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

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-87,455-01

EX PARTE JEFFERY RYYAN HENIGAN, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 20130D04552-346-1 IN THE 346TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM EL PASO COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

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 intoxicated

manslaughter and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction.

Applicant contends that his plea was involuntary because trial counsel failed to present

evidence of Applicant’s military history and post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis and failed to

advocate on Applicant’s behalf for participation in the Veteran Treatment Court Program. 

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In these
2

circumstances, additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294

(Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court

shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and

involuntary plea. The trial court may use any means set out in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07,

§ 3(d).

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law in regard to Applicant’s

claim that his plea was involuntary. The trial court shall make findings as to whether the

performance of Applicant’s attorney was deficient and, if so, whether counsel’s deficient

performance prejudiced Applicant. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and

conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for

habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must

be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: October 18, 2017

Do not publish
II

Calendar No. 335

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1749

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 10, 2001

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

MARCH 21, 2002

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 685 Turnberry Road in Newport News, Virginia, as the ‘‘Herbert H. Bateman Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo5 cated at 685 Turnberry Road in Newport News, Virginia,

6 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Herbert H. Bate7 man Post Office Building’’.
2

•HR 1749 RS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

4 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

5 to the ‘‘Herbert H. Bateman Post Office Building’’.

Calendar No. 335

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1749

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 685 Turnberry Road in

Newport News, Virginia, as the ‘‘Herbert H.Bateman Post Office Building’’.

MARCH 21, 2002

Reported without amendment
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1706 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1706

 To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 to authorize the 
 Secretary of the Army to reimburse non-Federal interests for managing 
     recreation facilities and natural resources at water resource 
             development projects, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 2001

 Mr. Bereuter introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 to authorize the 
 Secretary of the Army to reimburse non-Federal interests for managing 
     recreation facilities and natural resources at water resource 
             development projects, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. NON-FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENT.

    Section 225 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 
U.S.C. 2328; 106 Stat. 4838) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
    ``(d) Non-Federal Reimbursement.--The Secretary may pay from 
Federal appropriations for the non-Federal share of work carried out 
under this section by a non-Federal interest if the Secretary has 
entered into an executed agreement with the non-Federal interest that 
provides for reimbursement of such payment. The Secretary may pay from 
Federal appropriations for expenditures for work undertaken by a non-
Federal interest in accordance with this section with subsequent 
reimbursement by the non-Federal interest in accordance with an 
agreement executed under this section.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William J. Carey

v. Civil No. 05-cv-010-SM

Kristi L. Eglody

O R D E R

 Ms. Eglody’s counsel has moved for a court supervised

deposition of plaintiff and for an order of transport. At the

pretrial conference in Carey v. Manchester Police Department,

05-cv-293-JD, Attorney Meagher requested to be permitted to be

present and question Mr. Carey on matters relevant to that case. 

Mr. Curran, who is defense counsel in Carey v. Hillsborough

County Department of Corrections, 05-cv-274-PB, may also wish to

participate if he feels there are overlapping issues and/or

facts. 

Carey objects claiming that such a deposition (1) would

violate his Fifth Amendment rights and (2) that allowing counsel

to depose him when he cannot afford to depose his opponents

denies him equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment or the federal rules denies a

party the right to take a deposition because the other parties’

Case 1:05-cv-00010-SM Document 71 Filed 03/24/06 Page 1 of 2
2

poverty prevents that party from deposing someone. Furthermore,

the Fifth Amendment rights of Carey do not preclude the

deposition nor require its postponement. 

Carey brought these suits. Defendants are entitled to

depose him. Carey has the right to invoke the Fifth as to each

question which could incriminate him. If he chooses to do so I

will rule on each such invocation whether the matter could

incriminate him. Defendants, of course, are entitled at trial to

a jury instruction with respect to the adverse inference to be

drawn from Carey’s invocation of the Fifth. 

The motion (document no. 59) is granted. Counsel are to

agree to a date(s) among themselves, make arrangements with my

scheduling clerks and an order for transport will issue. The

deposition will be taken in Courtroom A. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: March 24, 2006

cc: William J. Carey, pro se

 Corey M. Belobrow, Esq.

 Robert J. Meagher, Esq.

 John A. Curran, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00010-SM Document 71 Filed 03/24/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Gregorio Guardarramos-Cepeda

v. Civil No. 05-cv-062-PB

Warden, New Hampshire State Prison

NOTICE OF RULING

Re: Document No. 8, Motion To Reconsider

Ruling: Accepting at face value that petitioner did not

receive the order of May 13, the Clerk is to forward another copy

immediately. The June 17th report and recommendation is

withdrawn and the May 13th order is to be complied with by August

11, 2005.

