alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered January 15 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 00821

- CR

TIMOTHY JAMES TAYLOR , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 366

- 80945

- 2012



### O RDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant

has been deprived of the clerk’s and reporter’s records because of ineffective counsel, indigence,

or for any other reason.

 The tr ial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeal, it shall make a finding to that effect.

 If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall next determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs for the clerk’s and reporter’s records. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the trial court s hall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds appell ant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who

recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanat ion for the delay in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can
be filed.

 The trial court shall next determine the date by which the clerk’s record will be filed.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a rec ord, containing the written findings of fact,

any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date

of this order.

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal

shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received,

whichever is earlier.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT
CHIEF JUSTICE
United States Navy–Marine Corps

Court of Criminal Appeals

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Daniel K. MIZUTA

Lance Corporal (E-3), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

No. 201800269

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Decided: 5 March 2019.

Military Judge: 

Commander William Weiland, JAGC, USN.

Sentence adjudged 22 May 2018 by a general court-martial convened 

at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, consisting of a military 

judge sitting alone. Sentence approved by convening authority:

reduction to E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 

18 months, and a bad-conduct discharge.

For Appellant: 

Major James S. Kresge, USMCR.

For Appellee: 

Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

Before WOODARD, FULTON, and ELLINGTON,

Appellate Military Judges.
United States v. Mizuta, No. 201800269

2

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s 

substantial rights occurred. Articles 59 and 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 

866.1

The findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority are 

AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court

 

1 We note that the record of trial was authenticated by the court reporter. RULE 

FOR COURT-MARTIAL 1104(A)(2)(B), MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, UNITED STATES

(2016 ed.), permits a court reporter in a judge-alone trial to authenticate a record of 

trial, but only if “the military judge cannot authenticate the record of trial because of 

the military judge’s death, disability, or absence” and “the trial counsel [present at 

the end of the trial] cannot authenticate the record of trial because of the trial counsel’s death, disability, or absence . . . .” The authentication page fails to indicate that 

the military judge and trial counsel were not available to authenticate the record of 

trial. However, in a hand-written note on a checklist attached to another part of the 

record, there is a reference that the military judge and trial counsel were unavailable

to authenticate the record. Recognizing that in the future—for cases referred to trial

on or after 1 January 2019—new procedures will apply, in the meantime a court reporter remains unauthorized to authenticate the record unless certain conditions exist. Those preconditions should be clearly set out as part of any substitute authentication done by a court reporter or a trial counsel.
<Page>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS


    As independent petroleum consultants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Nos.
333-85435 and 333-37558) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-56961 and 333-70137) of
Brigham Exploration Company of our estimates of reserves, included in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K, and to all references to our firm included in
this Annual Report.








/s/ CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
----------------------------------------
CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Fort Worth, Texas
March 29, 2002
#### STATE ex rel. John S. LINDSEY v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0153.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 2011.

In re Lindsey, John S.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 89-CR1-44551; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 1926.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; *State v. Parker,*98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694.
News United States Air Force
 Yokota Airmen help prepare Sailors for refuelsPublished Feb. 1, 2016
                        
