alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued April 9, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-24-00209-CR

———————————

MICHAEL HIDALGO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 0549326A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Michael Hidalgo appeals from the trial court’s denial of his 

original writ of error coram nobis. We dismiss the appeal.

“A petition for writ of coram nobis is a writ of error directed to a court 

requesting it to review its own judgment based on alleged errors of fact.” Padilla 
2

v. State, No. 13-21-00093-CR, 2021 WL 2371515, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus 

Christi-Edinburgh June 10, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication) (citing to In re Reyes, 195 S.W.3d 127, 127 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, 

orig. proceeding)). The Court of Criminal Appeals has long held that the common 

law writ of coram nobis is inapplicable in Texas. See Ex parte Massey, 249 

S.W.2d 599, 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 1952); see also In re Parker, No. 03-17-00183-

CV, 2017 WL 1228891, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 31, 2017, orig. 

proceeding) (mem. op.).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See Clark v. State, No. 10-05-00301-

CR, 2005 WL 2100270, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco Aug. 31, 2005, no pet.) (mem. 

op., not designated for publication) (dismissing appeal from denial of writ of 

coram nobis). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Hightower.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
EXHIBIT 32.2NOVELLUS SYSTEMS, INC.CERTIFICATIONIn connection with the periodic report of Novellus Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Report”), I, William H. Kurtz, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for theperiods indicated.This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and ExchangeCommission.       Dated: November 9, 2006 By: /s/ William H. Kurtz       William H. Kurtz      Executive Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer      (Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit
15.1




CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We have
issued our report dated June 30, 2009 accompanying the consolidated
financial statements included in the Annual Report of Vuance Ltd. on
Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008.  We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration
Statements of Vuance Ltd. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-121231, effective
December 14, 2004).





Fahn
Kanne & Co.


Certified
Public Accountants (Isr.)




Tel-Aviv,
Israel


June 30,
2009
**Exhibit 13.5**

 

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

 

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of Inmarsat Investments Limited (the“Company”) for the annual period ended December 31, 2005 (the “Periodic Report”), I, Andrew Sukawaty, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained inthe Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Date: April 28, 2006
#### Rasheed A. WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 04-0936-PR.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 19, 2004.

Rasheed A. Williams, Middletown, NY, for Appellant, pro se.

Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York (Peter A. Norling, David C. James, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), for Appellee.

Present: NEWMAN, MCLAUGHLIN, and POOLER, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner-appellant Rasheed Williams appeals from a judgment of the district court dismissing his *habeas corpus*petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on appeal.

We review *de novo*a district court’s judgment dismissing a *habeas corpus*petition. *Guzman v. Tippy,*130 F.3d 64, 65 (2d Cir.1997).

Collateral attacks on the imposition of a sentence, as opposed to the execution of that sentence, must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *Poindexter v. Nash,*333 F.3d 372, 377 (2d Cir.2003). Williams argued in the district court and on appeal that his sentence was improperly ealculat*133ed because he was classified as a career criminal. He argues that one of the predicate convictions on which his career criminal status was based was a juvenile conviction for which he was released earlier than stated in the presentence report. These are clearly challenges to the imposition of his sentence and not its execution. As a result, the proper vehicle for relief is a § 2255 petition. It is undisputed that such a petition would be time-barred.

We have previously recognized that where a § 2255 petition would be procedural^ barred, a collateral attack under § 2241 will be permitted if necessary to address serious constitutional questions. *Id.*at 378. To raise such constitutional questions, the petitioner “must assert a claim of actual innocence that (a) is provable on the existing record, and (b) could not have effectively been raised at an earlier time.” *Id.*(quotation omitted). Actual innocence in a noncapital case means that the defendant did not commit the crime. *Id.*at 381. Williams’ arguments do not assert actual innocence of any crime. Instead, they raise only a legal argument as to the inclusion of one of the predicate convictions, an approach we have previously rejected. *Id.*at 382.

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
EXHIBIT 4

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 328-4 Filed: 07/13/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:7438
GYROOR

Seller Name Seller ID Date Provided Amount Repor

1 Runchenyun AW9IVF0R92969 6/25/2021 $                     3

2 Urbanmax A2YJ4WYCO1L51J 6/25/2021 $                       

3 JIANGYOU‐US A2WDDE8MIQH0TE 6/25/2021 $                   114 Gyroor  AHGEGWXX7DCPQ 6/25/2021 $                     2

5 Fengchi‐US A11ZZ2BGHTDJWC 6/25/2021 $                     1

6 GYROOR US A57BIIPQ5F3FT 6/25/2021 $                1,19

7 GaodeshangUS AYN6OZNVZ6M1Q 6/25/2021 $                     1

8 hgsm A18SI7S9NCFNDA 6/25/2021 $                     4

9 zhonghongxin‐us A25PYSLZ5XW50W 6/25/2021 

$                        

10 honghaiya‐us AIFII05V4L3I3 6/25/2021 

$                        

11 shanchun‐us A2NUD2WSEZ9ZT 6/25/2021 

$                        

12 rongjiamaoyi‐us A2DA8CSKTCC66B 6/25/2021 

$                        

13 Gyroshoes A2ARNHQ8SVCIBQ 6/25/2021 $                     1

Total

14 shopCheapUniversal A3ABTK72L3LWCN 6/25/2021 $                        

TOMOLOO

15 TOMOLOO  AID3SH3YPRL1E 6/25/2021 $                     2

16 Better TOMOLOO A2UBVN107UWO9C 6/25/2021 $                     1

17 Tomoloo‐AOX AXGAWQK8OGS24 6/25/2021 $                     1

18 TOMOLOO INE A2A3MNSAIX1437 6/25/2021 $                   15

19 Tomoloo DX A23EA08Y88EE4M 6/25/2021 $                      720 Tomoloo TC A1DXERU83AK4IX 6/25/2021 $                   13

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 328-4 Filed: 07/13/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:743
21 TOMOLOO‐NX AK2XZM4Y8NUHN 6/25/2021 $                       

22 TOMOLOO Offical A22EGLUS9AQ3WA 6/25/2021 14

$                    

23 Tomoloo Flagship A1ZP3NP8NRL3DB 6/25/2021 $                      824 MANDOYOU A1EWFJP84JPI5D 6/25/2021 

$                        

25 TOMOLOO Franchise A345B08PGN8LUO 6/25/2021 $                   13

26 TOMOLOO‐US A2FO3ELK9A4COF 6/25/2021 $                      7

27 Tomoloo INT A35351AV5611LB 6/25/2021 $                        

28 Lison ET A2NLQKWD7CGXGK 6/25/2021 

$                        

TOTAL

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 328-4 Filed: 07/13/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:744
EXHIBIT 32.2NOVELLUS SYSTEMS, INC.CERTIFICATIONIn connection with the periodic report of Novellus Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended September 29, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Report”), I, William H. Kurtz, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for theperiods indicated.This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and ExchangeCommission.        Dated: November 6, 2007 By:  /s/ William H. Kurtz    William H. Kurtz    Executive Vice President andChief
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6139
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EUNICE ARNETTA HARRIS SPARKS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-92-179) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eunice Arnetta Harris Sparks, Appellant Pro Se. Scott PatrickMebane, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying her motion to modify her sentence so that she will be transferred to the institution of her choice. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Sparks , No. CR-92-179 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 5, 1996). We dispense withoral 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
FINAL by: OSAC Program Office; Version 2, December 1, 2020 1

OSAC RESEARCH NEEDS ASSESSMENT FORM

Title of research need: Identification of odorant chemicals present in and above targets

Keyword(s): Odorant chemicals, canine, human scent, explosives, drugs

Submitting subcommittee(s): Dogs & Sensors Date Approved: March 10, 2021

(If SAC review identifies additional subcommittees, add them to the box above.)