Entered by: James R. Muirhead, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Date: July 11, 2005

cc: Gregorio Guardarramos-Cepeda

 

 

 

Case 1:05-cv-00062-PB Document 9 Filed 07/11/05 Page 1 of 1
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




September 2002


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: June 30, 2008
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*188*La. 632

#### A. M. EDWARDS CO., Inc., v. HANO.

No. 34622.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 29, 1937.

Jesse H. Inman, of Ponchatoula, for appellant.

Reid & Reid, of Hammond, for appel-lee.

FOURNET, Justice.

The plaintiff and appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal in this case on the ground that this court is without jurisdiction ratione materias in that the amount in controversy is less than $2,000, and therefore the proper appellate court is the Court of Appeal, First Circuit.

The record shows that the appellee instituted foreclosure proceedings on a mortgage granted and executed by the appellant to secure the payment of a note dated August 21, 1934, for the sum of $1,183.76, bearing 8 per cent, per annum interest from date, and containing the usual clause providing for the payment of 10 per cent, additional as attorney’s fees in the event the note be placed in the hands of an attorney for collection. The act of mortgage contains, the pact de non alienando and also a clause whereby the right of the mortgagor to claim the homestead exemption was waived by him and his wife. While the property was being advertised for sale, appellant, averring that his signature on the act of mortgage was forged, ruled the appellee into court seeking to have the mortgage annulled and the sale of the property enjoined. The district court dismissed the rule and rejected the application for a preliminary injunction, and from that judgment the plaintiff in rule has appealed.

The appellant contends that the motion to dismiss is without merit because the property affected by the mortgage constitutes his homestead and, consequently, this court is vested with appellate jurisdiction.

It is the well-settled jurisprudence of this court that, “if the head of a family, entitled to the homestead exemption, does not claim the exemption when the homestead is seized and before it is sold, the exemption is forever lost.” Andrews et al. v. McCreary Lumber Co., 155 La. 730, 99 So. 579, 581, 33 A.L.R. 608.

In the case at bar the mortgage debtor is seeking to enjoin the sale of his property by foreclosure • proceedings on the ground that his' signature to the act of mortgage is a forgery. His homestead exemption rights are not at issue. The sole issue in the case is the forgery vel non of his signature to the act of mortgage. There being no showing either by allegation or proof that the value of the real estate involved exceeds $2,000, this court is without jurisdiction to determine that issue. Constitution of 1921, art. 7, § 10. Appellate jurisdiction in such cases is vested in the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, under the provisions of sections 29 and 20 of article 7 of the Constitution of '1921.

For the reasons assigned, it is ordered that this appeal be and is hereby transferred to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, in accordance with Act No. 19 of 1912; the transfer to be made within sixty days after this judgment becomes *692final, and, if not so made, then the appeal shall be deemed dismissed; defendant and appellant to pay the costs of appeal in this court, and the remaining costs to await final determination of the matter.

HIGGINS, J., absent.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

ELIZABETH DALY, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Civil Action No. 06-127-JD 

 ) 

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY ) 

OF AMERICA, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

NOW COME the Plaintiff Elizabeth Daly, and the Defendant Unum Life 

Insurance Company of America, in the above-entitled matter and hereby stipulate and 

agree, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), that the above-entitled action, including all 

counts of the Complaint, and all claims, counterclaims and third-party claims which 

actually were asserted or which could have been asserted, shall be dismissed with 

prejudice, without costs or fees to any party, and waiving all rights of appeal. 

/s/ Thomas C. Tretter 

Thomas C. Tretter 

PHILLIP A. PARRY PC 

4 Merrimac Square 

Merrimac, MA 01860 

(978) 346-0005 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Elizabeth Daly

Dated: August 24, 2006 

/s/ Byrne J. Decker 

/s/ Mark E. Porada 

Byrne J. Decker 

Mark E. Porada 

PIERCE ATWOOD LLP 

One Monument Square 

Portland, ME 04101 

(207) 791-1100 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Unum Life Insurance Company of America

Dated: August 24, 2006 

{W0551153.1}

Case 1:06-cv-00127-JD Document 10 Filed 08/24/06 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7188

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TYLER SCHER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:18-cr-00725-RMG-1; 2:20-cv01589-RMG)

Submitted: December 21, 2020 Decided: January 25, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best, ELIZABETH FRANKLIN-BEST, P.C., Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tyler Scher seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 

759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that 

the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Scher has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kristyn Graham

v. Case No. 07-cv-295-PB

NH State Prison, et al.

