alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Syna LIM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D09-5780.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 17, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 16, 2010.

*35Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and David A. Davis, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Charmaine M. Millsaps, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

ROBERTS, J.

The appellant, Syna Lim, was charged and convicted of aggravated child abuse and first-degree felony murder in the death of two-year-old Amara Ou, who died of blunt force trauma to the head. The appellant raises two issues on appeal, only one of which merits discussion. She argues that her conviction for aggravated child abuse must be set aside because the merger doctrine precludes the use of aggravated child abuse as the underlying felony in a felony murder charge if only a single act of abuse led to the child’s death. We disagree and affirm.

The felony murder statute specifically provides that aggravated child abuse can serve as the underlying felony in a felony murder charge. *See*§ 782.04(l)(a)2.h., Fla. Stat. (2006). This is true regardless of the number of acts of abuse that led to the child’s death. *See Lewis v. State,*34 So.3d 183, 185-87 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Thus, the merger doctrine neither applies nor precludes the use of aggravated child abuse as the underlying felony in a felony murder charge so long as one or more acts of abuse led to the child’s death. *See id. But see Sturdivant v. State,*2010 WL 3464410 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept.7, 2010), *rev. granted,*SC10-1791 (Fla. Oct. 15, 2010).

Even if aggravated child abuse can only serve as the underlying felony in a felony murder charge if more than one act of abuse led to the child’s death, we would still affirm. The cause of death in this case was blunt force trauma to the head. Although the exact form of abuse was unknown, the trauma was caused by multiple injuries to Amara’s head. Amara also suffered multiple injuries to other parts of her body. Thus, it is clear that more than one act of abuse led to Amara’s death. *See Lewis,*34 So.3d at 187 (finding that more than a single act of abuse led to the child’s death based on her injuries and the manner of her death — drowning); *Rosa v.*
      *36
      *State,*2010 WL 2430985, *1 (Fla. 2d DCA June 18, 2010) (finding that more than a single act of abuse led to the child’s death where the child was strangled and had multiple injuries on other parts of his body); *Dorsey v. State,*942 So.2d 983, 985-86 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (finding that more than one act of abuse led to the child’s death where the child was shaken to death).

AFFIRMED.

HAWKES, C.J., and ROWE, J., concur.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 85 (Monday, May 22, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7134-S7135]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          HONORING BEA DISMAN

 Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today in this era of 
bureaucrat bashing, to tell my colleagues about one particular civil 
servant who exemplifies all of the good qualities a Federal employee 
should embody. I speak of Ms. Beatrice Disman, the new Region II 
Commissioner of the U.S. Social Security Administration in New York.
  Bea Disman first came to my attention 12 years ago when she spent 6 
months on my Senate staff, detailed by Social Security to learn how the 
legislative process worked. Bea was a hard worker, willing to start 
early and stay late--whatever it took to get the job done, and done 
well. Bea always was willing to pitch in to help others. Couple these 
qualities with a fine intellect and a genuine concern for people, and 
there is no wonder why Bea Disman has risen through the ranks to become 
one of the top officials at the Social Security Administration.
  With a Masters in Diplomatic History and a winning personality, Bea 
Disman joined Social Security as a district office claims 
representative in 1965. Assigned to the Midtown Manhattan office, she 
worked her way up the hierarchy until, in 1973, she was assigned to the 
New York Regional Office as a Program Evaluation Analyst. In 1979 Bea 
was selected as Executive Assistant to the Regional Commissioner. 
[[Page S7135]] In 1987 she became Director of the Office of Regional 
Programs and Integrity Reviews. Now she is Regional Commissioner.
  Region II of Social Security is in fine hands. Thank you, Mr. 
President.

