturers and reduce the global 
        competitiveness of the domestic lead battery industry by 
        increasing the costs of key raw materials.

SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF LEAD OXIDE, ANTIMONY, AND SULFURIC ACID AS 
              TAXABLE CHEMICALS UNDER SUPERFUND EXCISE TAXES.

    The table in section 4661(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 
as amended by Public Law 117-58, is amended by striking the rows 
relating to lead oxide, antimony, and sulfuric acid.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-85556, No. 333-07409, No. 333-13887 and No. 
333-62767) and in the Prospectus constituting part of the Registration 
Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-11391, No. 333-23317 and No. 333-63991) of 
Oryx Technology Corp. of our report dated May 22, 1998, appearing on Page F-2 
of this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A2 for the year ended February 28, 1998.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP


San Jose, California
October 13, 1998
#### Tony Garcia v. State.

No. 24611.

February 1, 1950.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1950.

*Piranio & Piranio,*Dallas, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The offense is assault with intent to murder; the punishment, seven years in the penitentiary.

That appellant shot the injured party three times with a pistol is not disputed. According to the state’s testimony, the shooting was without justification or excuse; according to appellant’s testimony, he shot in self-defense.

*414The defensive theory, which the jury rejected, was pertinently submitted by the trial court in his charge. The facts war-want the jury’s finidng.

No bills of exception appear in the record, without which we cannot consider appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a continuance.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.

ON APPELLANT’S motion for rehearing.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The attorneys who filed the motion for rehearing for appellant did not represent him on the trial of his case and his motion for rehearing states that they had no responsibility for the failure to bring to this court bills of exception complaining of the court overruling his motion for continuance. They now ask that this motion be considered, in as much as it is found in the record in its fullness.

This we cannot do. The legislature makes the laws designated as The Code of Criminal Procedure and we have no authority to change the same. The action of the court on the motion for continuance of the case can only be considered when brought before this court by a proper bill of exception. Branch’s Annotated Penal Code, Section 304, page 183; Caldwell v. State, 132 Tex. Cr. R. 256, 103 S. W. 2d *758;*and Newton v. State, 147 Tex. Cr. R. 400, 180 S. W. 2d 946.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the amended quarterly report of Veracity Management Global, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended September 30, 2007 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Richard Grassano, CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Richard Grassano

Richard GrassanoCFODated: February 15, 2008

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Veracity Management Global, Inc.and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.
# FILED
September 30, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COU RT OF CR IMINA L A PPEA LS OF TENN ESSEE

AT NA SHVILLE AUGUST 1997 SESSION

RICKY D. HULSE Y, ) ) Appellant, ) C.C.A. No. 01C01-96 0 9-CC-0039 9 ) vs. ) Lincoln County ) STA TE OF TENN ESSEE, ) Honorab le Charle s Lee, Ju dge ) Appellee. ) (Post Conv iction) )

FOR TH E APPEL LANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: HERSHELL D. KOGER JOHN KNOX WALK UP Attorney at Law Attorney Gen eral & Repor ter P.O. Box 1148 Pulaski, TN 384781 EUGENE J. H ONEA Assistant Att orney Gener al Criminal J ustice Div ision 450 James Roberts on Parkway Nashvil le, TN 37243-0493 M I C H A E L W. M c C O WN Distric t Attorney General W EAKLEY E. BARNARD Assistant

District Attorney G eneral P.O. Box 904 Fayettev ille, TN 37334

OPINION FILE D: ____________________
AF FIRMED -

RULE 20 CURWOOD WITT JUDGE2 OPINION The petitioner, R ic ky D. Hulsey, appeals the Lincoln County Circuit Court's dismissal of his petition for post-conv iction rel ief. The pe titioner was sentenced to a f ive year incarcerative term following his guil ty pleas t o the offenses of aggravated assault and v andalism. After

the petitioner

filed his post- convicti on petition, the lower

court appointed counsel, conduct ed a hearing, and denied t he requested relief in a well-drafted or der setting forth the detailed findings of fact and conclusionsof law. In t his appeal, the petition erchallenges the lower court's determinations h e did not enter h is guilt y pleas kn owingl y and vol untarily and that he received the effective ass is tanc e of coun sel. Having reviewe d the reco rd, we affirm the judgment of

the lower court pursuant to Ru le 20 of the rules of this court.

