alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-05-0367-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

APRIL 10, 2006

______________________________

MARK STEVEN GREEN, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

NO. A 13859-0010; HONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Mark Steven Green was convicted of

unauthorized absence from a community corrections facility and sentenced to one year

confinement, suspended in favor of two years community supervision, and a $1,000 fine.

On July 21, 2005, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s community supervision,
1Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

2

and appellant pled true to the violations alleged. Following a hearing on the State’s motion,

the trial court revoked appellant’s community supervision and assessed the original term

of confinement. In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders1

 brief in support of

a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm.

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has diligently reviewed the

record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can

be predicated. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967);

Monroe v. State, 671 S.W.2d 583, 585 (Tex.App.–San Antonio 1984, no pet.). Thus, he

concludes the appeal is frivolous. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813

(Tex.Cr.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities,

there is no error in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has also shown that he sent a copy

of the brief to appellant and informed appellant that, in counsel's view, the appeal is without

merit. In addition, counsel has demonstrated that he notified appellant of his right to review

the record and file a pro se response if he desired to do so. Appellant did not file a

response. Neither did the State favor us with a brief.

We have made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether

there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824
3

(Tex.Cr.App. 2005). We have found no such grounds and agree with counsel that the

appeal is frivolous.

Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s

judgment is affirmed.

Don H. Reavis

 Justice

Do not publish.
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 Homeland Security

###### U.S. Customs and Border Protection

# AGENCY:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice of accreditation and approval of SGS North America, Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, SGS North America, Inc., 99 Castle Coakley, Christiansted, St. Croix, VI 00820, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                         *cbp.labhq@dhs.gov.*                         Please reference the website listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories.                         *http://cbp.gov/​xp/​cgov/​import/​operations_​support/​labs_​scientific_​svcs/​commercial_​gaugers/​*.                    

# DATES:

The accreditation and approval of SGS North America, Inc., as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on July 19, 2007. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for July 2010.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Commercial Gauger Laboratory Program Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060.

      ( print page 8050)    
Dated: January 31, 2008.

Ira S. Reese,

Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.

[FR Doc. E8-2430 Filed 2-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-15-01053-CR

Style: Jonathan Sanchez

v. The State of Texas

Date motion filed: May 26, 2016

Type of motion: Motion to Extend Time for Filing Appellant’s Brief

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Appellant’s Brief

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: March 14, 2016

Number of previous extensions granted: 1 Current Due date: May 9, 2016

Date Requested: June 26, 2016

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: June 27, 2016

 The Court will not grant additional motions to extend time.

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

Appellant’s brief initially was due on March 14, 2016. After the Clerk of this Court notified him that the time 

to file a brief had expired, appellant filed a motion for an extension of time. The Court granted the motion and

extended the time to file appellant’s brief to May 9, 2016. On May 17, 2016, the Clerk of this Court notified 

appellant that he had not filed his brief or a motion for extension of time and the time to file the brief had expired.

Appellant responded by filing a second motion for extension of time, requesting an extension to June 26, 2016. 

The motion is granted. Appellant’s brief is due to be filed no later than JUNE 27, 2016.

No further extensions will be granted.

Judge's signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 

Date: June 2, 2016
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

January 3, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

135566 (14) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

MARK EARL WHITE, #228524, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 135566 

 CoA: 281030 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

___________________________________ 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $13.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court. 

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$362.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

 Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this 

Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order. 

jm 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 3, 2008 

Clerk
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 24Holdings Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Urban von Euler,
President and 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/ Urban von Euler
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Urban von Euler
                                             President and
                                             Chief Executive Officer

Dated:  May 23, 2005
#### Lawrence COSINEAU v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02652-LTB-BNB

OKLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., a Utah corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance company,

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut insurance

company,

ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance company,

ST. PAUL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance company,

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut insurance

company, 

EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Jersey insurance company,

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, a New

Jersey insurance company,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

Minute Order Entered by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The parties’ Stipulation and Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order [Doc.

# 77, filed 9/17/2012] is GRANTED; and

(2) The case schedule is modified to the following extent:

The parties shall designate all experts and provide

opposing counsel with all information specified in

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on or before October 28,

2012; and

Case 1:11-cv-02652-LTB-BNB Document 79 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
The parties shall designate all rebuttal experts and

provide opposing counsel with all information

specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on or before

December 12, 2012.

