alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BARBER v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 26, 1936.

*369Joseph S. Wilensky, of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.

Cary D. Landis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIS, ■ Justice.

This writ of error is to a judgment upholding a supersedeas bail in the sum of $10,000 required of petitioner, who stood convicted of .murder in the second degree. The purpose of the habeas corpus was to secure a reduction in the amount of bond that had been fixed under conviction. The circuit judge found after a full hearing that the requirement of a $10,000 superse-deas bond was not unreasonable, or tenta-mount to the denial of bail, and remanded petitioner.

Our conclusion is that after conviction the test of reasonableness must be- applied in fixing the amount of a supersedeas bond under our statutes. This means that what would or might be unreasonable, if required as bail prior to a conviction, is not necessarily to be deemed unreasonable if required as bond incident to an application for discharge on bail pending a writ of error. Sections 8465, 8467, C.G.L., sections 6151, 6153, R.G.S.

The particular circumstances found and recited in the order of reversal entered in this case are ample to justify the finding as reasonable of a supersedeas bond in the sum of $10,000, when so fixed after conviction and sentence for murder in the second degree, even though the défendant is shown to be insolvent and probably unable to make such a bond in his present circumstances. The rule of Mendenhall v. Sweat, 117 Fla. 299, 157 So. 888, Id.,117 Fla. 659, 158 So. 280, is applicable to ordinary bail under section 8 and 9, Declaration of Rights, Florida Constitution. In supersedeas matters the rule of State ex rel. Gallat v. Allen, 82 Fla. 149, 89 So. 398, applies.

Affirmed.

WHITFIELD, C. J., and ELLIS, TERRELL, BROWN, and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 168 (Thursday, August 28, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 50843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19847]



[[Page 50843]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Parole Commission


Record of Vote of Meeting Closure (Pub. L. 94-409) (5 U.S.C. 
552b)

    I, Cranston J. Mitchell of the United States Parole Commission, was 
present at a meeting of said Commission, which started at approximately 
11:30 a.m., on Thursday, August 14, 2008, at the U.S. Parole 
Commission, 5550 Friendship Boulevard, 4th Floor, Chevy Chase, Maryland 
20815. The purpose of the meeting was to decide one petition for 
reconsideration pursuant to 28 CFR 2.27. Four Commissioners were 
present, constituting a quorum when the vote to close the meeting was 
submitted.
    Public announcement further describing the subject matter of the 
meeting and certifications of General Counsel that this meeting may be 
closed by vote of the Commissioners present were submitted to the 
Commissioners prior to the conduct of any other business. Upon motion 
duly made, seconded, and carried, the following Commissioners voted 
that the meeting be closed: Edward F. Reilly, Jr., Cranston J. 
Mitchell, Isaac Fulwood, Jr. and Patricia K. Cushwa.
    In witness whereof, I make this official record of the vote taken 
to close this meeting and authorize this record to be made available to 
the public.

    Dated: August 18, 2008.
Cranston J. Mitchell,
Vice Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. E8-19847 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
#### OUR LADY OF THE LAKE SANITARIUM v. CONSOLIDATED UNDERWRITERS.

No. 3282.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

June 29, 1950.

Hirsch & Greene, Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Durrett & Hardin, Baton Rouge, for ap-pellee.

FRUGE, Judge ad hoc.

This suit was consolidated for trial with the case, of Walker v. Consolidated Underwriters, La.App., 47 So.2d 67 and appealed to this Court from East Baton Rouge Parish, which companion case was disposed of by this Court this day.

For reasons assigned therein, the District Court Judgment dismissing plaintiff’s suit herein is affirmed.
#### Rosemary Trinh HUYNH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul H. O’NEILL, Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury, Defendant-Appellee, and Josie Wood, I.S.D. Manager; Susan Thompson, Chief Manager, Defendants. *610Rosemary Trinh Huynh, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul H. O’Neill, Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury, Defendant-Appellee, and Josie Wood, I.S.D. Manager; Susan Thompson, Chief Manager, Defendants.

Nos. 02-1618, 02-1832.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 21, 2002.

Decided Nov. 7, 2002.

