alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 12-15-00043-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TWELTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

AT TYLER, TEXAS 

CAUSE NUMBER 2014-0129 

IN THE 159TH DISTRICT COURT 

IN ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS 

MIKO PARKS, APPELLANT 

vs.

THE STATE OF TEXAS APPELLEE 

FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT’S BRIEF

T. RYAN DEATON 

TBC # 24007095 

103 E. Denman 

Lufkin, Texas 75901 

(936) 637-7778 

Attorneys for Appellant 

ACCEPTED

12-15-00043-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

7/17/2015 12:20:05 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 7/17/2015 12:20:05 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
NO. 12-15-00043-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TWELTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT

AT TYLER, TEXAS

CAUSE NUMBER 2014-0129

IN THE 159TH DISTRICT COURT

IN ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS

MIKO PARKS, APPELLANT

vs.

THE STATE OF TEXAS APPELLEE

FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANT’S BRIEF

Certificate of Compliance with Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)

Appellant’s Brief filed in this matter on July 15, 2015, was prepared in 

Times New Roman 14 pt. typeface using Microsoft Word 2007, and, in reliance on 

the word count of the computer program used to prepare the document. I certify 

that Appellant’s Brief contained 2,691 words excluding those matters excluded by 
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(1).

____________________________

T. Ryan Deaton

Respectfully submitted,

DEATON LAW FIRM

103 East Denman

Lufkin, TX 75901

Tel: (936) 637-7778

Fax: (936) 637-7784

 

By: _____________________________

T. Ryan Deaton

State Bar No. 24007095

Attorney for Miko Parks

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on July 17, 2015, a true and correct copy of the above 

and foregoing document was served on the District Attorney's Office, Angelina 

County, Texas, by facsimile transmission.

_________________________________

T. Ryan Deaton
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 220 (Friday, November 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 68231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26962]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EG14-80-000, EG14-81-000, EG14-82-000, et al.]


Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mountain Creek Power, LLC.................                   EG14-80-000
LaPorte Power, LLC........................                   EG14-81-000
Handley Power, LLC........................                   EG14-82-000
Regulus Solar, LLC........................                   EG14-83-000
Major Oak Power, LLC......................                   EG14-84-000
Green Pastures Wind I, LLC................                   EG14-85-000
Avalon Solar Partners, LLC................                   EG14-86-000
Energia Sierra Juarez, S. de R.L. de C.V..                   EG14-87-000
Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Transmission,                     EG14-88-000
 LLC......................................
Longhorn Wind Project, LLC................                   EG14-89-000
TX Hereford Wind, LLC.....................                   EG14-90-000
Catalina Solar 2, LLC.....................                   EG14-91-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that during the month of October 2014, the status of 
the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became 
effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 
366.7(a).

    Dated: November 6, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-26962 Filed 11-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### Jesse L. Wallace *v.*John Wallace.

Wills — Conditions Annexed to Devise — Failure to Perform — Forfeiture.

Where a condition is annexed to a devise, a failure by the devisee to comply with it will work a forfeit to his right to claim the property so bequeathed.

APPEAL FROM PENDLETON CIRCUIT COURT.

March 29, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

John Wallace bases his right to the fifty acres of land adjudged him by the court below upon his alleged compliance with the conditions annexed by his father to the devise under which he claims title.

The proof conduces to show that he did take care of the two women for about two years, possibly as long as three years, but *401it is shown beyond doubt that after that time he made no provision for them whatever.

*Simon, McManana, for appellant.*

*C. H. Lee, for appellee.*

The testimony of the administrator, Edward Wallace, is entitled to but little weight. In the petition filed by him in August, 1848, but a little over one yefir after his father’s death, he charged that John had utterly failed and refused to provide for and take care of the two women. In his deposition given in this case he states that at the time this bill was filed the women were both living with him. The pretense that John had made arrangements with him to take care of them is a mere after thought, a device trumped up for the purposes of this suit, which fact Edward demonstrates upon his cross-examination. John has never paid him a cent on such account, and it was never contemplated, prior to the institution of this suit that he should. The presumption that Edward was acquainted with the contents of a bill in equity filed by himself, is not to be rebutted by his statements to the contrary made twenty years afterwards. The fact that John failed for twenty years to assert claim to the land, although he was in needy circumstances during all that time, is a confession by him that he had failed and refused to perform the condition annexed to the devise and had voluntarily abandoned all claim to the land.

