alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jose Salas RAMOS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 45666.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Sept. 25, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 22, 1972.

*298Armendariz & Armendariz, by Albert Armendariz, Jr., El Paso, for appellant.

Steve W. Simmons, Dist. Atty., and Harry T. Petersen, Asst. Dist. Atty., El Paso, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of aggravated assault. The jury assessed the punishment at six months in jail and a fine of four hundred and fifty dollars ($450).

Appellant was indicted for the offense of disfiguring on May 29, 1969. He was convicted of the lesser included offense of aggravated assault on September 16, 1969. On October 22, 1969, he filed a motion in arrest of judgment. Appellant was called for sentencing July 23, 1971, at which time he failed to appear. Appellant’s motion to dismiss, filed on October 7, 1971, was overruled and he was sentenced on October 8, 1971.

Appellant complains that the overruling of his motion to dismiss was error because the delay in sentencing was a violation of his right to a speedy trial and that such delay constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

The record is void of any requests on behalf of appellant requesting that he be sentenced. On the contrary, after he was found guilty, he moved to California and took a job. There is no prejudice shown by the record nor has appellant shown any prejudice by the delayed sentencing. In fact, appellant failed to appear when called for sentencing and forfeited his appearance bond.

Appellant relies on Dickey v. Florida, 398 U.S. 30, 90 S.Ct. 1564, 26 L.Ed.2d 26, as authority for his contention that he was denied a speedy trial. In that case the defendant had requested on several occasions that he be brought to trial, but the prosecution continued to delay. Here appellant had already been convicted and made no attempts to get the court to impose sentence. In Dickey v. Florida, supra, Justice Brennan, in his concurring opinion, stated:

> “The evils at which the Clause is directed are readily identified. It is intended to spare an accused those penalties and disabilities — incompatible with the *presumption of innocence*— that may spring from delay in the criminal process.” (Emphasis supplied)

There has been no delay to a person presumed innocent in the present case because appellant had already been convicted. Nor has there been any prejudice shown. Appellant was apparently content to wait for the court to summon him. When this was done, he failed to appear. Some showing of prejudice to the accused resulting from the delay is required. The mere passage of time alone in this case is insufficient to reverse and dismiss charges because of the *299denial of a right to a speedy trial. See Courtney v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 472 S.W.2d 151.

The delay in sentencing here does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. If anything, appellant, at least in part, caused and acquiesced in the delay. He cannot now complain.

No reversible error is shown. The judgment is affirmed.
Case 1:11-cv-02643-LTB Document 3 Filed 10/17/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02643-LTB Document 3 Filed 10/17/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02643-LTB Document 3 Filed 10/17/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02643-LTB Document 3 Filed 10/17/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003



In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  Fidelity  Bancorp,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof,  we, Richard G. Spencer,
Chief Executive Officer, and Lisa L. Griffith, Chief Financial Officer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that:

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

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



/s/Richard G. Spencer                            /s/Lisa L. Griffith
--------------------------------                 -------------------------------
Richard G. Spencer                               Lisa L. Griffith
Chief Executive Officer                          Chief Financial Officer




August 12, 2005
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 8, 2011*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**R.100 Change in Net Worth of Households and Nonprofit Organizations** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Order entered April 11, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00406-CV

MEDI-LYNX MONITORING, INC., MEDI-LYNX CARDIAC MONITORING, LLC, 

ANDREW J. BOGDAN, Appellants

V.

AMI MONITORING, INC., SPECTOCOR, LLC, AND JOSEPH H. BOGDAN, Appellees

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 199-03634-2015

ORDER

Before Justices Francis, Fillmore and Stoddart

Before the Court is appellants’ Emergency Motion to Dissolve Temporary Injunction or, 

in the Alternative to Stay Enforcement of the Temporary Injunction. We DENY the motion.

/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE 

JUSTICE
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1713 

To provide for the issuance of a commemorative postage stamp in honor 

of Rosa Parks. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 27, 2007 

Mr. OBAMA (for himself, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BAYH, Mr. 

COLEMAN, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. VOINOVICH, 

Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BROWN, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. HARKIN, 

Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KERRY, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. LEVIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, 

Mr. SCHUMER, Ms. STABENOW, and Mr. REID) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for the issuance of a commemorative postage 

stamp in honor of Rosa Parks. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ROSA PARKS COMMEMORATIVE POSTAGE 

4 STAMP. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Postmaster General shall 

6 issue a commemorative postage stamp in honor of Rosa 

7 Parks. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•S 1713 IS

1 (b) DENOMINATION AND DESIGN.—The commemora2 tive postage stamp issued under this Act shall— 

3 (1) be issued in the denomination used for 1st 

4 class mail up to 1 ounce in weight; and 

5 (2) bear such designs as the Postmaster Gen6 eral shall determine. 

7 (c) ISSUANCE PERIOD.—The commemorative postage 

8 stamp issued under this Act shall— 

9 (1) be placed on sale as soon as practicable 

10 after the date of the enactment of this Act; and 

11 (2) be sold for such period thereafter as the 

12 Postmaster General shall determine. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
Exhibit 10.9

 

This is a translation of the original text in Chinese

 

Power of Attorney

 

Wang Fang, as a shareholder of Shenzhen Xunlei Networking Technologies Co., Ltd. (“Shenzhen Xunlei”), holds 0.7% equity interest in Shenzhen Xunlei in total. I, Wang Fang, agree to assign all of the rights I have as the shareholder of 0.7% equity interests in Shenzhen Xunlei to Giganology (Shenzhen) Ltd. (“Giganology”), and hereby irrevocably grant the following rights to the authorized person for its performance during the term of this Power of Attorney:

 

I hereby authorize the authorized person to perform, on my behalf, all the rights I originally have as the shareholder of 0.7% equity interests in Shenzhen Xunlei in accordance with laws and the articles of association of Shenzhen Xunlei, including without limitation, the right to convene a shareholders meeting, to accept any notice regarding convening a shareholders meeting and the agenda, to attend the shareholders meeting of Shenzhen Xunlei and exercise all the voting rights as a shareholder of 0.7% equity interest (including, as my authorized representative, to nominate and appoint the directors, general manager, financial director and other senior management of Shenzhen Xunlei at the shareholders meeting of Shenzhen Xunlei, as well as making decision regarding the distribution of dividends), and to sell or assign the 0.7% equity interests held by me in Shenzhen Xunlei, and so forth.

 

The authorized person has the right to appoint any individual nominated by its board of directors (or executive directors) to perform the rights granted by me hereunder.

 

Unless the Business Operation Agreement entered into by Giganology, Shenzhen Xunlei, Zou Shenglong, Cheng Hao, Wang Fang, Shi Jianming, and Guangzhou Shulian Information Investment Co., Ltd. is terminated early for any reason, the term of this Power of Attorney is ten (10) years commencing from the date hereof. As of the expiry of this Power of Attorney, I will extend the term of this Power of Attorney at the request of Giganology.

 

[Remainder of this page intentionally left blank.]

 

1











 

	
[Execution   page of the Power of Attorney]
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Authorizer:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Wang Fang
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/ Wang   Fang
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Date:
    	
May 10, 2011
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Authorized Person:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Giganology   (Shenzhen) Ltd.
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/ Legal   Representative/Authorized Representative
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
(Affixed with   common seal of the company)
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Date:
    	
May 10, 2011
    	
 
    


 

2
# **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 Riverbend Telecom, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), Leon Nowalsky, as Principal Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

| (1)    | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                         |
|-----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       |                                                                                                                             |
| (2)    | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

/s/ Leon Nowalsky                   Leon NowalskyPresident (Principal Executive Officer)Date:  April 14, 2004This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 188 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2007 

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

AN ACT 

To revise the short title of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa 

Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 Section 1 of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and 

5 Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization 

6 and Amendments Act of 2006 (Public Law 109–246) is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘and Coretta Scott King’’ and insert8 ing ‘‘Coretta Scott King, Ce ́sar E. Cha ́vez, Barbara C. 

9 Jordan, William C. Vela ́squez, and Dr. Hector P. Garcia’’. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

S 188 RFH 

1 SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS. 

2 Paragraphs (7) and (8) of section 4(a), and section 

3 13(a)(1), of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 

4 1973b(a), 1973k(a)(1)) are each amended by striking 

5 ‘‘and Coretta Scott King’’ and inserting ‘‘Coretta Scott 

6 King, Ce ́sar E. Cha ́vez, Barbara C. Jordan, William C. 

7 Vela ́squez, and Dr. Hector P. Garcia’’. 

8 SEC. 3. CONSTRUCTION. 

9 Title I of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 

10 1973 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the fol11 lowing: 

12 ‘‘SEC. 20. A reference in this title to the effective date 

13 of the amendments made by, or the date of the enactment 

14 of, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott 

15 King, Ce ́sar E. Cha ́vez, Barbara C. Jordan, William C. 

16 Vela ́squez, and Dr. Hector P. Garcia Voting Rights Act 

17 Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 shall be 

18 considered to refer to, respectively, the effective date of 

19 the amendments made by, or the date of the enactment 

20 of, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
3 

S 188 RFH 

1 King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments 

2 Act of 2006.’’. 

Passed the Senate February 15, 2007. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

ANTONIO M. NEAL, DOC #124111, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-601

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed February 8, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Vivian T. Corvo, 

Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, BADALAMENTI, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
** **

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 

 

Form 10-Q

 

(MarkOne)

[X]   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TOSECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010

 

or

 

[]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the transition period from _________to _________

 

Commission file number 0-14530

 

 

DAVIDSON INCOME REAL ESTATE,L.P.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

 

55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina  29602

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

(864) 239-1000

(Issuer's telephone number)

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to befiled by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during thepreceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was requiredto file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements forthe past 90 days.  

[X]Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted onits corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to besubmitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of thischapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that theregistrant was required to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, anaccelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reportingcompany.  See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “acceleratedfiler” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act). [ ] Yes  [X] No
---

EXHIBIT 23.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





Central Jersey Bancorp





Oakhurst, New Jersey





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements No. 333-100893, No. 333-122468, No. 333-125658 and No. 333-144096 on Form S-8 and No. 333-131640 and No. 333-156878 on Form S-3 of Central Jersey Bancorp of our report dated March 30, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Central Jersey Bancorp, appearing in Central Jersey Bancorp’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009.





/s/ ParenteBeard LLC





ParenteBeard LLC


Malvern, Pennsylvania


March 30, 2010
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1347
In Re: JOHN D. HORTON, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (MC-04-13) Submitted: June 9, 2005 Decided: June 14, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. John D. Horton, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: John D. Horton petitions for writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his petition for expungement of records. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Although we find that mandamus relief is not warranted bec ause the delay is not unreasonable, we deny the mandamus petition without prejudice to the filing of another mandamus petition if the district court does not act expeditiously. We grant Horton’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 166 (Friday, August 27, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 52801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21371]

[[Page 52801]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

Membership of the Performance Review Board (PRB)

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The following staff members have been appointed to serve on 
the Performance Review Board:

Performance Review Board (PRB)

    Chair: Florizelle Liser
    Alternate Chair: Barbara Weisel
    Member: Christopher Wilson
    Member: Lewis Karesh
    Executive Secretary: Susan Buck

DATES: Effective Date: August 12, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding this submission 
should be directed to Lorraine Green, Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade 
Representative for Administration and Director of Human Resources (202) 
395-7360.

Lorraine Green,
Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Administration and 
Director of Human Resources.
[FR Doc. 2010-21371 Filed 8-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-W0-P
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1843

KATHLEEN DEWEESE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,

Chief District Judge. (3:15-cv-16210)

Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 19, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hoyt Eric Glazer, LAW OFFICE OF HOYT GLAZER, Huntington, West 

Virginia, for Appellant. Carol A. Casto, United States 

Attorney, Jennifer M. Mankins, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kathleen DeWeese appeals the district court’s order 

granting Carolyn W. Colvin’s motion to dismiss DeWeese’s claims, 

brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2008 & Supp. 

2016); the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as 

amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621 to 634 (West 2008 & Supp. 2016); and 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 701 

to 796l (West 2008 & Supp. 2016). We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s judgment. See DeWeese v. Colvin, No. 3:15-cv16210 (S.D.W. Va. June 24, 2016). 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.

AFFIRMED
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00390-CR

EX PARTE Laymon SNYDER

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009-CR-5401

Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 5, 2009

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Appellant filed a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus seeking a bond reduction. On

May 14, 2009, the trial court signed an order denying appellant relief. Based on the May 14, 2009

order, appellant’s notice of appeal was due by June 15, 2009, see TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1), and a

motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due no later than June 30, 2009. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on June 29, 2009, and did not file a motion

for extension of time.

Although appellant’s June 29, 2009 notice of appeal was filed within the fifteen-day period

provided by rule 26.3, appellant failed to file an extension motion. Because it appeared to this court
04-09-00390-CR

-2-

that we did not have jurisdiction over this appeal, see Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1998) (per curiam); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), we

ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

On July 27, 2009, appellant’s attorney responded by letter acknowledging that the notice of appeal

was untimely filed and stating appellant is unable to show cause why this appeal should not be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish