alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Alex Joseph LIVING, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 44273.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 30, 1971.

Thomas D. Prichard, Houston, for appellant.

Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty.,'Phyllis Bell and Jack Bodiford, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ODOM, Judge.

This appeal is from a conviction for the offense of robbery by assault. Trial was before the court without the intervention of a jury. Punishment was assessed at 25 years.

Harry Matthia, a taxi driver for J & L Cab Company, testified that on January 18, 1970, he was called to the home of the appellant in Houston. Appellant and two other persons entered the cab and directed Matthia to drive them to the home of appellant’s sister. After being diretced to several winding back streets, he was told by appellant to pull over, and appellant said: “This is it.” He asked the appellant if he was kidding, and appellant replied “No, man, I want all your money, and I mean all of it.” Appellant was holding a “Saturday night special” (.22 caliber pistol) on him. Appellant and his two companions took his money and threatened to shoot him, whereupon he broke and ran across the street to a house where he asked the occupant to call the police. He stated that he was in fear of his life when appellant pointed the gun at him and threatened to shoot him.

Matthia testified, further, that he did not know appellant personally but had driven him and his parents to the grocery store and back home about a dozen or so times in the past year. He stated that after the robbery he returned to the residence three times and on the third occasion he saw appellant. Appellant broke and ran on this occasion.

The evidence is sufficient to support the judgment.

State’s Exhibit No. 1, identified as “a showup waiver” used by the Houston Police Department and signed by the appellant, and State’s Exhibit No. 2, identified as a Houston Police Department “showup sheet”, were introduced into evi*215dence. When such exhibits were offered the appellant stated that he had no objection to their admission. No error is shown by the trial court’s admitting these exhibits into evidence.

The judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3


                           DeGolyer and MacNaughton
                               One Energy Square
                              Dallas, Texas 75206


                                March 10, 2000


Vintage Petroleum, Inc.
110 W. 7th Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119

Gentlemen:

     We hereby consent to the references to our firm and to our reserves
estimates for the year ended December 31, 1999, as set forth in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K (the Annual Report) of Vintage Petroleum, Inc. (the
Company). Our estimates of the oil, condensate, and natural gas reserves of
certain properties owned by the Company are contained in our report entitled
"Appraisal Report, as of December 31, 1999, on Reserves of Certain Properties in
Bolivia Operated by Vintage Petroleum, Inc." References to us and our estimates
are included in the "Oil and Gas Properties" section on page 10, the "Reserves"
section on page 14, and "Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements" on page 69.
However, we are necessarily unable to verify (i) the accuracy of future net
revenues and discounted present value of future net revenues contained in the
Annual Report because our estimates of future net revenues and discounted
present worth of future net revenues have been combined with estimates prepared
by other petroleum consultants and (ii) the accuracy of reserves estimates and
the basis for changes to reserves estimates prior to December 31, 1998.
Additionally, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Company's Registration Statements Nos. 33-37505 and 333-88297 on Form S-8 and
Nos. 333-68351 and 333-77619 on Form S-3 of such references made in the Annual
Report.


                                             Very truly yours,


                                             /s/ DeGolyer and MacNaughton

                                             DeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTON
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Army

# AGENCY:

Department of the Army, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with 37 CFR 404.6 and 404.7, announcement is made of the availability for licensing of the invention set forth in U.S. Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 61/058,598 entitled “Method and Kit for Detecting Adenovirus Serotype 14 Virus,” filed June 4, 2008. The United States Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Army, has rights in this invention.

# ADDRESSES:

Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD 21702-5012.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808. For licensing issues, Dr. Paul Mele, Office of Research & Technology Assessment, (301) 619-6664, both at telefax (301) 619-5034.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Adenovirus type 14 (Ad14) is an emerging pathogen that can cause life threatening diseases and large outbreaks. To improve the capability of the laboratory for diagnosing AD14 infection and to prepare for possible outbreak, a real-time PCR assay targeting a unique sequence in the hexon region of the adenovirus genome is disclosed.

Brenda S. Bowen,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. E8-24488 Filed 10-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
LONNIE SMITH,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-4524

Opinion filed March 12, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Prohibition -- Original Jurisdiction.

Lonnie Smith, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of prohibition is dismissed.

THOMAS, CLARK, and WETHERELL, JJ., CONCUR.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02347-RPM

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION AND REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 59 AND REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT OF CASE

_____________________________________________________________________

Upon review of the pleading filed August 1, 2012, by counsel for the plaintiff,

entitled Plaintiff’s Motion and Request for Reconsideration Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro

59 and Request for Reinstatement of Case [19] and the request for reconsideration of

the dismissal of the Federal Tort Claims Act claim states only conclusions with respect

to whether a negligence claim has been stated under either Florida or Colorado law

and, accordingly, is insufficient. The plaintiff also again seeks to amend the complaint,

now to claim individual liability against the persons named as TSA employees in the

amended complaint. This case was initiated by a complaint filed on September 7, 2011,

and plaintiff’s counsel has been struggling to attempt to state a cognizable claim. There

is no justification for the delays involved in the plaintiff’s search for a remedy and to

grant permission now to name individual defendants as liable for events that took place

in 2009 and early 2010 is untimely. Accordingly, it is

Case 1:11-cv-02347-RPM Document 20 Filed 08/02/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

ORDERED that the relief requested in the plaintiff’s Motion and Request for

Reconsideration Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro 59 and Request for Reinstatement of Case

is denied.

DATED: August 2nd, 2012

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

__________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02347-RPM Document 20 Filed 08/02/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
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.

