alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 ... T h i s pr oce edi n g a r i s es ou t of Cau s e N o. 264347, s t y l ed S t a t e o f T ex a s v. Tim o t h y B ra n t P erk i n s, in C o u n ty C o u rt a t L a w N o . 1 2 , B e x a r C o u n ty, T e x a s, the H o n o ra b le M ic h a e l M e ry p re sid ing
.

2 ... At t orn ey M ar k LaH oo d was appo i nt ed t o re pres ent r el at or i n t he cr i mi nal procee di ng pendi ng i n t he t r i al c o u rt. i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -1 0- 00 46 5- CR IN RE Ti mot

hy B ra nt P ER KIN S Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: J uly 14, 2010 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS DEN I ED On June 22 , 201 0, re la tor Ti mot hy Pe rk ins fi le d a pet iti on fo r wr it o f m and a mus , s e e kin g to
c omp e l th e tr ia l c ourt

to r ule on his pr o s e motion for speedy trial, which he alleg es he f iled on J une 7, 2010. Howeve r, counsel has been appointed to repr esent relator in the criminal proce eding pending in th e tr ia l c ourt . 2 A cr iminal defenda nt is not entit led to hy

brid repr esentation. S

e e Robinson v. Sta te , 2 40 S.W. 3d

91 9, 92 2 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ); Pa tri c k v . S tat e , 9 0 6 S. W. 2 d

4 8 1 , 498 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1995). A trial cour t has no leg al duty

to rule on a pr o s e motion filed wit h reg ard to a04
- 10
- 00 46 5- CR

- 2- criminal proceeding in which the defenda nt is repre sented by

counsel. See Robinson , 240 S.W .3d
a t 92 2. Con se qu e ntl y , th e tr ia l c ourt did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n by de c lin ing to ru le on re la tor ’s pr o
se m o t i o nt h a tr e l a t e s d i r e c t l y t o h i s c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g p e n d i n g i nt h e t r i a l c o u rt . A c c o r d i n g l y, relator’s petition for wr it of mandamus is denied. T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a)
. PER C URI AM DO NO T PU B L I SH
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-21-00122-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF G.Z., A.Z., H.Z.,

A.Z., A.Z., AND J.D.

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 322nd District Court

of Tarrant County (322-682567-20)

August 26, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dana Womack

 Justice Dana Womack
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4050 Referred in House (RFH)]

  2d Session
                                S. 4050

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 6, 2006

             Referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 103 East Thompson Street in Thomaston, Georgia, as the ``Sergeant 
   First Class Robert Lee `Bobby' Hollar, Jr. Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. SERGEANT FIRST CLASS ROBERT LEE ``BOBBY'' HOLLAR, JR. POST 
              OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 103 East Thompson Street in Thomaston, Georgia, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Sergeant First Class Robert Lee `Bobby' 
Hollar, Jr. Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sergeant 
First Class Robert Lee `Bobby' Hollar, Jr. Post Office Building''.

            Passed the Senate December 6, 2006.

            Attest:

                                             EMILY J. REYNOLDS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20 - 0091

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MARY DARLEAN WRIGHT,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursu ant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Jon A. Oldenburg , Dis trict Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 28 2021

07/28/2021
Case Number: DA 20-0091
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 486 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 486

 To require the Secretary of the Navy to procure helicopters under the 
VH-3D presidential helicopter fleet replacement program that are wholly 
                   manufactured in the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 1, 2005

Mr. Lieberman (for himself and Mr. Dodd) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of the Navy to procure helicopters under the 
VH-3D presidential helicopter fleet replacement program that are wholly 
                   manufactured in the United States.

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

SECTION 1. VH-3D PRESIDENTIAL HELICOPTER FLEET REPLACEMENT PROGRAM 
              PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENT.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Navy may not enter into a 
contract for the procurement of a helicopter under the VH-3D 
presidential helicopter fleet replacement program unless the contract 
requires the helicopter to be wholly manufactured in the United States 
from parts wholly manufactured in the United States.
    (b) Existing Contracts.--If a contract entered into after December 
31, 2004, and before the date of the enactment of this section does not 
meet the requirements described in subsection (a), the Secretary of the 
Navy shall terminate such contract.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF GUMBINER SAVETT INC.,**

**INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Axesstel, Inc. 

San Diego, California 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 

333-115168) and Form S-8 (File No. 333-127079) of our report dated March 21, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Axesstel, Inc., for theyears ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004 which appear in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

 

Santa Monica, California 

March 30, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4035 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4035

   To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to repeal the school as 
                            lender program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 29, 2006

  Mr. Schumer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to repeal the school as 
                            lender program.

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

SECTION 1. SCHOOL AS LENDER.

    (a) Repeal of the School as Lender Program.--Paragraphs (2), (3), 
and (4) of section 435(d) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
U.S.C. 1085(d)) are repealed.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 435(d) of the Higher Education 
Act of 1965 is further amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)--
                    (A) by striking subparagraph (E); and
                    (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (F) through (K) 
                as subparagraphs (E) through (J), respectively; and
            (2) by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as paragraphs 
        (2) and (3), respectively.
    (c) Cross References.--The Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1001 et seq.) is amended--
            (1) in section 428(h) (20 U.S.C. 1078(h))--
                    (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or (F)'' and 
                inserting ``or (E)'';
                    (B) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``or (F)'' and 
                inserting ``or (E)''; and
                    (C) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``or (F)'' and 
                inserting ``or (E)''; and
            (2) in section 439 (20 U.S.C. 1087-2)--
                    (A) in subsection (d)(1)(B), by striking ``or (F)'' 
                and inserting ``or (E)''; and
                    (B) in subsection (o)(2), by striking ``or (F)'' 
                and inserting ``or (E)''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to loans for which the first disbursement is made on or after 
July 1, 2007.

SEC. 2. HERA REPEAL.

    Section 8011 of the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 
(Public Law 109-171, 120 Stat. 165) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
#### State v. Apple

Case below: 182 N.C. App. 529

No. 195P07

Def’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA06-652)

Denied 04/26/07
discretion." Riker v. State, 111 Nev. 1316, 1322, 905 P.2d 706, 710 (1995)

(quoting Bryant v. State, 102 Nev. 268, 272, 721 P.2d 364, 368 (1986)); see Crawford v. State, 117 Nev. 718, 721-22, 30 P.3d 1123, 1125-26 (2001) (observing that the defendant bears the burden of showing that a plea was not entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently).

In support of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, appellant presented a handwritten letter explaining that his extended solitary confinement caused him to be susceptible to "subtle coercive tactics and maneuvering by the Churchill County Sheriffs Office, implemented in concert with the Churchill County DA's Office 'Fast track' rhetoric." No other evidence or argument was presented to the district court. Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by not inquiring into the state of his mental health during the plea canvass, including the psychological effects of incarceration. While the record indicates that appellant experienced psychological problems, he has not adequately explained how those problems resulted in an involuntary guilty plea, and he presented the district court with nothing more than a bare allegation that his stay in solitary confinement rendered his plea involuntary. 2 Although the district court did not expressly query appellant about his mental state, appellant indicated that he understood the plea agreement, the nature of the charge, and the consequences of his plea, and that he was not coerced or threatened into pleading guilty. Because we conclude

2 The district court found appellant competent to stand trial approximately 13 months before he entered his guilty plea.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2

(CO 1947A

# Poem ay J. Pickering

J. Saitta J. that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Parraguirre

cc: Hon. Thomas L. Stockard, District Judge Hon. Robert E. Estes, Senior Judge David Kalo Neidert Churchill County District Attorney/Fallon Attorney General/Carson City Churchill County Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 

### 3

(0) 1947A 

### e
109TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 4073

AN ACT

To designate the outpatient clinic of the Department of

Veterans Affairs located in Farmington, Missouri, as the

‘‘Robert Silvey Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic’’.

