alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 16, 2019

No. 04-19-00488-CV

Robert DUNLAP,

Appellant

v.

Charles TROIS,

Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-CI-00955

Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On October 8, 2019, this court notified the court reporter that the reporter’s record was 

late. The next day, the court reporter filed a notification of late record, stating that the reporter’s 

record was not filed because appellant failed to request the record. The court reporter also stated 

that appellant failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee for preparing the 

record and that appellant was not entitled to appeal without paying the fee. 

Rule 34.6(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure requires appellant to “request in 

writing that the official reporter prepare the reporter’s record.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(b). The 

request must designate the portions of the proceedings to be included as well as any exhibits. Id. 

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant provide written proof by October 28, 2019 that

he has properly requested the record from the court reporter. 

It is further ORDERED that appellant provide written proof by October 28, 2019 that 

either (1) the reporter’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the reporter’s 

fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee. If appellant fails to 

respond within the time provided, appellant’s brief will be due within thirty (30) days from the 

date of this order, and the court will consider only those issues or points raised in appellant’s 

brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See id. R. 37.3(c).
_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of October, 2019.

___________________________________

LUZ ESTRADA,

Chief Deputy Clerk
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-93,357-01

EX PARTE GERALD REGINALD LEASSEAR, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1239125-A IN THE 183RD DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the

possibility of parole. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Leassear v. State,

No. 14-14-00016-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14 Dist.] 2015). Applicant filed this application for th

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. 

The trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law, recommending that relief be

denied. This Court adopts the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, with the

exception of finding of fact numbers 20, 21, 24, 41–42, 53, 77–81 and conclusions of law numbers

5, 6, and 7. Based on the trial court’s other findings and conclusions and this Court’s independent
2

review of the entire record, relief is denied.

Delivered: March 16, 2022

Do not publish
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 Annual Report of China Vitup Health Care Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (the Report), I, Chunxiang Li, Chief Financial 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  March 31, 2010 /s/ Chunxiang Li Chief Financial Officer
#### State v. Desperados, Inc.

Case below: 180 N.C. App. 378

No. 629A06

AG’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA05-1397)

Allowed 12/22/06

Hudson, J., Recused
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 131458 & (16) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 131458 COA: 265879 Wayne CC: 74-000772 GEARY GILMORE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 4, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The motion to remand is DENIED.

p1023 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2006

Clerk
----

----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| March      31, 2009 | /s/      James Roszel |
|---------------------|-----------------------|
|                | James      Roszel     |
|                | President             |

----
#### In the Matter of Daniel W. Grace, Respondent, v Eleanor B. Grace, Appellant. In the Matter of Eleanor B. Grace, Respondent, v Daniel W. Grace, Appellant.

Submitted March 9, 2009;

decided April 30, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine an action or proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
EX-34.3
(logo) PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

PricewaterhouseCoopers
300 Madison Avenue
New York NY 10017
Telephone (646) 471 3000
Facsimile (813) 288 6000

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Stockholder of Chase Home Finance LLC:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing
Criteria, that Chase Home Finance LLC (the "Company") complied with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the
"Reporting Period"), for asset-backed securities transactions backed by prime
residential mortgages serviced on the Real Estate ("RE") servicing system where
the related asset-backed securities were outstanding during the Reporting Period
(the "Platform"), excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(i),
1122(d)(4)(ii) and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not
applicable to the activities performed by it with respect to the Platform.
Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing
criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected
asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of
selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether
the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected
activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures
were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by
the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not
designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred
prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or
amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this
report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our
opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's
compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2007 for the asset-backed securities transactions backed by prime
residential mortgages serviced on the real estate ("RE") servicing system where
the related asset-backed securities were outstanding during the Reporting Period
is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

February 25, 2008
#### Judith Askin et al., Respondents, v City of New York et al., Defendants, and New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Appellant.

Submitted January 20, 2009;

decided March 26, 2009

*770Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6789** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DAVID RICH, a/k/a Oakie , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. William D. Quarles, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:08

- cr - 00438

- WDQ

- 1; 1:12

- cv - 03226

- WDQ )

Submitted : July 24 , 2014 Decided: July 29, 2014

Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
David Rich , Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon , James Thomas Wallner , Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circ uit.2 PER CURIAM: David Rich seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying in part his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. * The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) ( 20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demons trating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district cou rt denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85.

* The district court granted Rich’s motion in part and resentenced him. Rich appealed the sentence imposed by the district court, and we affirmed. United States v. Rich , F. App’x , 2014 WL 2958806 (4th Cir. July 2, 2014) (No. 13

- 4867).3 We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rich has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ad equately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### Glacial Aggregates LLC, Appellant, v Town of Yorkshire, Respondent.

Submitted February 23, 2009;

decided April 7, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal denied as unnecessary.
From: The District Court of the 20th Judicial District. County of Lake.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. RICHARD BUCK, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-08-67 DECISION

*80On December 10, 2008, the defendant was sentenced to ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison, with two (2) years suspended, for the offense of Assault on a Peace Officer or Judicial Officer, a felony. This sentence shall run consecutive to the sentence imposed in DC-07-152.

On November 12, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Bert Certain. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 12th day of November, 2009.

