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

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Ishamel Mitchell v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-16-00381-CR

01-16-00382-CR

Trial court case number: 1461724

1461725

Trial court: 232nd District Court of Harris County, Texas

Without agreed recommendations from the State, appellant, Ishamel Mitchell, 

pleaded guilty to two felony offenses of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit 

theft. In each case, the trial court found appellant guilty and assessed his punishment at 

confinement for eight years. Appellant timely filed notices of appeal, which included 

requests for the trial court to set bond. On April 22, 2016, the trial court denied 

appellant’s requests.

In each appeal, appellant has filed a motion to set bond, stating that he is not 

precluded from bail pending appeal by article 44.04(c) of the Texas Code of Criminal 

Procedure. However, the circumstance here is not one in which we are authorized to set 

bail. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.04(h) (West Supp. 2015) (providing court 

of appeals may determine amount of appeal bond if court reverses conviction and motion 

requesting bail is filed in court of appeals before petition for discretionary review is filed 

in Texas Court of Criminal Appeals); Leonard v. State, 376 S.W.3d 886, 889 (Tex. 

App.—Fort Worth 2012, pet. ref’d) (stating article 44.04 sets forth when defendant is 

entitled to bail pending appeal and which courts have authority to set bail amounts and 

conditions); see, e.g., Santos v. State, No.07-14-00116-CR, 2015 WL 75001, at *1 (Tex. 

App.—Amarillo Jan. 6, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (noting 

circumstances in which court of appeals is authorized to set bail and considering 

appellant’s motion to set bail pending final disposition of appeal, filed after court 

reversed appellant’s conviction). We DENY the motions.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

  Acting individually 

Date: August 18, 2016
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher M. Diaz, Appellant.

[978 NYS2d 707]

Appeal, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, from an order of the Monroe County Court (Patricia D. Marks, J.), dated January 6, 2011. The order denied the motion of defendant to vacate a judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10.

*1348It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed for reasons stated in the decision at County Court. Present — Scudder, EJ., Smith, Peradotto, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 3.3

                            CERTIFICATE OF SECRETARY
                                       OF
                               AMENDMENT OF BYLAWS
                                       OF
                                    AMERICORP


I, Robert J. Lagomarsino, hereby certify:

      1.    I am the Secretary of Americorp.

      2.    The first two sentences of Section 4.2 of the Bylaws of Americorp
are hereby amended to read:

            4.2.  NUMBER, ELECTION, QUALIFICATION AND TERM OF OFFICE OF
                  DIRECTORS.

                  a.    Number. The number of Directors of this Corporation
                        shall not be fewer than seven (7) nor more than thirteen
                        (13), the exact number within such range to be fixed by
                        the Board of Directors or the Shareholders of the
                        corporation from time to time. Until changed, the exact
                        number of Directors shall be nine (9)."

      3.    The foregoing is a true and correct copy of an amendment of the
Bylaws of Americorp as approved by (a) the Board of Directors of Americorp at a
meeting held on December 17, 1998, and (b) the shareholders of Americorp at a
meeting on December 15, 1998.

      4.    The foregoing amendment will be in full force and effect, and it has
not been revoked or rescinded as of the date hereby.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereupon subscribed my name this 17th day of
December, 1998.


                                              /s/ ROBERT J. LAGOMARSINO
                                              --------------------------------
                                              Robert J. Lagomarsino, Secretary
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 1, 2019

No. 04-19-00237-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.J.G., A CHILD,

Appellant

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017PA01800

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal of the trial court’s order terminating appellant’s parental 

rights. The appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on July 29, 2019. On July 25, 2019, 

appellant filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file the brief.

The disposition of this appeal is governed by the standards set forth in Rule 6.2 of the 

Texas Rules of Judicial Administration. TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2. Accordingly, this appeal is 

required to be brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is 

filed. Id. 

The motion is GRANTED, and appellant’s brief must be filed no later than August 19, 

2019. Given the time constraints governing the disposition of this appeal, further requests for 

extensions of time will be disfavored.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

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

court on this 1st day of August, 2019.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle,

Clerk of Court
this court's First Light II opinion, petitioner did not satisfy its burden 

under a rigorous NRCP 23 class-action analysis and that petitioner did not 

have standing to represent two or more homeowners in the homeowners' 

association for purposes of the litigation. Petitioner then filed the instant 

petition for writ of mandamus on October 29, 2012. 

While petitioner's writ petition was pending, this court issued 

an opinion in which we reaffirmed and clarified First Light II. 

Specifically, in Beazer Homes Holding Corp. v. Eighth Judicial District 

Court, 128 Nev. , 291 P.3d 128 (2012), we reaffirmed that a district 

court, upon request, must conduct an NRCP 23 analysis to determine 

whether litigation by class action is the superior method of adjudicating 

homeowners' construction defect claims. 128 Nev. at , 291 P.3d at 135. 

