alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 14,401.

#### Hessian *v.*The State.

Bill-ob1 *Exceptions.*— Filing.—Record *Must Show.*— Practice.—Where time is given within which to file a bill of exceptions, the record must affirmatively show in some manner that it was filed within the time given, or it will not be considered on appeal as a part of the record.

From the Monroe Circuit Court.

*R. W. Miers, E. Corr, J. H. Louden*and *W. P. Rogers,*for appellant.

*L. T. Miehener,*Attorney General, and *J. H. Gillett,*for the State.

Zollars, J.

The ground urged by appellant for a reversal of the judgment, and that upon which the State asks for its affirmation, are each based upon a strict construction of the statutes, and neither goes to the merits of the case.

It is contended by appellant that the court erred in giving án oral instruction after having been requested to charge in writing.

On the other hand, it is contended by the attorney general that the record does not present the point relied upon by appellant, for the reasons that it can only be presented by a bill of exceptions, and that there is nothing in the record to show that a bill of exceptions was ever filed.

This contention on the part of the State can not be disregarded. The statute provides that when the bill of exceptions is filed it shall be a part of the record. R. S. 1881, section 629. The holdings have been, that, where time is given in which to file a bill of exceptions, the record must show affirmatively, in some manner, that it was filed within the time given by the court, or it can not be considered in this court as constituting a part of' the record. *Loy*v. *Loy,*90 Ind. 404.

*59Filed June 26, 1888;

petition for a rehearing overruled Oct. 10, 1888.

It has been held, however, that where, in the clerk’s certificate to the transcript, made before the expiration of the time given within which to file the bill, there is a statement that the transcript is a transcript of all of the pdfpers *“filed”*in the cause, or of all of the papers “ *on file,”*that will be regarded as sufficient evidence of the filing of the bill. *Hull*v. *Louth,*109 Iud. 315 (336); *Armstrong*v. *Harshman,*93 Ind. 216; *Oliver*v. *Pate,*43 Ind. 132; *Porter*v. *Choen,*60 Ind. 338 (346).

The case before us is not within the ruling in those cases. After noting the filing of a motion for a new trial by appellant, the record is as follows: “ Which motion is overruled by the court, and the defendant at the time excepted, and sixty days are given defendant, to file a bill of exceptions. Which bill of exceptions is in the words and figures following, to wit.” Following that is set out what purports to be a bill of exceptions.

In his certificate to the transcript the clerk states that the transcript “contains true and complete copies of all the papers and entries in said cause.” A bill of exceptions is not a paper in the cause unless filed as required by the statute, and it will readily be seen that there is nothing in the record to show that any bill was ever filed in this cause.

For this reason the judgment must be and is affirmed, with ' costs.
#### Franklin BIANCHINI v. Joshua D. MORAN, XYZ Insurance, Vickie M. Moran, QRS Insurance, Imperial Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, as the Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Carrier of Franklin Bianchini, and Cambridge, as the Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Carrier of Fedex Freight System.

No. 2010-C-2817.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 18, 2011.

In re Discover Property & Casualty Insurance Company; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 113-316-E; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-0817.

Denied.

VICTORY and WEIMER, JJ., would grant.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50900

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Abraham Rodriguez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:19-CR-1081-1

Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Abraham Rodriguez has moved 

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Rodriguez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 16, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50900 Document: 00516359606 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2022
No. 21-50900

2

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur 

with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 21-50900 Document: 00516359606 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2022
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Leonard LEWIS.

No. 2010-KO-0967.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 18, 2011.

In re Lewis, Leonard; —Defendant; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s order dated November 24, 2010; Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court Div. *323C, No. 67408; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-846.

Reconsideration denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                      28,118,472
<SECURITIES>                                21,748,144
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            50,173,695
<PP&E>                                      13,345,188
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,459,167
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              53,086,465
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          858,685
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       141,149
<OTHER-SE>                                  51,986,631
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                53,086,465
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,455,539)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,445,539)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,445,539)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.24)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6059

LARRY LOGAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JAMES BEAM; MICHAEL MOORE; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-95-1315-2-20AJ)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Logan, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Logan v. Beam, No.

CA-95-1315-2-20AJ (D.S.C. Dec. 28, 1995). 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.

DISMISSED
Motion Granted; Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 27, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00811-CV

ROBERT R. BURCHFIELD, Appellant

V.

HOUSTON COMMUNITY BANK, Appellee

On Appeal from the 11th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-27653

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a summary judgment signed June 4, 2012. On September 

19, 2012, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. 

The motion is granted.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Christopher, and Jamison.
#### Martin PETITJEAN II, et al. v. SAMSON CONTOUR ENERGY E & P, LLC, et al.

No. 2011-C-0057.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 18, 2011.

In re Petitjean II, Martin et al.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Acadia, 15th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 200810299J; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-496.

Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 153 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 153

To provide that no more than 50 percent of funding made available under 
 the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 for any fiscal year 
                 be provided for home heating purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2007

   Mr. Gene Green of Texas introduced the following bill; which was 
 referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to 
 the Committee on Education and Labor, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide that no more than 50 percent of funding made available under 
 the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 for any fiscal year 
                 be provided for home heating purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``LIHEAP Equity Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

    Section 2604(a)(1) of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 
1981 (42 U.S.C. 8623(a)(1)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``subparagraph (B)'' 
        and inserting ``subparagraphs (B) and (C)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Not more than 50 percent of amounts 
                appropriated for carrying out this title for any fiscal 
                year shall be provided for home heating purposes.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE of Louisiana v. John HARVEY.

No. 2012-KK-0432.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Harvey, John; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 509-103; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1763.

Denied.
#### M. Edwards et al. v. Ezell & Suggs.

(No. 3121.)

Appeal from Milam County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 276. *Principal bound by act of agent; liability of principal on written contract by agent may be proved by parol evidence.*This suit was upon a promissory note signed “Geo. W. Richardson, agent.” The petition alleged that appellees were partners when the noto was executed, doing a general lumber business; that Richardson was their agent, and as such had authority to bind them for the purchase of lumber, etc.; that said note was given for lumber purchased by said agent for them, and that they ratified said purchase, received the benefits thereof,^md made several payments on said note. A demurrer was sustained to the petition, and the suit dismissed. Held, the court erred in sustaining the demurrer. “In respect to written contracts not under *209seal, . . . it is very clear, from the authorities, that it is not indispensable, in order to bind the principal, that such a contract should be executed in the name, and as the act, of the principal. It will be'sufficient if, upon the whole instrument, it can be gathered, from the terms thereof, that the party described himself and acts as agent, and' intends thereby to bind his principal, and not to bind himself. Indeed, the doctrine maintained in the more recent authorities is of a far more comprehensive ■extent. It is, that if the agent possesses due authority to make a written contract, not under seal, and he makes it in his own name, whether he describes himself to be an agent or not, or whether the principal be known or unknown, he, the agent, will be liable to be sued, and be ■entitled to sue thereon, and his principal also will be liable to be sued, and be entitled to sue thereon, in all cases, unless, from the attendant circumstances, it is clearly manifested that an exclusive credit is given to the agent, and it is intended by both parties that no resort shall in any event be had by or against tjae principal upon it. [Story on Agency (7th ed.), § 160a.] And, it is said, evidence to show the liability of a principal, who is not named in the contract, in no way contradicts, the' written agreement. It does not deny that it is binding on those who, on the face of it, it purports to bind; but shows that it also binds another, by reason that the act of the agent in signing the agreement, in pursuance of his authority, is in law the act of the principal. [Id. § 270, note 3.]

June 27, 1884.

Reversed and remanded.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 189 (Thursday, September 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60443-60444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24512]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EC10-67-001]


BHE Holdings, Inc., Maine & Maritimes Corporation; Notice of 
Filing

September 22, 2010.
    Take notice that, on September 15, 2010, BHE Holdings, Inc. and 
Maine & Maritimes Corporation (Merger Applicants) submitted an 
amendment to an earlier application that was filed on May 11, 2010, in 
the above-referenced proceeding pursuant to section 203 of the Federal 
Power Act.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the

[[Page 60444]]

Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a 
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any 
FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1f595a4d5c50717376717a4c6a6f6f706d6b5f797a6d7c31787069"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="10565542535f7e7c797e75436560607f626450767562733e777f66">[email protected]</span></a>, or call 
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: October 5, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-24512 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 16 - 00287 - CR No. 07 - 16 - 00 288 - CR ANTWAN MARQUSE KING, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 46th District Court Wilbarger County, Texas Trial Court No s . 11 , 735 & 11 , 736 , Honorable Dan Mike Bird, Presiding



### December 13 , 2016 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Pending before this court are two motion s to dismiss a ppeal both signed by appellant, Antwan Marquse King, and his attorney. Without passing on the merits of the case s , we grant the motion s to dismiss pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and dismiss the appeal s . Having dismisse d the appeal s at appellant ’ s request, no motion s for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate s will issue forthwith. Per Curiam Do not publish.
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 Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice of Renewal.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to section 14 (a) (2) (A) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and in accordance with section 102-3.65, title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the FAA gives notice it has renewed the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) for a 2-year period beginning September 17, 2010. The Committee's primary purpose is to provide the public with an earlier opportunity to participate in the FAA's rulemaking process. It will continue to operate in accordance with the rules of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Department of Transportation Order 1120.3B, Committee Management Policy and Procedures.

For further information about the ARAC, please contact Ms. Renee Butner, FAA Office of Rulemaking, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone number: 202-267-5093.

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 24, 2010.

Pamela A. Hamilton-Powell,

Executive Director, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.

[FR Doc. 2010-24538 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
#### Rickie Edward WILDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D10-5196.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 27, 2011.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

*1097Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Christine Ann Guard, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the judgment and sentence entered after he pled guilty to one count of grand theft, seven counts of forgery, and seven counts of uttering forged checks. Appellant entered into a plea agreement. In exchange for the plea, he agreed to be adjudicated guilty and sentenced to 60 months in prison. At the sentencing hearing, Appellant was sentenced to 100 months in prison. Appellant contends that this sentence was in violation of the plea agreement. The State properly concedes error. “ ‘A plea agreement is a contract and the rules of contract law are applicable to plea agreements.’” *Armstrong v. State,*985 So.2d 1156, 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (quoting *Garcia v. State,*722 So.2d 905, 907 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)). We REVERSE and REMAND to the trial court for imposition of a sentence of 60 months’ imprisonment.

THOMAS, ROBERTS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.