alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 13, 2019

No. 04-19-00014-CR

Clinton Lee GAMBLE,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B17360

Honorable Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states “this criminal case is a plea-bargain 

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea 

bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the 

prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; Rule 25.2(a)(2) applies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

25.2(a)(2).

This court must dismiss this appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has a right 

of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” Id. R. 25.2(d); see Chavez v. 

State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 

We ORDER Appellant to cause an amended trial court certification to be filed in this 

court within THIRTY days of the date of this order showing Appellant has the right of appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; see also Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2005); Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). If no 

amended trial court certification is filed as ordered, this appeal will be dismissed. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 25.2(d).

All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court.
_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 13th day of February, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

S & H TRANSPORT, INC.,

Petitioner

v.

CITY OF YORK,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 750 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 21st day of March, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED

, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to the

remaining issue. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

1. Whether a freight broker is permitted to exclude freight delivery charges, to which the broker has no right to retain but rather utilizes solely for the purposes of purchasing transportation services for its customers, from its taxable gross receipts under the City of York’s Business Privilege and Mercantile Tax Ordinance?

2. Whether a municipality may rely on more narrowly tailored exclusionary language contained in the Local Tax Enabling Act, 53

P.S. 5924.101 et seq. , to interpret and enforce a more broadly worded exclusion contained in the municipalities ordinances? M.D. Appeal Dkt. 8 2018
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00037-CR

Ex parte Jacob Ryan Evans §

§

§

§

§

From the 415th District Court

of Parker County (CR12-0734)

August 22, 2013

Opinion by Chief Justice Livingston

(p)

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 _________________________________

 Chief Justice Terrie Livingston
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1280

HENG DE ZHU, Petitioner, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A78-125-620) Submitted: August 31, 2001 Decided: September 21, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles M. Wall, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuart E. Schiffer, Acting Assistant Attorney General, John J. Andre, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Heng De Zhu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of ImmigrationAppeals (Board) denying his application for asylum. The Board concluded that Zhu failed to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground that would make him eligible for asylum relief. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1158 (West 1999); § 1101(a)(42)(A) (West 1999 & Supp. 2001). The decision to grant or deny asylum relief is conclusive “unless manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.” 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (West 1999). We find that the Board correctly applied the law and did not abuse its discretion in rendering its decision here. Therefore, we deny a petition for review on the reasoning of the Board. See In re Zhu , No. A78-125-620 (B.I.A. Feb. 1, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CALVIN MOORE, III,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 65 WAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of December, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
#### Dennis Manaford WHITNEY, Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director of Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 21193.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 17, 1964.

Dennis Manaford Whitney, Raiford, Fla., for appellant.

Richard Ervin, Atty. Gen. St. of Fla., Tallahassee, Fla., for appellee.

Before BROWN and WISDOM, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON, District. Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The District Court denied the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and also declined to issue a Certificate of Probable Cause, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253. The District Court’s findings and conclusions in the Order denying the Petition for Habeas Corpus reflect that the Petition was considered solely on the basis of the report filed by the Commissioner theretofore appointed by the Supreme Court of Florida. Whitney v. Cochran, Sup.Ct. of Fla., 1963, 152 So.2d 727, 729, cert. denied, 1963, 375 U.S. 888, 84 S.Ct. 166, 11 L.Ed. 2d 118.

 In this capital case, we cannot say that the question of whether the District Judge also had to have before him the complete record of the proceeding before the Commissioner is so lacking in substance that it should be dismissed as frivolous. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 1962, 369 U.S. 438, 82 S.Ct. 917, 8 L.Ed.2d 21. Rather than add further delays by postponing decision on this question to the hearing on the merits of the appeal and a possible remand there*788after this Court concludes that the Order denying the Petition for Habeas Corpus should be vacated, and the matter remanded so that the District Judge can thereupon reconsider the case in the light of both the report of the Commissioner and the full record of pertinent evidence made before the Commissioner. See Allison v. Holman, Warden, 5 Cir., 1963, 326 F.2d 294, and Draper v. Washington, 1962, 372 U.S. 487, 83 S.Ct. 774, 9 L.Ed. 2d 899.

The result is that we grant the Certificate of Probable Cause and vacate and remand the cause for further consistent proceedings. Pending such decision by the District Court, execution of the sentence of death is hereby stayed.
584 A.2d 201

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. HECTOR ALBINO.

May 1, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
```

                                                                         Exhibit 32

                                           **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 Frontier  Airlines,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned as the Company's  principal  executive
officer and principal  financial officer certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant toss.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.

Date:   August 4, 2004

By:  /s/ Jeff  S. Potter
   Jeff S. Potter
   President and Chief Executive Officer

By: /s/ Paul H. Tate
   Paul H. Tate
   Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
```
585 A.2d 345

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LEONARD CRARY, JR.

July 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Blyth, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodending April 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert B. Goergen, Chairman and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(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 ofthe Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Robert B. Goergen                                                 |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert B. Goergen  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer  June 9, 2004 |

 

This certification is made solely for the purpose of18 U.S.C. § 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and notfor any other purpose.

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 6, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 61745]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25098]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-2833-000]


East Avenue Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

September 27, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
East Avenue Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, 
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes 
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is October 18, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the 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#25636077666a4b494c4b40765055554a575165434057460b424a53"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8bcdced9c8c4e5e7e2e5eed8fefbfbe4f9ffcbedeef9e8a5ece4fd">[email protected]</span></a> or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25098 Filed 10-5-10; 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>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Senesco Technologies, Inc.for the year ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof, the undersigned, Bruce C. Galton, President andChief Executive Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,that:

 

(1)           The Annual Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in theAnnual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Senesco Technologies, Inc.

 
| Dated:  September 26, 2008 | /s/ Bruce C. Galton *                  |
|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                                 | Bruce C. Galton                        |
|                                 | President and Chief Executive  Officer |
|                                 | (principal executive officer)          |

 

----

* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to us and will be retained by us and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Exhibit 35.3



LOGO

OFFICERS CERTIFICATE

I, Karen Montbach, a Managing Director of Citibank, N.A. (the Company), hereby certify, with respect to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated
as of August 1, 2014, (the Agreement), by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as , Master Servicer; Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer; Pentalpha Surveillance LLC,
as Trust Advisor; Citibank, NA as Trustee, Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar and Authenticating Agent; and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Custodian the following:

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as master servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer,
Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as trust advisor, Citibank, N.A., as trustee, certificate Administrator, (the Certificate Administrator), and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Custodian the following:

(A) A review of the Companys activities as Certificate Administrator during the reporting period ending December 31, 2014 and its
performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

(B) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, as of and for
the reporting period ending December 31, 2014, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.

This statement is given by the undersigned as an authorized officer of the Company and not in the undersigneds individual capacity.

Date: March 2, 2015



Citibank, N.A.By:

/s/ Karen MontbachName:

Karen MontbachTitle:

Managing Director
585 A.2d 394

#### CHARLES WILLIAMS v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD.

October 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
*The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-3065

___________

John S. Grimes, Jr., *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

*

City of St. Joseph, Missouri, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 12, 2001

Filed: April 18, 2001

___________

Before BOWMAN and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and VIETOR,* District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After his criminal prosecution for City ordinance violations and later dismissal

from City employment, John S. Grimes, Jr. brought this civil rights action against the

City of St. Joseph, Missouri, alleging malicious prosecution and violations of the Fourth
**The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-

Amendment, Due Process, and the Confrontation Clause. The district court** granted

summary judgment to the City, holding the undisputed facts showed the City complied

with due process because Grimes was given adequate notice of all actions being taken

against him and had an opportunity to be heard both before and after his termination.

The district court concluded Grimes's malicious prosecution claim failed because there

was no evidence the City acted in an outrageous manner in bringing criminal charges

against Grimes. Although Grimes's was eventually acquitted because the ordinances

he violated were unconstitutionally vague, the charges were brought in good faith. The

district court also held Grimes lacked standing to bring any Fourth Amendment claim

because he no longer owned the property in question when it was searched without a

warrant. Last, the court concluded Grimes's Confrontation Clause claim failed because

Grimes failed to present any evidence that the City retaliated against him for taking his

criminal case to trial. On appeal, Grimes contends the district court committed error

in granting summary judgment. 

We see no useful purpose in writing at length about this fact-intensive situation.

Because there is no genuine issue of material fact and the City is entitled to judgment

as a matter of law, we hold the district court properly granted summary judgment to the

City, and thus summarily affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also grant the City's motion

to strike portions of Grimes's addendum, which were not included in the joint appendix

submitted by the parties. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
585 A.2d 399

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. THOMAS KOREN.

October 16, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### AUGUSTINE MEDICAL, INC., Cross-Appellant/Appellee, v. BLUE RIDGE ANESTHESIA & CRITICAL CARE, INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Nos. 99-4297, 00-1158.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 13, 2000.

Decided Jan. 12, 2001.

*595Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, JOHN R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and GOLDBERG,1 Judge.

1

. The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Blue Ridge Anesthesia & Critical Care, Inc. (“Blue Ridge”) appeals the decision of the district court2 to dismiss all claims against Appellee Augustine Medical Inc. (“Augustine”). Augustine cross-appeals on alternative grounds. We affirm the decision of the district court.

Augustine manufactures medical warming blankets. On June 1, 1992, Blue Ridge and Augustine entered into a written distribution agreement (“Agreement”) whereby Blue Ridge was to distribute Augustine’s product to end users in specific geographic regions.

The Agreement was valid for a term of three years, but included the following renewal clause:

This agreement shall be renewed for additional consecutive periods of one (1) year if the Distributor and the Company have agreed in writing to Quotas for each three-month period in such renewal term not less than ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the existing term of this Agreement ... This Agreement may be terminated by the Company with written notice effective as of the end of the initial or any renewal term if the Distributor and Company have not so agreed on sales quotas in writing within such period of ninety (90) days.

After effecting the Agreement, the parties did not further agree in writing to renewal quotas. Augustine sent Blue Ridge a written notice of nonrenewal and termination on March 30,1995.

On March 8, 1998, a magistrate judge conducted an evidentiary hearing on Augustine’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Blue Ridge as to the contract issue. After the hearing, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation finding that Augustine was entitled to decline to renew the Agreement as Augustine and Blue Ridge had not agreed in writing to renewal quotas. The magistrate judge also found that Augustine was not under any contractual duty to negotiate for renewal quotas. *See Sterling Capital Advisors, Inc. v. Herzog,*575 N.W.2d 121, 125 (Minn.Ct.App.1998). The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and issued an order granting Augustine’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

After careful review, we agree with the district court that the unambiguous language of the Agreement created no obli*596gation for Augustine to negotiate or agree to renewal quotas. *See Barry v. Barry,*78 F.3d 375, 382 (8th Cir.1996). Without an accord as to renewal quotas, neither party had an obligation to renew the term of the Agreement. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

2

. The Honorable James Rosenbaum, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.