 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 1

 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10819

Summary Calendar

GAMA GABRIEL ANTUNEZ

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

FNU MENDEZ, Officer, Middleton Unit

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:08-CV-44

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Federal prisoner Gama Gabriel Antunez brought a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action against Officer Mendez for allegedly throwing him against a wall and

injuring his spine. The district court dismissed his complaint as malicious and 1

as time barred.2

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 5, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-10819

Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). 3

 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88 (2006) (holding for the 4

prison-official petitioner that “a prisoner must complete the administrative review process in

accordance with the applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to

bringing suit in federal court.”).

2

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Antunez’s

complaint as malicious. “Repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of

action is subject to dismissal . . . as malicious.” Antunez had brought a prior 3

suit against Mendez based on the same facts and raising the same claims he

brings in the present action. The district court in that prior case granted

Mendez summary judgment because Antunez failed to properly exhaust

administrative prison grievance remedies before bringing suit, as required by

the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Specifically, after Antunez received an 4

unfavorable response to his Step 1 grievance filing, he filed his Step 2 grievance

outside of the ten day period a prisoner has to submit an appeal. The district

court was within its discretion to sua sponte screen this repetitious complaint

and dismiss it as malicious.

AFFIRMED.
389 A.2d 684

#### Commonwealth v. Smith, Appellant.

Submitted June 13, 1977.

Peter J. Webby, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;

Thomas J. Glenn, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, and Patrick J. Toole, Jr., District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Judgment of sentence vacated, and case remanded for resentencing. The sentencing judge is. to file a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed. *Commonwealth v. Kostka,*475 Pa. 85, 379 A.2d 884 (1977); *Commonwealth v. Riggins,*474 Pa. 115, 377 A.2d 140 (1977); *Commonwealth v. Wertz,*252 Pa.Super. 584, 384 A.2d 933 (1978).

*615PRICE, J., dissented.

WATKINS, former P. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
#### BARRY v. ROBSON (two cases).

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS INCLUDED
HEREIN AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,891
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,207
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,820
<INVENTORY>                                     70,182
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               157,668
<PP&E>                                         396,715
<DEPRECIATION>                                 168,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 512,838
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          105,083
<BONDS>                                        137,416
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           219
<OTHER-SE>                                     237,568
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   512,838
<SALES>                                        245,589
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               245,589
<CGS>                                          205,433
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  205,433
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,764
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,248
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,990
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,258
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,258
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .37
        



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
          32.2 - CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF BLUEGATE CORPORATION
          PURSUANT
          TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 AND SECTION 1350 OF 18
          U.S.C.
          63.
 
 I,
          Charles E. Leibold, the Chief Financial Officer of Bluegate Corporation,
          hereby
          certify that Bluegate Corporation's periodic report on Form 10-QSB, for
          the
          period ending March 31, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section
          13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that information
          contained in the periodic report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
          material
          respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of Bluegate
          Corporation.


Date:
                  August 23, 2007
              /s/
              Charles
                  E. LeiboldCharles
                  E. Leibold,Chief
                  Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                               

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                                 Page 14 of 14
                                  Exhibit (ii)
                             Financial Data Schedule




THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM 6/30/97
INCOME STATEMENT AND BALANCE SHEET AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                                          50,507
<SECURITIES>                                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                5,043,884
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   105,551
<INVENTORY>                                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                     0
<PP&E>                                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               5,565,131
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        2,639,159
<BONDS>                                                              0
<COMMON>                                                        46,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0
<PREFERRED>                                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                                     983,052
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 5,565,131
<SALES>                                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               366,553
<CGS>                                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  104,078
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                30,966
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             100,993
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                130,516
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    40,492
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             90,024
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      0
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    90,024
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        0
        


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

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.

September 12, 2017

d0906 

# Order

Clerk September 12, 2017

154684

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154684

COA: 325806

Saginaw CC: 14

- 039758

- FJ

KAREEM AMID SWILLEY, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of May 31, 2017, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the

application for leave to appeal the September 13, 2016 judgm ent of the Court of Appeals.

On order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to

appeal is again considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of People v

Chatman (Docket No. 155184) is pending on appeal before this Court and that the

decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to

appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in

that case.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 201 (Thursday, October 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 61433]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24611]



[[Page 61433]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Arthritis and 
Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Skin 
Diseases Research Core Centers (P30).
    Date: November 20-21, 2008.
    Time: 7 am to 5 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Gaithersburg Marriott Washingtonian Center, 9751 
Washingtonian Boulevard, Gaithersburg, MD 20878.
    Contact Person: Kan Ma, PHD, Scientific Review Officer, NIH/
NIAMS, EP Review Branch, One Democracy Plaza Suite 800, Bethesda, MD 
20892-4872, 301-594-4952, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a0cdc1cb92e0cdc1c9cc8ecec9c88ec7cfd6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4a272b21780a272b232664242322642d253c">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, 
Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 8, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-24611 Filed 10-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


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

No. 04-12-00544-CR

IN RE Raymond Isaac URIBE

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 5, 2012

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On August 27, 2012, relator Raymond Isaac Uribe filed a petition for writ of mandamus, 

complaining trial court denied his motion for an examining trial and has failed to set the case for 

an examining trial. However, counsel has been appointed to represent relator in the criminal 

proceeding pending in the trial court for which he is currently confined. A criminal defendant is 

not entitled to hybrid representation. See Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2007); Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). A trial court has no 

legal duty to rule on pro se motions or petitions filed with regard to a criminal proceeding in 

which the defendant is represented by counsel. See Robinson, 240 S.W.3d at 922. 

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 152268, styled State of Texas v. Raymond Isaac Uribe, in the 227th 

Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Philip Kazen presiding. 
04-12-00544-CR

- 2 -

Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to grant relator’s pro se

request for an examining trial. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. TEX.

R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH