alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-02-0070-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	MAY 10, 2002

	______________________________

	CANDACE SUE BARKER, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 100TH DISTRICT COURT OF DONLEY COUNTY;

	NO. 2992; HONORABLE DAVID M. MCCOY, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

	Pursuant to a plea of not guilty, appellant Candace Sue Barker was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, enhanced, and punishment was imposed at 16 years confinement on December 11, 2001.  No motion for new trial was filed and appellant’s written notice of appeal was filed on January 25, 2002.

	In a criminal case the time in which to file a written notice of appeal may be enlarged if, within 15 days after the deadline for doing so, the party files the notice of appeal in the trial court and a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in the appellate court.  Tex. R. App. P. 26.3.  Appellant filed her notice of appeal on the last day of the 15-day extension period; however, it was not accompanied by a motion for extension of time. 

	When a notice of appeal, but no motion for extension, is filed within the 15-day window, this Court does not have jurisdiction to dispose of the purported appeal in any manner other than by dismissal for want of jurisdiction.  Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Tex.Cr.App. 1996).  Additionally, we do not have jurisdiction to invoke Rule 2 in an effort to obtain jurisdiction of the case.  Thus, we cannot create jurisdiction where none exists.  Id; see also Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209-10 (Tex.Cr.App. 1998).

	Moreover, by letter dated April 24, 2002, this Court notified appellant of the untimely notice and requested that she show grounds for continuing the appeal.  Appellant filed grounds for continuing the appeal explaining that oral notice of her intent to appeal was given on December 11, 2001, and that her written notice was filed within 30 days after judgment was entered on December 28, 2001.  The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require a written notice of appeal.  Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(1).  Thus, an oral notice of appeal is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court.  See Shute v. State, 744 S.W.2d 96, 97 (Tex.Cr.App. 1988).  Also, the timetable in which to file a notice of appeal from a criminal conviction commences on the date sentence was imposed, not the date the judgment was filed.  Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1).  

	Accordingly, we dismiss the purported appeal for want of jurisdiction.  However, should appellant desire, she may file a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration of an out-of-time appeal.  See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2002).

							Don H. Reavis

							     Justice

Do not publish.
10424.

#### Humphries, alias Davis, *v.*The State.

Bloodwoeth, J.

The motion for new trial in this case contained the usual general grounds only. The sole question for determination was whether or not the evidence was sufficient to show that there had been a breaking and entering of the house alleged to have been burglarized. The members of this court thought tire evidence sufficient to establish the burglary, but the decision in *Lester*v. *State,*106 *Ga.*371 (32 S. E. 335), seemed to forbid such a finding. This court therefore certified to the Supreme Court the following questions: “1. Is the foregoing evidence [the evidence in this case] sufficient to authorize a finding that there had been a breaking and entering of the house? 2. Is the decision in *Lester*v. *State,*106 *Ga.*371, that the evidence there was not sufficient to show a breaking and entering, a correct ruling?” The Supreme Court answered both questions in the affirmative, holding that “the evidence set forth in the question propounded by the Court of *314Appeals is sufficient to authorize a finding that there had been a breaking and entering of the house. And this is not in conflict with the decision in the case of *Lester*v. *State,*106 *Ga.*371, where it was held that the evidence was not sufficient to show a breaking and entering. An examination of the record in the case just referred to discloses that certain material facts do not appear in the official report of that case; but when these facts are considered, the ruling made by the court was undoubtedly correct.” 149 *Ga.*480 (100 S. E. 637).

Decided November 4, 1919.

Indictment for burglary; from Bibb superior court—Judge Mathews.

For the facts, see the report of this case in 149 *Ga.*480 (100 S. E. 637).

*Park & Stone, Hubert P. Bawls,*for plaintiff in error.

*John P. Boss, solicitor-general,*contra.

There being evidence to authorize the verdict, the judgment is

*Affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
#### DELTA REMANUFACTURING OF MARIANA, LLC, Plaintiff, Carlos Crisp, Appellant, Bobby Mott, Plaintiff, v. Jim O’CONNOR; Gary Lynch, Appellees.

