alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-13-00623-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

JOSE TORRES JR. A/K/A 

JOSE TORRES, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE.

On appeal from the 404th District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court because the court reporter has notified the Court 

that she has not received a request for preparation of the reporter’s record. Upon 

contacting appellant’s counsel, the Court was advised that counsel was appointed to 

represent appellant in the trial court but was not appointed to represent him on appeal. 
2

Because appellant’s trial counsel has indicated that he was not retained for appeal and 

the record fails to indicate whether appellant is entitled to appointed counsel on appeal, 

we ABATE and REMAND this cause as follows. 

Upon remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to make 

appropriate findings and recommendations concerning the following: (1) whether 

appellant desires to prosecute this appeal; (2) whether appellant has been denied 

effective assistance of counsel; and (3) whether appellant is indigent and entitled to 

court-appointed counsel, and if so, whether appellant waives his right to court-appointed 

counsel and elects to proceed pro se.

If the trial court determines that appellant does want to continue the appeal and 

that appellant is indigent and entitled to court-appointed counsel, the trial court shall 

appoint new counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. If new counsel is appointed, 

the name, address, telephone number, and state bar number of said counsel shall be 

included in an order appointing counsel. If the trial court determines that appellant 

waives his right to counsel and elects to proceed pro se, the court shall enter an order to 

that effect. 

The trial court shall cause its findings and recommendations, together with any 

orders it may enter regarding the aforementioned issues, to be included in a supplemental 

clerk's record. Furthermore, the trial court shall cause a supplemental reporter's record 

of any proceedings to be prepared. The supplemental clerk's record and supplemental 

reporter's record, if any, shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before the 

expiration of thirty days from the date of this order.
3

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

27th day of February, 2014.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk January 25, 2013

d0122 

# Order

January 25, 2013

145067

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145067

COA: 303256

Wayne CC: 10

- 009183

- FH

KEVIN MCGOWAN GOUDLOCK,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 15, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Rousan *v.*Moffett and Others.

A defendant, appealing from the judgment of a justice of the peace on an award, cannot have the cause tried by a jury in the Circuit Court, unless the award be first set aside for fraud, corruption, or other undue means.

ERROR to the *Union*Circuit Court.

Stevens, J.

Appeal to the Circuit Court from the judgment of a justice of the peace, founded on an award of arbitrators.

It appears of record, by an agreement, that a written covenant was made between the defendants of the one part, and the plaintiff of the other part, that the defendants should cut, score, and hew, a set of barn logs for the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff should pay them a certain price for the same. The plaintiff brought suit on the written covenant, for 50 dollars, against the defendants, before a justice of the peace; but before the trial was had, the parties came before the justice and agreed to arbitrate the matter in controversy, by a submission to three disinterested persons, by them mutually chosen, under the provisions of the 15th and 16th sections of the act regulating the jurisdiction of justices of the peace, approved the 30th day of January, 1824; and the arbitrators, among other things, rendered a final award in favour of the plaintiff, for one cent in damages, &c., and the justice entered judgment accordingly.

Afterwards, Moffett, one of the defendants, appealed to the Circuit Court, and the case was heard by á jury, and a verdict rendered in favour of the defendants^ for 9 dollars and 624 cents. On the bringing in of the verdict, the plaintiff moved the Court in arrest of judgment on the verdict, and, also, to render judgment on the award of the arbitrators, inasmuch as there was no evidence shown to the Court, that the award was obtained by fraud, corruption, or other undue means; which motion was overruled, and judgment rendered on the verdict *142of the jury. It further appears of record, that the defendants filed no written defence, nor did the plaintiff file any thing except the written covenant above stated.

*O. H.*Smith, for the plaintiff.

*J. Rariden,*for the defendants.

The first question is, did the Court err in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment, on the verdict of the jury, for the sum of 9 dollars and 62i cents damages, &c. We think no question or issue can legally arise or be heard before the Court, until it is determined whether the award was obtained by “fraud, corruption, or other undue means,” as required by statute; and that is a matter for the Court to determine, and not a jury. No waiver of the award can be presumed, unless something appeared of record, authorising that presumption. The jury were improperly impanelled, andjudgmenton their verdict ought to have been arrested (1).

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

(1)

 See Rev. Code, 1831, pp. 30d, 305. As to the grounds of setting aside an award returned in the first instance to the Circuit Court, see *Hamilton*v. *Wort.*ante, p. 68.
H. Res. 176

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

June 26, 1997.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, to consider a concurrent resolution providing

for adjournment of the House and Senate for the Independence Day district work period.

Attest:

Clerk.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 30,873 9 RALPH GUTIERREZ, 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 12 Lisa C. Schultz, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Chief Public Defender 17 J.K. Theodosia Johnson 18 Santa Fe, NM 19 for Appellant 20 MEMORANDUM OPINION 21 KENNEDY, Judge. 22 Defendant appeals his convictions for aggravated DWI and speeding. We 23 proposed to affirm in a notice of proposedsummary disposition, and Defendant filed 242 a memorandum in opposition. Having considered the arguments raised by Defendant 1 in his memorandum and remaining unpers uaded, we affirm his convictions. 2 In his docketing statement, Defendant raised four issues of asserted error. We 3 proposed to affirm on all four in a notice of proposed summary disposition. In his 4 memorandum in opposition, Defendant reasserts all four issues. [MIO 2-7] However, 5 he splits his second issue into two separateissues which requires him to renumber his 6 assertions into five issues. [MIO 3-7] His second issue is now confined to his claim 7 that the district court erred in allowing the State to present the testimony of Officer 8 Garcia that corn nuts are used as a masking agent to evade DWI. [MIO 3-4] His third 9 issue is now confined to his contention that Officer Garcia lacked reasonable 10 suspicion to request Defendant to perform fi eld sobriety tests. [MIO 4-5] Both of 11 these contentions were asserted in Defendant’s docketing statement as part of his 12 second issue and Defendant’s memorandum in opposition does not raise any new 13 concerns or arguments on either issue. [MIO 3-5] Moreover, in his memorandum in 14 opposition, Defendant fails to rebut any of the analysis contained in our notice of 15 proposed summary disposition. [MIO 2-7] 16 Therefore, for the reasons set forth in our notice of proposed summary 17 disposition, we affirm Defendant’s convictions. 183 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1

