alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-83,813-01

EX PARTE DERICK MANUEL PALMER, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 14-10-11912-CR (1) IN THE 9th DISTRICT COURT

FROM MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of a

controlled substance with intent to deliver and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. He did not

appeal his conviction. 

Applicant contends that his plea was involuntary because, due to a misrepresentation

contained in the arresting officers’s report, all the parties operated under an incorrect belief as to the

facts surrounding this offense. 
2

Based on the facts of this case, the trial court, in agreement with the State, has determined

that Applicant’s plea was involuntary. Applicant is entitled to relief. Ex parte Huerta, 692 S.W.2d

681 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985).

Relief is granted. The judgment in Cause No. 14-10-11912-CR in the 9th District Court of

Montgomery County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of

Montgomery County to answer the charges as set out in the indictment. The trial court shall issue

any necessary bench warrant within 10 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Copies ofthis opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: October 28, 2015

Do not publish
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

Vickie Rummage, Employee, Petitioner, 

v. 

BGF Industries, Employer, and Great American Alliance 

Insurance Co., Carrier, Respondents. 

Appellate Case No. 2022-000003 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 

Appeal from The Workers' Compensation Commission 

Opinion No. 28166 

Heard June 6, 2023 – Filed July 26, 2023 

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY 

GRANTED 

Andrew Nathan Safran, of Columbia, for Petitioner. 

David Alan Wilson, of Wilson & Englebardt, LLC, of 

Greenville, for Respondents. 

PER CURIAM: This Court granted Vickie Rummage's petition for a writ of 

certiorari to review the decision of the court of appeals in Rummage v. BGF 
Industries, 434 S.C. 441, 865 S.E.2d 380 (Ct. App. 2021) . We now dismiss the writ 

on the basis it was improvidently granted. 

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED. 

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, FEW, JAMES and HILL, JJ., concur.
#### MOSS v. JOHNSON.

No. 5720.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 1, 1938.

Cleveland Dear, of Alexandria, for appellant.

Moss & Cantwell, of Winnfidd, for ap-pellee.

DREW, Judge.

This is an action on a promissory note. There was exception to the sufficiency of the petition in that it did not set out the name and surname of plaintiff. Defendant also filed an exception of vagueness because plaintiff did not allege when he came into possession of the note sued on. These exceptions were overruled by the lower court, the minutes showing the following:

“Exceptions are overruled as the information requested was orally furnished by plaintiff. Plaintiff informs the court that he purchased the note in question between the 4th and 6th day of January, 1937.”

Reserving his rights under the exceptions, defendant answered, and the case was tried on its merits, resulting in judgment for plaintiff as prayed for. Defendant prosecutes this appeal and strenuously urges here the exception to the insufficiency of plaintiff’s petition.

The petition gives the initials “A. A.” of plaintiff’s name, but nowhere does it give his Christian name. The exception was filed in limine litis and should have been sustained with the right of plaintiff to amend his petition. The lower court, however, overruled the exceptions and was in error in so doing. Code of Practice, article 172, in plain language states what a petition must contain, and one of the essentials is that the name, surname and place of residence of plaintiff must be given. A case directly in point is Thompson v. Michelli, 19 La.App. 778, 141 So. 466. In that case the court said:

“The petition gives the initial letters V. L. and states the surname, but that is not a compliance with the law. This identical question was before the Supreme Court nearly a hundred years ago. In the case Lee & Hardy v. Rice et al., 12 La. 254, the court said: ‘The Code Practice, article 172, No. 1, requires, that the petition contain the name and surname of the plaintiff. In that under consideration, the plaintiff, *376Hardy’s surname is only given. We have only the initials P. A., instead of his other or Christian name. These letters may signify Peter Anthony, Paul Andrew, or any other names having the same initials. This is not a sufficient compliance with the law; and the District Court, in our opinion, erred in disregarding the defendant’s exception in this respect.’ ”

For these reasons, the judgment appealed from is annulled, avoided, and set aside, the exception mentioned is sustained, and the case is remanded to the lower court, with leave to the plaintiff to amend his petition so as to state his Christian name as required by the Code of Practice. Upon compliance with the law in the matter mentioned, the case may be then proceeded with in the lower court in due course and in the manner and form provided by law. The plaintiff appellee to pay the cost of appeal; the cost in the lower court to abide the final result of the suit.
**Exhibit 35.1**

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATEANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE** 

            I, H. John Berens, an authorized officer of Washington Mutual Bank (the “Servicer”), do hereby certify to WaMu AssetAcceptance Corp. (the “Depositor”), pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2006 (the “Servicing Agreement”) by and between the Depositor, the Servicer, LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee,and Christiana Bank & Trust, as Delaware Trustee the following with respect to Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WMALT Series 2006-4 for the 2006 fiscal year  (the “Relevant Year”):

1.                  A review of the activities of the Servicer during the Relevant Year and of performance under the Servicing Agreement has beenmade under my supervision.

2.                  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the ServicingAgreement in all material respects throughout the Relevant Year, except as set forth in paragraph 3 below.

3.         Washington Mutual Bank improperly approved for repurchase by Washington MutualMortgage Securities Corp. nine loans from WMALT Series 2006-4 in December 2006.  Each loan was believed to be in breach of the representation that no loan is delinquent as of the applicable cut-off date of the securitization.  It was determined that theloans were not delinquent as of the applicable cut-off date. 