DATED this 25th day of November, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Hon. Richard Simonton.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. David Kae, Appellant, v James T. Conway, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Submitted July 13, 2009;

decided September 17, 2009

Reported below, 2009 NY Slip Op 70296(U).

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for leave to appeal denied.
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 Annual Report of MASS Petroleum Inc., (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ended November 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Oleg Bilinski,
Chief Executive 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; and2
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





By: /s/ Oleg
Bilinski


Oleg
Bilinski


President and Chief
Executive Officer


March 17,
2009
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

                    The                     **Federal Register**                     notice published on January 12, 2009 (74 FR 1170-1173) describing the proposal adopted by the Foreign-Trade Zones Board for an Alternative Site-Designation and Management Framework is corrected as follows. For the element numbered as “9” in the description of the final proposal (regarding “sunset” limits on magnet and usage-driven sites), the third sentence of the paragraph should read as follows: “However, each grantee would have the option of proposing permanent FTZ designation for one magnet site and the FTZ Board could take a range of factors into account in determining the appropriate sunset period for a given site (                    *e.g.*, nature of the site, public ownership of the site).”                

Dated: January 14, 2009.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-1113 Filed 1-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carmelo Morales, Appellant.

[870 NYS2d 912]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), entered on or about September 14, 2007, which denied defendant’s motion to be resentenced under the Drug Law Reform Act of 2005, unanimously affirmed.

The court recognized the degree of discretion it possessed *(compare People v Arana,*32 AD3d 305 [2006]), and providently exercised it. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determination that substantial justice dictated denial of the resentencing application, particularly in view of the seriousness of the underlying drug crime and its aggravating factors, as well as defendant’s criminal history *(see e.g. People v Vasquez,*41 AD3d 111 [2007], *lv dismissed*9 NY3d 870 [2007]). We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Gonzalez, Sweeny, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): March 9, 2005 IMPERIAL OIL LIMITED   Canada
    
    0-12014
    
    98-0017682(State or other jurisdiction
of incorporation)
    
    (Commission File Number)
    
    (IRS Employer
Identification No.)
 111 St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto, Ontario,
    
    M5W 1K3(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 Registrants telephone number, including area code: 1-800-567-3776  (Former name or former address, if changed since last report)
 Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy
the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (see General
Instruction A.2. below): o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Item 8.01
    
    Other Events.As of February 18, 2005, Imperial Oil Limited (the
Company) had 348,365,873 common shares outstanding. Due
to a typographical error, this number was incorrectly
reported on the cover page of the Companys Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004.The Company continues to purchase its common shares
pursuant to a normal course share purchase program on the
Toronto Stock Exchange.The number of common shares outstanding, as of February 28,
2005, was 347,920,648.
 SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly
caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized. IMPERIAL OIL LIMITEDDate: March 10, 2005By:       /s/ Brian LivingstonName:
    Brian LivingstonTitle:
    Vice-President, General Counsel
and Corporate Secretary By:       /s/ Marilyn HendersonName:
    Marilyn HendersonTitle:
    Assistant Secretary
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 463 

To deauthorize the project for navigation, Northeast Harbor, Maine. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 18, 2005 

Ms. SNOWE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To deauthorize the project for navigation, Northeast Harbor, 

Maine. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NORTHEAST HARBOR, MAINE. 

4 The project for navigation, Northeast Harbor, Maine, 

5 authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (59 

6 Stat. 12, chapter 19), is deauthorized as of the date of 

7 enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### Hinkle *v.*Burt.

1. The plea being that all the work in controversy was worthless, and the evidence adduced in support of the plea being to that effect and none of it disclosing at what value the work should be estimated if not at the value established by the evidence for the plaintiff, there was no error in not instructing the jury on the subject of partial failure of consideration. Both the plea and the evidence of the defendant manifest that his contention was one of total failure and that alone

2. There was no error in the charge complained of, and the evidence warranted the verdict. *Judgment affirmed.*

April 16, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Complaint on account. Before Judge Fish. Sumter superior court. November term, 1892.

Burt sued Hinkle upon an account for dental work. Hinkle pleaded that the work totally failed and proved worthless, and had to be done over; etc. Plaintiff' obtained a verdict for the amount sued for, and defendant’s motion for a new trial was overruled. The motion contains the grounds, that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence; that the court refused a request to charge the law of partial failure of consideration ; and that the court erred in charging: “If you believe from the evidence that the account sued on is correct, that the work charged for in the several items of the account was done by the plaintiff', and was skillfully done; that it was done by him with such skill and in such a manner as is usually employed by dentists in performing work of that character, and was done in a workmanlike manner ; that said account was due and unpaid when the suit was brought, then you would be authorized to find for the plaintiff' the whole amount of the account. If, on the other hand, you should believe from the evidence that the account rendered is not correct; that the work charged for ivas not done by plaintiff, or was not skillfully done ; that it was not done in such a manner as is *507usually employed by dentists in doing that character of work; that it was not done in a workmanlike manner; or that the account was not due and unpaid when the suit was brought, then you would be authorized to find for the defendant.”

James Dodson & Son, J. A. Ansley and Allen Fort, for plaintiff’ in error. Wheatley & Fitzgerald, Blalock & Hudson and J. R. L. Smith, *contra.*