Feeling assured that the claim asserted in this suit is not only stale, but unfounded, we are of opinion that the chancellor erred in granting the relief prayed for.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to dismiss appellee’s petition.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) 20 CR 362

v. ) Judge Jorge L. Alonso 

)

AHMED al-SHAHMAN )

)

Defendant. )

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO PROCEED BY VIDEOCONFERENCE

Defendant, Ahmed al-Shahman, by and through his attorneys, the Law Office of Damon 

M. Cheronis, pursuant to the CARES Act § 15002(b)(2)(A), Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281, 

respectfully requests that the Court permit the change of plea hearing in this matter to proceed by 

video conference.

In support of this motion, Mr. al-Shahman, through counsel, submits the following:

1. On November 19, 2020, Mr. al-Shahman was charged by superseding indictment

with two counts of willfully failing to file an income tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203, and 

one count of willfully attempting to evade and defeat the payment of income tax in violation of 72 

U.S.C. § 7201. Dkt. # 7.

2. The parties have reached a plea agreement and are prepared to set the matter for a 

change of plea hearing.

3. By order dated July 10, 2020, the Chief Judge found that felony pleas and felony 

sentencings cannot be conducted in person in this district without seriously jeopardizing public 

health and safety.
2

4. Further delay of this hearing would cause serious harm to the interests of justice.

5. Therefore, Mr. al-Shahman, through counsel, and pursuant to Section 

15002(b)(2)(A) of the CARES Act, respectfully requests that the Court allow the change of plea

hearing to proceed by video conferencing.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Damon M. Cheronis

Damon M. Cheronis

s/ Ryan J. Levitt

Ryan J. Levitt

Attorney for Defendant

The Law Office of Damon M. Cheronis 

140 S. Dearborn Street Suite 411 

Chicago, IL 60603

(312) 663-4644

damon@cheronislaw.com 

ryan@cheronislaw.com
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Damon M. Cheronis, hereby certify that on February 16, 2021 I electronically filed the foregoing 

Motion to Proceed by Videoconference with the Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern 

District of Illinois, Eastern Division by using the CM/ECF system. I certify that all participants in 

the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system.

s/ Damon M. Cheronis

Damon M. Cheronis

Law Office of Damon M. Cheronis

140 South Dearborn Street, Ste. 411

Chicago, IL 60603
Case: 1:20-cr-00299 Document #: 21 Filed: 07/06/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:70
Case: 1:20-cr-00299 Document #: 21 Filed: 07/06/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:71
Case: 1:20-cr-00299 Document #: 21 Filed: 07/06/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:72
** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

**EXHIBIT31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Lyn Holtmann, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annualreport on Form 10-K of U.S. Premium Beef, Ltd.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, thisannual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 

4. The registrant's othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

a) designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b) evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and 

c) disclosedin this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant's othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): 

a) allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and 

b) any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

|     |  |                                                         |
|-----|--|---------------------------------------------------------|
| By: |  | /s/ Lyn Holtmann                                        |
|     |  | Lyn Holtmann

*Chief Reporting and  Compliance Officer* |

Date: November 23, 2004 

----
Case: 1:20-cr-00299 Document #: 32 Filed: 08/14/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:107
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

MILLENNIUM IP, INC. and MILLENNIUM MEDIA, INC., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED 

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-03798

Judge Martha M. Pacold

Magistrate Judge M. David Weisman

SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, a judgment was entered in the above action on October 15 2020 [44] in favor 

of Plaintiffs and against the Defendants Identified in Amended Schedule A. Plaintiffs acknowledge 

payment of an agreed upon damages amount, costs, and interest and desires to release this 

judgment and hereby fully and completely satisfy the same as to the following Defendants:

NO. DEFENDANT

429 jmyy

THEREFORE, full and complete satisfaction of said judgment as to above identified 

Defendants is hereby acknowledged, and the Clerk of the Court is hereby authorized and directed 

to make an entry of the full and complete satisfaction on the docket of said judgment.

Case: 1:20-cv-03798 Document #: 48 Filed: 12/21/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:6509
Dated: December 18, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

Yanling Jiang (Bar No. 6309336) 

JianglP LLC 

3 l 2-675-6297 

l l l West Jackson BLVD STE 1700

Chicago, IL 60604 

Telephone: 312-675-6297 

Email: yanling@jiangip.com 

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF 

Subscribed and sworn before me by Yanling Jiang, on this 18th day of December, 2020. 

Given under by hand and notarial seal. 

