alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER OF A BATEMENT

Appellate case name: Belinda Dawn Tidwell v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 12

- 00298

- CR

Trial court case number: 1267425

Trial court: 177th District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s retained counsel filed a motion to withdraw that complied with Rule 6.5 and the motion was granted . Appellant was ordered to file a pro se brief or retain counsel to file a pro se brief by January 28, 2013. Appellant has fil ed a motion claiming that she is now indigent

and requesting appointed counsel on appeal.

Accordingly, we abate this appeal and remand the case to the trial court for a hearing at

which a representative of the Harris County District Attorney’s office and a ppella nt shall be present in person. At the hearing, the trial court shall determine:

1) Whether appellant is now indigent, and,

a. I f appellant is now indigent, enter a written order appoint ing counsel on appeal and

order counsel to file a brief with this Cour t within 30 days of the date of the hearing

, regardless of whether this Court has yet reinstated the appeal;

b. If appellant is not indigent, the trial court shall determine whether appellant intends to retain counsel, and

, i. I f appellant intends to retain cou nsel , shall set a hearing date not later than 20 days from the date of the initial hearing at which appellant must appear with her

retained counsel so that the trial court may enter new counsel’s information ; ii. If appellant does not intend to retain counsel, or does not appear at the reset hearing with counsel, the trial court shall admonish appellant of the dangers and disadvantages of self

- representation on the record and shall make a written and

oral finding regarding whether appellant is knowingly and int elligently waiving her right to counsel

.

See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN . art. 1.051(a), (c), (d), (f), 26.04 (West Supp. 2012 )

.

The trial cou rt shall have a court reporter record the hearing , and the reset hearing if required, and file the reporter’s reco rd with the Court no later than 4 0 days from the date ofthis order . Additionally, any orders or findings of the trial court made at either hearing shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s record and filed in this Court no later than 4 0 days from the

d ate of this order

.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the supplemental clerk’s record and reporter’s record of the hearing are fi led in this Court. The court coordinator of the trial court shall set a hearing date and notify the parties and the Clerk of

this Court of such date.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: Justice Rebeca Huddle  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: February 8, 2013
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. BEN HUR LIFE ASSOCIATION, a Corporation, Relator, v. LEE COUNTY, Florida, a Political Subdivision, etc., et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. Term, 1936.

Casey & Walton, of Miami, for relator.

William J. Wood, of Fort Myers, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Alternative writ of mandamus dismissed on motion of counsel for the respective parties.
EXHIBIT 12
 CAPSTEAD MORTGAGE CORPORATION
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME FROM CONTINUING OPERATIONS (BEFORE
FIXED CHARGES) TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK
DIVIDENDS
(In thousands, except ratios)
(Unaudited)
  Three MonthsEnded
    
    
    Year Ended December 31,March 31, 2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003Fixed charges
    
    $
    71,493
    
    
    $
    275,648
    
    
    $
    235,521
    
    
    $
    106,909
    
    
    $
    44,939
    
    
    $
    58,924Preferred stock dividends
    
    
    5,064
    
    
    
    20,256
    
    
    
    20,256
    
    
    
    20,256
    
    
    
    20,259
    
    
    
    20,273Combined fixed charges and
preferred stock dividends
    
    $
    76,557
    
    
    $
    295,904
    
    
    $
    255,777
    
    
    $
    127,165
    
    
    $
    65,198
    
    
    $
    79,197Fixed charges
    
    $
    71,493
    
    
    $
    275,648
    
    
    $
    235,521
    
    
    $
    106,909
    
    
    $
    44,939
    
    
    $
    58,924Income from continuing
operations
    
    
    30,147
    
    
    
    24,713
    
    
    
    3,843
    
    
    
    17,195
    
    
    
    39,869
    
    
    
    58,666$
    101,640
    
    
    $
    300,361
    
    
    $
    239,364
    
    
    $
    124,104
    
    
    $
    84,808
    
    
    $
    117,590Ratio of income from continuing
operations (before fixed
charges) to combined fixed
charges and preferred
stock dividends
    
    
    1.33:1
    
    
    
    1.02:1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1.30:1
    
    
    
    1.48:1Deficiency of income from
continuing operations (before
fixed charges) to combined fixed
charges and preferred stock
dividends
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    16,413
    
    
    $
    3,061
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (333-
65073) on Form S-8 of Southwest Securities Group, Inc. of our report dated July
27, 1999, except as to the second paragraph of note 19 to the consolidated
financial statements which is as of August 6, 1999 and note 18 to the
consolidated financial statements which is as of August 10, 1999, relating to
the consolidated statements of financial condition of Southwest Securities
Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of June 25, 1999 and June 26, 1998, and the
related consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended June 25, 1999, and related financial statement schedule, which
report appears in the June 25, 1999 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Southwest
Securities Group, Inc.