Rosemary Trinh Huynh, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Jean Prillaman, Assistant United States Attorney, Joan Elizabeth Evans, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Rosemary Trinh Huynh appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granting the Appellee’s motion for summary judgment in her Title VII action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Huynh v. O’Neil,*No. CA-01-445-3 (E.D.Va. May 29, 2002). We deny the Appellee’s motion to dismiss or strike 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7926

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM F. BRAHAM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, District

Judge. (CR-90-168, CA-95-88)

Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William F. Braham, Appellant Pro Se. Sherry L. Muncy, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Braham, Nos. CR-90-168; CA-95-88 (N.D.W. Va. Oct. 2, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

   <ARTICLE> 5
   <LEGEND>
   Note:  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
   the Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended September 30, 1997 and is qualified in
   its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
   </LEGEND>
   <CIK>  0001029310
   <NAME>  Gulf State Credit L.P.
          
   <S>                             <C>
   <PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
   <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
   <PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
   <PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
   <CASH>                                          28,124
   <SECURITIES>                                         0
   <RECEIVABLES>                                   23,789
   <ALLOWANCES>                                       850
   <INVENTORY>                                     47,913
   <CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,328
   <PP&E>                                          81,845
   <DEPRECIATION>                                  54,545
   <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 358,234
   <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,981
   <BONDS>                                              0
   <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
   <PREFERRED>                                     11,699
   <COMMON>                                            53
   <OTHER-SE>                                           0
   <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   358,234
   <SALES>                                              0
   <TOTAL-REVENUES>                               197,663
   <CGS>                                                0
   <TOTAL-COSTS>                                  206,958
   <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
   <LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
   <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,950
   <INCOME-PRETAX>                               (30,245)
   <INCOME-TAX>                                   (9,626)
   <INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,619)
   <DISCONTINUED>                                       0
   <EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
   <CHANGES>                                            0
   <NET-INCOME>                                  (20,619)
   <EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
   <EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
           
<PAGE>

   
</TABLE>
**OFFICE.OF THE**  **ATTORNEY GENERAL**  **OF TEXAS**  **AUSTIN**Caai8alana. pure 8ulmg.)1,200.00 Uhlei bollrr lnaputor . .63,000.00 f3uretrrpflla awtodlan . 1.725.00 Auditor, prt uluy . . .~ 945.00 staa~@act . . . . . . . 1;553.00 pmp*ctox . .

. . . . . 2.700.00 lfl8pactor . . . . . . ..2JoO.OC XnsprotoT . . . . . . ..2.7oo.fJO Inmj-ec tar . . . . . . . l To tnl .& 1 * r ias f H & 3%%

~8l a t an e n o t ma4 a5eellul s al r Tr8vrl 3X9uam . . . . . .f6,6%aa watr@, 8t*Ua~y, t&J- ‘&mph, tc1e@x!e, bfmea rar 

### 3Aemctors 8tl4 ooatinrtrrnt 

## a+MU **. .**  **. .**  **. .**  **. .**  **. s** **.s00.00** Total 

## RI:nteallncs

WA4 ~lSO*l&llCoW. . . l @2.3.25.00 C6,62~.00 _. s.soo.oo %2.125.W 31p3.w. .__
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Annual Report of BreitBurn Energy Partners L.P (the
“Partnership”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Randall H. Breitenbach, Co-Chief Executive Officer of BreitBurn GP, LLC, the
general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to my 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 operations of the
Partnership.





/s/ RANDALL H.
  BREITENBACHRandall
      H. BreitenbachCo-Chief
      Executive Officer of BreitBurn GP,
LLC





Dated:
March 2, 2009
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary 

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense; National Defense University. 

      ( print page 50949)    

# ACTION:

Notice of open meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The National Defense University (NDU), Designated Federal Officer, has scheduled a meeting of the Board of Visitors. The National Defense University Board of Visitors is a Federal Advisory Board. The Board meets twice a year in proceedings that are open to the public. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on December 2, 2008 from 0900 to 1500 and December 3, 2008 from 1000 to 1300. 

# ADDRESSES:

The Board of Visitors meeting will be held at Building 62, Marshall Hall, Room 155, National Defense University, 300 5th Avenue, Fort McNair, Washington, DC 20319-5066. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Jeanette Tolbert at (202) 685-3955, Fax (202) 685-3328, or                         *e-mail: TolbertJ@ndu.edu.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

*Agenda:*                     State of the University, National Security Professional Development, Accreditation, and Federal Policy.                 

The meeting is open to the public; limited space is made available for observers and will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. 