In a post-conv iction proc eeding filed after May 10, 1995, the petitioner has the burden of establishinghis claims by clear and convinc ing evi dence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-210(f) (Supp. 1996). A trial cour

t's findings

of fact followinga post-convi ction hearing have the weig ht of a jury verdict. Brat ton v. State , 477 S.W.2d 754, 756 (Tenn. Crim. App.1971). On appeal, th ose findings are conc lusive unless the evidenc e prepon derates against the judgment. Butler v. State , 789 S.W.2d 898, 900 (Tenn. 1990).

In the case at bar , the lower court found that the pet itio ner failed to carry his burden of proving hi s allegati ons. In this court, he h as likew ise failed to establish that the evi dence preponderates against the lower court's finding s. As a result, we find no er ror ofl aw requiring reversal. The lower court's judgment is affirmed pu rsuant to Rule 20, Court of Criminal Ap peals Rules.

_______________________________3 CURWOOD W ITT, JUDGE

CONCUR:

_______________________________ JOE G. RILEY

JR., JUD GE

_______________________________ __________ WALKER, SPECIAL JUDGE NOTE: NEED JUDGE WALKER'S FULL NA ME
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  1.
    
    The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Robert L. Parker Jr.Robert L. Parker Jr.Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.26

SECOND AMENDMENT  TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

SECOND AMENDMENT, dated as of December 3, 2008 (this "Second Amendment") to the
Employment Agreement (the "Employment Agreement") between and among Joseph R. Sanchez ("Executive"),
Protection One, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc., a Delaware corporation, dated as
of July 23, 2004, as amended by the First Amendment to Employment Agreement dated as of February 8, 2005 (the "First Amendment"). This
Second Amendment shall become effective upon the date of hereof (the "Effective Date").

W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS,
Section 22 of the Employment Agreement provides that any modification of any provision of the Employment Agreement shall be valid only if made in writing and signed by
Executive and a duly authorized officer of the Company; and

WHEREAS,
the parties hereto desire to amend certain provisions of the Employment Agreement as more fully set forth herein.

NOW,
THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and in consideration of the agreements herein, the parties hereto agree
as follows:

1.Amendments.



1

---





2

---





2.GOVERNING LAW; VALIDITY.THE INTERPRETATION, CONSTRUCTION AND PERFORMANCE OF THIS FIRST AMENDMENT SHALL BE
GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INTERNAL LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PRINCIPLE OF CONFLICTS OF LAWS. THE INVALIDITY OR UNENFORCEABILITY OF ANY
PROVISION OF THIS FIRST AMENDMENT SHALL NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OR ENFORCEABILITY OF ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS FIRST AMENDMENT, WHICH OTHER PROVISIONS SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.

3.Full force and effect of Employment Agreement.Except as specifically modified herein, all other provisions
of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. All references in the Employment Agreement to "this Agreement" shall be deemed to refer to the
Employment Agreement as amended by this Second Amendment.

[REMAINDER
OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

3

---



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Company and Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc. has caused the Agreement to be executed by a duly authorized representative of the Company and
Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc. and Executive has executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written.

PROTECTION ONE, INCBy:

/s/ J. ERIC GRIFFINName:

Eric GriffinTitle:

SecretaryPROTECTION ONE ALARM MONITORING, INC.By:

/s/ J. ERIC GRIFFINName:

Eric GriffinTitle:

Secretary/s/ JOSEPH R. SANCHEZ Joseph R. Sanchez


4

---



QuickLinks
#### Charles R. Painton, as Committee of the Person and Estate of Henry Cavanaugh, Respondent, v. Annie B. Cavanaugh, Individually and as Executrix, etc., of Patrick Cavanaugh, Deceased, Appellant, Impleaded with Annie R. Painton and Others.

—Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs, with usual leave to defendant to withdraw demurrer and answer upon payment of costs in this court and at Special Term. All concurred.
----

----

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

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

|                                                                                            |   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Brittany              Prager                                                           |   |   |   |
| Brittany                PragerChief                Executive OfficerMay                11, 2007 |   |   |        |
#### Tommy WATKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida, Division A.

Oct. 8, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Rich Robins v. Austen Perry Clinkenbeard and Jonathon G. 

Clinkenbeard aka Jon Clinkenbeard

Appellate case number: 01-19-00059-CV

Trial court case number: 1107951

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 3 of Harris County

Appellant, Rich Robins, has filed a second unopposed motion to extend time to file 

a motion for rehearing and for en banc reconsideration. Appellant’s motion is timely and 

complies with the rules. TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 49.8; see TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1, 49.7. 

Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion to extend time. Appellant’s motion for rehearing

and/or for en banc reconsideration, if any, is due no later than April 3, 2020.

No further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: ___March 24, 2020___