alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


         In connection with the Annual Report of Monmouth Community Bancorp on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report"), I, James S.
Vaccaro, Chief Executive Officer of Monmouth Community Bancorp, do hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78m or
               78o(d), and,


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





Dated: March 27, 2003                              /s/ James S. Vaccaro
                                                   ---------------------------
                                                   James S. Vaccaro
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

      In connection with the periodic report of Rancon Realty Fund V (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Daniel L. Stephenson,
General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
that I perform the functions of chief executive officer and chief financial
officer of the Partnership and that, to the best of my knowledge:

      (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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
Partnership at the dates and for the periods indicated.

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

Date: August 14, 2003                    /s/ Daniel Stephenson
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Daniel Stephenson, General Partner
                                         Rancon Realty Fund V
#### Paul MARROQUIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 48666.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 26, 1974.

*59Thomas Rocha, Jr., San Antonio (on appeal only) for appellant.

Andy Shuval, Dist. Atty., Hereford, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DALLY, Commissioner.

The conviction is for robbery; the punishment, imprisonment for life.

The appellant first contends that the trial court erred in failing to hold a separate hearing to determine the appellant’s sanity and competency to stand trial.

Prior to trial appointed counsel filed a motion denominated “Defendant’s Motion for Psychiatric Examination” stating the appellant “evidences psychotic behavior” and he should be examined by a qualified psychiatrist in order that the existence of any mental illness might be ascertained prior to trial.1 The record contains an order granting the motion. However, unlike Perryman v. State, 494 S.W.2d 542 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), relied upon by the appellant, the evidence and trial proceedings in this case suggest nothing that would raise any question of mental illness or competency of the appellant. It was not until long after trial that such claim was made in the appellate brief.

The motion filed prior to trial, standing alone, is not sufficient to create in the mind of the trial court a reasonable doubt of the appellant’s sanity, mental condition or competency to stand trial which would require a separate hearing. See Ainsworth v. State, 493 S.W.2d 517 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Wages v. State, 501 S.W.2d 105 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Thibodeaux v. State, 505 S.W.2d 260 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Perryman v. State, 507 S.W.2d 541 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); and Quintanilla v. State, 508 S.W.2d 647 (Tex.Cr.App.1974).

This ground of error is overruled.

The second of the appellant’s two grounds of error urges the State was erroneously permitted to impeach and then rehabilitate its own witness.

The complainant testified on direct examination without objection that he had been convicted of two felony offenses. During cross-examination the defense counsel read a portion of the complainant’s testimony given before the grand jury about the facts and circumstances of this case. The complainant admitted he lied before the grand jury but insisted his testimony before the trial jury was true. The State then offered without objection the testimony of two witnesses who testified the complainant’s reputation in the community for truth and veracity was good. We perceive no error.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.

1

. There is no motion in the record requesting a sanity hearing prior to trial. See Article 46.02, Section 1, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.
Skip to Content
*Release Date: March 10, 2011  *
Release dates
Coded       tables
Historical data
Current release
PDF (497 KB)
Data Download Program (DDP)

----
# U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A pp e a l s For the Eig hth Circu it

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No . 1 9 -1 2 36

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ On es m u s Bo g o n k o Dan i el l l l l l l l l l l l l l l ll l l l l l Pet i t i o n er

v . W i l l i am P. Barr, At to rn ey

Gen eral o f t h e Un i t edSt at es l l l ll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l ll Res

po n den t

_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Pet i t i o n fo r Rev i ew o f an Ord er o f t h e Bo ard o f Imm ig rat i on Ap peal s

_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sub m i t t ed : No vem

b er 4 , 2 0 19 Fi l ed : No v em

b er 5 , 2 0 1 9 [Un pu b l is h ed ]

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ Befo re GRUENDER, BENTON, an d STRAS, Ci rcu i tJ u d g es .

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ PER CURIAM

. Ken y an ci t i zen On es m

u s Dan i el p et it i on s fo r rev i ew o f an o rd er o f th e Bo ard o f Im m i g rat i o n Ap p eal s d i s m i ss i n g h i s ap peal fro m t h e d eci s io ns o f an i m m i g rat i o n ju d g e, w h i ch g ran t edt he D ep art m en t o f H o m el an d Secu r i t y ’ s m o t i o n to reco n s i d er a d eci s i o n t o t e r m i nat e rem ov al p ro ceed i n g s , an d d en i ed h i m can cel l at i o n o frem o v al

. 1 H av i n g ju ri s d i ct i on u n d er 8 U.S.C. § 1 2 5 2, an d aft er carefu l co n s i d erat i o n

o f t h e p et i t i o n , t h i s co u rtfi n d s n o b as i s fo r rev ers al

. Th e p et i t i o n i s d en i ed

. S ee 8 t h Ci r. R. 4 7 B.

__ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _

1 Th e ag en cy ’ s rem ai n i ng fi n di n gs

— i n cl u d in g t h e den i al o f as y l u m , wi t h h o l d i n g o f rem o v al , rel i ef u n der t h e Co n v en t i on Ag ai n s t To rtu re, an d v o l u n t ary d ep artu re— are n o t b efo re t h i s pan el

. See Ch a y-Vel a s q u ez v. As hcr o

f t , 3 6 7 F.3 d 7 5 1, 7 5 6 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 04 ) (cl ai m n o trai sedi n o p en i n g b ri ef i s wai v ed ).

-2

-
* 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. 98-50226 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus NOE ISMAEL OCHOA-URIBE, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-97-CR-338-ALL

- - - - - - - - - - December 10, 1998 Before DAVIS, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Noe Ismael Ochoa-Uribe has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Ochoa-Uribe has submitted a response to counsel’s motion to withdraw. Our independent review of counsel’s brief, Ochoa-Uribe’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-40136

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HARRY GUILLORY, JR.,

 DefendantAppellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:00-CR-25-ALL

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

July 11, 2002

Before JOLLY, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Harry Guillory, Jr., on appeal has

requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967). Guillory has not responded to the motion. Our independent review of the brief and the

record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is dismissed from further responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
No. 01-40136

-2-

MOTION GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
<PAGE>

                      SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, DC 20549



                                   FORM 8-K



                                CURRENT REPORT
                    PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 or 15(d) OF THE
                        SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



               Date of report (Date of earliest event reported):
                      January 23, 2001 (January 22, 2001)



                                Netpliance, Inc.
               (Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)


          Delaware                      001-15715               74-2902814
          --------                      ---------               ----------

(State or Other Jurisdiction of      (Commission File         (IRS Employer
      Incorporation)                     Number)            Identification No.)



           7501B North Capital of Texas Highway, Austin, Texas 78731
           ---------------------------------------------------------
              (Address of principal executive offices)(Zip code)

              Registrant's telephone number, including area code:
                                 (512) 681-8300

                                       1
<PAGE>

Item 5.   Other Events.

         On January 22, 2001, the Registrant issued a press release announcing
the investor group that had delivered a proposal letter to Netpliance's Board of
Directors on December 21, 2000 requesting an opportunity to discuss a possible
management buyout has indicated that it is no longer interested in pursuing the
transaction. To that end, on January 22, 2001, the investor group delivered a
letter to Netpliance indicating that it was terminating negotiations.

         Further information is provided in the press release attached as
Exhibit 99.1 hereto, which is incorporated herein by reference.

Item 7.   Financial Statements and Exhibits.


               (c)  Exhibits


          99.1    Press Release dated January 22, 2001.

                                       2
<PAGE>

                                  SIGNATURES


     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

Dated: January 23, 2001                                 NETPLIANCE, INC.



                                      By:  /s/ Francis S. (Kit) Webster
                                           ___________________________________
                                    Name:   Francis S. (Kit) Webster
                                           -----------------------------------
                                    Title:  Chief Financial Officer
                                           -----------------------------------

                                       3
<PAGE>

                               INDEX TO EXHIBITS


   Exhibit
   Number                        Description
   ------                        -----------


    99.1        Press Release dated January 22, 2001.

                                       4
|   |   |                                                                         |   |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | /s/Anthony      V. Cosentino                                                 |   |
|   |   | Print      Name: Anthony V. Cosentino                                        |   |
|   |   | Title:  Chief      Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |   |
|   |   | Date:  May      17, 2010                                           |   |

----

| * | This      certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and      Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and      shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act      or otherwise subject to the liability of that Section.  This      certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any      filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act,      except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by      reference into any such filing. |
|---|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1820 

To better provide for compensation for certain persons injured in the course 

of employment at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in California. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 19, 2007 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. BOXER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To better provide for compensation for certain persons injured in the course of employment at the Santa Susana 

Field Laboratory in California. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF MEMBER OF SPECIAL EXPO4 SURE COHORT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3621(14) of the Energy 

6 Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program 

7 Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)) is amended by adding 

8 at the end the following new subparagraph: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 1820 IS

1 ‘‘(D) The employee was so employed for a 

2 number of work days aggregating at least 250 

3 work days before January 1, 2006, by the De4 partment of Energy or a Department of Energy 