O R D E R

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated February 4, 2008.

SO ORDERED.

February 14, 2008 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Kristyn Graham, Pro Se

James W. Kennedy, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00295-PB Document 34 Filed 02/14/08 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          23,600
<SECURITIES>                                    39,400
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               107,800
<PP&E>                                         168,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  37,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 488,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,300
<BONDS>                                         72,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                     204,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   488,500
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,300
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (3,600)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,700
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (800)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .57
        

</TABLE>
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 21, 2016

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15- 2492

Lower Tribunal No. 72-8754

________________



### Ricardo Miller,

Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria Elena Verde, Judge.

Ricardo Miller, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General

, and Linda S. Katz, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Before SHEPHERD, LAGOA and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.This cause is before us on Ricardo Miller’s Motion for Rehearing. We deny

the motion for rehearing, but withdraw our May 4, 2016 opinion and substitute this

opinion in its place.

Miller appeals the trial court’s September 16, 2015 order denying his

3.850(b)(2) motion for post-conviction relief, arguing he is entitled to resentencing

in conformance with chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida, which has been codified

in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes. We reverse and

remand.

Miller was found guilty of first-degree murder following a jury trial and in

1973 was sentenced to life in prison without parole. Miller claims he should be

resentenced because he was a juvenile at the time he committed the crime. Based

on our recent decision in Neely v. State

, No. 3D14-1052 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30,

2016), Miller is entitled to judicial review of his sentence.

We therefore reverse Miller’s first-degree murder sentence and remand to

the trial court for the appropriate resentencing under section 775.082(1)(b)(1),

Florida Statutes (2016), section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2014), and section

921.1402, Florida Statutes (2015).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

2
#### Jose Maria ARANDA, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theresa ROCHA, Acting Director, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 02-56059.

D.C. No. CV-00-00357-JNK.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 20, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Jose Maria Aranda appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his guilty plea conviction for multiple counts of robbery and attempted robbery. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, we review de novo, *Wildman v. Johnson,*261 F.3d 832, 836 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

Aranda contends that he was improperly induced to plead guilty because the trial *768judge coerced him and failed to inform him of relevant law. Considering the totality of circumstances, including the substantially reduced sentence offered in exchange for the guilty plea, and Aranda’s statements in open court indicating his understanding of the consequences of his plea, we conclude that the plea was knowing and voluntary. *See Brady v. United States,*397 U.S. 742, 749, 751, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970).

Aranda also contends that his trial counsel coerced him and failed to inform him of relevant law, and was therefore ineffective. The record shows that the alleged coercion Aranda complains of was merely advice. *Cf. Iaea v. Sunn,*800 F.2d 861, 867 (9th Cir.1986). We have considered Aranda’s remaining claims of deficient performance and conclude they are without merit. Moreover, Aranda fails to show prejudice, because he has not shown that, but for his counsel’s conduct, he would have opted for a trial and risked a sentence three to four times greater than the one he received. *See Hill v. Lockhart,*474 U.S. 52, 58-59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

V .

Judith Putzel and

Stephen M . Price

Civil No . 06-cv-203-PB

O R D E R

I recuse myself from this case as Wilbur Glahn is on m y

recusal list .

SO ORDERED .

~ Paul Barbador o

United States District Judge

F-, I ~i~ ° r7

cc : Wilbur Glahn, Esq .

Wendy J . Kisch, Esq .

Judith Putzel, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00203-DBH Document 12 Filed 08/28/07 Page 1 of 1
29

B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures

Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total

1984...... 3 7 10 12 32

1985...... 12 21 17 18 68

1986...... 14 14 21 16 65

1987...... 22 19 12 16 69

1988...... 11 6 12 7 36

1989...... 5 7 5 5 22

1990...... 3 5 6 3 17

1991...... 2 2 3 1 8

1992...... 1 1 1 4 7

1993...... 1 2 2 0 5

1994...... 0 0 0 0 0

1995...... 0 0 0 0 0

1996...... 0 2 0 0 2

1997...... 0 0 0 1 1

1998...... 0 0 1 0 1

1999...... 0 1 0 0 1

2000...... 0 0 0 0 0

2001...... 0 0 0 0 0

2002...... 1 0 0 1 2

2003...... 0 1 0 0 1

2004...... 0 1 0 0 1

2005...... 0 0 n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure. Industrial banks and

mutual savings banks also are excluded. Agricultural banks are defined in

the introduction to section B.

 n.a. Not available.