Dated: August 22, 2008. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. E8-20033 Filed 8-28-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 21

- 00047

- CV

IN RE STEVENS TANKER DIVISION, LLC , and Richard R. Smith , Relator s
Original Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez , Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 3, 2021

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

Relators have filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion for temporary relief. We

have the power to issue writs o f mandamus when “agreeable to the principles of law regulating

those writs.” T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE § 22.221(b). For mandamus, a relator has the burden to file a

petition and record show ing “ the trial court abused its discretion and that no adequate appellate

rem edy exists .” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P. , 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig.

proceeding) (per curiam). Having reviewed the petition and documents included in the appendix,

we conclude relators have not satisfied their burden. Accordingly, we deny th e petition and motion

for temporary relief. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a). 2

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2018CI15600 , styled Cravey v. Stevens Tanker Division, LLC , pending in the 37th Judicial District Court
, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Nicole Garza presiding.

2 This court previously denied the petition and motion by an administrative order on February 12, 2021.
* 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 March 6, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50775 c/w No. 06-50801 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JAMES EARL MAGERS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:06-CR-46

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * James Earl Magers appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine and the consequent revocation of a term of supervised release. Magers does not dispute that he possessed cocaine, but he argues that the trial evidence failed to establish that his possession of the drug was knowing or intentional. In light of the evidence of contradictory and implausible explanations offered by Magers, a rational juror could have concluded that Magers knowingly or intentionally possessedNo. 06-50775 c/w No. 06-50801 -2- cocaine. United States v. Lopez , 74 F.3d 575, 577 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Jaramillo , 42 F.3d 920, 923 (5th Cir. 1995). As the evidence supports the conviction for possession of cocaine, the revocation of Magers’s term of supervised release was clearly within the discretion of the district.
AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.4



Statement of Chief Financial Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Southern California Gas Company (the "Company") certifies that:



(i)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the "Quarterly Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii)

the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







August 2, 2007



/S/  Dennis V. ArriolaDennis V. ArriolaChief Financial Officer
Order entered August 15 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 22

- 00155

- CR

MICHAEL RYAN WARNER , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the Crimi nal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F 18

- 75393

- Y

O RDER

Bef ore the Court is appellant ’ s August 12, 2022 second motion for an

extension of time to file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER

appellant ’ s brief filed by Augus t 26, 2022.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
#### In re Senate Resolution Relating to Senate Bill No. 31.

Per Curiam.

We are of the opinion that it is competent for the county court to make an allowance exceeding $2,000 to the wife of an adjudged lunatic from the latter’s estate as provided for in the bill submitted.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Donald Sargeant, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Agassiz Energy, LLC;2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) forthe registrant and have:          a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;          b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and          c) Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of Governors (or persons performing the equivalent function):          a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and          b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:April 16, 2007     /s/ Donald Sargeant     Chairman, President and Governor  (Principal Executive Officer)
#### GOLDBERG AUCTION CO. v. PURVIN.

No. 17719.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Oct. 20, 1941.

Julius Howard Wiener, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Benjamin Y. Wolf, of New Orleans, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellee moves to dismiss this appeal upon the ground that the motion of appeal was not taken in time. It appears that the judgment below was signed on the 27th day of August, 1941, and the motion for a suspensive and devolutive appeal was not filed until September 9, 1941.

Act No. 219 of 1932 declares that an appeal from the City Courts of New Orleans “shall be allowed within ten days, exclusive of Sundays, from the signing of the judgment, * *

Exclusive of the day on which the judgment was signed, thirteen calendar days ■elapsed before .the motion for appeal was filed. Two Sundays intervened which are not counted, so that the last day on which the appeal might properly have been taken was the twelfth calendar day or September 8, 1941. Christmon v. Hawkins, La.App., 171 So. 621; Baptiste v. Life Insurance Company of Virginia, La.App., 196 So. 575. The fact that a legal holiday, Labor Day, also intervened is of no consequence. Kelly, Weber & Co., Inc. v. F. D. Harvey & Co., Inc., et al., 178 La. 266, 151 So. 201; Madison Lumber Co. v. Alson, 12 La.App. 428, 126 So. 242; Wm. H. Hendren v. Crescent City Seltzer & Mineral Water Co., Inc., 1 La.App. 25; Leopold v. Schmidt, Jr., No. 9256 of the docket of this Court. See Louisiana and Southern District Digest.

The motion to dismiss the appeal will be sustained and the appeal dismissed. Motion to dismiss sustained.