                                                       KPMG LLP


Dallas, Texas
April 7, 2000
#### DELUXE FILLING STATION v. MEE.

No. 4775.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

March 2, 1934.

John T. Carpenter, of Shreveport, for appellant

A. E. Bryson and T. O. Brooks, both of Shreveport, and Wm. N. Fauver, of Baton Rouge, for appellee.

DREW, Judge.

Plaintiff sued on open account alleging defendant tó he indebted unto it in the sum of $115.32 for merchandise purchased between the dates of December 31, 1927, and March 31, 1929. It attached an itemized statement to its petition.

Defendant filed a plea of three-year prescription and then answered denying each and every article of the petition. The lower court rendered judgment, as prayed for, and defendant has appealed.

The record discloses that defendant purchased all the merchandise, as shown on the itemized account, and is owing for same, and if it were not for the plea of prescription, the judgment of the lower court would be correct There is only one item on the itemized account that was charged to defendant within three years time prior to the filing of this suit; that is, an item of $17.50 charged on March 31, 1929. The next to the last item was charged on March 8, 1929. This suit was filed March 16, 1932.

 It is not shown that defendant has ever paid anything on said account or that he has ever acknowledged it in writing'or otherwise. It therefore follows that all of said account is prescribed, with the exception of the last item of $17.50. Defendant contends that this item was charged long after he became 'bound for it, which is denied by plaintiff’s manager. The burden is on defendant to prove that the prescription of three years is applicable to this item, and we do not think he has met that burden.

It therefore follows that the plea of three years’ prescription is sustained as to all of the account, with the exception of $17.50, and the judgment of the lower court is amended by reducing the amount of the judgment in favor of plaintiff from $115.32 to the sum of $17.50; and as amended the judgment of the lower court is affirmed, cost of appeal to be paid by appellee.

MILLS, J., recused.
because the State pleaded laches, appellant was required to overcome the 

presumption of prejudice to the State. See NRS 34.800. 

Appellant asserted that relief was warranted because he 

recently discovered that the State of Nevada was performing mass 

genocide on the inmate population. Appellant failed to demonstrate good 

cause and prejudice sufficient to overcome the procedural bars. Moreover, 

appellant failed to overcome the presumption of prejudice to the State. 

Therefore, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Gibbons 

, J. 

J. 

r- cm.PA 

Pickering 

, J. 

cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge 

Stephen F. Ciolino 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Caust Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) I94Th
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Rich Robins v. Austen Perry Clinkenbeard and Jonathon G.

Clinkenbeard a/k/a Jon Clinkenbeard

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00059

- CV

Trial court case number: 1107951

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 3 of Harris County

Appellant, Rich Robins, has filed a second motion to extend time to March 16, 2021,

to file a motion for en banc reconsideration. Appellees, Austen Perry Clinkenbeard and

Jonathon G. Clinkenbeard a/k/a Jon Clinkenbeard, filed a response in opposition to

appellant’s motion. Appellant’s motion is granted in part . Appellant is ordered to file a

motion for en banc reconsideration, if any , no later than seven days from the date of this

order

.

No further extensions will be granted.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: February 18, 202 1
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1716 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1716

 To amend the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, 
     and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, to strike a 
               requirement relating to forage producers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 27, 2007

   Mr. Thune introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, 
     and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, to strike a 
               requirement relating to forage producers.

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

SECTION 1. CONTRACT WAIVER.

    The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and 
Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 110-28; 121 
Stat. 112) is amended by striking section 9012.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Stephen J. Fanning, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Solta Medical, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Solta Medical, Inc.



|                     |  |  |     |  |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  |  | --- |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 16, 2011 |  |  | By: |  |  | /s/    STEPHEN J. FANNING            
|                     |  |  |     |  |  | Stephen J. Fanning                   
|                     |  |  |     |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

I, John F. Glenn, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Solta Medical, Inc. on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Solta Medical, Inc.



|                     |  |  |     |  |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  | --- |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 16, 2011 |  |  | By: |  |  | /s/    JOHN F. GLENN   
|                     |  |  |     |  |  | John F. Glenn          
|                     |  |  |     |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
216 La. 761

#### The CALIFORNIA COMPANY v. STATE MINERAL BOARD et al.

No. 39654.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 9, 1949.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 13, 1950.

Milling, Godchaux, Saal & Saunders, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Bolivar E. Kemp, Jr., Atty. Gen., Carroll Buck, 1st Asst. Atty. Gen., John L. Madden, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant-appellee.

McCALEB, Justice.