DATED: September 19, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02652-LTB-BNB Document 79 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 99(c)


                          Certificate as to Compliance
                          ----------------------------


         I, Steven H. Smith, Servicing Officer of Household Finance Corporation
(the "Master Servicer"), DO HEREBY CERTIFY, in accordance with Section 3.10 of
the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 7, 2001 among HFC
Revolving Corporation, as Depositor, the Master Servicer and Bank One, National
Association, as Trustee, that:

         1.   A review of the activities of the Master Servicer from January 1
         through December 31, 2002 (the "Year") and of its performance under the
         Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

         2.   To the best of my knowledge, based on my review, the Master
         Servicer has fulfilled all of its material obligations under the
         Pooling and Servicing Agreement throughout the Year.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this certificate this 31st day of March, 2003.



                                       /s/ STEVEN H. SMITH
                                       -------------------
                                       Steven H. Smith
                                       Servicing Officer
#### Vandersaal, Appellant, *v.*Hochberg.

*Equity*— Trusts *and trustees*— Findings *of fact*— Evidence—Ap*peals.*

A hill filed by a grantee of land by a conveyance in fee simple to recover from the heirs of the grantor losses alleged to have been sustained while acting as trustee of the legal title for the grantor’s benefit is properly dismissed where there is a finding of fact, sustained by the evidence, that no trust, express or implied, was established.

Argued Oct. 19, 1914.

Appeal, No. 200, Oct. T., 1914, by Samuel W. Vandersaal, from decree of C. P. Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1913, No. 925, in equity, dismissing bill in case of Samuel W. Vandersaal v. Lewis G. Hochberg and William H. Hochberg as Trustees, William H. Hochberg and Lewis G. Hochberg in their personal right, John J. Hochberg, Charles F. Hochberg, Walter Hochberg, Albert G. Hochberg, Mathilda Kaufman, wife of Harry C. Kaufman, Caroline Hochberg, the Commonwealth Trust Company, a corporation, and Margaret A. Stuart.

Before Fell, C. J., Mestrezat, Elkin, Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.

Affirmed.

Bill in equity to enforce an express trust. Before Miller, J., specially presiding.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.

The court on final hearing dismissed the bill. Plaintiff appealed.

*Error assigned,*among others, was in dismissing the bill.

*Arthur O. Fording,*for appellant.

*454
      *J: M. Clark,*with, him *W. E. Pratt*and *C half ant & Over,*for appellees.

January 2, 1915:

Per Curiam,

This bill was filed by a grantee of land by a conveyance in.fee simple to recover from the heirs of the grant- or losses alleged to have been sustained while acting as a mere trustee to hold the title and mortgage and convey the land for the benefit of the grantor. The findings of fact are that no trust, express or implied, was established. ■ These findings were supported by the evidence and they fully sustained the decree dismissing the bill .which is now affirmed at the cost of the appellant.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 11-mj-01164-BNB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. RICHARD CARL HEERINGA,

Defendant.

ORDER

THIS MATTER coming before the Court upon motion of the Government to dismiss the

Criminal Complaint, vacate the Arrest Warrant, and unseal the above-entitled case, and the Court

having considered the same,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Criminal Complaint in the above-captioned case is

dismissed, the Arrest Warrant is vacated, and the case – including the Government’s Motion to

Seal, the Order to Seal, the Criminal Complaint, the Arrest Warrant, and any other order issued

with regard to the Government’s Complaint or Motion to Seal – is unsealed.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 1st day of November, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

s/Craig B. Shaffer 

Craig B. Shaffer

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-mj-01164-BNB Document 6 Filed 11/01/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1704

AN ACT

To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 1704 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘First Higher Edu3 cation Extension Act of 2007’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS. 

5 Section 2(a) of the Higher Education Extension Act 

6 of 2005 (Public Law 109–81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 note) is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘June 30, 2007’’ and inserting ‘‘July 

8 31, 2007’’. 

9 SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

10 Nothing in this Act, or in the Higher Education Ex11 tension Act of 2005 as amended by this Act, shall be con12 strued to limit or otherwise alter the authorizations of ap13 propriations for, or the durations of, programs contained 

14 in the amendments made by the Higher Education Rec15 onciliation Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–171) to the pro16 visions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Tax17 payer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004. 

Passed the Senate June 27, 2007. 

