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

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-13-00106-CR

DAVID GENTRY WALLER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court

Red River County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR01897

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

O RDER

Court reporter Terry Spangler recorded the trial court proceedings in our cause number 

06-13-00106-CR, styled David Gentry Waller v. The State of Texas, trial court cause number 

CR01897 in the 6th Judicial District Court of Red River County, Texas. The reporter’s record 

was due in this case on September 12, 2013. The record is now nineteen days past due. 

Spangler has failed to respond to inquiries made by our clerk’s office regarding the whereabouts 

of the record.

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 reporter’s record is filed in these cases.

We, therefore, order Terry Spangler to file the reporter’s record in cause number 06-13-

00106-CR, David Gentry Waller v. The State of Texas, trial court cause number CR01897, to be 

received by this Court no later than Thursday, October 31, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: October 1, 2013
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer of GFI Group Inc.  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 GFI Group Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Gooch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to the 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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: February 29, 2008                                                      |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Michael GoochMichael Gooch
Chairman of the Board
Chief Executive Officer |  | 

---



QuickLinks
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4225

To modify the prohibition on recognition by United States courts of certain 

rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial names. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 28, 2004

Mr. SMITH of Texas (for himself, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. KELLER, Mr. CRANE, 

Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. HYDE, Mr. FEENEY, Mr. SHAW, Mr. FOLEY, Ms. 

ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. DEUTSCH, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Ms. GINNY

BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mr. MEEK of Florida, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. 

PAYNE, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. BONILLA, Ms. HART, Mr. KING

of Iowa, Mr. CARTER, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Ms. HARRIS, Mr. BOYD, Mr. 

HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Mr. 

PENCE, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. ROTHMAN, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. CANNON, Mr. 

FORBES, Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida, and Mr. HOSTETTLER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL

To modify the prohibition on recognition by United States 

courts of certain rights relating to certain marks, trade 

names, or commercial names.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF PROHIBITION. 

4 Section 211 of the Department of Commerce and Re5 lated Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in 
2

•HR 4225 IH 

1 section 101(b) of division A of Public Law 105–277; 112 

2 Stat 2681–88) is amended—

3 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘by a des4 ignated national’’; 

5 (2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘by a des6 ignated national or its successor-in-interest’’; 

7 (3) by redesignating subsection (d) as sub8 section (e); 

9 (4) by inserting after subsection (c) the fol10 lowing: 

11 ‘‘(d) Subsections (a)(2) and (b) of this section shall 

12 apply only if the person or entity asserting the rights knew 

13 or had reason to know at the time when the person or 

14 entity acquired the rights asserted that the mark, trade 

15 name, or commercial name was the same as or substan16 tially similar to a mark, trade name, or commercial name 

17 that was used in connection with a business or assets that 

18 were confiscated.’’; and 

19 (5) in subsection (e), as so redesignated, by 

20 striking ‘‘In this section:’’ and all that follows 

21 through ‘‘(2) The term’’ and inserting ‘‘In this sec22 tion, the term’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         673,641
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  109,355
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               782,996
<PP&E>                                      13,158,013
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,478,996
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,462,013
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,462,013
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,462,013
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               886,342
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  636,910
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    99,687
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Order entered March 6, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00277-CR

No. 05-20-00285-CR

No. 05-20-00286-CR

UMAIR AHMAE KHAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 199-80965-2018, 199-81674-2018 & 199-83132-2018

ORDER

Umair Ahmae Khan timely filed his notices of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

25.2(a)(1).

We ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine whether 

appellant is entitled to court-appointed counsel in these appeals. If the trial court 

finds that appellant is entitled to court-appointed counsel, we ORDER the trial 

court to appoint an attorney to represent appellant in the appeals. If the trial court 
finds that appellant is not entitled to court-appointed counsel, the trial court shall 

determine whether appellant will retain counsel to represent him in the appeals

and, if so, the name, State Bar number, and contact information for retained 

counsel.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the hearing, including 

findings of fact, any orders, and any supporting documentation, to this Court 

within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Angela 

Tucker, Presiding Judge, 199th Judicial District Court; Lynne Finley, Collin 

County District Clerk; LaTresta Ginyard, official court reporter, 199th Judicial 

District Court; and the Collin County District Attorney’s Office.

We ABATE the appeals to allow the trial court to comply with the order. 

The appeals will be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the 

findings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.1

NOVELLUS SYSTEMS, INC.

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Novellus Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 28, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Richard S. Hill, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 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, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                      |  |     |  |                                                                                             
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 5, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Richard S. Hill                                                                         
|                      |  |     |  | Richard S. Hill                                                                             
|                      |  |     |  | Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief
Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1





INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-36271 of INSpire Insurance Solutions, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated
January 19, 1998, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of INSpire
Insurance Solutions, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1997.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Fort Worth, Texas
March 25, 1998
Exhibit 31
                                  ----------

                                 CERTIFICATION
                                 -------------

      I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
      Form 8-K containing distribution and servicing reports filed in respect
      of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of CWMBS,
      Inc., CHL Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2004-11;

      2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
      whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
      to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
      of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
      misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
      report;

      3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
      required to be provided to the trustee by the master servicer under the
      pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these
      reports is included in these reports;

      4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the master
      servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and
      based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under
      that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the master
      servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and

      5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
      master servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based
      upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after
      conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation
      Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the
      pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in these
      reports.

      In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
      information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The
      Bank of New York, as Trustee.


      Date: March 28, 2005


                                        /s/ Steve Bailey
                                        ----------------
                                        Steve Bailey
                                        Senior Managing Director
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-31010

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Javier Munoz, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:19-CV-1197

USDC No. 2:17-CR-330-1 

Before Dennis, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Javier Munoz, federal prisoner # 20457-035, moves for a certificate of 

appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion 

challenging his 165-month sentence for possession of methamphetamine with 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 4, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-31010 Document: 00515733095 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2021
No. 19-31010

2

intent to distribute. He also challenges the district court’s denial of an 

evidentiary hearing on his constitutional claims. Munoz contends that his 

trial counsel failed to (1) investigate a video of the traffic stop during which 

the charged methamphetamine was seized and (2) move to suppress the drug 

evidence based on video of the traffic stop.

To obtain a COA, Munoz must make “a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), by “show[ing] that 

reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the 

[motion] should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues 

presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further,” 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To meet that burden, he must 

show that “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of 

the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484.

Munoz fails to make the requisite showing. Accordingly, the motion 

for a COA is DENIED. As Munoz fails to make the required showing for a 

COA on his constitutional claims, we do not reach whether the district court 

erred by denying an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Davis, 971 F.3d 

524, 534-35 (5th Cir. 2020).

Case: 19-31010 Document: 00515733095 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2021
NIST National Institute of
Standards and Technology

Technology Administration

LE db k 133 U.S. Department of Commerce

Checking the Net Contents
of Package
Goods =

vo Nd at
rr ‘
: y
(wellent Figg I Ardouals & Befernials Spa
; :

NIST
Handbook 133
Fourth Edition cant na January 2005
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of American Power Conversion Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 24, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Richard J. Thompson, Senior Vice President, Finance, and Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)     The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)     The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

/s/ Richard J. Thompson

Richard J. ThompsonSenior Vice President, Finance, and Chief Financial Officer

November 3, 2006

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of a separatedisclosure document.

 

40

----
10680.

#### Suggs *v.*The State.

Luke, J.

1. One charged with the crime of rape by having sexual or carnal knowledge of a female child under the age of fourteen years may, if the evidence authorizes, be convicted of the offense of assault with intent to rape.

*(а)*The girl alleged to have been raped in this case being thirteen years of age, and the evidence only authorizing and the State only asking a conviction of assault with intent to rape, it was not error for the court to give in charge to the jury the act of the legislature (Ga. L. 1918, p, 259) which fixes the age at which female children may consent to acts of sexual intercourse.

(б) The crime of assault with intent to rape is committed when a man undertakes to have sexual intercourse with an unmarried female child under the age of fourteen years, by attempting to insert his private parts into her private parts, and where penetration of the vagina is not made only because force sufficient is not used, even though the child consent to the attempted sexual intercourse.

(c) Since the passage of the act of 1918, supra, the age of consent to sexual intercourse by a female child in this State is fourteen years, except where she has been previously married to the person having sexual intercourse with her.

(d) This case is controlled almost entirely by the construction of the statute referred to. The defendant contends that if the attempted act of sexual intercourse was without “force,” and not against the will of the female child, who was over ten years of age, with no penetration of the vagina he could not be convicted of the offense of assault with intent to rape; and that the statute was not applicable and was improperly given in charge to the jury. It is an open question in this State, but authority from other States, in the construction of apparently similar statutes, seems to be almost uniform in holding contrary to the position of the defendant. See Callison *v.*State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 211 (39 S. W. 300); Loose *v.*State, 120 Wis. 115 (97 N. W. 526). And see 22 R. C. L. 1231, 1233, §§ 69, 71.

2. According to the testimony of the State’s witnesses, the defendant was on top of the girl, who was lying down on her back with her legs spread apart, and with her clothes up and his private member exposed to her private parts; and the jury credited these witnesses in preference to the defendant’s witnesses, whose testimony, if believed by the jury, would have authorized them to find that no such thing happened. The *324defendant was represented at his trial and in this court by able counsel, and a jury of his fellows did not believe his statement or the testimony of the witnesses he offered to overcome the evidence of the witnesses for the State. The trial judge has approved the verdict. Eor no reason assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Decided November 4, 1919.

Conviction of assault with intent to rape; from Berrien superior court—Judge Thomas. May *25,*1919.

*J. P. Knight,*for plaintiff in error.

*C. E. Hay, solicitor-general,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Broyles, *G. J., and Blood-worth, J., concur.*
**Exhibit 31.1**

**Certificationof Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuantto Rules 13A-14 and 15D-14**

**Of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934**

 

I,Bahan Sadegh, President and Chief Executive Officer of NETtime Solutions, Inc.(the “Company”), certify that:

(1)           Ihave reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2007 (the “Report”);

(2)           Basedon my knowledge, the Report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by the Report; and

(3)           Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in the Report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periodsrepresented in the Report.

(4)           TheCompany’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:

(a)           designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theCompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report isbeing prepared;

(b)           evaluated the effectiveness of theCompany’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in the Report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by the Report based on such evaluation; and

(c)           disclosed in the Report any change inthe Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe Company’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting.

(5)           TheCompany’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’sauditors and to the audit committee of the board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

(a)           all significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)           any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theCompany’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Dated: | November 14, 2007 |
|--------|-------------------|
|   |              |
| By:    |              | /s/ Bahan Sadegh |   |
|   |              | Bahan Sadegh |
|   |              | President and Chief  Executive Officer |