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

2

S 4073 ES

1 SECTION 1. ROBERT SILVEY DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

2 AFFAIRS OUTPATIENT CLINIC.

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The outpatient clinic of the De4 partment of Veterans Affairs located in Farmington, Mis5 souri, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Robert Silvey

6 Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic’’.

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Robert Silvey Depart11 ment of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic’’.

Passed the Senate November 16, 2006.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 4073

AN ACT

To designate the outpatient clinic of the DepartVeterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic’’. Missouri, as the ‘‘Robert Silvey Department of ment of Veterans Affairs located in Farmington,
#### MICKEY PLOTT, Employee v. BOJANGLE’S RESTAURANTS, INC., Employer, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA c/o AIG CLAIM SERVICES, Carrier

No. 55A07

(Filed 12 October 2007)

Workers’ Compensation— disability benefits — refusal of sedentary employment

The decision of the Court of Appeals in a workers’ compensation case is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion that evidence before the Industrial Commission supported its determination that plaintiff was not entitled to ongoing benefits because defendant employer offered him sedentary employment at his preinjury wage after he was released by his physician to return to work, but plaintiff refused to attempt this employment and has not made reasonable efforts to find suitable employment.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 181 N.C. App. 61, 638 S.E.2d 571 (2007), reversing and remanding an opinion and award filed on 8 July 2005 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the . Supreme Court 12 September 2007.

*Raymond M. Marshall and Jay A. Gervasi, Jr. for plaintiffappellee.*

*Robinson & Lawing, L.L.R, by Jolinda J. Babcock, for defendant-appellants.*

*578PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.

REVERSED.

Justice HUDSON did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4065 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4065

To direct the Attorney General to conduct a study on the feasibility of 
  collecting crime data relating to the occurrence of school-related 
           crime in elementary schools and secondary schools.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 16, 2006

 Mrs. Clinton introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To direct the Attorney General to conduct a study on the feasibility of 
  collecting crime data relating to the occurrence of school-related 
           crime in elementary schools and secondary schools.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Accurate Crime Trends for Schools 
Act'' or the ``ACT for Schools Act''.

SEC. 2. STUDY AND REPORT.

    (a) Study.--The Attorney General shall, after consultation with the 
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police, conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of expanding the National Incident-Based Reporting System 
to include information on the occurrence of school-related crime in 
elementary schools and secondary schools. Such study shall include the 
identification and evaluation of methods that may be used to collect 
and report such information.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a report containing the 
results of the study conducted under subsection (a) to the appropriate 
committees of Congress.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``elementary school'' 
and ``secondary school'' have the meanings given the terms in section 
9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
7801).

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 2, 
$250,000 for fiscal year 2007.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31.1
 Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a)
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report
is being prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this quarterly report my 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;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 (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
 26




---



##### 



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;
andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  Date:  August 8, 2008
    By:
    /s/ RON E. HOOPERRon E. Hooper,Senior Vice President and
Trust Administrator
Bank of America, N.A. 27
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130759 & (19) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130759 

 COA: 264258 

Kent CC: 00-003077-FC 

RICK TERRY ALLEN REAMSMA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 3, 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 for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

s0724 

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. 

July 31, 2006 

 Clerk
Order entered September 28, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00588-CR

JAYONA E. JONES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F16-75712-S

ORDER

Appellant timely filed her notice of appeal in the trial court on May 10, 2018. On 

September 27, 2018, counsel Dianne Jones McVay filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. In the 

motion, Ms. McVay states she has recently taken a job as senior counsel with a corporation and 

needs to withdraw. We GRANT the September 27th motion of Dianne Jones McVay to 

withdraw as counsel and DIRECT the Clerk to remove Dianne Jones McVay as appellant’s 

attorney of record.

Because the trial court previously found appellant was indigent, we ORDER the trial 

court to appoint new counsel in this appeal and to transmit a copy of the order appointing new 

counsel within FIFTEEN DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER.

The clerk’s record has been filed. The reporter’s record is currently due. 

 /s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE