alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 09
- 00420
- CR
CHRISTOPHER D. WILLI S , Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 54th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2006
- 1594
- C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bar gain, Christopher Willis was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for aggravated sexual assault of a child. About two years later, the State filed a motion to adjudicate. Willis pleaded true to the allegations, and the court adjudicated his guilt and sentenced him to twenty

- five years’ imprisonment. Willis contends in his sole issue that the court erred by assessing his

court

- appointed attorney’s fees as part of the costs after finding him indigent less than a
month earlier. We will mod ify the judgment and affirm the judgment as modified.Willis v. State Page 2

Article 26.05(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides:
If the court determines that a defendant has financial resources that enable him to offset in part or in whole the costs of the legal servi ces provided, including any expenses and costs, the court shall order the defendant to pay during the pendency of the charges or, if convicted, as court costs the amount that it finds the defendant is able to pay.
T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 26.05(g) (Vernon Supp. 2010)

. If the State fails to present evidence that the defendant is able to pay all or part of
his court

- appointed attorney’s fees, then the trial court commits error by assessing any part of those fees as costs of court. See Mayer v. State , 274 S.W.3d 898, 901 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 20 08), aff’d , 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 20 10). 1 Here, no such evidence was presented. The State concedes that the court erred by assessing the court

- appointed attorney’s fees as costs. We sustain Willis’s sole issue. We modify the judgment by reducing the amount of costs assessed against Willis from $1,735 to $885. We affirm the judgment as modified.

FELIPE REYNA Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Reyna, and Justice Davis Affirmed as modified Opin ion delivered and filed October 13, 2010 Do not publish [CR PM ]

1 Regarding the State’s burden of proof in this regard, the Court of Criminal Appeals noted in Mayer , “ there is no indication that the state was precluded from presenting evidence and being he ard on the issue of appellant’ s financial resources and ability to pay for reimbursement of the c ourt

- appointed

attorney fees.” Mayer v. State , 309 S.W.3d 552 , 557 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010 ).
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_contracts.cfm 1

Awarded Contracts for External Experts to Support the 

NIST World Trade Center (WTC) Disaster Investigation

Contract No. Awarded to Date Awarded

SB1341-03-W-0714 (Area 2) Dr. David M. Parks 6/24/2003

OUTSIDE EXPERTS FOR BASELINE STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE, IMPACT ANALYSIS, 

STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO FIRE, COLLAPSE, ETC.

Under solicitation number SB1341-03-Q-0322, firm fixed-price purchase orders have been awarded to 

experts in five technical areas for their experience and judgment at the most senior professional level to 

provide expert technical assistance as follows:

Area 2: Computational Mechanics for Aircraft Impact Analysis

A purchase order for Area 2 has been awarded to Dr. David M. Parks, an independent consultant. Dr. 

Parks is a world-class expert in the fields of computational and applied mechanics and the mechanical 

behavior of engineering materials. The specific tasks Dr. Parks will perform include:

Provide expert technical assistance in identifying appropriate constitutive relationships and failure 

criteria for the various structural materials considered in the analysis of aircraft impacts into the 

WTC towers. 

Conduct in-depth, review and critique of the work done on the finite element analysis of aircraft 

impacts into the towers. The reviews shall include (1) the appropriateness of the models for their 

intended uses, and (2) the appropriateness of the impact analyses and the accuracy of the results 

including estimates of damage to the towers and dispersal of fragments. 

Dr. Parks has over 30 years of experience in finite element analysis of fracture, plasticity, constitutive 

modeling, and material strain-rate sensitivity. Dr. Parks’ primary technical interests are in the application 

of numerical methods to the analysis of fracture and inelastic deformation of materials, both at the 

structural and micro-structural levels. He has more than 120 publications over a broad range of topics. He 

served as a principal investigator on many research projects sponsored by government and industry. 

Examples of his consulting work include failure analysis of gas turbines using fracture mechanics-based 

3-dimensional finite element modeling, analysis of failure of heat exchangers, and analysis of the failure 

of the welded beam-column connection following the Northridge earthquake. Dr. Parks has a doctorate in 

mechanical engineering and holds a position of Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

For the analysis of aircraft impact into the WTC towers, Dr. Parks will be providing expertise in the 

following areas:

Nonlinear computational mechanics with emphasis on materials constitutive modeling, plasticity, 

dynamic plastic fracturing, material failure, and material strain rate sensitivity. 

Fracture mechanics and plasticity. 

Nonlinear finite element analysis including large deflections, plasticity, contact behavior, and 

failure of components (element erosion).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DONTA RUSSELL-EL, # 192899, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0120-WS-N

WARDEN CULLIVER, et al., :

Defendants. :

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be and is hereby

DISMISSED with prejudice, prior to service of process, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

DONE this 6th day of May, 2010.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

Case 1:09-cv-00120-WS-N Document 14 Filed 05/06/10 Page 1 of 1
Order entered August 13, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00084-CR

No. 05-15-00085-CR

TANYA DIANE WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F13-61793-V, F13-72175-V

ORDER

Appellant was convicted of two offenses of sexual assault of child. Appellant’s briefs 

identify the complaining witness by his full name. Accordingly, we STRIKE the appellant’s 

briefs filed on August 6, 2015. We ORDER appellant to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of 

this order, amended briefs that identify the complaining witness by initials only.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to counsel for all parties.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
11751.

#### Knight *v.*The State.

Broyles, C. J.

1. The description of the stolen property was legally sufficient in an indictment for simple larceny in which the property was described as “ one red and black spotted sow hog of value $10, one white and black spotted sow hog of value $10, one red and black spotted male hog of value of $10, one dark red male hog of value $10, and two white and black spotted sow hogs of value of $10 each; all of the value of $60 and of the personal goods of 0, A. Allen.” *766The indictment was not subject to the demurrer interposed. *Geiger*v. *State,*21 *Ga. App.*75 (93 S. E. 1027), and citations; *Adams*v. *State,*ante, 765.

Decided November 9, 1920.

Indictment for larceny of bog; from Wilkinson superior court — Judge Park. July 19, 1920.

*Sibley & Sibley,*for plaintiff in error.

*Doyle Campbell, solicitor-general, A. Y. Clement,*contra.

2. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that the offense was committed in the county of Wilkinson. See, in this connection, Co*ok*v. *State,*9 *Ga. App.*208 (70 S. E. 1019), and citations.

3. None of the alleged errors of commission or of omission, in the charge of the court, when considered in the light of the entire charge and of the facts of the ease, requires a new trial.

4. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and, having been approved by the trial judge, this court is without authority to set it aside.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAN J. QUALE, :

Plaintiff, :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO.: 09-0519-CG-M

UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, et al., :

Defendants. :

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Counts Two and Three of

Plaintiff’s Complaint be and are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice as to Defendant Unifund

CCR Partners. 

DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of January, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00519-CG-M Document 35 Filed 01/27/10 Page 1 of 1
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3891

_____________________________
B ARBARA J OHNSON , Appellant,

v.

L EON C OUNTY S CHOOL B OARD , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Charles W. Dodson , Judge

. June 12, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , R OBERTS , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

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

.

_____________________________2 Marie A. Mattox of Marie A. Mattox, P.A., Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Deborah Stephens Minnis, Ruth E. Vafek, and Alexandra E. Akre of Ausley McMulle n, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### EXEL NELSON ENGINEERING, L.L.C., Patrick L. Nelson, and Food Equipment Engineering & Design, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SHURFLO PUMP MANUFACTURING CO., Defendant-Appellee, and Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated, Defendant-Cross Appellant.

No. 01-1174, 01-1184.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 27, 2001.

ORDER

The parties having so agreed, it is

*882ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R.App. P. 42(b).
WSTL-EX10.16_2015.3.31






Exhibit 10.16 
WESTELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 
SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION 
(Effective March 24, 2015) 
The annual retainer for all non-employee directors is $40,000. Annual retainers for committee chairpersons are as follows: Chairman of the Board (if non-employee) -$20,000; Chair of the Audit Committee—$10,000; and Chair of the Compensation Committee—$10,000. Annual retainers for the members of committees are as follows: Member of the Audit Committee—$5,000; and Member of the Compensation Committee—$5,000. There is not separate compensation for meeting attendance. In addition, all directors may be reimbursed for certain expenses incurred in connection with attendance at Board and committee meetings. Directors who are employees of the Company do not receive additional compensation for service as directors. In addition, non-employee directors are eligible to receive awards under the 2004 Stock Incentive Plan. On a director’s initial appointment date, non-employee directors are each granted 20,000 restricted shares with an annual grant thereafter of 10,000(1) shares to be granted upon election to the Board of Directors, with 25% vesting on each annual anniversary date of the grant. 




(1) Amount with be 15,000 shares for fiscal year 2016 to adjust for the modification of timing of the award from April 1 to the re-election date (September).
#### Samuel Hall *v.*Russell Hamilton.

Perjury — Grand Jurors Competent Witnesses.

■Where in a civil suit one is charged with perjury in making a statement under oath before the grand jury, a member of the grand jury is competent to prove what the statement was.

APPEAL FROM FLOYD CIRCUIT COURT.

November 7, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

Although the allegations of the' petition fail to present a cause of action, the defect has been cured by the answer, in which it is admitted that the defendant charged the plaintiff with the crime of perjury, in making a statement under oath before the grand jury, that he, the defendant, had stolen plaintiff’s pocketbook and money, when he, the plaintiff, knew that the statement made was false. Upon this issue the case went to the jury, and the only question necessary to be considered is “was a member of the grand jury, before whom.the statement was made, competent to prove what that statement was

Sec. 109, of the Criminal Code, was enacted for the protection of the grand jurors in their deliberations upon matters, on the discharge of their duty as such, but even a grand juror who has testified falsely in giving testimony before his fellow jurors, may be indicted for perjury, and his statement made, proven by members of the same body. Sec. nr, Criminal Code. By Sec. no of the same act, a member of the grand jury is competent to show that the witness examined upon the final trial of the case, for which the indictment was found, had made statements to the grand jury, which were different from those made by the witness on the final hearing. In this case the complaint is that the appellee charged appellant with swearing to a lie before the grand jury, and there is no reason why, when the plaintiff is asking an investigation himself as to the truth or falsity of the charge, that those who heard his statements should *209have their mouths sealed as to what transpired with reference to the charges made. There is no question of public policy involved, nor any rule of law, that we are aware of, that makes a grand jury incompetent in such a case. The law requires secrecy in certain cases upon grand juries, by the express provisions of the code, but in all others the grand juror has the right to speak, and is no more protected than any other witnesses would be. The issue as to whether the plaintiff swore falsely was fairly presented to the jury by the witnesses, and the judgment must be affirmed.

/. *R. Bates, for appellant.*

*Apperson & Reid, for appellee.*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk September 24, 2012

h0917 

# Order

September 24, 2012

144349

RUBY & ASSOCIATES, P.C. and DAVID I.

RUBY,

Plaintiffs/Counter

- Defendants/

Respondents

- Appellees,

v SC: 144349

COA: 297266

Oakland CC: 2003

- 054535

- NM

GEORGE W. SMITH & COMPANY, P.C.,

GEORGE W. SMITH, and JOYCE W.

MILLER,

Defendants/Counter

- Plaintiffs,

and

THE GILES LAW FIRM,

Petitioner

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 4, 2011

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ELBERT R. SMITH, JR., et al., *

 *

Plaintiffs, *

 *

vs. * Civil Action No. 05-00331-BH-B

 *

SCALES EXPRESS, INC., *

 * 

Defendant. *

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Scales Express,

Inc.’s Motion to Quash and/or Motion for Protective Order (Doc.

