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

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-92,522-01

EX PARTE OKEZIE ULEANYA, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1191515-A IN THE 337 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant pleaded guiltyto arson and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. Applicant

filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk

forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant contends that plea was involuntary because trial counsel failed to inform him of

the immigration consequences of his plea. Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him

to relief. Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010); Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985); Ex parte

Argent, 393 S.W.3d 781 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Accordingly, the record should be developed. The

trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). 

The trial court shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim. In developing the record,
2

the trial court may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). If the trial court elects to hold a

hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. It appears Applicant is represented by

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

counsel to represent him at the hearing. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whethertrial counsel’s

performance was deficient and Applicant would have insisted on a trial but for counsel’s alleged

deficient performance. The trial court shall make findings as to whether Applicant was removed

from the country while this application has been pending. The trial court may make any other

findings and conclusions that it deems appropriate in response to Applicant’s claim.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from

the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court’s

findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things,

affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from

hearings and depositions. See TEX.R.APP.P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested

by the trial court and obtained from this Court.

Filed: April 28, 2021

Do not publish
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6516

DAVID JOSEPH ANNARELLI , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Dep ’ t of Corr. , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Judge. ( 7:20

- cv - 00025

- EKD

- JCH )

Submitted : September 16, 2022 Decided: October 14, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judge , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. David Joseph Annarelli , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-6516 Doc: 29 Filed: 10/14/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: David Joseph Annarelli seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of
ap pealability 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 co uld 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 dispositi ve procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition 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 reviewe d the record and conclude that Annarelli has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Annarelli’s motions for injunctive relief, discovery, and appointment of counsel. We dispens e 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 USCA4 Appeal: 21-6516 Doc: 29 Filed: 10/14/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.1
------------

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of DCB Financial Corp (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey Benton,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as enacted 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/ Jeffrey Benton


Jeffrey Benton
President and Chief Executive Officer
August 6, 2004


                                                                             24.
Exhibit 99(k)

 

 

	ANNUAL SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE

	HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORPORATION

	HRSI FUNDING, INC. II

	HOUSEHOLD PRIVATE LABEL CREDIT CARD MASTER NOTE TRUST I

	______________________________________

 

		The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Household Finance Corporation, as Servicer ("Household Finance Corporation")pursuant to the Transfer and Servicing Agreement, dated as of June 12, 2001 (the "Agreement"), among HRSI Funding, Inc. II, as transferor, Household Finance Corporation, and Household Private Label Credit Card Master Note Trust I, as Issuer, does hereby certify that:

		1.	Household Finance Corporation is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Agreement.  Capitalized terms used in this Certificate have their respective meanings as set forth in the Agreement.

		2.	The undersigned is an Authorized Officer who is duly authorized pursuant to the Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Trust.

		3.	A review of the activities of the Servicer during the year ended December 31, 2003, and of its performance under the Agreement was conducted under my supervision.

		4.	Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge, performed in all material respects its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year and no default in the performance of such obligations has occurred or is continuing except as set forth in paragraph 5 below.

 

 

 

		5.	The following is a description of each default in the performance of the Servicer's obligations under the provisions of the Agreement known to me to have been made by the Servicer during the year ended December 31, 2003, which description sets forth in detail (i)the nature of each such default, (ii) the action taken by the Servicer, if any, to remedy each such default and (iii) the current status of each such default:	

NONE

		IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 25th day of March, 2004.

 

 

						HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORPORATION

						  as Servicer,

 

						By:	/s/ Steven H. Smith			
						   Name:	Steven H. Smith

						   Title:	Assistant Treasurer

 

 

PLCCMNTI
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Michael A. Gerlich, Chief Financial Officer of Gastar Exploration, Ltd. (the Company), hereby certify that the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,
2010 (the Report), filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, fully complies with the requirements of
that section.

I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 10, 2011



/s/  MICHAEL A. GERLICHMichael A. GerlichChief Financial Officer
Case 1:11-cv-02590-BNB Document 6 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02590-BNB Document 6 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02590-BNB Document 6 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02590-BNB Document 6 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

June 24, 2014

p0616 

# Order

Clerk June 24, 2014

148396

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

P laintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148396

COA: 317652

Wayne CC: 11

- 008344

- FC

ROOSEVELT BRYANT PRESCOTT

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 5, 2013

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
Case 1:11-cr-00381-WJM Document 24 Filed 04/06/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00381-WJM Document 24 Filed 04/06/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00381-WJM Document 24 Filed 04/06/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00381-WJM Document 24 Filed 04/06/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00381-WJM Document 24 Filed 04/06/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00381-WJM Document 24 Filed 04/06/12 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00381-WJM Document 24 Filed 04/06/12 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00381-WJM Document 24 Filed 04/06/12 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00381-WJM Document 24 Filed 04/06/12 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00381-WJM Document 24 Filed 04/06/12 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 10
|Skip to ContentRelease Date: March 10, 2005Release dates | 
 Coded tables | 
 Historical dataCurrent release | 
 Screen reader | 
 PDF (450 KB)
F.227 Investment in Bank Personal Trusts and Estates
   Billions of dollars; quarterly figures are seasonally adjusted annual rates                                                                                                                                                        
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Description
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2003   Q3
2003   Q4
2004   Q1
2004   Q2
2004   Q3
2004   Q4
LineBank personal trusts and estates total financial liabilities liability
	56.6
	-59.9
	-2.4
	-26.3
	-23.5
	-26.4
	-25.5
	-23.3
	-23.3
	-23.3
	-23.8
	1Bank personal trusts and estates total financial liabilities liability
	56.6
	-59.9
	-2.4
	-26.3
	-23.5
	-26.4
	-25.5
	-23.3
	-23.3
	-23.3
	-23.8
	2
|
|Bank personal trusts and estates total financial liabilities liability                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|Bank personal trusts and estates total financial liabilities liability                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|Release dates | 
Coded tables | 
Historical dataCurrent release | 
Screen reader | 
PDF (450 KB)

Statistical releasesHome | Economic research and
dataAccessibility | Contact Us Last update: March 10, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 194 (Monday, October 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58142-58146]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23333]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 08-97]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittals 08-97 with attached transmittal and 
policy justification.