___________________________________ 2 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 3 WE CONCUR : 4

_________________________________ 5 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge 6

_________________________________ 7 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 8
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 228 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                    September 16, 1997.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2016) making 
appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment 
and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 1998, and for other purposes. All points of order against the conference 
report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
considered as read.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
H. Res. 154

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

July 8, 1997.

Whereas the Nation’s most valuable and vulnerable asset is

its children;

Whereas their protection should be one of our highest priorities;

Whereas over 1,000,000 children are reported missing, and

over 100,000 attempted nonfamily abductions take place

every year;

Whereas over 750,000 children under the age of 18 disappear

for some length of time every year;

Whereas law enforcement officials constantly encounter

crimes against children;

Whereas sex offenders are nine times more likely to repeat

their crimes than any other class of criminal;

Whereas nearly two-thirds of State prisoners serving time for

rape and sexual assault victimized children; and

Whereas while many missing children are returned to their

homes, many others are exposed to danger and exploitation: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That—
2

•HRES 154 EH

(1) all Members of Congress should take appropriate action to ensure the safety and protection of children in their jurisdictions;

(2) State governments should have in effect laws

which register offenders convicted of sexual crimes

against children and laws which require law enforcement

to notify communities of the presence of these offenders;

(3) States should have in effect laws which severely

punish individuals convicted of offenses against children,

especially crimes involving abduction, sexual assault, exploitation, and stalking;

(4) law enforcement agencies should take the necessary steps to safeguard children against the dangers of

abduction and exploitation; and

(5) State and local law enforcement agencies should

work in close cooperation with Federal law enforcement

to ensure a rapid and efficient response to reports of

child abductions, especially in cases where a child’s life

may be in danger.

Attest:

Clerk.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0499

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. 

ESANDRO ROMAN RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until March 24, 2022, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief. 

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

February 17 2022

02/17/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0499
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Michele Ostovar","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/michele-e-ostovarnasa-gov\/","title":"M. Scott Carpenter","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"kIU1WrK6bq\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/m-scott-carpenter\/\">M. Scott Carpenter<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/m-scott-carpenter\/embed\/#?secret=kIU1WrK6bq\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“M. Scott Carpenter” — NASA\" data-secret=\"kIU1WrK6bq\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/aurora_7_2_carpenter_portrait_g60-02737.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":750}
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEMBER 25, 2019

NO. 03-19-00566-CV

Frederick-Omoyuma Silver, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 200TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND KELLY

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the trial court on August 16, 2019. 

Having reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. 

Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent 

and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
Exhibit 23.2


US Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, DC 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We  hereby  consent  to  the  use in this Form 10-KSB Annual Report, our letter
dated April  17, 2007   relating   to   the   financial   statements  of  South
Texas Oil Company as of December 31, 2006 and for  the period from  January  1,
2006 through December 31, 2006.


/s/ CAUSEY DEMGEN & MOORE, INC.
-------------------------------
CAUSEY DEMGEN & MOORE, INC.

April 17, 2007
Denver, Colorado
H. Res. 178

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

July 8, 1997.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 2016) making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure

for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes. The first reading

of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be

confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general

debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the

five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the bill

for failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are

waived. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the

Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority

in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering
2

•HRES 178 EH

an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of

the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in

clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of the

Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without

intervening business, provided that the minimum time for

electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall

be fifteen minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the

bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the

bill to the House with such amendments as may have been

adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered

on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or

without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
Exhibit 10.14




AMENDMENT


OF


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




WHEREAS, OTELCO INC. (the “Company”) has previously entered into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) with Curtis L. Garner, Jr. (the “Executive”)
dated as of March 11, 2009, setting forth the terms and conditions of Executive’s employment with the Company; and




WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend certain provisions of the Agreement.




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree that the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:




Base Salary. Effective January 1, 2010, Section 3(c)(i) of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:




(i)           Base Salary. During the Employment Period, the Executive shall receive an annual base salary of $200,000, subject to increase by the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”),
which Annual Base Salary shall be further subject to annual increase by an amount equal to reflect the increase in the cost of living, if any, between the date of the immediately preceding increase and the date of each such adjustment, based upon the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers, or, if that index is discontinued, a similar index prepared by a department or agency of the United States government (as so increased and adjusted, the “Annual
Base Salary”). The Annual Base Salary shall be paid in accordance with the customary payroll practices of the Company, subject to withholding any other payroll taxes.




SAVINGS CLAUSE. Save and except as herein expressly amended, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.




March 5, 2010                                                                           OTELCO
INC.


/s/ Michael D. Weaver


By
Michael D. Weaver


Its
President and Chief Executive Officer





Curtis
L. Garner, Jr.





/s/
Curtis L. Garner, Jr.
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 Bay State Bancorp Inc., (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
John F. Murphy, 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\John F. Murphy
                                                        -----------------------
                                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                                        February 12, 2003


                                    Page 28

<PAGE>

                                  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 Bay State Bancorp Inc., (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I
Michael O. Gilles, Chief Financial 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:

      3.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      4.    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\Michael O. Gilles
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                                        February 12, 2003


                                    Page 29