                        By Senior Airman David Owsianka
                        
                        
                        374th Airlift Wing Public Affairs
                **YOKOTA AIR BASE, Japan (AFNS) --**
                Airmen fuelers from the 374th Logistics Readiness Squadron provided essential training on the R-11 refueling trucks to Sailors from Naval Air Facility Atsugi, Japan, at Yokota Air Base Jan. 25-29. The training allowed members to prepare to support Navy aircraft at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, during exercise Cope North."The training they receive is important because they will be using our refueling trucks as they provide fuel to their aircraft," said Senior Airman Tyler Sims, a 374th LRS Fuels Management Flight fuels training supervisor. "We prepared them for any potential tasks they will need to perform."The Navy personnel who received training on the R-11 refueling trucks learned how to drive, service aircraft, perform minor maintenance, and how to check fuel samples with the vehicle."It is imperative for us to learn how to operate the vehicles because it will ensure our readiness is where it needs to be and help us effectively complete our mission," said Petty Officer 3rd Class Christian Fakhoury, a NAF Atsugi Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron administrative assistant. "This course has been great because I have learned more mechanical knowledge on the trucks."Working alongside Air Force personnel has provided the Navy personnel with more than just a better understanding of how to operate a refueling truck."Working together with different military branches helps build camaraderie between our sister services, making it easier to work with each other towards the same goal," said Petty Officer 3rd Class Zachary Danford, a NAF Atsugi Carrier AEWS aviation electrician. "The training has also helped us learn about different Air Force customs and courtesies that we are not used to in the Navy. This will help us work more effectively in future missions."The fuels Airmen provided necessary knowledge and training to the Navy personnel during the weeklong event. The course was not only important for the Sailors to learn how to properly complete missions using the R-11 refueling truck, it also helped build teamwork and promoted camaraderie between sister branches.After the Navy members completed their training, they went back to their home station and began preparation for exercise Cope North.Exercise Cope North began in 1978 when it was first hosted at Misawa Air Base, Japan. Having more than three decades of multilateral training has ensured team Yokota AB, along with its allies, are ready for contingency and humanitarian operations at a moment's notice. The exercise is designed to enhance each countries air operations. Additionally, the exercise includes humanitarian assistance and disaster relief training objectives.Japan 



POL 



joint 



Navy 



fuel 



Andersen AFB 



Guam PACAF 



Cope North 



Yokota AB
****Exhibit**** ****21****

 

 

**List of Subsidiaries of PSS World Medical, Inc.**

 

 
| **Name of Domestic Subsidiary**                   | **State of Formation** | **(Names under which Subsidiary conducts business)** |
|---------------------------------------------------|------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
| Gulf South Medical Supply, Inc.                   | Delaware               |                                                 |
| Physician Sales & Service, Inc.               | Florida                |                                                 |
| Physician Sales & Service Limited Partnership | Florida                |                                                 |
| PSS Holding, Inc.                                 | Florida                |                                                 |
| PSS Service, Inc.                                 | Florida                |                                                 |
| Southern Anesthesia & Surgical, Inc.          | South Carolina         |                                                 |
| ThriftyMed, Inc.                                  | Florida                |                                                 |
| WorldMed Shared Services, Inc.                    | Florida                | PSS World Medical Shared Services, Inc.              |
| Proclaim, Inc.                                    | Tennessee              |                                                 |
| Ancillary Management Solutions, Inc.              | Tennessee              |                                                 |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>   This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
           from the Balance Sheet and Statement of Operations included in
           the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998 and
           is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Financial
           Statements.
</LEGEND> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                         <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS
<CASH>                                            2,763
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    37,675
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              6,080,398   
<PP&E>                                          527,021
<DEPRECIATION>                                  131,691
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                6,080,398
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         2,175,195
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                      6,522,459
<OTHER-SE>                                   (2,617,256)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  6,080,398
<SALES>                                          37,956
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                736,701
<CGS>                                            26,152
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    26,152
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              2,257,626
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               76,447
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1,323,561)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1,323,561)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1,323,561)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    ($0.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    ($0.33)
        

</TABLE>
#### J. W. Barton & Co. v. Exchange Bank.

(No. 3323.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§711. *Consideration; failure of, cannot be pleaded, when; case stated.*Barton & Co. executed to one Omerod an instrument in writing as follows, viz.:

> *623“ Dallas, Texas, February 20, 1883.

> “ Received from the City Flour Mills, 5,000 pounds

> Flour, G. E., @ $2.75......................$137.50

> “Due October 20, 1883.

> (Signed) “J. W. Barton & Co.

> (Indorsed) “J. Omerod.”