Dated as of March 15, 2007.
|          */s/ H. John Berens   *_________________________________________Name:  H. John BerensTitle:    Senior Vice President |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
No. 72-1162.

#### Federal Power Commission *v.*New England Power Co. et al.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted and case set for oral argument, with No. 72-948 immediately *supra.*
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Penn-Pacific  Corp., on Form
10-QSB for the period  ending  March 31, 2003 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "REPORT"),  the  undersigned,  Rose
Fischer,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Principal  Accounting  Officer  of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my  knowledge  and
belief:

         1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or
15 (d) of the Securities 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.


Date: May 10, 2005


/s/ Rose Fischer
Rose Fischer
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
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.
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                --------------



                                CERTIFICATIONS

I, Steve Bailey, certify that:


          1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on
               Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered
               by this report on Form 10-K of Alternative Loan Trust 2006-OA7
               (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

          2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken
               as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material
               fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
               statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
               statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
               covered by this report;

          3.   Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and
               other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for
               the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange
               Act periodic reports;

          4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
               servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance
               review(s) conducted in preparing the servicer compliance
               statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of
               Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
               periodic reports, the servicer(s) have fulfilled their
               obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material
               respects; and

          5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
               criteria for asset-backed securities and their related
               attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
               criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in
               this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
               Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an
               exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this
               report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in
               such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

          In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
          information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
          The Bank of New York, as Trustee.

          Date: March 27, 2007


               /s/ Steve Bailey
               ----------------
               Steve Bailey
               Senior Managing Director, Loan Administration
EXHIBIT
32.1




THE
PENN TRAFFIC COMPANY




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 of The Penn Traffic Company (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ending August 1, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gregory
J. Young, President & 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.





/s/  Gregory J.
    YoungGregory
      J. Young


President
and Chief Executive Officer


September
15, 2009
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of ICO Global Communications (Holdings) Limited (the “Company”)on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),J. Timothy Bryan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company (principal executiveofficer), and Dennis Schmitt, Senior Vice President, Finance (principalfinancial and accounting officer), each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,to the best of their knowledge:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

| /s/ J. TIMOTHY BRYAN                                     |     | /s/ DENNIS SCHMITT                                                             |
|----------------------------------------------------------|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| J. Timothy Bryan                                         |     | Dennis Schmitt                                                                 |
| *Chief Executive Officer (principal executive  officer)* | * * | *Senior Vice President, Finance (principal  financial and accounting officer)* |
| April 2, 2007                                       | * * | April 2, 2007                                                             |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), has been provided to ICO GlobalCommunications (Holdings) Limited and will be retained by ICO GlobalCommunications (Holdings) Limited and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies the Form 10-Kto which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of ICOGlobal Communications (Holdings) Limited under the Securities Act of 1933, asamended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether madebefore or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of anygeneral incorporation language contained in such filing.

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-8567

RONALD A. WILSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RICHARD A. LANHAM, Commissioner of Correction,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-95-

2083-AMD)

Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 16, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald A. Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney

General, Baltimore, Maryland, 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

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. 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. Wilson v. Lanham, No. CA-95-2083-AMD (D. Md. Nov. 27, 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
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6661 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6661

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 1663 East Date Place in San Bernardino, California, as the ``Dr. 
                Margaret B. Hill Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 9, 2022

 Mr. Aguilar introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 1663 East Date Place in San Bernardino, California, as the ``Dr. 
                Margaret B. Hill Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DR. MARGARET B. HILL POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1663 East Date Place in San Bernardino, California, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Dr. Margaret B. Hill Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Dr. 
Margaret B. Hill Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6684 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide the work opportunity 

tax credit with respect to hiring veterans who are receiving educational 

assistance under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

or Defense. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2022 

Mrs. LEE of Nevada (for herself and Mrs. STEEL) 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 provide 

the work opportunity tax credit with respect to hiring 

veterans who are receiving educational assistance under 

laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

or Defense. 

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 ‘‘Hire Student Veterans 

5 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6684 IH

1 SEC. 2. WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT FOR HIRING VET2 ERANS RECEIVING EDUCATIONAL ASSIST3 ANCE UNDER LAWS ADMINISTERED BY THE 

4 SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OR DE5 FENSE. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 51(d)(3)(A) of the Inter7 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ 

8 at the end of clause (iii), by striking the period at the 

9 end of clause (iv) and inserting ‘‘, or’’, and by adding at 

10 the end the following new clause: 

11 ‘‘(v) attending an educational institu12 tion by means of educational assistance 

13 provided under chapter 30, 31, 32, 33, or 

14 34 of title 38, United States Code, or 

15 chapter 1606 or 1607 of title 10, United 

16 States Code.’’. 

17 (b) MODIFICATION OF MINIMUM EMPLOYMENT PE18 RIOD.—Section 51(i)(3)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code 

19 of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘‘(other than a qualified 

20 veteran described in subsection (d)(3)(A)(v))’’ after ‘‘In 

21 the case of an individual’’. 

22 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

23 this section shall apply to individuals who begin work for 

24 the employer after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos HERNANDEZ-CORONA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-51366.

Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Carlos Hernandez-Corona appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Hernandez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Hernandez maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the maximum term of imprisonment and supervised release which may be imposed for that offense.

In *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. *Id.*at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219. Hernandez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres,*but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review.

*414
      *Apprendi*did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,*530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; *United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). This court must follow *Almendarez-Torres*“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” *Dabeit,*231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

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.