Attest:

Secretary. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1704

AN ACT

To temporarily extend the programs under the 

purposes.Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1630 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude certain tax-exempt 

financing of electric transmission facilities from the private business 

use test. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 14, 2007 

Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. CRAIG) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 

certain tax-exempt financing of electric transmission facilities from the private business use test. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING OF CERTAIN ELEC4 TRIC TRANSMISSION FACILITIES NOT SUB5 JECT TO PRIVATE BUSINESS USE TEST. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 141(b)(6) of the Internal 

7 Revenue Code of 1986 (defining private business use) is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following new subpara9 graph: 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 1630 IS

1 ‘‘(C) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN ELECTRIC

2 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES.—For purposes of 

3 the 1st sentence of subparagraph (A), the oper4 ation or use of an electric transmission facility 

5 by any person which is not a governmental unit 

6 shall not be considered a private business use 

7 if— 

8 ‘‘(i) the facility is placed in service on 

9 or after the date of the enactment of this 

10 subparagraph and is owned by— 

11 ‘‘(I) a State or political subdivi12 sion of a State, or any agency, au13 thority, or instrumentality of any of 

14 the foregoing providing electric serv15 ice, directly or indirectly to the public, 

16 or 

17 ‘‘(II) a State or political subdivi18 sion of a State expressly authorized 

19 under applicable State law effective on 

20 or after January 1, 2004, to finance 

21 and own electric transmission facili22 ties, and 

23 ‘‘(ii) bonds for such facility are issued 

24 before the date which is 5 years after the 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•S 1630 IS

1 date of the enactment of this subpara2 graph.’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 this section shall apply to bonds issued after the date of 

5 the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
### 2-lZ-Ol -WlRTOPCRlMlWAijiffiS

TNt T*/JEMATTjfA r

TjEXAS

/wr/d/v**xttwrM&¥A^£dms/

APPd&wf /&/&t^fJz>7)£e^da^As federal} /nab^ P&P afPeytc r/v/tr Ttf/s SfflrtteanSfduz T/tdtekSfM oATToDJcnrefiU^VfAT'ft/rtt As Jdkffl eomtfMm as &jdA 

## 7f/£fa,t ff/idJuMn JDSfotd&xdmiAe/b£ 7h/S£&QU£St af£ as fo/louj - AfPlfcanFi5 /rid//)&2nlana'j/iisa/i^ra'&dfand'does /)&f Mt/e a&ess 7dAM>TV IDPfir* appi/a//)t /s /)orJfems&?ferd £>y<bon<stJ and uAlllkseM e^MnU&k £ndf As a?P&tifor J?£tfh a/£&JCytmhon af#zso/)&bU £//nz Jz> P/tfa/e> 

### £uch brftfA/oju IdfcrfhGA 9d/^/<T ASfdteJM 1?/kde/^f laws„ Be&fojc ThuJenTwdL U/olahs 7fits datrf dio/i jptind&fcfjJi&& Sizfot&Y& 

### rnandcJti and UiA//Tld' J£&S fcd&d&d &/i/tot> dfP>//&i/)J Wo &*?dat¥'%£&*(" TD iffflowdDurtaftiojcs andfJod^e mfc¥M A) fMitdTdT/fr-sa/jzt A/td Dt/f£>o//i6> msF/fa/ic^ oa ^ VoW* Judbem&it rfctUifssoo&t De^mm Md 

### this dOunJ- UohU as /YidP/acHc&j mahcu PrpMasf/d/) Pasoajif ftrr/f ss~- ^ed/m /P33 &A Jf/fcorittd'sfctLdjomiii^in ro uP/b/d^hu ^uer//)^ 

### idJfeJZ&fieej dfy&&?ucdMfdtzrd 7/JtAfiAd^^Sesfiatd-f^/fMettus/. 

### fMJftadow/GiljL teurt &rwd'and'6k msJea^^Mt^etSV&lkAMfa /az BcU/koA j/r/ft/Jtiajrt. Jad&n unit #&-£*-
#### DUBLER v. LANGNICKEL.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
Exhibit 32.02

                            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 Sbarro, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 17, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Anthony J. Puglisi,
Vice President-Chief  Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, to the best of
my knowledge, 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
                  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.

Date: August 30, 2005

/s/ Anthony J. Puglisi
----------------------
Anthony J. Puglisi
Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting Officer)

NOTE: A signed original of this  certification  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.
Case 1:11-cr-00402-DW Document 6 Filed 08/18/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2

                  Certification of Principal Financial Officer
           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Glen R. Charles, Chief Financial Officer of CVD Equipment Corporation, 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, the quarterly report on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 of CVD Equipment Corporation (the
"Form 10-Q") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of
the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and the  information  contained in the Form
10-Q fairly  presents,  in all material  respects,  the financial  condition and
results of operations of CVD Equipment Corporation.


Dated: May 15, 2008      /s/   Glen R. Charles
                         ----------------------------
                               Glen R. Charles
                               Chief Financial Officer
                               (Principal Financial Officer)


















                                       21