alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-91,059-01

EX PARTE TORRANCE A. HAYNES, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1568666-A IN THE 351ST DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Applicant was convicted of exhibit firearm on campus or school bus and sentenced to three

years’ imprisonment. He did not file a direct appeal. Applicant filed this application for a writ of

habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. SeeTEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant contends that his conviction and sentence are void because the convicting court

had no jurisdiction over the offense for which he was charged. Applicant alleges he was convicted

of a third degree felony when a newly effective Senate Bill made his charged conduct a

1

85th Legislature, 2017 Regular Session, House Bill 2880. 

1
2

misdemeanor offense. Based on the record, the trial court has determined that the convicting court

lacked jurisdiction in this matter, pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 4.07, Tex. Gov’t Code §§

25.1033, 26.045, and Tex. Const. art. V, sec. 16, which vests exclusive jurisdiction for

misdemeanors with county courts at law. 

Relief is granted. The judgment in cause number 1568666 in the 351st District Court of

Harris County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Harris County

to answer the charges as set out in the indictment. The trial court shall issue any necessary bench

warrant within ten days from the date of this Court’s mandate.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department ofCriminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: April 22, 2020

Do not publish
Exhibit 32.2



                                  CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  the undersigned  officer of ING USA Annuity and
Life Insurance  Company (the "Company")  hereby certifies that, to the officer's
knowledge,  the  Company's  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
or 15(d),  as applicable,  of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



May 12, 2005                    By /s/ Harry N. Stout
------------                       ---------------------------------------------
  (Date)                               Harry N. Stout
                                       President
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)





I,
Randall J. Frapart, of US Dataworks, Inc. certify pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:





(i) the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2009 (the
“Report”), which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and





(ii) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of US Dataworks,
Inc.





Dated:
February 16, 2010




/s/ Randall J.
      FrapartRandall
      J. Frapart
                  Chief
      Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6625

DANIEL LEE DAVIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department

of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:06-cv-00371-CMH)

Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 7, 2007

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Lee Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Lee Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 1 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 354-1 Filed: 08/09/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:8186
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ABC Corporation I et al, 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

THE PARTNERSHIPS and 

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS 

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”, 

 Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-04806 

Judge: Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

 

DECLARATION OF XIE RONGQING 

I, Xie Rongqing, declare as follows: 

1. I am over eighteen (18) years of age. I make this affidavit based on my own knowledge. 

2. I am the owner of the company Dongguan Saibotan Nengyuan Keji (Energy Tech) Co. Ltd. 

(“Dongguan Saibotan”). Dongguan Saibotan owns and operates the Amazon storefront Gyroor-US. 

3. Gyroor-US’ accused product was made based on the D808,857 patent which it’s authorized to use. 

4. Gyroor-US’ accused product does not infringe Plaintiffs’ design patents (the D737,723, D738,256, 

D785,112, D784,195 patents). 

5. Gyroor-US account has been frozen for more than eight months. More than $1 million USD have 

been frozen. 

6. I did not receive any email from Plaintiffs before December 29, 2020. 

7. I received a second email from Plaintiff on January 29, 2021. 

8. I have never received any notice of preliminary injunction. 

9. I was not aware of the preliminary injunction until around January 1, 2021. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 354-1 Filed: 08/09/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:8187
2 

10. In the last eight months, because of the cash flow restrains, the company had to layoff several employees. 

11. In the last eight months, I borrowed from my friends and family just to raise money to pay the 

remaining employees and keep the company running. 

12. Dongguan Saibotan had great business relationships with its suppliers. Many suppliers allowed 

Dongguan Saibotan to delay the payment after knowing the assets were restrained. But recently, some 

suppliers had demanded payment of outstanding invoices before the end of August. 

13. The company has no extra cash to pay the employees and suppliers and I cannot raise any extra cash. 

14. The frozen asset is urgently needed so the company can pay the employees and the suppliers. 

15. If Dongguan Saibotan does not receive the frozen asset before the end of August, it will have no other 

option but to close business. 

16. It would be extremely unfair because the company has done nothing wrong 

17. Dongguan Saibotan’s business reputation has already been ruined, and its store ranking and market 

share has dropped significantly. 

18. I beg this Court to review the preliminary injunction and release the Gyroor-US account because 

there is no infringement. 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 

foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on: 8/9/2021 By: ______________________ 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 354-1 Filed: 08/09/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:8188