alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7313** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. LEON PRATER , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Wheeling
. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 5:10

- cr - 00041

- FPS

- JES

- 1 )

Submitted : January 29, 2015 Decided: February 5, 2015

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion
. Leon Prater, Appellant Pro Se. John Castle Parr, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Leon Prater appeals the district court’s order denying his request for approval to pursue a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). In denying Prater’s request, the court concluded that Prater was not eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 750 because he was se ntenced as a career offender. Prater’s sentence, however, was not based on his status as a career offender but was the sentence agreed to by the parties in the binding plea agreement. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). Nevertheless, we conclude th at Prat er was not entitled to a sentence reduction and we therefore affirm the court’s judgment. Prater also appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration . Although w e conclude that the court was without authority to consider the moti on o n the merits, United States v. Goodwyn , 596 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 2010), we affirm the denial of the motion
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argume nt would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
#### Horace Washington CAIN v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinio'n.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0578-18

ROBVIA LENEICE SIMPSON, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

ANDERSON COUNTY

KELLER, P.J., filed a concurring opinion.

In its brief, the State contends that “res judicata should preclude a defendant from raising an[]

affirmative defense when they have pled true to the same offense in a previous probation revocation

hearing.” A defendant’s plea of true is irrelevant to the doctrines of res judicata and collateral

estoppel, which are implicated only by a trial court’s decisions and not by the conduct of the parties.

As to the finding of true, I agree with the Court that such a finding in a probation revocation hearing

can have no preclusive effect on the litigation of self-defense at a criminal trial because the State’s

burden of proof in a revocation hearing (preponderance of the evidence) is less than its burden on
SIMPSON CONCURRENCE — 2

the issue of self-defense at a criminal trial (beyond a reasonable doubt). This holding applies even 1

when there is only one basis for revocation, so we need not address whether the finding of true at

issue here (which was one of several findings) was essential to the judgment.2

I concur in the Court’s judgment.

Filed: January 15, 2020

Publish

 The State incorrectly characterizes self-defense as an “affirmative defense” when in fact

1

it is a “defense.” See TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 2.03(d) (State must disprove a defense beyond a

reasonable doubt), 2.04(d) (defendant must prove affirmative defense by preponderance of the

evidence), 9.02 (justifications under Ch 9 are defenses), 9.31 (self-defense is a justification), 9.32

(same).

We also need not address whether issue preclusion could apply to an issue that was in fact

2

an affirmative defense.
Exhibit 32.2

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 this annual report of Safety Insurance Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the
period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William J. Begley, Jr., Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Secretary 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 to my
knowledge:



/s/ WILLIAM J. BEGLEY, JR. William J. Begley, Jr. Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
(Principal Financial Officer)March 13, 2009


---



QuickLinks
**Exhibit 32.1**





**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 Annual Report of TXP Corporation (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Michael C. Shores, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to TXP Corporation and will be retained by TXP Corporation and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.


*/s/  Michael
                      C. Shores*Michael
                      C. ShoresPresident
                      and Chief Executive Officer*(Principal
                      Executive
                      Officer)*


April
        14,
        2008
#### Tim Carl ANDERSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 44341.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 30, 1971.

Tom Upchurch, Jr., James D. Durham, Jr., Amarillo, for appellant.

Tom Curtis, Dist. Atty., and Kerry Knorpp, Asst. Dist. Atty., Amarillo, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ONION, Presiding Judge.

This appeal is from a conviction for sale of a dangerous drug, to wit: LSD, where the punishment was assessed by the jury at 5 years.

After being duly and carefully admonished by the trial court the appellant entered a plea of guilty before the jury.

The 18 year old appellant voluntarily took the stand and admitted the sale of four tablets of LSD on July 1, 1970, and that he had swallowed the remaining 18 tablets at the time of his arrest shortly after the sale. He acknowledged he had on previous occasions sold LSD and marihua*218na. The 19 year old individual to whom the sale of the LSD was made on July 1, 1970, as well as an Amarillo police officer and a chemist testified. Appellant’s mother and father were called as witnesses in his behalf.

> “It is well established that a plea of guilty to a felony charge before a jury admits the existence of ¿11 facts necessary to establish guilt and, in such cases, the introduction of testimony by the State is to enable the jury to intelligently exercise the discretion which the law vests in them touching the penalty to be assessed.” Darden v. State (Tex.Cr.App.1968) 430 S.W.2d 494, 495 and cases there cited; Lewis v. State (Tex.Cr.App.1969) 438 S.W.2d 816; Reyna v. State (Tex.Cr.App.1968) 434 S.W.2d 362; Renesto v. State (Tex.Cr.App.1970) 452 S.W.2d 498.

Appellant does not challenge this proposition of law but “complains that he was denied due process as guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution due to the conduct of the State’s counsel during the cross-examination of appellant.”

Appellant then directs our attention to seven different instances of allegedly improper cross-examination by citing record page and line number. He fails to point out how such interrogation violates the constitutional provisions mentioned. Thus a serious question is presented of whether there has been a compliance with Article 40.09, Sec. 9, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

We have reviewed the cross-examination complained of and find that each instance where there was any question as to whether the interrogation was improper the trial court promptly sustained the objection and no further relief was requested. It must be remembered that wide latitude is allowed on cross-examination, and while the issue of guilt had been foreclosed, the issues of punishment and probation were before the jury.

Appellant concedes that “not any single thing done by the State’s attorney could be considered error” but urges that when the acts are considered collectively it is inescapable that he did not receive a fair trial and was denied due process. We do not agree.

The judgment is affirmed.

DOUGLAS, J., concurs in result.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the second
quarter of fiscal 1997 10Q financial statements and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> US DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          32,981
<SECURITIES>                                    47,888
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,711
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,394
<INVENTORY>                                     14,929
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,171
<PP&E>                                          40,062
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,213
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 142,399
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,351
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        85,293
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,929
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   142,399
<SALES>                                         48,231
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,231
<CGS>                                           25,782
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,782
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,583
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    75
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 103
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,898
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,090
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,808
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,808
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





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 Annual Report of TXP Corporation (the "Company") on Form
      10-KSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert Bruce, Chief
      Financial Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      TXP Corporation and will be retained by TXP Corporation and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





April
      9 ,
      2007




/s/*Robert
                Bruce**Robert
                Bruce*
              *Chief
                Financial Officer (Principal Accounting and Financial
                Officer)*
**Exhibit 31.1**RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONI, Kenneth A Joyce, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31,2007 of Rurban Financial Corp.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors: a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.      Date: May 10, 2007 /s/ Kenneth A. Joyce Kenneth A. Joyce
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #11464 and #11465]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (FEMA-1798-DR), dated 10/01/2008. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         09/21/2008 and continuing. *Effective Date:*
                         10/01/2008. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         12/01/2008. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         07/01/2009.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 10/01/2008, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Municipalities (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):* Guayama, Humacao, Maunabo, Patillas, Ponce, Salinas, Santa Isabel, Yabucoa. *Contiguous Municipalities (Economic Injury Loans Only):* *Puerto Rico:*
                     Adjuntas, Aibonito, Arroyo, Cayey, Coamo, Jayuya, Juana Diaz, Las Piedras, Naguabo, Penuelas, San Lorenzo, Utuado. The Interest Rates are: PercentFor Physical Damage:Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere
5.750.Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.875.Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere
8.000.Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere
5.250.Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000.For Economic Injury:Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000.
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 114646 and for economic injury is 114650. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) James E. Rivera, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. E8-24077 Filed 10-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
##### 



Exhibit 10.5
 SCHEDULE A
TO
EXHIBIT 10.4
   Current Offices Held with
    
    Effective Date
    
    Execution DateName
    
    the Registrant and its Subsidiaries
    
    of Agreement
    
    of AgreementHenry R. Thiemann
    
    President, Chief Executive Officer
and Director of Exchange Bank;
President, Chief Executive Officer
and Director of RFCBC, Inc.
    
    March 1, 2006*
    
    May 19, 2006Mark A. Klein
    
    President, Chief Executive Officer
and Director of The State Bank and
Trust Company
    
    March 1, 2006
    
    May 30, 2006
 
 *
    
    Remains subject to approval by the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in this registration statement of our report dated October 5, 1999
included in American TeleSource International, Inc.'s Form 10-K/A for the year
ended July 31, 1999 and to all references to our Firm included in this
registration statement.


                                    /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

     San Antonio, Texas

     July 13, 2000
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41232 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus OCTAVIO ESTRADA-VALDEZ, also known as Jacinto Estrada-Valdez, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-97-CR-194-1

- - - - - - - - - - October 21, 1998 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Octavio Estrada-Valdez, proceeding pro se , appeals his guilty-plea conviction for reentering the United States without the consent of the Attorney General after having been previously arrested and deported. He argues 1) that his guilty-plea was involuntary because his attorney and the prosecutor promised him prior to pleading guilty that his sentence would be less than what he actually received and 2) that he was denied due process by not being given sufficient time to review the addendum to theNo. 97-41232 -2- PSR and object to the recommendation therein. Estrada-Valdez’s contention that the Government promised him a particular sentence is not supported by the record. Furthermore, Estrada-Valdez was informed of the maximum sentence he could receive, and his argument is without merit. See United States v. Gracia , 983 F.2d 625, 629 (5th Cir. 1993)(erroneous prediction by prosecutor and defense attorney of defendant’s sentence not grounds for vacating a guilty-plea when defendant was informed of the maximum sentence he could receive). Both Estrada-Valdez and his attorney stated at the sentencing hearing that they had reviewed the presentence report addendum, and neither indicated that more time was needed to challenge the recommendation contained therein. Estrada-Valdez’s argument that he was denied due process by not having sufficient time to review and object to the addendum is without merit. United States v. Johnston , 127 F.3d 380, 403 (5th Cir. 1997). His motion for this court to accept his pro se brief and excerpts in the form presented is GRANTED. His motion for an enlargement of time to file a reply brief is DENIED. His conviction and
sentence are AFFIRMED.
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

David Eric Molinar, * From the 326th District Court of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 45,010

- C

.

Vs. No. 11

- 12

- 00228

- CV * July 24, 2014

Lorraine Molinar

, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the

judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
Exhibit
32.2
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 I,
James A. Krantz, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of Platinum Underwriters Holdings, Ltd., hereby certify to the best of my
knowledge and belief that this Annual Report on Form 10-K fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Platinum Underwriters Holdings,
Ltd.
 
 
 Date:
      February 22, 2010
              /s/
      James A.
      KrantzBy:
      James A. KrantzExecutive
      Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer