alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-14-00109-CR

MARLO DONTA PERSONS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 354th District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court No. 29371

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
2

O R D E R

Court reporter Julie Vrooman recorded the trial court proceedings in cause number 06-

14-00109-CR, styled Marlo Donta Persons v. The State of Texas, trial court cause number 29, 

371 in the 354th Judicial District Court of Hunt County, Texas. The reporter’s record was 

originally due in this matter August 8, 2014. This deadline was extended twice by this Court on 

Vrooman’s request, resulting in the most recent due date of December 10, 2014. Vrooman has 

now filed a third request seeking an additional extension of the filing deadline.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure establish that “trial and appellate courts are 

jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed.” TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c). 

The Rules further instruct that an “appellate court may enter any order necessary to ensure the 

timely filing of the appellate record.” Id. In furtherance of our responsibilities established by the 

Rules, we find we must take steps to ensure that the record in this case is filed in a reasonable 

amount of time.

Therefore, we overrule Vrooman’s third request for an extension of the filing deadline 

and hereby order her to file the reporter’s record in cause number 06-14-00109-CR, styled Marlo 

Donta Persons v. The State of Texas, trial court cause number 29,371 in the 354th Judicial 

District Court of Hunt County, Texas, to be received by this Court no later than Friday, 

January 9, 2015.

If the record is not received by January 9, we warn Vrooman that we may begin contempt 

proceedings and order her to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of this Court 

for failing to obey its order.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: December 23, 2014
#### Donald STROMILE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Janie COCKRELL, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-41686.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 25, 2003.

Donald Stromile, Texas Department of Criminal, Huntsville, TX, for Petitioner-Appellant.

*365Karyl Krug, Assistant Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Petitioner-Appellant Donald Stromile, Texas prisoner # 796587, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claim that the prosecutor’s closing argument expressing a personal belief of Stromile’s guilt violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. This is the same issue on which the district court granted a certificate of appealability (COA) after ruling that Stromile’s petition was not time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). We have subsequently rejected this basis for denying Cockrell’s time-bar argument. *See Roberts v. Cockrell,*319 F.3d 690, 694-95 (5th Cir.2003). A review of the record reveals that Stromile’s petition is indeed time-barred, as the limitations period was not tolled by his state habeas application, filed after expiration of the period, or by his previous habeas petition, which he voluntarily dismissed. *See Grooms v. Johnson,*208 F.3d 488, 489-90 (5th Cir.1999); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Denial of habeas relief may be - and is - affirmed on this alternate basis. *See Bickford v. International Speedway Corp.,*654 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir.1981). We deny as moot Stromile’s motion for appointment of counsel.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 Cir. R. 47.5.4.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 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 Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Garrett Thornburg, Chief Executive 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 results of operations
of the Company. /s/ Garrett ThornburgGarrett ThornburgChief Executive OfficerMay 7, 2004
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 12, 2018

d0905 

# Order

Clerk September 12, 2018

156397(19)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 156397

COA: 337073

Wayne CC: 96

- 006397

- FC

SHADRACH RICHEY

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s May 29, 2018

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does n ot appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1659 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1659

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 57 Old Tappan Road in Tappan, New York, as the ``John G. Dow Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. JOHN G. DOW POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 57 Old Tappan Road in Tappan, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``John G. Dow Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the John G. Dow 
Post Office Building.

            Passed the Senate October 29, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
108th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1659

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 57 Old Tappan Road in Tappan, New York, as the ``John G. Dow Post 
                           Office Building''.
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

August 25, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00264

- CR

Sheldon BARNES

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the Criminal District Court, Magistrate Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR4518

Honorable Andrew Carruthers , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, this appeal is

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

.

It is so ORDERED on August 25, 2021

.

_____________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

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

court on this 25th day of August, 2021

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz , Clerk of Court
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 19

- 00318

- CR

PEDRO ENRIQUE BARZOLA GARCIA

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 389th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. CR

- 1753

- 18

- H

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having consid ered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed in part, rendere d in part, and affirmed in part

. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED IN PART, RENDERED IN PART, a nd AFFIRMED IN PART

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. December 30, 202 0
# Sitemap

## August 2002

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2002
- August 2002

            - 02
            - 09
            - 11
            - 16
            - 19
            - 23
            - 30
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1714 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1714

  To amend the National Housing Act to increase the maximum mortgage 
amount limit for FHA-insured mortgages for multifamily housing located 
                          in high-cost areas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 3, 2003

  Mr. Corzine introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the National Housing Act to increase the maximum mortgage 
amount limit for FHA-insured mortgages for multifamily housing located 
                          in high-cost areas.

    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 ``FHA Multifamily Loan Limit 
Adjustment Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. MAXIMUM MORTGAGE AMOUNT LIMIT FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING IN HIGH-
              COST AREAS.

    Sections 207(c)(3)(B), 213(b)(2)(B)(i), 220(d)(3)(B)(iii)(II), 
221(d)(3)(ii)(II), 221(d)(4)(ii)(II), 231(c)(2)(B), and 234(e)(3)(B) of 
the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1713(c)(3)(B), 1715e(b)(2)(B)(i), 
1715k(d)(3)(B)(iii)(II), 1715l(d)(3)(ii)(II), 1715l(d)(4)(ii)(II), 
1715v(c)(2)(B)), and 1715y(e)(3)(B)) are each amended--
            (1) by striking ``110 percent'' and inserting ``170 
        percent''; and
            (2) by striking ``140 percent'' and inserting ``170 
        percent''.

SEC. 3. CATCH-UP ADJUSTMENTS TO CERTAIN MAXIMUM MORTGAGE AMOUNT LIMITS.

    (a) Section 207 Limits.--Section 207(c)(3)(A) of the National 
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1713(c)(3)(A)) is amended by striking 
``$11,250'' and inserting ``$17,460''.
    (b) Section 213 Limits.--Section 213(b)(2)(A) of the National 
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715e(b)(2)(A)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``$38,025'' and inserting ``$41,207'';
            (2) by striking ``$42,120'' and inserting ``$47,511'';
            (3) by striking ``$50,310'' and inserting ``$57,300'';
            (4) by striking ``$62,010'' and inserting ``$73,343'';
            (5) by striking ``$70,200'' and inserting ``$81,708'';
            (6) by striking ``$49,140'' and inserting ``$49,710'';
            (7) by striking ``$60,255'' and inserting ``$60,446'';
            (8) by striking ``$75,465'' and inserting ``$78,197''; and
            (9) by striking ``$85,328'' and inserting ``$85,836''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT STEPHEN MARK HAUSE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. S. R. WITKOWSKI, Warden, in their individual and official capacities; A. C. BROCK, Warden, in their individual and official capacities; STAN BURTT, Assistant Warden, in their individual and official capacities; DOCKINS, Deputy Warden, in their individual and No. 96-6271 official capacities; RAWLSKI, in their individual and official capacities; M. HUGHES, Correctional Officer, in their individual and official capacities; D. HALL, Correctional Officer, in their individual and official capacities; PARKER EVATT, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-1111-2-20AJ) Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 16, 1996 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Stephen Mark Hause, Appellant Pro Se. David Leon Morrison, ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the recordand the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Hause v. Witkowski , No. CA-94-1111-2-20AJ (D.S.C. Jan. 16, 1996). In addition, regarding Appellant's claim of retaliation, we note that the persons allegedly responsible are not named defendants in this action. Further, although neither the district court nor the magistrate judge explicitly ruled on Appellant's recusal motion, the dismissal of Appellant's action is an implicit denial of the motion. The motion was properly denied, because the mere fact that a judge has enteredadverse rulings on motions or presided over other parallel proceedings is not enough in and of itself to warrant recusal. See United States v. Parker , 742 F.2d 127, 128-29 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 469 U.S. 1076 (1984). Therefore, b ecause Appellant failed to allege any "extrajudicial" bias, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion for judicial recusal. See
2Shaw v. Martin , 733 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 469 U.S. 873 (1984).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.
AFFIRMED
3
EXHIBIT 23.1

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-200409) pertaining to the Amended and Restated 2007 Stock Plan, as amended, 2014 Equity Incentive Plan and 2014 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Neothetics, Inc. of our report dated March 26, 2015, with respect to the financial statements of Neothetics, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2014.

 

|                  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |
|-----------------------|---------------------------|
|                  |
| San Diego, California |
| March 26, 2015        |
Tracking Number: 2010-02-03 (AC-03) 


Agency-Wide Plan for NASA's Most Critical Facilities 


NASA Advisory Council Recommendation: 

During the review ofthe Aeronautics Test Program (ATP), the Aeronautics Committee noted a 

decreasing utilization trend ofATP facilities that ifleft unabated will result in an increasing 

budget shortfall affecting the operations ofthese facilities. The Council recommends that an 

Agency-wide plan be developed to stabilize and where possible reverse the situation including 

supporting and improving the technical capabilities and operations ofthe most critical facilities 

and de-accessioning some facilities through sale or gifts. 

Major Reasons for the Recommendation: 

The utilization data for the A TP facilities shows a continued downward trend due to many 

factors including decreasing program usage, competition from abroad, and increasing use of 

analytical methods. Ifleft unabated, this trend represents a "going out ofbusiness" approach 

for the A TP facilities. The cost gap is increasingly difficult to close and could result in 

shrinking capabilities ofthe facilities and severely constraining NASA's ability to do 

experimental research. While analytical methods can provide valuable results, the Aeronautics 

Committee feels that analysis via computational fluid dynamics is not a sufficient replacement. 

Additionally, some ofthese facilities will be essential for future national air and space 

priorities. There have been numerous studies looking at this problem, including the recent 

strategic planning done by ATP. Based on that, a plan adopted by NASA as a whole would be 

very helpful in setting priorities for investment ofresources as well as for exploring the transfer 

ofother facilities to the private or non-profit sector to maintain and develop. 

NASA Response: 

NASA concurs with the recommendation to develop an Agency-wide plan to address its 

technical capabilities. Consistent with the Administration's national policy, NASA has already 

initiated plans to ensure that its technical capabilities are available and effectively sized in order 

to support current and future NASA missions. The NASA Technical Capability (NTC) process 

will provide an integrated assessment ofthe "supply" oftechnical capabilities across all NASA 

Centers and an integrated analysis ofthe "demand" for technical capabilities across all NASA 

programs, involving all internal NASA stakeholders. This activity will be incorporated into 

NASA's annual budget process and be reflected in its Agency-wide facilities master plan. The 

Mission Support Directorate (MSD) is developing an institutional strategy that addresses 

institutional implementation requirements over the master-planning horizon and that is 

consistent with the NASA Strategic Plan. MSD is nearing completion ofthe first step in this 

process which is updating and integrating the Center master plans. 

Enclosure
#### Pendleton, Appellant, *v.*Sharp et al., Appellees.

(No. 3818

Decided July 6, 1945.)

*Messrs. Cowan & Adams,*for appellant.

*Mr. J. E. Todd,*for appellees.

Hornbeck, P. J.

An entry has been tendered by the appellant dismissing her appeal. There is no cross-appeal.

Counsel for appellees objects to the journal entry because it is a general dismissal. He asserts that he has no objection to dismissing the issue drawn on the petition and answer thereto, but that by the type of appeal his clients have the right to have adjudicated the issues they brought into the case by affirmative pleading.

The appeal is noted as on questions of law and fact, which, it is agreed, brings the cause up in its entirety for trial. However, the act which makes effective and completes the appeal is the notice which in this case has been filed by the appellant. She being responsible for the appeal may choose whether she will insist upon pursuing it to trial and judgment in this court. If that be done, of course all matters raised by the pleadings could and would properly be determined here. However, the assurance to the appellees that *344they would have their original questions litigated depends altogether on whether the appellant elects to pursue her remedy.

The question is one of first impression in this court. Relative to appeals on questions of law, such question has been decided at least twice in this state, once by this court in the fourth paragraph of the syllabus in *Miller*v. *Star Co.,*57 Ohio App., 485, 15 N. E. (2d), 151, and by the Court of Appeals for Knox county in the third, paragraph of the syllabus in *State*v. *Green,*55 Ohio App., 239, 9 N. E. (2d), 625. We recognize the difference in the procedure between the type of appeal there under consideration and an appeal on questions of law and fact which is the type of appeal perfected in the instant cause, but the controlling principle is substantially the same.

There is no suggestion in this court that the appellees will be unreasonably or unfairly prejudiced by the dismissal as appeared in *Phillips*v. *Provident Life & Trust Co.,*17 C. C. (N. S.), 298, 32 C. D., 155.

We find no decision in Ohio by our Supreme Court on the identical question here presented. Outside Ohio there is contrariety of opinion. The cases most nearly in point and supporting our position are *Hood, Admr.,*v. *Marshall, Admr.,*69 N. H., 605, 45 A., 574; *Simpson*v. *Gafney, Exr.,*66 N. H., 477, 30 A., 1120; *Marvel*v. *Craft,*116 Neb., 802, 219 N. W., 242.

We are of the opinion that the appellant may properly dismiss the appeal in this cause in its entirety, and that the' appellees may not prevent it.

The. tendered entry will be approved and exceptions saved to appellees.

*Appeal dismissed.*

G-eiger and Miller, JJ., concur.
**TEST READINESS REVIEW OF PAYLOADS AND EXPERIMENTS ON JSC AOD HEAVY AIRCRAFT**

**(Ref. AOD 33840)**

AOD Form 314 (Basic, November 2014)Previous editions are obsolete.Page 1 of 3
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Laurel Capital Group, Inc.

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Laurel Capital Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Edwin
R. Maus, Chief Executive 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 results of operations of the
        Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.


/s/ Edwin R. Maus
-----------------
Edwin R. Maus
President and Chief Executive Officer
February 17, 2004
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Deutsche Mortgage & AssetReceiving Corporation 

60 WALL ST

NEW YORK, New York 10005-2836

 

 

Re: Annual Statement ofCompliance for COMM 2014-UBS6 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates

 

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of December 1, 2014 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo'sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President 

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|