5 contractor or subcontractor at the Santa 

6 Susana Field Laboratory in California.’’. 

7 (b) REAPPLICATION.—A claim that an individual 

8 qualifies, by reason of section 3621(14)(D) of the Energy 

9 Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program 

10 Act of 2000 (as added by subsection (a) of this Act), for 

11 compensation or benefits under such Act shall be consid12 ered for compensation or benefits notwithstanding any de13 nial of any other claim for compensation with respect to 

14 such individual. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
NO. 12-19-00216-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

LARRY COLEMAN HICKS,

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 114TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

On June 3, 2019, Larry Coleman Hicks, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal regarding

trial court cause number 4-95-481. However, Appellant previously appealed from this cause 

number and, on April 10, 2019, we informed Appellant that this Court lacks jurisdiction over that 

cause number and any further attempts to file an appeal in such cause number would be deemed 

an abuse of the judicial process. See Hicks v. State, No. 12-19-00106-CR, 2019 WL 1760115, at 

*2 (Tex. App.—Tyler Apr. 10, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Pursuant 

to our inherent power to control this Court’s docket, we directed Appellant to refrain from filing 

additional appeals from trial court cause number 4-95-481. See id. 

Because Appellant ignored this Court’s directive in our April 10, 2019, opinion, we 

conclude that Appellant engaged in dilatory and bad-faith abuse of the judicial process by once 

again appealing from trial court cause number 4-95-481. See Brager v. State, No. 0365-03, 2004 

WL 3093237, at *3 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 13, 2004) (en banc) (not designated for publication). 

Due to this abuse, under our inherent power to sanction, this Court will not accept or file any future 

appeals pertaining to trial court cause number 4-95-481. See id., at *2; see also McDonald v. State, 

401 S.W.3d 360, 362 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2013, pet. ref’d); Meyer v. State, 310 S.W.3d 24, 26 

(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010, no pet.) (concluding appellant engaged in abuse of the judicial 

process and refusing to permit appellant to “attempt to further manipulate the appellate system”).
2

This appeal is dismissed for abuse of the judicial process. See Johnson v. State, 166 S.W.3d 372, 

373 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, no pet.) (dismissing criminal appeal for abuse of judicial process).

Opinion delivered June 5, 2019.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JUNE 5, 2019

NO. 12-19-00216-CR

LARRY COLEMAN HICKS,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 4-95-481)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being 

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed for abuse of the 

judicial process.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that 

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for abuse of the judicial process; and that this 

decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 165 (Thursday, August 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 52523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21169]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13569-001-NV]


Southern Nevada Water Authority; Notice of Availability of 
Environmental Assessment

August 19, 2010.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR Part 
380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has 
reviewed the application for an original license to construct the Arrow 
Canyon Conduit Energy Recovery Hydroturbine Project, and has prepared 
an environmental assessment (EA). The proposed 500-kilowatt project 
would operate using treated groundwater from the applicant's Coyote 
Spring Valley Well and Moapa Transmission System Project, a 24-inch 
diameter pipeline in Clark County, near the town of Glendale, Nevada. 
The project occupies 1.70 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of 
Land Management.
    The EA includes staff's analysis of the potential environmental 
impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project would 
not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect 
the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the 
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at 
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket 
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to 
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#470102150408292b2e292214323737283533072122352469202831"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="470102150408292b2e292214323737283533072122352469202831">[email protected]</span></a> or toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, 
(202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be notified via email of new filings and issuances 
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC 
Online Support at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#51171403121e3f3d383f34022421213e232511373423327f363e27"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e5a3a0b7a6aa8b898c8b80b69095958a9791a583809786cb828a93">[email protected]</span></a> or toll-free at 1-866-208-
3676, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.
    Please contact Jim Fargo by telephone at (202) 502-6095 or by e-
mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3a505b575f49145c5b485d557a5c5f4859145d554c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="92f8f3fff7e1bcf4f3e0f5fdd2f4f7e0f1bcf5fde4">[email protected]</span></a> if you have any questions.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21169 Filed 8-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF

J. ROE BUCKLEY /
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

OF MEWBOURNE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

I, J. Roe Buckley, Chairman of the Board and Chief Financial Officer of Mewbourne Development Corporation, Managing General Partner of Mewbourne Energy Partners 03-A, L.P. (the Registrant),
hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-K, for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the Report) by the Registrant 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 Registrant.



/s/ J. Roe BuckleyName:

J. Roe BuckleyDate:

March 31, 2011