31). In the motion, Defendant seeks an order quashing a subpoena

issued to non-party Transportation Coverage Specialists, Inc.,

located in New York, New York, for the production of various

records involving employees of Defendant Scales Express, Inc. A

review of Defendant’s briefs, Plaintiffs’ response in opposition,

and the subpoena at issue reflects that the subpoena issued out of

the Eastern District of New York, and that the non-party is located

in the Eastern District of New York, which is outside of this

judicial jurisdiction. Rule 45(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure provides that, “If separate from a subpoena commanding

the attendance of a person, a subpoena for production or inspection

shall issue from the court for the district in which the production

or inspection is to be made.” The rule further provides that,

“Failure by any person without adequate excuse to obey a subpoena

Case 1:05-cv-00331-BH-B Document 41 Filed 12/27/05 Page 1 of 2
2

served upon that person may be deemed a contempt of court from

which the subpoena issued.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(e). Given that nonparty Transportation Coverage Specialists, Inc. is located in New

York, and that the subpoena issued out of the Eastern District of

New York, it follows that the court in whose name the subpoena is

issued is responsible for its enforcement. Accordingly,

Defendant’s Motion to Quash is DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this Order on the

parties, as well as non-party Transportation Coverage Specialists,

Inc.

Done this 27TH day of December, 2005.

/s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00331-BH-B Document 41 Filed 12/27/05 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 74722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29406]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 31, 2014.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice 
President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
    1. Tommy Charles Fitzgerald, Byrdstown, Tennessee; to acquire an 
additional voting shares of Upper Cumberland Bancshares, Inc., and 
thereby indirectly acquire additional voting shares of People's Bank 
and Trust Company of Pickett County, both in Byrdstown, Tennessee.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 11, 
2014.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2014-29406 Filed 12-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Filename: Coordination 1991 
31
32
33
34
Exhibit 32.2



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 on Form 10-Q of Aphton Corporation
(the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frederick W. Jacobs, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Chief
Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, 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, as amended; 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: August 5, 2004



By:

/s/    FREDERICK W.
JACOBSFrederick W. JacobsVice President, Chief Financial Officer,Treasurer and Chief Accounting Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1528 

To require the President to receive an annual comprehensive cognitive 

evaluation, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2023 

Mr. SANTOS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To require the President to receive an annual comprehensive 

cognitive evaluation, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Executive Mental Com5 petency Protection Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE COGNITIVE EVALUATION 

7 OF THE PRESIDENT. 

8 (a) EVALUATION.— 

9 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than January 1 of 

10 each fiscal year, the physician to the President shall 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1528 IH

1 conduct a comprehensive cognitive evaluation of the 

2 President. 

3 (2) REQUIREMENTS.—Any evaluation under 

4 paragraph (1) shall include an assessment of the fol5 lowing: 

6 (A) General intellect. 

7 (B) Reading and reading comprehension. 

8 (C) Language usage and understanding. 

9 (D) Attention and concentration. 

10 (E) Processing speed. 

11 (F) Learning and memory. 

12 (G) Reasoning. 

13 (H) Executive functions. 

14 (I) Visuospatial skills. 

15 (J) Motor speed and dexterity. 

16 (K) Mood and personality. 

17 (L) Memory retention 

18 (b) REPORT.—Notwithstanding the HIPAA privacy 

19 regulations (as defined in section 1180(b)(3) of the Social 

20 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d–9(b)(3))), the physician 

21 to the President shall make the results of any evaluation 

22 conducted under subsection (a) available on the White 

23 House public website. 

24 (c) LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.— 

25 If a President fails to complete the comprehensive cogVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:54 Mar 23, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1528.IH H1528

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1528 IH

1 nitive evaluation by January 1 of any fiscal year as re2 quired by subsection (a), during the remainder of such fis3 cal year no Federal funds may be obligated or expended 

4 for travel of the President. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS