alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Farmers & Merchants National Bank *v.*Cook, administrator.

No. 6251.

May 16, 1928.

Claim. Before Judge Edwards. Polk superior court. August 26, 1927.

The plaintiff holds an execution against Mrs. Ernest Campbell and her husband, dated October 20, 1922, based on a judgment obtained in the city court of Polk County on October 14, 1922. This execution was.levied, March 2, 1927, on three land lots in Polk County, to which the defendant in error filed his claim as administrator on the estate on J. M. Cook Sr. The plaintiff in fi. fa. filed a petition in aid of the levy, alleging that on June 28, 1922, Mrs. Ernest Campbell made a deed to J. M. Cook Sr., covering the property involved in this litigation, for the expressed consideration of $2000 and $450 due the Rockmart Bank and secured by deed to the property in question. It is charged, upon informa*323tion and belief, that she made that deed while insolvent, and for the purpose of hindering, delaying, and defrauding the plaintiff; that J. M. Cook Sr. was her uncle; that they knew of the debt of the plaintiff; that said conveyance was made for the purpose of creating a trust for the benefit of Mrs. Campbell; that said farm was practically all the property she had; that the plaintiff is informed that Cook did not pay Mrs. Campbell the consideration named in her deed; that Cook knew of her insolvency, knew of her intention to put the property where the plaintiff could not subject it to its debt, and knew that it was her intention and purpose, or it was the plan of Cook to get the title of said property without paying for it and to hinder, delay, and defraud the plaintiff. It is charged that after the sale of the property Mrs. Campbell continued to receive the benefit “of all rents on the lands levied on, and according to the information of petitioner she continued to have possession and control of the property through another uncle.”

*322Beck, P. J.

Whether the deed from the defendant in fi. fa. to the claimant was a bona fide conveyance for a valuable consideration and valid under all the circumstances, or whether it was made with the intent on the part of the grantor to hinder, delay, and defraud creditors, and whether the grantee in the deed, the claimant in this case, had knowledge of such intent or knowledge of facts which would have amounted to notice, was a question which should have been determined by the jury. The evidence was such as to raise an issue as to this question, and the court should not have granted a nonsuit, or, what in effect amounted to the same thing, dismissed the levy; but under proper instructions upon the pertinent issues should have submitted the casS to a jury. *Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*323The court dismissed the levy, and the plaintiff in fi. fa. excepted.

*JS. 8. Ault*and *John K. Davis,*for plaintiff.

*Q. 8. Claxton*and *W. W.*Mundy, for defendant.
1420 Alabama |Houston | Texas | 77004
p. 713.522.7400 f. 713.522.7410

www.TexasLegalMalpractice.com

April 22, 2015

V IA E LECTRONIC F ILING Christopher A. Prine

C LERK

, F IRST C OURT OF A PPEALS 301 Fannin, Room 245 Houston, Texas 77002

Re: Cause No. 01 -14 -00 138

- CV

; Rolando Acevedo, et al. v. The O’Quinn Law Firm, et al.; In the First Court of Appeals, at Houston; Trial Court

Cause No. 392,247

-416

, Rolando Acevedo, et al. v. The O’Quinn Law Firm, et al.; In the Probate Court No. 2 of Harris County Texas.

Dear Mr. Prine,

This letter is sent to the Court pursuant to the Court’s Order dated March 26, 2015, requesting monthly status updates and abating this case until June 22, 2015.

We a re happy to report that since the last update set forth in the Unopposed Third Motion to Abate, the Parties have agreed on the terms of the formal release. The releases along with the settlement packages have been sent out to Appellants as well as all other clients connected to this suit (approximately 1075 clients). Once the releases are executed by Appellants and forwarded toAppellees, Appellants expect to dismiss this appeal. It is expected to take approximately fortyfive days before all the releases will be received back.

We respectfully request a copy of this letter to be distributed amongst the Justices hearing

this matter.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

Sincerely,

T HE K ASSAB L AW F IRM

Lance Christopher Kassab Attorney for Intervenor-Appellants Rolando Acevedo, et al. ACCEPTED
01-14-00138-CV
FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS
4/22/2015 3:48:23 PM
CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKChristopher A. P r ine

April 22, 2015 Page 2 of 2

cc.

Dale Jeffer son (Via Electronic Filing/ Email/ Facsimile)

Jim Peacock (Via Electronic Filing/ Email/ Facsimile) Kevin Dubose (Via Electronic Filing/ Email/ Facsimile) Wallace B. Jefferson (Via Electronic Filing/Email/Facsimile) Douglas W. Alexander (Via Electronic Filing/E mail/Facsimile)
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00549-CR

Jerry Soliz MARTINEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008CR1459

Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 21, 2011

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

Appellant Jerry Soliz Martinez was sentenced on June 22, 2011. Because he did not file 

a motion for new trial, appellant’s notice of appeal was due to be filed no later than July 22, 

2011. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). Our records show (1) the notice of appeal was not filed until 

July 29, 2011, and (2) no motion for extension of time was filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. 
04-11-00549-CR

- 2 -

On August 17, 2011, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing by September 1, 

2011, why his appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.1 To date, this court has 

not received any response to the order.

This court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal of a criminal conviction in the absence of a 

timely, written notice of appeal. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) 

(“When a notice of appeal is filed within the fifteen-day period [after the notice of appeal was 

due to be filed] but no timely motion for extension of time is filed, the appellate court lacks 

jurisdiction.”); Shute v. State, 744 S.W.2d 96, 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). Accordingly, this 

appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

 1 The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that “this criminal case is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant 

has NO right of appeal.” We must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal 

has not been made part of the record.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). Appellant’s counsel notified this court in 

writing that counsel has reviewed the record and “can find no right of appeal for Appellant.”
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998             FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1997             MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998             FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                           1,649                       4
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,509                   5,078
<ALLOWANCES>                                       485                     248
<INVENTORY>                                     11,910                  12,077
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,246                  18,027
<PP&E>                                           4,301                   2,473
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,316                   1,023
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,592                  20,524
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,829                  11,775
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                   6,490
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            79                   3,511
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,343                 (4,952)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,592                  20,524
<SALES>                                         59,905                  47,151
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                59,905                  47,151
<CGS>                                           38,245                  31,845
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,245                  31,845
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,189                  11,357
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,034                   1,657
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,437                   2,292
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,702                     960
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,735                   1,332
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                        (374)                 (4,310)
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,361                 (2,978)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .52                   (.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .52                   (.76)
        

</TABLE>
News United States Air Force
 B-52 integrates, trains with French alliesPublished April 21, 2016
                        
                        By U.S. Strategic Command Public Affairs
                **OFFUTT AIR FORCE BASE, Neb. (AFNS) --**
                A B-52 Stratofortress from Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, conducted a long-range training sortie April 20, to train and integrate with the French air force.The B-52 also participated in an aerial review near Paris to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the formation of the Lafayette Escadrille.“This mission demonstrates the flexibility that defines the bomber leg of the triad by incorporating operational training with an important public commemoration of U.S. support to our oldest ally,” said Adm. Cecil D. Haney, the U.S. Strategic Command commander. “The integration of our strategic bomber force with the French air force is central to our shared commitment to promoting global security and stability in today’s complex and dynamic environment.”The Lafayette Escadrille was a squadron in the French air force during World War I composed of American pilots, who served as the core of experience for the nascent American Air Corps that was activated in Europe following U.S. entry into the war.One of nine Defense Department unified combatant commands, STRATCOM has global strategic missions, assigned through the Unified Command Plan, which include strategic deterrence; space operations; cyberspace operations; joint electronic warfare; global strike; missile defense; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; combating weapons of mass destruction; and analysis and targeting.Offutt AFB 



AFGSC 



B-52 



France 



heritage 



Lafayette Escadrille 



Minot AFB Related Links
        Yesterday’s Air Force: Lafayette Escadrille
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-20-00389-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.P., K.P., AND 

A.W., CHILDREN

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 231st District 

Court

of Tarrant County (231-684596-20)

March 4, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice 

Sudderth

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By __/s/ Bonnie Sudderth________________

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 8036** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. RASHADI ANDRE WEARING , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Charlottesville
. Norman K. Moon , Senior District Judge. ( 3:04

- cr - 00092

- NKM

- 8; 3:13

- cv - 80561

- NKM

RSB )

Submitted : March 27 , 2014 Decided: April 1, 2014

Before MOTZ , Circuit Judge , and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Rashadi Andre Wearing, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Spodick Healey, Ronald Mitchell Huber, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Rashadi Andre Wearing seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). 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) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merit s, 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 ri ght. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wearing 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 legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### Tim WAGNER v. INN OF LAKE CHARLES, et al.

No. 2011-C-0181.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2011.

In re Wagner, Tim; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 2008-1158-H; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-0017.

Denied.
#### A. M. March v. L. S. Williams.

(No. 2813.)

Appeal from Montague County.

*(Transferred from Austin.J*

Stephens & Herbert, counsel for appellant.

Jameson & Chambers and Huff & Bowman, counsel for appellees.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 377. *Judgment must be based upon verdict; court cannot render judgment not warranted by verdict; case stated.*This cause was tried by a jury, and the verdict was for appellant, the plaintiff, for $462.90, and the court rendered judgment accordingly. Appellee made a motion for a new trial, wdiich motion the court overruled. On the next day the court, of its own motion, virtually set aside the former judgment and the verdict, and rendered judgment for appellant for only $247.50, and from this second judgment appellant prosecutes this appeal. *Held: “*There can be no clearer principle than that when a jury has intervened, and all the issues have been submitted to their decision, their verdict must constitute the basis of the judgment. The court cannot look to the evidence on which the verdict was found in order to determine what judgment to render, but must look alone to the verdict.” [Claiborne v. Tanner, 18 Tex. 69; Aikin v. Jefferson, 65 Tex. 137.] It is true that a court, ordinarily, has control over its judgments during the term; and not only the records during that time are subject to the revision of the court, but the judgment itself may be altered, revised, or revoked, as well as amended in respect to clerical errors and matters of form. [Freeman *452on Judg. (3d ed.) § 69.] But the court cannot, after a judgment has been rendered upon the verdict of a jury, substitute it with an entirely different one in substance, as was done in this instance.

November 14, 1888.

Reversed and remanded.
News United States Air Force
 May issue of Airman magazine now availablePublished May 6, 2015
                        
                        By Airman Magazine Staff
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS) --**
                The May issue of Airman magazine is now available to download and is viewable through a Web browser.
In the cover story, titled “Standing Up,” you’ll meet Afghan air force Maj. Sahar Ahmad, who’s among the first class of eight Afghan airmen who started training in the A-29 Super Tucano at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia. Here, Airmen assigned to the 81st Fighter Squadron train future Afghan fighter pilots and A-29 maintainers.
In the next feature, called “Taking a Load Off,” Senior Airman Kayla Russell recounts her career as a loadmaster assigned to Dover AFB, Delaware, where she and her fellow loadmasters took part in the retrograde operations in Afghanistan in late 2014, transporting equipment and personnel out of the country.
Lastly, in “Frozen Tundra Warriors,” you’ll learn about the frigid, sub-zero temperatures Airmen at Grand Forks AFB and Minot AFB, North Dakota, must brave every winter to ensure the mission continues.
You can download Airman magazine’s April issue for your tablet here:**• Apple version• Android version**
Airman magazine provides an interactive experience for tablet readers and a limited interactive version is viewable in Web browser format. **Click here** to read this issue on your PC/Mac.
For more stories, visit **Airman Online**, the website for the official magazine of the U.S. Air Force.Airman online 



Air Force News Service 



Airman 



Airman magazine
Exhibit 32

Certification Furnished 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 on Form 10-K of Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that:



| |  |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period
covered by the Report.
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    Kerry J. ChauvinKerry J. ChauvinChief Executive OfficerFebruary 28, 2008By:

/s/    Robin A. SeibertRobin A. SeibertChief Financial OfficerFebruary 28, 2008


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. and will be retained by Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

ERRATA

February 22, 2010 

Appeal No. 2008-5181, HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL v. US

Precedential Opinion 

Decided: February 18, 2010 

Please correct the following: 

On page 10, line 17, delete “district court’s” and insert --Court of Federal Claims’-- 

On page 11, lines 15-17, delete both “disclose” and insert --discloses-- 

On page 17, line 16, delete “describers” and insert --describes--
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated statement of operations and consolidated balance sheet and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000919957
<NAME> COMCAST UK CABLE PARTNERS LTD
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U. K. POUNDS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1.6713
<CASH>                                          98,201
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,486
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,599)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               106,722
<PP&E>                                         333,053
<DEPRECIATION>                                (38,637)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 513,053
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,784
<BONDS>                                        312,842
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           501
<OTHER-SE>                                     155,684
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   513,053
<SALES>                                         17,302
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,576
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (22,159)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (4,667)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (8,470)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,491)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,491)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,491)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.31)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











In
connection with the Annual Report of Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert M. Sinnott,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(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 result of operations of the
      Company.











Dated:  March
      10, 2009
                  /s/ ROBERT M. SINNOTTRobert
      M. SinnottChief
      Financial Officer








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