No. 00-3470.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 3, 2001.

Decided May 15, 2001.

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Carlos Crisp appeals from the district court’s1 order awarding attorneys’ fees to *384defendants under Ark.Code Ann. § 16-22-308 in this diversity-jurisdiction action for breach of contract. Upon de novo review of the application of state law, *see Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. Edwards,*243 F.3d 457, 461 (8th Cir.2001) (per curiam), we agree with the district court that defendants were prevailing parties when Crisp voluntarily dismissed his complaint with prejudice. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in the extent of the award or in denying Crisp’s motion for reconsideration. *See Jarrett v. ERC Properties, Inc.,*211 F.3d 1078, 1084-85 (8th Cir.2000) (attorneys’ fees); *Sanders v. Clemco Indus.,*862 F.2d 161, 169-70 (8th Cir.1988) (motion for reconsideration).

Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

1

. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4525 

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to redesign the half dollar coin 

to commemorate Ronald Wilson Reagan, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 8, 2004 

Mr. MILLER of Florida (for himself, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. BRADLEY of 

New Hampshire, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. 

PENCE, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. WELDON of Florida, 

Mr. FEENEY, Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Ms. HARRIS, and 

Mr. JONES of North Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to redesign the 

half dollar coin to commemorate Ronald Wilson Reagan, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REDESIGN OF HALF DOLLAR COIN TO COM4 MEMORATE RONALD WILSON REAGAN. 

5 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the 

6 ‘‘Ronald Wilson Reagan Half Dollar Act’’. 
2 

•HR 4525 IH 

1 (b) REDESIGN OF HALF DOLLAR COIN.—Section 

2 5112(d) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 

3 adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

4 ‘‘(3) The obverse side of the half dollar shall have 

5 the likeness of Ronald Wilson Reagan.’’. 

Æ
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

            In connection with the Annual Report of Mills Music Trust (the
"Trust") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Joel Faden, the chief
financial individual providing accounting services, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, 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, as amended; and

            2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Trust.*

* The statements of cash receipts and disbursements reflect only cash
transactions and do not include transactions that would be recorded in financial
statements presented on the accrual basis of accounting. The Trust is required
to distribute all funds received. Accordingly, the Trust has not prepared any
statements of financial condition or cash flows.

Date: March 30, 2004

                                         /s/ Joel Faden
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         Joel Faden, Joel Faden & Company, Inc.
                                         Chief financial individual providing
                                         accounting services
Order filed October 25, 2018 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00829-CV

____________

LOULA P. GATOURA ET AL., Appellants

V.

NEC CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Appellees

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1092072-101

O R D E R

The notice of appeal in this case was filed September 10, 2018, by Iomnis 

Surveillance Solutions, LLC a/k/a and d/b/a Iomnis Surveillance Solutions; Iomnis

Surveillance; and Loula P. Gatoura. To date, the filing fee of $205.00 has not been 

paid. No evidence that appellants are excused by statute or the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure from paying costs has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. 

Therefore, the court issues the following order. 
2

Appellants are ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $205.00 to the 

clerk of this court on or before November 5, 2018. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellant 

fails to timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal will be 

dismissed.

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>   1
   
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
    




                   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, to be filed on or around
June 15, 1998, of our report dated May 27, 1998 on the Consolidated Financial
Statements of WorldCom, Inc. included in WorldCom Inc.'s Current Report on Form
8-K dated May 28, 1998 (filed May 28, 1998) and to all references to our Firm
included in this registration statement.
    

                                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

   
Jackson, Mississippi,
June 12, 1998.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Elizabeth H. Davila, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report
of VISX, Incorporated on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of VISX, Incorporated.

                                                       /s/Elizabeth H. Davila
                                                       -------------------------
                                                       Elizabeth H. Davila
                                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                                       November 10, 2003

I, Timothy R. Maier, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report
of VISX, Incorporated on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of VISX, Incorporated.

                                                       /s/Timothy R. Maier
                                                       -------------------------
                                                       Timothy R. Maier
                                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                                       November 10, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 70533]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27942]



[[Page 70533]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than December 09, 2014.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice 
President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
    1. Brian D. Lucas, Fort Myers, Florida, individually and as trustee 
for Charles Vincent Lucas Trust dated 12/26/2007 and Jack Roderick 
Lucas Trust, both of Annapolis, Maryland, and Trust FBO Grant Joseph 
Lucas 12/22/04, Fort Myers, Florida; Bay Harbour L.P., and its general 
partner Peninsula Investments, Inc., Bonita Springs, Florida; David 
Lucas, Fort Myers, Florida, individually and as trustee for Brian David 
Lucas Trust u/a/d 12/15/76 and Trust FBO Grady David Lucas 12/26/06, 
both of Fort Myers, Florida, and Trust FBO Caroline Jenna Lucas 7/10/
09, Cape Coral, Florida; Jack Roderick Lucas, Fort Myers, Florida; 
Michael Ukleja and Louise Ukleja, both of Long Beach, California; Megan 
Lucas Spears, Tampa, Florida; and Kevin M. Lucas and Karen S. Lucas, 
both of Annapolis, Maryland; to retain voting shares of Finemark 
Holdings, Inc., and indirectly retain voting shares of Finemark 
National Bank & Trust, both of Fort Myers, Florida.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 20, 
2014.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2014-27942 Filed 11-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

      I, John D. Ryan, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Boundless
Corporation;

      2. Based on my knowledge, this report 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 with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

      4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for
the registrant and have:

            a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to
      ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;

            b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
      controls and procedures, and presented in this report my conclusions about
      the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
      of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

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

      5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

            a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
      design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability 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 the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting.


Date: August 16, 2006                          /s/  John D. Ryan
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               John D. Ryan
                                               Acting Chief Executive Officer


                                    27 of 29
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4484 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4484

           To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,2 Octanediol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 2, 2004

 Mr. Brown of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,2 Octanediol.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON 1,2 OCTANEDIOL.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following:

``      9902.34.32       1,2 Octanediol     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         (CAS No. 1117-86-                                                  31/2007
                         8) (provided for
                         in subheading
                         2905.39.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3840

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Northern 

* District of Iowa. 

Shawn Lee Drinnon, *

* [UNPUBLISHED] 

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 12, 2006

Filed: June 16, 2006 

___________

Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM. 

Shawn Lee Drinnon was convicted of conspiracy to distribute less than 50

grams of methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

841(b)(1)(C), and 846. The district court1

 found that Drinnon was personally

involved with at least 255.15 grams and sentenced him under a mandatory guidelines

regime to 109 months. Drinnon appealed, and we remanded the case for resentencing
-2-

in accordance with Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), based on the

violation of the Sixth Amendment at sentencing. See United States v. Drinnon, 139

Fed. Appx. 761 (2005) (Drinnon I). On remand the district court resentenced

Drinnon to 109 months, and he appeals, challenging the district court's independent

determination of the drug quantity involved and alleging that the retroactive

application of Booker to his case violates the ex post facto clause. 

Drinnon argues that the district court violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments

by substituting its finding of drug quantity for that of the jury verdict and that his

sentence is unreasonable. We upheld the court's quantity determination in Drinnon's

first appeal, see Drinnon I at 762, and we affirm that determination as the law of the

case since sentencing facts do not need to be found by a jury. See United States v.

Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir. 2005). Drinnon's sentence falls within the

guideline range and is therefore presumptively reasonable. See United States v.

Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir. 2005). Under all the circumstances we conclude

that his sentence was not unreasonable. 

Drinnon further asserts that sentencing under an advisory guideline scheme in

his case violated the ex post facto clause because he had a valid expectation that he

would be sentenced under a mandatory regime. Being sentenced under the advisory

guidelines does not "implicate either ex post facto or due process principles",

however. See United States v. Jones, 440 F.3d 927, 929 (8th Cir. 2006). 

Accordingly, we affirm the amended judgment of the district court. 

______________________________