This case was consolidated for all purposes with the suit of The Texas Company v. State Mineral Board et al., 216 La. 742, 44 So.2d 841. The decision in that matter controls here.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 5.1

                    OPINION OF REGISTRANT'S GENERAL COUNSEL

October 16, 2000


pcOrder.com, Inc.
5001 Plaza on the Lake
Austin, Texas 78746

Re:  Registration Statement on Form S-8

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am delivering this opinion in my capacity as Vice President, General Counsel
and Secretary of pcOrder.com, Inc, a Delaware corporation ("pcOrder"), in
connection with the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (the "Registration
Statement") which pcOrder proposes to file with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on or about October 19, 2000 for the purpose of registering under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, 2,331,175 shares of its Class A Common
Stock, par value $.01 (the "Shares") issuable under pcOrder's 1999 Stock
Incentive Plan and 2000 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan (the "Plans").

In connection with this opinion, I have assumed the authenticity of all records,
documents and instruments submitted to me as originals, the genuineness of all
signatures, the legal capacity of natural persons and the conformity to the
originals of all records, documents and instruments submitted to me as copies. I
have based my opinion upon my review of such records, documents and instruments
as I have deemed appropriate to render this opinion.

This opinion is limited to the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.
I disclaim any opinion as to any other statute, rule, regulation, ordinance,
order or other promulgation of any other jurisdiction or any regional or local
governmental body.

Based upon the foregoing and my examination of such questions of law as I have
deemed necessary or appropriate for the purpose of this opinion, and assuming
that (i) the Registration Statement becomes and remains effective during the
period when the Shares are offered and sold, (ii) appropriate certificates
evidencing the Shares will be executed and delivered upon the issuance of the
Shares, (iii) the full consideration stated in the Plans is paid for each Share,
and (iv) all applicable securities laws are complied with, it is my opinion
that, when issued by the Company, after payment therefor in the manner provided
in the Plans, the Shares covered by the Registration Statement will be legally
issued, fully paid and nonassessable.

I hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the Registration
Statement.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Richard Friedman

Richard Friedman
Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
**Exhibit99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

 

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Lancer Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the United States Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark L. Freitas,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

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

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
| May 13, 2003 |   | /s/ MARK L. FREITAS     |   |
|--------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|         |   | Mark L. Freitas,        |
|         |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6430

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:97-cr-00053-PJM-1; 8:17-cv-00589-PJM)

Submitted: May 23, 2017 Decided: May 26, 2017

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Eyler Kaplan, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without 

prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and unauthorized. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the 

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Elliott 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
#### Sylvester ROSE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 46528.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Sept. 19, 1973.

Thompson & Rees, Colorado City, for appellant.

Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

JACKSON, Commissioner.

Appellant was found guilty by a jury of the offense of possession for the purpose of sale of an alcoholic beverage; to-wit: whiskey, beer and wine, in a dry county; the punishment, a $300 fine and 30 days in jail.

Appellant has filed a brief in the trial court setting forth twelve grounds of error. Because fundamental error appears in the record, these grounds of error will not be discussed.

The verdict of the jury as to punishment reads as follows:

> “We, the Jury, having found the Defendant, Sylvester Rose, guilty of the offense of possession for the purpose of sale of an alcoholic beverage to-wit: whiskey, beer and wine, in a dry county, assess his punishment by a payment of a fine in the amount of $300 and/or by confinement in the County Jail for a term of 30 days;

> “And we, the Jury, do further find that the Defendant is eligible for probation under the Misdemeanor Probation Act of the State of Texas, and we do not recommend that he be granted probation in this cause.”

In Allen v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 303, 136 S.W.2d 232, this Court held that the following verdict was uncertain and constituted reversible error:

> “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty as charged, and assess his punishment at a fine of $100.00 and/or confinement in the county jail of 30 days.”

In Cobb v. State, 139 Tex.Cr.R. 337, 139 S.W.2d 272, this Court found that the following verdict was uncertain and could not be upheld:

> “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty as charged, and assess punishment at a fine of $0.00, and/or confinement in the County Jail of 30 days.”

In Mitcham v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 152, 332 S.W.2d 714, this Court considered the following verdict:

> “We, the jury, find the defendant ‘guilty’ as charged in the indictment, and assess his punishment at confinement in the *13County Jail for 45 days and/or by fine of $200.00 Dollars.”

There, this Court stated:

> “The and/or in the verdict renders it uncertain which of these punishments the jury intended to assess and for that reason it cannot be upheld [citations omitted].”

It appears that where the punishment assessed is neither definite nor certain the same is void. See Ex parte Traxler, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 661, 184 S.W.2d 286; Ex parte Frazier, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 572, 301 S.W.2d 655, and cases therein cited.

Because the “and/or” verdict as to punishment in this case is neither definite nor certain, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded, and it is so ordered.

Opinion approved by the Court.
#### BISHOP v. STATE of Florida, County of Dade and City of Miami.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 11, 2009*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.129 Security Brokers and Dealers** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-K Annual Report of Circus and Eldorado Joint Venture and Silver Legacy
Capital Corp. (collectively, the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2003 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  |                                                                                                             
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 24, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /S/    GARY L.
CARANO
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Gary L. Carano, Chief Executive Officer of Circus and Eldorado Joint Venture and Silver Legacy Capital
Corp.