                          ____________________
```
<PAGE>   1
                      MICRION CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                 Statement of Computation of Per Share Earnings


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        (unaudited)
                                                   For the three months
                                                    ended September 30,
                                                 1996               1997
                                                ------             ------

                                           (in thousands except per share data)

<S>                                             <C>                <C>   
Net Income ........................              $  982              $  636

(a) Computation of Primary Earnings
     per Share:

Weighted average common
equivalent shares outstanding
  Common stock ....................               4,033               4,049
  Common stock equivalents:
    Warrants(1) ...................                  44                  68
    Options (2) ...................                  44                 257
                                                 ------                 ---
Weighted average common and
common equivalent shares
outstanding .......................               4,121               4,374
                                                 ======               =====


 Primary Earnings per Share .......              $ 0.24              $ 0.15
                                                 ======              ======


(b) Computation of Fully Diluted
     Earnings per Share:

Weighted average common
equivalent shares outstanding
  Common stock ....................               4,033               4,051
  Common stock equivalents:
    Warrants(1) ...................                  48                  71
    Options (2) ...................                  77                 290
                                                 ------              ------
Weighted average common and
common equivalent shares
outstanding .......................               4,158               4,412
                                                 ======              ======


 Fully Diluted Earnings per Share .              $ 0.24              $ 0.14
                                                 ======              ======
</TABLE>


(1) Warrants issued 5/94 for 100,000 shares, less shares reacquired under the
    treasury stock method.

(2) Options granted 11/94 through 9/97.


                                     Page 14
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 Health and Human Services

# AGENCY:

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        HHS gives notice as required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a decision to evaluate a petition to designate a class of employees from the Vitro Manufacturing facility in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, to be included in the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as follows:                              ( print page 58391)    

*Facility:*                         Vitro Manufacturing.                    

*Location:*                         Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.                    

*Job Titles and/or Job Duties:*                         All employees who worked in any area.                    

*Period of Employment:*                         January 1, 1958 through April 30, 1960.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Interim Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to                         *DCAS@CDC.GOV.*

John Howard,

Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2010-24011 Filed 9-23-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           5,276                   5,276
<SECURITIES>                                    34,927                  34,927
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,639                  16,639
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        389                     389
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,129                  68,129
<PP&E>                                          12,796                  12,796
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,735                   6,735
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  77,332                  77,332
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,113                   8,113
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            24                      24
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,195                  69,195
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    77,332                  77,332
<SALES>                                         14,380                  26,448
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,380                  26,448
<CGS>                                            1,746                   3,393
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,746                   3,393
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,943                  25,013
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    139                   (953)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                139                   (953)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                       139                   (953)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01                  (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01                  (0.04)


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 10.1
 
 AMENDMENT NUMBER 1  TO THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED LOAN AGREEMENT
 Amendment Loan Agreement Issuer Agent NIB HBU Noteholders Noteholder
 W I T N E S S E T H
    Defined Terms
 Full Force and Effect
 Amendment to the Loan Agreement
  Representations and Warranties
 Effectiveness of Amendment




---



##### 



Exhibit 10.1
   Execution in Counterparts
 Governing Law PROVIDED
 Consent to Jurisdiction
 No Novation




---



##### 



Exhibit 10.1
  CRONOS FINANCE (BERMUDA) LIMITEDBy:     /s/ DENNIS J. TIETZName: Dennis J. TietzTitle: Director




---



##### 



Exhibit 10.1
 FORTIS BANK (NEDERLAND) N.V., as Agent and NoteholderBy:
    
    /s/ H.P. DE KOOLName:
    
    H.P. de KoolTitle:
    
    Senior ManagerBy:
    
    /s/ P. R. G. ZAMANName:
    
    P. R. G. ZamanTitle:
    
    Deputy Director




---



##### 



Exhibit 10.1
 NIBC BANK N.V., as NoteholderBy:
    
    /s/ MAURICE L. WIJMANSName:
    
    Maurice L. WijmansTitle:
    
    Associate DirectorBy:
    
    /s/ T.TH. VAN DER MASTName:
    
    T.TH. van der MastTitle:
    
    Managing Director




---



##### 



Exhibit 10.1
 HOLLANDSCHE BANK-UNIE N.V., as NoteholderBy:
    
    /s/ R.A.C. COENRAADTSName:
    
    R.A.C. CoenraadtsTitle:
    
    ProxyBy:
    
    /s/ I.J. TROOSTName:
    
    I.J. TroostTitle:
    
    Proxy




---



##### 



Exhibit 10.1
 EXHIBIT A
 DEPRECIATION METHODS BY TYPE OF CONTAINER
 1.
    
    Refrigerated Containers
  2.
    
    Tanks, Rolltrailers & Flatracks
  3.
    
    All Other Container Types
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Trans Energy, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Robert I. Richards , Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the
best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 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.


/s/   ROBERT I. RICHARDS
-----------------------------
      Robert I. Richards
      Chief Executive Officer
      November 15, 2002
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-20-00557-CR

IN RE Christian L. GARRETT

Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 30, 2020

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

On November 18, 2020, relator filed a (1) motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

and (2) a “notice of intent” to file a writ of habeas corpus for pretrial relief. We granted relator’s 

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered relator to file a writ of habeas corpus 

by December 14, 2020 should he decide to file one. 

On December 11, 2020, relator filed a pro se writ of habeas corpus claiming he has been 

“unlawfully extradited, arrested and detained” since November 6, 2019 with “an unsigned 

indictment” for continuous sexual abuse of a child. Relator requests that we dismiss this case with 

prejudice.

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2019CR7642, styled Garrett v. State, pending in the 175th Judicial District 

Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl presiding.
04-20-00557-CR

- 2 -

Our original jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus is limited to cases in which a 

person’s liberty is restrained because the person has violated an order, judgment, or decree entered 

in a civil case. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d). We do not have original jurisdiction to issue 

a writ of habeas corpus in criminal matters. Dodson v. State, 988 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio 1999, no pet.). The only courts authorized to issue writs of habeas corpus in criminal 

matters are the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, district courts, and county courts. TEX. CODE 

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.05. 

Here, relator does not complain of an order, judgment, or decree entered in a civil case. 

We therefore dismiss relator’s writ of habeas corpus for want of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

JESSIE PAUL OGLE, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 20-0507 PRPC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2014-150017-001

The Honorable Bradley H. Astrowsky, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Amanda M. Parker

Counsel for Respondent

The Nolan Law Firm, PLLC, Mesa

By Todd E. Nolan

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 5-11-2021
STATE v. OGLE

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani, Judge Samuel A. Thumma, and Judge 

Brian Y. Furuya delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Jessie Paul Ogle seeks review of the superior court’s 

order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is Ogle’s first 

petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). It is 

petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by 

denying the petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 

537, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of 

establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion.

¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 1 7, 2017

No. 04

- 16

- 00025

- CV

Beatrice VASQUEZ & Darryl De La Cruz

,

Appellants

v.

OLD AUSTIN ROAD LAND TRUST , Joseph Anthony Pizzini Individually and as Trustee of

Old Austin Road Land Trust, & John Price,

Appellees

From the 438th Judicial District Cou rt, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015

- CI

- 20809

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

The panel has considered the appellant s ’ motion for rehearing, and the motion is

DENIED.

_________________________________ Patri cia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 17th day of July, 2017

.

___________________________________ Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 429 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 29 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17), 2008 

Received 

OCTOBER 2 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17), 2008 

Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the importance of the United States wine 

industry to the American economy. 

Whereas the United States is one of the largest wine producing countries in the world, with the United States 

wine, grape, and grape products industry representing 

more than 1 percent of the $13,800,000,000 American 

economy in 2007; 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

HCON 429 RFS 

Whereas the wine and winegrape industry of Texas has an 

economic impact of $1,000,000,000 on the economy of 

Texas; 

Whereas since 2000, the wine and winegrape industry of 

Texas has experienced tremendous growth, with nearly 

90 percent of that growth resulting from an increase in 

the number and revenue of small wineries producing less 

than 5,000 gallons of wine each year; and 

Whereas in 2005, the wine and winegrape industry of 

Texas— 

(1) included 113 wineries and 220 commercial growers of winegrapes on 2,900 acres; 

(2) produced over 626,000 cases of wine; 

(3) provided the equivalent of 8,000 full-time jobs 

and paid over $234,000,000 in wages to workers; 

(4) generated revenue from wineries that produced 

an economic impact of $91,500,000 on the economy of 

Texas; 

(5) generated over $10,000,000 in revenue from 

vineyards in Texas; 

(6) attracted over 868,000 tourists to Texas, who 

spent over $220,000,000; and 

(7) generated over $69,000,000 in Federal, State, 

and local taxes: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) recognizes the importance of the United 

4 States wine, winegrape, and grape products industry 

5 to the American economy; and 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

HCON 429 RFS 

1 (2) directs the Secretary of the Senate to trans2 mit a copy of this resolution to the Commissioner of 

3 the Texas Department of Agriculture and the Texas 

4 Wine and Grape Growers Association in Grapevine, 

5 Texas. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 27, 

2008. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

May 12, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00288

- CR

Ricardo Roger MORALES

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13

- 1384

- CR

- A

The Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellant ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to File Pro se Brief is hereby GRANTED.

The brief is due June 22, 2015.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 12th day of May, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of C ourt