MICHAEL SEVERT 

Official Seal 

1 Notary Public • State of Illinois 

, My Commis sion Expires Sep 11, 2023 

Notary Public 

State of :tl ---------

County of 

Case: 1:20-cv-03798 Document #: 48 Filed: 12/21/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:6510
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

IAC/INTERACTIVECORP; 

ASK MEDIA GROUP, LLC 

f/k/a IAC PUBLISHING, LLC; and 

BLUECREW, INC. 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

ADAM ROSTON 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 1:20-cv-3440 

Hon. Sharon Johnson Coleman 

NOTICE OF MOTION 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 9:15 a.m., or as soon 

thereafter as counsel may be heard, the undersigned shall appear (telephonically, if permitted) 

before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman, and then and there present Defendant Adam 

Roston’s Unopposed Motion to File Under Seal Certain Documents in Support of Defendant Adam 

Roston’s Motion to Dismiss or for a More Definite Statement. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: April 23, 2021 SV EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM PC 

 /s/ Scott E. Atkinson 

 Steven L. Friedlander (pro hac vice) 

 Scott E. Atkinson (pro hac vice) 

 Galen P. Sallomi (pro hac vice) 

 sfriedlander@svelf.com

satkinson@svelf.com 

gsallomi@svelf.com 

 160 Bovet Road, Suite 401 

San Mateo, California 94402 

Telephone: (650) 265-0222 

Facsimile: (650) 265-0223 

Attorneys for Defendant Adam Roston

Case: 1:20-cv-03440 Document #: 56 Filed: 04/23/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:1792
2 

 

 PARTRIDGE PARTNERS PC

 

 Jordan Arnot Leahey 

 Charles G. Giger 

 Partridge Partners PC 

321 N. Clark St., Suite 500 

Chicago, IL 60654 

312-634-9502 

jordan@partridgepartnerspc.com

charlie@partridgepartnerspc.com 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on April 23, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk 

of the Court using the CM/ECF electronic filing system, which will then send a Notice of 

Electronic Filing to all counsel of record. 

 /s/ Scott E. Atkinson 

Scott E. Atkinson (pro hac vice) 

satkinson@svelf.com 

160 Bovet Road, Suite 401 

San Mateo, California 94402 

Telephone: (650) 265-0222 

Facsimile: (650) 265-0223 

One of the Attorneys for Defendant 

Case: 1:20-cv-03440 Document #: 56 Filed: 04/23/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:1793
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 Annual Report of Pinnacle Foods Group Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for
the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffrey P. Ansell, 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |                                          
|----- |  | -----------------------------------------
|Date: |  | March 5, 2007                            
|      | 
|      |  | /s/ JEFFREY P. ANSELL                    
|      |  | Jeffrey P. Ansell Chief Executive
Officer
#### James H. Kendrick et al. *v.*Jno. W. Lee.

Bills and Notes — Possession of Note — Presumptive Evidence.

The possession of the note sued on is strong presumptive evidence that the alleged balance has not been paid. The execution of another note after the date of the one sued on strengthens this presumption.

APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT.

September 28, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

The possession of the note upon which this action is founded is strong presumptive evidence that the alleged balance has not been paid! The fact that the credit was entered on the day of Kendrick’s sale, tends to show that upon settlement of Lee’s purchase and the money and note then received by him, the note was entitled to the credit given.

The execution of the ninety-seven-dollar-note afterwards strengthens the presumptions. No reason is shown why the *552note sued on was not taken up if paid off, either at the time of appellant’s sale, or when the ninety-seven-dollar-note was executed.

*Frail, for appellant.*

*Harrison, Hunt, for appellee.*

The fact that this last note purports to be for rent may be accounted for upon the idea that the two was sold or not returned by Kendrick were then settled for.

His liability on that account grew out of the rent contract. It seems to us the judgment of the circuit court is sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-41429 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN CARLOS CANDANOZA-RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-03-CR-393-ALL

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Juan Carlos Candanoza-Ruiz appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) by entering the United States, without permission, following both his conviction for an aggravated felony and subsequent deportation. For the first time on appeal, Candanoza argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it treats a prior conviction for a felony or aggravated felony as a sentencing United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D June 23, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 03-41429 -2- factor and not as an element of the offense. He asks us to vacate his conviction and sentence, reform the judgment to reflect a conviction only under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and remand his case for resentencing.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. Candanoza acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but he asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
AFFIRMED.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Sarah A. Loff","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/sloff\/","title":"Modern Figures: Frequently Asked Questions","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"fNnYjYwM1v\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people-of-nasa\/modern-figures-frequently-asked-questions\/\">Modern Figures: Frequently Asked Questions<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people-of-nasa\/modern-figures-frequently-asked-questions\/embed\/#?secret=fNnYjYwM1v\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Modern Figures: Frequently Asked Questions” — NASA\" data-secret=\"fNnYjYwM1v\" 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\/2017\/02\/30765657104_968e4f0f51_o.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}