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

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-84,969-01

EX PARTE LUIS GUERRERO-MARTINEZ, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. CM-14-290 IN THE 278 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM LEON COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of two counts of

sexual assault of a child and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment for each count. He did not

appeal his conviction.

Applicant contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by giving him bad

advice regarding his parole eligibility date. 

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Ex parte
2

Moussazadeh, 361 S.W.3d 684, 690 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). In these circumstances, additional

facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960),

the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court shall order trial counsel

to respond to Applicant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court may use any

means set out in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 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 wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

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

performance of Applicant’s trial counsel was deficient and, if so, whether counsel’s deficient

performance prejudiced Applicant. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and

conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for

habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall

be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: May 25, 2016

Do not publish
Exhibit 10.1


 


SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE


CAPITAL SOUTHWEST CORPORATION


2009 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


 


WHEREAS, Capital Southwest Corporation (the “Company”) previously adopted the Capital Southwest Corporation 2009 Stock Incentive Plan (as previously amended, the “2009 Plan”);







WHEREAS, Section 18 of the 2009 Plan provides that the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”), may, subject to certain limitations, amend the 2009 Plan; and







WHEREAS, the Board has determined that it is in the best interests of the Company to amend the 2009 Plan to increase the number of stock options which may be granted to any individual during any one calendar year, subject to and effective upon the receipt of shareholder approval thereof at the Company’s 2015 annual stockholders meeting on August 4, 2015 (the “2015 Meeting”).







NOW, THEREFORE, the 2009 Plan is hereby amended, subject to and effective upon receipt of shareholder approval at the 2015 Meeting, as follows:








	 	
1.

	
Section 5(b)(i) of the 2009 Plan is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:







 


(i)                  the maximum number of Shares with respect to which Options may be granted to any individual during any one calendar year is 120,000 Shares; and


 



	 	
2.

	
The 2009 Plan, as amended hereby, shall continue in full force and effect.







 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Second Amendment to the 2009 Plan to be executed by its duly authorized officer, subject to and effective upon receipt of shareholder approval at the 2015 Meeting.


 


	 	
CAPITAL SOUTHWEST CORPORATION


	 	
	 	
By:

	
/s/ Joseph B. Armes


	 	
Name:

	
Joseph B. Armes


	 	
Title:

	
Chairman of the Board


	 	 	
President and Chief Executive Officer


	 	 	 
	 	
Dated: August 10, 2015
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raheim Ashby, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 284]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garnett, J), dated December 2, 2010, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sexually violent offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

*612The Supreme Court properly designated the defendant a level two sexually violent offender. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed 15 points under risk factor 11 (Drug or Alcohol Abuse — History of Abuse) (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 15 [2006]), as the People established by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant had a history of drug abuse (see *People v Geehreng,*101 AD3d 975 [2012]; *People v Finizio,*100 AD3d 977, 978 [2012]; *People v Quinn,*99 AD3d 776, 777 [2012]; *People v Crandall,*90 AD3d 628, 629-630 [2011]; *People v Warren,*42 AD3d 593, 594 [2007]).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s application for a downward departure (see *People v Washington,*105 AD3d 724, 725 [2013]; *People v Martinez,*104 AD3d 924 [2013]). Angiolillo, J.P, Hall, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 21.1

CAI INTERNATIONAL, INC.

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|                                                 |  |               
|------------------------------------------------ |  | --------------
|Subsidiary                                       |  | Jurisdiction  
|Container Applications International (U.K.) Ltd. |  | United Kingdom
|Sky Container Trading, Ltd.                      |  | United Kingdom
|Sky Domestic Container Leasing, Ltd.             |  | United Kingdom
|Sky Container Trading, Inc.                      |  | California    
|Container Applications (Malaysia) SDN BHD        |  | Malaysia      
|Container Applications Limited                   |  | Barbados      
|Container Applications International Ltd.        |  | Japan         
|CAIJ Ltd.                                        |  | Japan         
|CAI Consent Sweden AB                            |  | Sweden        
|CAI Consent Germany GmbH                         |  | Germany       
|CAI Consent UK Limited                           |  | United Kingdom
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gary Heller, Appellant.

[971 NYS2d 897]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated April 6, 2012, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender, a sexually violent felony offender, and a predicate sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at the hearing to determine his risk level pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act *(see*Correction Law art 6-C; *People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; *People v Bowles,*89 AD3d 171, 181 [2011]). Dillon, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This Schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Form 10-QSB of American Metals Service, Inc. for the three months ended November
30,  1997 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such  financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                              0000319016
<NAME>                             AMERICAN METALS SERVICE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                     SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                             2,118
<SECURITIES>                           0     
<RECEIVABLES>                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                           0
<INVENTORY>                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   2,118
<PP&E>                                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     2,118
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  4
<BONDS>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<COMMON>                              20
<OTHER-SE>                         2,094
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       2,118
<SALES>                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      27
<CGS>                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         16
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       11
<INCOME-TAX>                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   11
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                          11
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0
        


</TABLE>
663 A.2d 1348

#### CIRCLE CHEVROLET COMPANY, ETC., ET AL. v. GIORDANO, HALLERAN & CIESLA., ET AL.

January 11, 1995.

ORDER

This matter having been duly presented to the Court, it is ORDERED that the motion to vacate the order of dismissal and reinstate the notice of appeal is granted.
Exhibit 35.3

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

Homecomings Financial, LLC

RALI Series 2007-QS4 Trust (the Issuing Entity)

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Homecomings Financial, LLC, as servicer (the Servicer) pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement, does hereby certify that:

1. A review of the Servicers activities during the period from and including March 29, 2007 through and including September 24, 2007 and of the
Servicers performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such
review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout such period.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 24th day of March 2008.



|       |  |                     
|------ |  | --------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
|Name:  |  | Anthony N. Renzi    
|Title: |  | Managing Director
Exhibit 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Jan E. Dulman, certify that:

1) I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Global Gold
Corporation for the quarter ended September 30, 2007;

2) Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly 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 Quarterly
Report;

3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report;

4) The registrant's other certifying officers and I are 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 our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this Quarterly Report is being prepared;

b) [Reserved]

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this Quarterly Report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this Quarterly Report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this Quarterly Report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

5) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
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: November 14, 2007               /s/ Jan E. Dulman
                                             --------------------------
                                             Jan E. Dulman
                                             Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Peter Blackmore, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:




The Annual Report on Form 10-K of ShoreTel, Inc. for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




The information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ShoreTel, Inc.




Dated: September 12, 2011
By:
/s/ PETER BLACKMOREName:
Peter BlackmoreTitle:
President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Robert J. Massie, Jr., Respondent, v Carnegie Hall Corp. et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants. Stokes Industries, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[824 NYS2d 898]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J), entered August 17, 2005, upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff and third-party defendant, inter alia, awarding plaintiff damages structured pursuant to CPLR article 50-B, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In view of the proof as to the nature, extent and permanency of the facial and spinal injuries sustained by plaintiff, who was 29 years of age at the time of the subject accident, we find that the awards of $500,000 for past pain and suffering and $1.5 million for future pain and suffering did not materially deviate from what would be reasonable compensation *(see*CPLR 5501 [c]).

We discern no basis to disturb the jury’s conclusion, premised upon its assessment of conflicting expert and other testimony, that third-party defendant Stokes Industries, Inc. was not negligent in its design, manufacture or installation of the hoist at issue *(see McDermott v Coffee Beanery, Ltd.,*9 AD3d 195, 206 [2004]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.
## NO S . 12

- 17

- 00008

- CR

12

- 17

- 00009

- CR

12

- 17

- 00010

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JEROME MARKS,

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 252N D

JUDICIAL DISTRIC T COURT

JEFFERSON COUNTY, TE XAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant , Jerome Marks, has filed motion s to dismiss his three appeals

. The motion s

are signed by Appellant and his counsel. No dec ision has been delivered in these appeal s

.
Accordingly , Appellant’s motion s to dismiss are granted, and the appeal s are dismissed

. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2 (a).

Opinion delivered April 12, 2017.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NO T PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 12 , 2017

NO. 12

- 17

- 00008

- CR

JEROME MARKS,
Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the 252nd District Court

of Jefferson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No . 14

- 18651)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismisse d, and

that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 12 , 2017

NO. 12

- 17

- 0000 9

- CR

JEROME MARKS,
Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the 252nd District Court

of Jefferson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 14

- 18654)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and

that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 12 , 2017

NO. 12

- 17

- 000 1 0

- CR

JEROME MARKS,
Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the 252nd District Court

of Jefferson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 14

- 18648)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and

that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Manuel West, Appellant.

[961 NYS2d 776]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J., at plea; Michael R. Sonberg, J., at sentencing), rendered on or about November 1, 2011, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Fursuant to Criminal Frocedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order.

*434Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice.

Concur— Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, Renwick, Richter and Román, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: 2017 Yale Development, LLC v. Steadfast Funding, LLC, et. 

al.

Appellate case number: 01-20-00027-CV

Trial court case number: 2016-64847

Trial court: 190th District Court of Harris County

The appellate record was due to be filed in this appeal on February 19, 2020. 

Appellant has filed a “Motion [to] Extend Deadline to File Clerk’s Record and Reporter’s 

Record.” It is the responsibility of the trial court clerk and court reporter to file the clerk’s 

record and reporter’s record, respectively. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(a), (b). To the extent 

an extension is necessary for the filing of any part of the appellate record, the trial court 

clerk or court reporter may request an extension of time for filing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

35.3(c) (“The appellate court may extend the deadline to file the record if requested by the 

clerk or reporter.”). Accordingly, we deny appellant’s motion. 

On February 26, 2020, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the court 

reporter responsible for preparing the reporter’s record informed the Court that a reporter’s 

record had not been filed because appellant had not requested a reporter’s record or made 

arrangements to pay the fee for the reporter’s record, and directed appellant to provide 

proof of payment, or that arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record had been made by 

March 27, 2020. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(b), 37.3(c). This Court has received no written 

response from appellant regarding payment, or arrangements for payment, of the reporter’s 

record. Appellant must submit written evidence from the court reporter that payment has 

been made, or arrangements for payment have been made, for preparation of the reporter’s 

record no later than Friday, April 24, 2020. If appellant fails to provide such written 

evidence, the Court may require appellant to file its brief and consider and decide the appeal 

on those issues or points that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 37.3(c).

On February 27, 2020, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the trial court 

clerk responsible for preparing the clerk’s record informed the Court that the clerk’s record 

had not been filed because appellant had failed to pay or made arrangements to pay for the 
fee for preparing the clerk’s record. Appellant was directed to provide proof of payment, 

or that arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record had been made by March 30, 2020. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(a), 37.3(b). On April 6, 2020, appellant filed a “Statement Regarding 

Payment of the Clerk’s Record” with this Court, providing written notice that appellant 

made payment of the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. Accordingly, the clerk’s record 

is due to be filed no later than 30 days after the date of this order.

1

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Evelyn V. Keyes_______

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __April 14, 2020___

1 The trial court clerk may request an extension of time to file the clerk’s record in this Court. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c).
#### Morris I. Gletzer, Also Known as Morris I. Glecer, Plaintiff, v Amos Harris, Defendant. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Morris I. Gletzer, Also Known as Morris I. Glecer, Appellant, et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 17, 2009;

decided February 19, 2009

*746Motion by New York State Land Title Association for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Three copies of the brief must be served and an original and 24 copies filed within seven days.

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
#### Bio-Medical Applications of N.C., Inc. v. N.C. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.

Case below: 179 N.C. App. 483

No. 549A06

1. Def-Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal (COA05-294)

2. Def-Intervenor-Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

1. See opinion 361 N.C. 229

2. See opinion page 228