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

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-91,409-01

EX PARTE ABEL RIOS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 20040D00922-210-1 IN THE 210TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM EL PASO COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of injury to a child with intent to cause serious bodily injury with

a deadly weapon and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Eighth Court of Appeals affirmed his

conviction. Rios v. State, No. 08-06-00211-CR (Tex. Crim. App.—El Paso, Sept. 24, 2008). 

Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the

district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Over eleven years after Applicant learned that his conviction had been affirmed on direct

appeal, he contends that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to timely inform him of his

right to file a pro se PDR. He states that this failure deprived him of the opportunity to file a PDR.

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Smith v. Robbins, 528
2

U.S. 259 (2000); Ex parte Miller, 330 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Further, the current

record supports a sua sponte laches inquiry. Accordingly, the record should be developed. The trial

court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). The

trial court shall order appellate counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim. The court shall also give

Applicant an opportunity to explain his delay. In developing the record, the trial court may use any

means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine

whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wants to be represented by counsel, the

trial court shall appoint counsel to represent him at the hearing. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art.

26.04. If counsel is appointed or retained, the trial court shall immediately notify this Court of

counsel’s name.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether appellate

counsel’s performance was deficient and Applicant was prejudiced. The court shall also make

findings and conclusions as to whetherlaches bars Applicant’s request for relief. The trial court may

make any other findings and conclusions that it deems appropriate in response to Applicant’s claim.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from

the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court’s

findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things,

affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from

hearings and depositions. See TEX.R.APP.P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested

by the trial court and obtained from this Court.

Filed: September 16, 2020

Do not publish
<PAGE>

                       SUBSIDIARIES OF NASH FINCH COMPANY


A. Direct subsidiaries of Nash Finch Company (the voting stock of which is
owned, with respect to each subsidiary, 100 percent by Nash Finch Company):
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

               Subsidiary                                     State of
               Corporation                                  Incorporation
               -----------                                  -------------
     <S>                                                    <C>
     Nash-DeCamp Company                                       California
     Visalia, California


     Piggly Wiggly Northland Corporation                       Minnesota
     Edina, Minnesota


     GTL Truck Lines, Inc.                                     Nebraska
     Norfolk, Nebraska


</TABLE>

B. Direct subsidiaries of Nash Finch Company (the voting stock of which is
owned, with respect to each subsidiary, 66.6 percent by Nash Finch Company):
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

               Subsidiary                                     State of
               Corporation                                  Incorporation
               -----------                                  -------------
     <S>                                                    <C>
     Gillette Dairy of the Black Hills, Inc.                  South Dakota
     Rapid City, South Dakota

     Nebraska Dairies, Inc.                                   Nebraska
     Norfolk, Nebraska

</TABLE>

C. Subsidiaries of Nash-DeCamp Company (the voting stock of which is owned, with
respect to each subsidiary other than Agricola Nadco Limitada, 100 percent by
Nash-DeCamp Company):


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

               Subsidiary                                   State/Country of
               Corporation                                  Incorporation
               -----------                                  -------------
     <S>                                                    <C>
     Forrest Transportation Service, Inc.                   California
     Visalia, California

     Agricola Nadco Limitada*                               Chile


     *Ninety-nine percent (99%) of Argicola Nadco Limitada
      is owned by Nash-DeCamp Company.

</TABLE>
Journal of Visualization, Vol. 9, No. 1 (2006) 5

Vortex Entrainment and Separation Using Flow Superposition
Swanson, L. A.*!, Davis, J. M.*? and Disimile, P. J.**

*1 University of Cincinnati, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Cincinnati, OH,
Engineering and Scientific Innovations, Inc., Batesville, IN, USA

*3 USAR, Aerospace Survivability and Safety Flight, WPAFB, OH, USA

Received 3 August 2005

‘ellow
Incense

Incense

The photograph illustrates transient airflow over

fence. The flow was acquired within a two-
dimensional aircraft nacelle simulator. This simulator is 0.23 m high and 1.83 m wide (0.75 ft and
6.00 ft respectively). Smoke was produced from burning incense sticks and illuminated with a 1000
W tungsten light. Images were acquired at 240 frames per second using a high-speed digital camera
The image is a combination of two synchronized visualizations taken at two different times and
superimposed. The color was added using video editing software in order to differentiate the two
separate visualizations. The yellow colored smoke was generated using incense sticks placed at the
upstream corner of the fence. The blue colored smoke originated from incense sticks placed
approximately 1.27 cm (0.50 in) upstream of the fence.

The two superimposed images show entrainment of outside fluid (blue) into the shear layer
vortices, which form in the recirculation region.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6710

VERNELL A. JEFFRIES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD F. MOATS, Warden; D. BARTHLOW; F. J. NASERI; WALLS, Correctional Officer, CO II, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-4091-AW) Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 27, 1998 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vernell A. Jeffries, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, David Phelps Kennedy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. 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 relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. 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. Jeffries v. Moats , No. CA-97-4091-AW (D. Md. Apr.28, 1998). We deny the motion for appointment of counsel and 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.

AFFIRMED
9777.

#### Atlanta, Birmingham & Atlantic Ry. Co. *v.*Smith.

.^ade, C. J.

1. Even if the injury to the plaintiff'resulted from the carelessness and negligence of inexperienced and incompetent servants, the petition was nevertheless subject to general demurrer, since the law presumes that the master exercised ordinary care in the selection of his servants *(Georgia Railroad Co.*v. *Nelms,*83 *Ga.*70, 74, 9 S. E. 1049, 20 Am. St. R. 308; *Baxley*v. *Satilla Mfg. Co.,*114 *Ga.*720, 40 S. E. 730; *Gunn*v. *Willingham,*111 *Ga.*427, 434, 36 S. E. 804; *Kilgo*v. *Rome Soil Pipe Mfg. Co.,*16 *Ga. App.*737 (2), 86 S. E. 82), and it is *199not alleged that the master knew of such incdmpeteney, or by the *exercise*of due diligence could or should have known of it, at the time of employment, or negligently retained such. servants with knowledge of their ineompetency. *Gunn*v. *Willingham,*supra.

Decided January 14, 1919.

Action for damages; from city court of Brunswick—Judge Krauss. April 20, 1918.

*Bolling Whitfield,*for plaintiff in error.

*Frank H. Harris,*contra.

2. The petition was likewise subject to general demurrer for the reason that it affirmatively appears therefrom that the plaintiff was at the time of his injury a *foreman*in charge of a gang of laborers, whose negligence he alleges caused his injury, and he had at least equal opportunity with the master of discovering, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, their negligent propensities. “A servant can not recover for injuries resulting from a fellow servant’s incompetency, if he had equal opportunity with the master of discovering it, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known of it.” *Kilgo*v. *Rome Soil Pipe Mfg. Co.,*supra. See hlso Civil Code (1910), § *3131; R. & D. Railroad Co.*v. *Worley,*92 *Ga.*84 (18 S. E. 361) ; *Crown Cotton Mills*v. *McNally,*123 *Ga.*35, 38 (51 S. E. 13). .

3. The court erred in overruling the general demurrer.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jenhins and Luke, J.J., concur.*
Exhibit 32


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT


I,  Gregory  D.  Cash,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of  Vasomedical,   Inc.  (the
"Company"),  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

     (1)  the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months
          ended  November  30,  2003  (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
          of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

     (2)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Dated: January 14, 2004

                                           /s/ Gregory D. Cash
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Gregory D. Cash
                                           Chief Executive Officer




I, Thomas W. Fry, Chief Financial Officer of Vasomedical,  Inc. (the "Company"),
certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

     (1)  the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months
          ended  November  30,  2003  (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
          of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

     (2)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Dated: January 14, 2004

                                           /s/ Thomas W. Fry
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Thomas W. Fry
                                           Chief Financial Officer
11325.

#### McNeely *v.*The State.

Decided May 12, 1920.

Luke, J.

1. The fact that a grand jury has made a return of “no bill” or failed to find a bill of indictment against a person does not prevent the resubmission and finding of another bill for the same offense by the same or another grand jury. See 22 Cyc. 207 (6). Accordingly, in the instant case, the court did not err in overruling, the special plea in bar and the motion to quash, which set up that the same grand jury that returned this bill of indictment against the defendant had previously, at the same term and upon the same facts and the testimony of the same witnesses, made a return of “ no bill ” upon the same charge against him.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*

*329Conviction of stabbing; from Jefferson'superior court—Judge Hardeman. January 10, 1920.

*J. R. Phillips, A. R. Wright,*for plaintiff in error.

*Walter F. Grey, solicitor-general,*contra.
<PAGE>
             BOSTON FINANCIAL QUALIFIED HOUSING TAX CREDITS L.P. III
                             (A Limited Partnership)


                                  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 Quarterly Report of Boston Financial Qualified Housing
Tax Credits L.P. III (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer, hereby certifies 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
     Partnership.



                                     /s/Gary Mentesana
                                     --------------------------------------
                                     Gary Mentesana
                                     Principal Executive Officer and
                                     Principal Financial Officer
                                     Arch Street III, Inc., as
                                     Managing General Partner of
                                     Boston Financial Qualified
                                     Housing Tax Credits L.P. III

                                     Date:  February 14, 2007


A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been
provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
V 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4878

For the relief of Malik Jarno. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 20, 2004

Mr. VAN HOLLEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

For the relief of Malik Jarno.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR MALIK 

4 JARNO. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Malik Jarno shall be eligible for issuance of an immi8 grant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an alien 

9 lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing an 

10 application for issuance of an immigrant visa under sec11 tion 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful 

12 permanent resident. 
2

•HR 4878 IH 

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Malik Jarno en2 ters the United States before the filing deadline specified 

3 in subsection (c), he shall be considered to have entered 

4 and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be 

5 eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the 

6 Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the en7 actment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Malik Jarno, the Secretary of State shall in16 struct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the current 

17 or next following fiscal year, the total number of immi18 grant visas that are made available to natives of the coun19 try of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the Immi20 gration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total 

21 number of immigrant visas that are made available to na22 tives of the country of the alien’s birth under section 

23 202(e) of such Act. 

24 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

25 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 
3

•HR 4878 IH 

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Malik Jarno shall not, 

2 by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right, privi3 lege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Æ
**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**

**BioLok      International Inc.**

| a) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section  13(a)                 or                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,                and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| b) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all  material                respects, the financial condition and results of  operations                of the Registrant as of the dates and the periods  expressed                in the Report. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | **Bio-Lok                  International Inc.**                                           |                                                      |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                      |                                                      |   |
|   |                                                                                 | /s/ Bruce                L.                Hollander |   |
|   | Bruce                  L. HollanderChief Executive OfficerMarch                  15, 2006 |                                                      |

----
Exhibit 32.2

                              CNB BANCORP, INC.

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                            AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of CNB Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
George A. Morgan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted 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.


By  /s/ George A. Morgan
    --------------------
    George A. Morgan, Chief Financial Officer
    November 8, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          215000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                215000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  305000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           214000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       3128000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (3037000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    305000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 13000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (13000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (13000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (13000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EX-10.1






Exhibit 10.1




Non-Employee Director Compensation for 2006



At its regularly scheduled meeting on December 7, 2005, the Board of Directors of Aqua America,
Inc., upon the recommendation of its Executive Compensation and Employee Benefits Committee,
approved the following directors’ compensation for 2006 for the non-employee directors of Aqua
America, Inc.: (1) an annual cash retainer of $15,000; (2) an annual cash retainer for the Chair of
the Executive Compensation and Employee Benefits Committee and Corporate Governance Committee of
$5,000; (3) an annual cash retainer for the Chair of the Audit Committee of $7,500; (4) a meeting
fee of $1,500 for each meeting of the Board of Directors; (5) a meeting fee of $1,250 per meeting
for meetings of the Audit Committee and a meeting fee of $1,000 per meeting for meetings of the
other Committees; and (6) an annual stock grant to directors of 1,200 shares (on a post-split
basis) payable on the first of the month following the Annual Meeting of Shareholders. All
directors are reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred in connection with attendance at Board or
Committee meetings. Directors are eligible to defer part or all of their fees under the Company’s
Director Deferral Plan. Amounts deferred accrue interest at the prime interest rate plus 1.0%.