Appellee purchased this instrument from Omerod and paid him a valuable consideration therefor, and appellants refusing to pay the same, appellee brought this suit to recover the amount of the obligation. Appellants pleaded a partial failure of consideration, to wit, that ■ only one-half of the flour had been delivered to them, and they tendered the amount due for the flour they had received. Judgment was rendered for appellee for the full amount claimed. Appellants’ pleas of partial failure of consideration, and of tender, were sustained by the evidence. *Held:*The obligation sued upon is non-negotiable. [1 Danl. Neg. Inst. §§ 105,106.] It was acquired by appellee before its maturity, for a valuable consideration, in due course of trade, in good faith, and without notice of any want or failure of consideration. Such being the case, appellants could not avoid it by pleading and proving a failure of consideration in whole or in part. This is our understanding and. construction of article 272 of the Revised Statutes. Article 267 apparently conflicts with article 272. By the terms of the former, the assignee must allow every discount and defense which the obligation would have been subject to in the hands of any previous owner before notice of the assignment was given to the defendant. This would seem to include the defenses of a want or a failure of consideration. But the two articles are *in pari materia*and must be construed together, and so construed as to give effect to each, if such construction be reasonable. Our construction is, that article 272 relates specially and exclusively to the defenses of a want of, and a failure of consideration; and, therefore, these particular defenses can be interposed only in the instances named in that *624article; while article 267 relates to and embraces all other defenses, except those of a want or failure of consideration. Article 267 is general in its terms, while article 272 is special; and it is a canon of statutory construction that a *special*controls a *general*provision in a statute. This being our view of the law, we hold that the court did not err in finding against appellants’ pleas of partial failure of consideration and of tender.

May 14, 1885.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**





**Certification
      of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
      adopted**


**pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





In
      connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-K of Eclipsys Corporation
      (the
“Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned,
      Robert J. Colletti, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
      Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      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.





Dated:
      May 22, 2007





/s/
      Robert J. Colletti


Robert
      J.
      Colletti


Senior
      Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and


Chief
      Accounting Officer
#### B. Gatewood v. John P. Laughlin.

(No. 2976.)

Appeal from Ellis County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 149. *Petition; in suit to recover money paid for the benefit of another.*The petition alleged substantially: 1. That plaintiff executed to defendant a negotiable-promissory note for $2,109.73. 2. That afterwards, by various payments made to defendant, he fully paid off and discharged said note, believing that defendant was the owner and holder of the same at the time said payments were made. 3. That without his knowledge defendant transferred said note before it- became due, and before said payments were made, and that said note had become the property of M. L. & Co. at the time it was fully discharged by plaintiff, but that plaintiff at that time was not aware of that fact, but, on the contrary, was made to believe by the representations of defendant that he, defendant, still held the note. 4. That at the same time plaintiff owed another note for $354.70, which belonged to said M. L. & Co., and was in the hands of J. & J. B. for collection. 5. That the first-named note was also in the hands of J. &' J. B. for collection, but he was ignorant of that fact, and supposed it was still in the hands of defendant, having been fully paid. 6. That he paid J. & J. B. the sum of $500, intending said payment to be appropriated to the discharge of the said note for $354.70, and interest. 7. That without his knowledge, said J. & J. B. credited said $500 upon the large note, which had already been fully paid off to said defendant. 8. That plaintiff thereafter fully paid off the smaller note for $354.70, held by said J. & J. B. 9. That plaintiff had also executed to defendant another negotiable promissory note for $824, which had also been transferred, before maturity, by defendant to J. & J. B., and of which transfer plaintiff was ignorant. 10. That plaintiff placed in defendant’s hands two notes for $500 each, subject to *141credits amounting to about $451, which notes defendant agreed to collect and credit upon plaintiff’s said $824 note. 11. That said balance upon said notes was collected by defendant, but was not credited upon said $824, and was never accounted for by said defendant to plaintiff, and that plaintiff had fully paid said note to J. & J. B. *Held,*that the petition showed a good cause of action against the defendant, for money paid to his use and benefit by the plaintiff.

April 19, 1884.

§ 150. *A void judgment is not competent evidence.*A judgment rendered by a court having no jurisdiction of the subject-matter is void, and is not competent evidence.

§ 151. *Excessive verdict.*When a verdict is manifestly excessive, a new trial should be granted.

Reversed and remanded.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Christopher WILSON.

No. 2011-KK-0868.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 4, 2011.

In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 503-246; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0547.

Denied.

GUIDRY and CLARK, JJ., would grant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SUMMIT PROPERTIES PARTNERSHIP FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,563
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         913,033
<DEPRECIATION>                                 105,979
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 825,695      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        474,673
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     311,570
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   825,695
<SALES>                                        116,006
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               116,677
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,758     
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,959
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,934
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             31,934
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,934
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.17
        

</TABLE>