Background Information:

1. Does this research need address a gap(s) in a current or planned standard? (ex.: Field identification system 

for on scene opioid detection and confirmation)

Research is needed to identify the odorants, volatile organic compounds that are present in target odor compounds 

particularly human remains, as well as explosives, drugs, and human scent. Needed in all standards planned and 

currently being worked on to better delineate proper training regimens.

2. Are you aware of any ongoing research that may address this research need that has not yet been published 

(e.g., research presented in conference proceedings, studies that you or a colleague have participated in but 

have yet to be published)?

Unknown

3. Key bibliographic references relating to this research need: (ex.: Toll, L., Standifer, K. M., Massotte, D., eds. 

(2019). Current Topics in Opioid Research. Lausanne: Frontiers Media SA. doi: 10.3389/978-2-88963-180-3)

Simon A, Lazarowski L, Singletary M, Barrow J, Van Arsdale K, Angle T, Waggoner P, Giles K. 2020 A Review of the 

Types of Training Aids used for Canine detection training: Frontiers in Veterinary Science. doi: 

10.3389/fvets.2020.00313

4. Review the annual operational/research needs published by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) at 

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/forensic-science-research-and-development-technology-working-groupoperational#latest? Is your research need identified by NIJ?

No

5. In what ways would the research results improve current laboratory capabilities?

Research would result in improved understanding in how to train canines more effectively, safely, and efficiently by 

an enhanced knowledge of odor components. 
FINAL by: OSAC Program Office; Version 2, December 1, 2020 2

6. In what ways would the research results improve understanding of the scientific basis for the 

subcommittee(s)?

The research would improve understanding of the subcommittee to be used in drafting standards related to training 

and certification. Provide canine handler a more positive outcome and reinforcement of K9 team.

7. In what ways would the research results improve services to the criminal justice system?

The standards will result in improved detector canine operational performance as a result of an expected increase in 

more effective and efficient canine training.

8. Status assessment (I, II, III, or IV):

I Major gap in 

current 

knowledge

Minor gap in 

current 

knowledge

No or limited

current research is 

being conducted I III

Existing current 

research is being 

conducted II IV

This research need has been identified by one or more subcommittees of OSAC and is being provided as an 

informational resource to the community.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21
- 0217 JULIE KOSTELECKY, an individual, on behalf o f herself and her minor child S.M.K.; and JASON KOSTELECKY, an individual, on behalf o f himself and his minor child S.M.K.,

Plain ti ffs and Appellants, v. PEAS IN A POD LLC; LACEY ALLEN; ERICA WILLIAMS; JANE AND JOHN DOES 1
- 10, Defendants and Appellees. ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parti es having f ailed to j oint ly and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c), IT IS ORDERED THAT **Robert K.**  **Baldwin,** who se name appears next on th e list of attorneys desiring appo int me nta s mediators fo r Money Judgments appeals which is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appo int ed to co nduct th e mediat io n process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED th at th e time periods set fo rth in M.R.App.P., 7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appoint me nt . A true copy o f this order is being mailed to counsel of record f or the parti es, or to th e parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof. DATED thi s May 28, 2021.

Bowen Greenwood , Clerk of the Supreme Court
c: John Lyman Amsden, Michae l G. Black, Anthony F . Jackson, Ross Tillman, Zachary

Aaron Franz, Robert K. Baldwin 

# oe.,-__6.,f 05/28/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0217
HMM Reference NIST Technical Note 2205: Item 6 Roof Covering (Classes B and C) 

Item 6 Roof Covering (Classes B and C) – Hardened roof materials like metal and Spanish tile prevent ignition. 

Metal roof

Spanish tile roof with sealed bird stops

Note: Selected photographs are included to illustrate each HMM hardening item. Additional vulnerabilities or hardening items may be seen in the photographs, but those are highlighted within their specific HMM item.
There is no CAD drawing for 

Item 6: Roof Covering (Classes B and C) 

Please see photographs for illustrations.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 2001

_____________________________
M ONIQUE W OOD , N IKKI C LARK and D ARCY C AVELL , Appellant s ,

v.

M ARSHALL C ASSEDY , J R

. , Appellee.

_____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Karen Gievers , Judge

. February 11, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. O STERHAUS , W INOKUR , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________ David P. Healy of Dudley, Sellers, Healy & Heath, PL, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.2 J. Marsha ll Conrad and Anthony L. Bajoczky, Jr. of Ausley McMullen, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
EXHIBIT 11.1


                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


The following is a reconciliation of the numerators and denominators of the
basic and diluted earnings per share computations for income from continuing
operations:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                  Income             Shares             Per Share
U.S. dollars in thousands except share and per share data       (Numerator)       (Denominator)           Amount
                                                            ------------------- ------------------ -------------------
<S>                                                         <C>                 <C>                <C>  
Three Months Ended March 31, 1999
---------------------------------
Basic earnings per share
Income available to common shareholders                                 $3,991         13,923,799               $0.29

Effect of Dilutive Securities:
   Class A Warrants                                                                            --
   Director and Employee Options                                                            9,748
   Class B Warrants                                                                            --

Diluted earnings per share
Income available to common shareholders                                 $3,991         13,933,547               $0.29
                                                            =================== ================== ===================
Three Months Ended March 31, 1998
---------------------------------
Basic earnings per share
Income available to common shareholders                                 $3,251         13,923,799               $0.23
                                                            =================== ================== ===================
Effect of Dilutive Securities:
   Class A Warrants                                                                            --
   Director and Employee Options                                                          449,892
   Class B Warrants                                                                            --

Diluted earnings per share
Income available to common shareholders                                 $3,251         14,373,691               $0.23
                                                            =================== ================== ===================
</TABLE>

                                       22
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 452 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 452

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Board of 
    Governors of the United States Postal Service should reject the 
 recommended decision issued by the Postal Rate Commission on May 11, 
1998, to the extent that it provides for any increase in postage rates.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 3, 1998

 Mr. Latham submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
            the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Board of 
    Governors of the United States Postal Service should reject the 
 recommended decision issued by the Postal Rate Commission on May 11, 
1998, to the extent that it provides for any increase in postage rates.

Whereas the United States Postal Service has realized a cumulative net income of 
        approximately $5,800,000,000 during the past three and one-half fiscal 
        years;
Whereas the national rate of inflation has declined substantially during that 
        time;
Whereas the postal customers and taxpayers of the United States deserve to share 
        in the recent financial gains of the Postal Service;
Whereas any increase in postage rates affects every citizen, resident, and 
        business in the United States, and is especially harmful to individuals 
        living on low or fixed incomes;
Whereas the Postal Rate Commission issued a recommended decision on May 11, 
        1998, that proposes, among other things, increases in certain postage 
        rates;
Whereas it has been estimated that the proposed rate increase for first-class 
        mail would increase the annual revenue of the Postal Service by 
        approximately $1,000,000,000; and
Whereas the Board of Governors of the Postal Service is expected to meet in June 
        1998 to act upon the recommended decision: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service should 
reject the recommended decision issued by the Postal Rate Commission on 
May 11, 1998, to the extent that it provides for any increase in 
postage rates.
                                 <all>
```
Petition To Rehear

#### N.C. CENTRAL UNIVERSITY v. TAYLOR

No. 282PA96

Case below: 345 N.C. 630

Petition by Attorney General to rehear pursuant to Rule 31 denied 8 May 1997.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.02
 
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
 
     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in this Registration Statement on Form S-3 of our report dated
January 23, 1998 included in Crescent Real Estate Equities Company's Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 1997, and of our reports dated August 29, 1997
on U.S. Home Building, December 4, 1997 on Energy Centre, December 12, 1997 on
Austin Centre January 16, 1998 on Post Oak Central, January 16, 1998 on
Washington Harbour and March 4, 1998 on Datran Center included in Crescent Real
Estate Equities Company's Forms 8-K and to all references to our Firm included
in this Registration Statement.
 
                                            ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
 
Dallas, Texas
June 24, 1998