    Dated: September 25, 2008.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 58143]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06OC08.026


[[Page 58144]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06OC08.027


[[Page 58145]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06OC08.028


[[Page 58146]]


[FR Doc. E8-23333 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02504-MSK-KLM

HENRY GROETKEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALLIED INTERSTATE LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company,

Defendant.

ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS USED IN

EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND TRIALS

IT IS ORDERED that, as to any exhibits and depositions used during evidentiary

hearings or trials, counsel for the parties shall retrieve the originals of such exhibits and

depositions from the Court following the evidentiary hearing or trial, and shall retain same for 60

days beyond the later of the time to appeal or conclusion of any appellate proceedings. The

Court will retain its copy of the exhibits for the same time period after which the documents will

be destroyed.

DATED this 28th day of September, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02504-MSK-KLM Document 3 Filed 09/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 21.1
                                                                    ------------



                                  SUBSIDIARIES
                                       OF

                                 TBC CORPORATION
                                 ---------------



            Name of Subsidiary                        State of Incorporation
            ------------------                        ----------------------

            Big O Tires, Inc.                                  Nevada

            Carroll's, Inc.                                    Georgia

            Northern States Tire, Inc.                         Delaware

            TBC International, Inc.                            Delaware

            TBC Retail Enterprises, Inc.                       Delaware

            Tire Kingdom, Inc.                                 Florida

            Big O Retail Enterprises, Inc.                     Colorado



Certain  other  subsidiaries  have not been  listed  because  they would not, if
considered  in  the  aggregate  as one  subsidiary,  constitute  a  "significant
subsidiary," as defined in Rule 1.02(w) of Regulation S-X.

                                      -98-


<PAGE>
#### BROWN SERVICE FUNERAL CO. v. STATE ex rel. W. C. VICE.

6 Div. 796.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 8, 1935.

Hugh A. Locke, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Horace C. Wilkinson, of Birmingham, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed by appellant.
Exhibit 32.01

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 June 28, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peter Beaudrault, Chief Executive 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 that to my knowledge:



| | (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 11, 2009



|                                                                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                        
|/s/ Peter Beaudrault                                                                                                    
|Peter Beaudrault Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive 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.
Exhibit 32.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)


         I, Michael Knaisch, Chief Financial Officer of Front Porch Digital Inc.
(the  "Registrant"),  do 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 the
best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
for the quarterly  period ended September 30, 2003 of the  Registrant,  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2) The  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Registrant.



                                          By: /s/ Michael Knaisch
                                               ---------------------
                                          Name: Michael Knaisch
                                          Title: Chief Executive Officer

November 17, 2003

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

This   certification   accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Front Porch Digital Inc. and will be retained by Front Porch Digital
Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon
request.
178 La. 93

#### STATE v. CLEMENT.

No. 32547.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 30, 1933.

Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., James O’Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frank W. Hawthorne, Dist. Atty., of Bastrop, and George W. Lester, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Monroe, and James O’Niell, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., for the State.

Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh, of Monroe, for appellee.

ST. PAUL, Justice.

The state charged that the defendant, while engaged in mining operations in which more than ten employees were employed, failed and refused to make a full payment as often as once every two weeks or twice each calendar month to an employee (one T. B. Carter) for services performed in said mining operation.

The defendant moved to quash the information on the grounds (1) that it does not set forth any offense against the laws of the state, and (2) that if the charge is based on Act No. 255 of 1918, then said act is unconstitutional.

The trial judge sustained the motion to quash but did not state the ground on which he did so.

The state appealed and the defendant moves to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction in this court.

 The motion to dismiss must prevail. The offense charged, if any, is only a misdemeanor, and the state cannot appeal from a judgment quashing an indictment or information where the statute does not prescribe the death penalty or imprisonment at hard labor, unless the judgment is founded; on a ruling that the statute is unconstitutional. Constitution 1921, art. 7, § 10; State v. Harrison, 154 La. 1011, 98 So. 622. And, where the jurisdiction of this court is dependent solely on the claim that a law has been declared unconstitutional, it must affirmatively and clearly appear that the judgment of the lower court was based wholly on the unconstitutionality of the law. “Where the judgment appealed from may have been predicated, either upon the ground that the case presented was 'not within the law relied on, or upon the ground that such law is unconstitutional, it will not be assumed, for the purposes of the jurisdiction on appeal, that the latter was the ground adopted.” State v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co., 116 La. 189, 40 So. 630.

Hence a judgment quashing an indictment or information is not appealable by the state as involving the constitutional question where a motion to quash relies both on the unconstitutionality of the statute and on the insufficiency of the indictment or information in other respects, and it does not affirmatively and clearly appear that the sole ground on which the indictment or information was quashed was the alleged unconstitutionality of the statute. State v. Johnson, 176 La. 371, 145 So. 773.

For the reasons assigned the appeal is dismissed.