We also clarified, however, that a failure to satisfy NRCP 23's class action 

prerequisites does not strip a homeowners' association of its ability to 

litigate on behalf of its members under NRS 116.3102(1)(d). Id. at , 

291 P.3d at 134-35. 

We therefore conclude that partial relief is appropriate insofar 

as petitioner asks this court to order the district court to reconsider its 

order finding that petitioner does not have standing to represent two or 

more homeowners in this litigation in light of this court's opinion in Beazer 

Homes. See Int? Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 

193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008) ("A writ of mandamus is available to 

compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting 

from an office, trust, or station . . . ."); see NRS 34.160. Accordingly, we 

grant petitioner's writ petition in part and direct the clerk of this court to 

issue a writ of mandamus instructing the district court to grant rehearing 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 

2 
Douglas 

Saitta 

J. 

and reconsider its June 14, 2012, order in light of this court's opinion in 

Beazer Homes. 

It is so ORDERED.' 

cc: . Hon. Allan R. Earl, District Judge 

James R. Christensen 

Maddox, Isaacson & Cisneros, LLP 

Robert C. Maddox & Associates/Reno 

Wolfenzon Rolle/Las Vegas 

Koeller Nebeker Carlson & Haluck, LLP/Las Vegas 

McDonald Carano Wilson LLP/Las Vegas 

McDonald Carano Wilson LLP/Reno 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

'We have considered petitioner's other arguments in this .writ 

proceeding and conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our 

extraordinary intervention is otherwise warranted, and thus, we deny the 

petition to the extent that it seeks additional relief. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Junior Ferrara, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 887]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), rendered on or about August 3, 2004, 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 nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure 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, with notice of entry.

Denial 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—Saxe, J.E, Marlow, Nardelli, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
EXHIBIT 11

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                      BANDAG, INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                               Year Ended December 31

                                            1995         1994        1993

                                            (In thousands, except per
                                                   share data)
    Net earnings per Common and Common
      equivalent share:
      Weighted average number of
      shares of Common Stock, Class A
      Common Stock and Class B Common
      Stock outstanding.                  25,303       26,689      27,226

    Additional shares assuming
      exercise of dilutive stock
      options - based on the treasury
      stock method  using average
      market price                           117          112         111
                                             ---          ---         ---
    AVERAGE NUMBER OF COMMON AND
      COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARES            25,420       26,801      27,337
                                          ======       ======      ======
    Net earnings                         $97,027      $93,994     $78,734

    Net earnings per Common and Common
      equivalent share                     $3.82        $3.51       $2.88
                                           =====        =====       =====
    Net earnings per Common share -
    assuming full dilution:
      Average shares outstanding          25,303       26,689      27,226

      Additional shares assuming
      exercise of dilutive stock 
      options - based on the treasury
      stock method using the year-end
      price if higher than the average
      market price                           117          119         113
                                             ---          ---         ---
      FULLY DILUTED AVERAGE NUMBER
       OF COMMON AND COMMON 
       EQUIVALENT SHARES                  25,420       26,808      27,339
                                          ======       ======      ======
    Net earnings                         $97,027      $93,994     $78,734

    Net earnings per Common and
      Common equivalent share              $3.82        $3.51       $2.88
                                           =====        =====       =====
<TABLE>
Exhibit 12

Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (Unaudited)
(Dollars in millions)
<CAPTION>
                                      1997      1996     1995      1994     1993
                                     -----     -----    -----     -----    -----
<S>                                 <C>       <C>        <C>       <C>        <C>
Profit before tax                 $   97.9  $   64.1 $   29.4  $   38.8 $   56.8
Income (Loss) of 50% owned
  subsidiaries                         2.9       1.3     (0.8)      0.3      2.0
Dividends received from less
  than 50% owned subsidiaries          1.2       2.7      2.6       1.6      1.3

Interest expense                      42.6      45.4     44.9      44.9     37.4
25% of rent expense                    4.1       3.9      3.9       3.2      3.2
                                     -----     -----    -----     -----    -----
  Total fixed charges                 46.7      49.3     48.8      48.1     40.6
Pre-tax earnings required to
  cover preferred dividends             --        --       --        --       --
                                     -----     -----    -----     -----    -----
  Total fixed charges and
    preferred dividends               46.7      49.3     48.8      48.1     40.6
                                     =====     =====    =====     =====    =====

Earnings before income taxes and
fixed charges                     $  148.5  $  117.1 $   79.5  $   88.8 $  100.7
                                     =====     =====    =====     =====    =====

Ratio of earnings to fixed
  charges                              3.2       2.4      1.6       1.8      2.5

Ratio of earnings to fixed
 charges and preferred dividends
                                       3.2       2.4      1.6       1.8      2.5

<FN>
Note 1:  For purposes of calculating the ratio of earnings to fixed charges,
        "earnings" consist of earnings from continuing operations before
        income taxes, adjusted for the portion of fixed charges deducted from
        such earnings.  "Fixed charges" consist of interest on all
        indebtedness (including capital lease obligations, capital securities
        and capitalized interest), amortization of debt expense and the
        percentage of rental expense on operating leases deemed representative
        of the interest factor.
Note 2:  The ratios of earnings to fixed charges, before the restructuring and
        special charges for 1997, 1996, 1995 and 1994 were 3.3, 2.5, 1.9 and
        2.4, respectively.


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                        9
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                   2,729,329
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                     442,060
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                           758,570
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>             36,672,364
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                  24,697,115
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                    23,505,716
<LOANS>                                132,038,855
<ALLOWANCE>                                645,107
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         205,210,868
<DEPOSITS>                             172,537,011
<SHORT-TERM>                               400,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                        908,629
<LONG-TERM>                             12,528,050
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                 7,329,083
<OTHER-SE>                              10,657,324
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>         205,210,868
<INTEREST-LOAN>                         10,217,744
<INTEREST-INVEST>                        4,095,625
<INTEREST-OTHER>                            82,436
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                        14,395,805
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                       7,549,213
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       8,265,024
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                    6,130,781
<LOAN-LOSSES>                             (436,988)
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                          4,698,807
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          2,229,660
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>               2,229,660
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                             1,441,711
<EPS-BASIC>                                   1.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 1.08
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                3.24
<LOANS-NON>                              1,613,000
<LOANS-PAST>                               629,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                         1,212,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                              133,000
<RECOVERIES>                                 3,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                          645,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                       645,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                              0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          0



</TABLE>
96-2392.

#### Lucas, Prendergast, Albright, Gibson & Newman v. Zschach.

Franklin App. No. 95APE12-1663. Reported at 77 Ohio St.3d 1519, 674 N.E.2d 372. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
MAILING ADRESS: NIGC/DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop #1621 Washington, DC 20040 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 

202.632.7066

REGIONAL OFFICES Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA; Phoenix, AZ; St. Paul, MN; Tulsa, OK; Oklahoma City, OK; Rapid City, SD

WWW.NIGC.GOV

May 9, 2022

VIA EMAIL

Chair Teri Gobin

Board of Directors, Tulalip Tribes

6406 Marine Drive

Tulalip, WA 98271

Re: Tulalip Tribes Amended Gaming Ordinance

Dear Chair Gobin:

This letter responds to the March 14, 2022 email submission on behalf of the Tulalip 

Tribes (“Tribes”) informing the National Indian Gaming Commission that the Tribes had 

amended its gaming ordinance. The submission included two administrative amendments that 

clarified the definition of “Tribal gaming operation” and added an attendance requirement for the 

Tribes gaming commissioners. 

Thank you for bringing these amendments to our attention and for providing us with a 

thorough submission of the Band’s gaming laws and regulations. The amended ordinance is

approved as it is consistent with the requirements of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and 

NIGC’s regulations. If you have any questions or require anything further, please contact Josh 

Proper at (202) 632-0294.

Sincerely,

E. Sequoyah Simermeyer

 Chairman
Skip to main content

          -  U.S. Department of Health & Human Services 

            - Virtual Tour
            - Staff Directory
            - En Español

## Site Menu

-  Home 
-  Health Information  - Health Care Providers & Facilities
- Health Info Lines
- HealthCare.gov
- Science Education Resources
- NIH Clinical Research Trials and You
- Talking to Your Doctor

More »

Search Health Topics

Quick Links
- MedlinePlus Health Info
- NIH News in Health
- Wellness Toolkits
 
-  Grants & Funding  - Grants Home Page
- Find Funding
- Due Dates
- How to Apply
- About Grants
- Policy & Compliance
- Grants News/Blog
- Contracts
- Loan Repayment

More »

Quick Links
- RePORT
- eRA Commons
- NIH Common Fund
 
-  News & Events  - News Releases
- Digital Media Kits
- Media Resources
- Media Contacts
- Images and B-roll
- Events
- Social Media

More »

Quick Links
- NIH News in Health
- NIH Research Matters
- NIH Record
 
-  Research & Training  - Medical Research Initiatives
- Science Highlights
- Science Education
- Research in NIH Labs & Clinics
- Training Opportunities
- Library Resources
- Research Resources
- Clinical Research Resources
- Safety, Regulation and Guidance

More »

Quick Links
- PubMed
- Stem Cell Information
- OppNet
- NIDB
- NIH Blueprint for Neuroscience Research
 
-  Institutes at NIH  - List of Institutes and Centers
- NIH Office of the Director
- Directors of NIH Institutes and Centers
- NIH Institute and Center Contact Information

More »

Quick Links
- NCI
- NEI
- NHLBI
- NHGRI
- NIA
- NIAAA
- NIAID
- NIAMS
- NIBIB
- NICHD
- NIDCD
- NIDCR
- NIDDK
- NIDA
- NIEHS
- NIGMS
- NIMH
- NIMHD
- NINDS
- NINR
- NLM
- CC
- CIT
- CSR
- FIC
- NCATS
- NCCIH
 
-  About NIH  - Who We Are
- What We Do
- Jobs at NIH
- Visitor Information
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Contact Us

More »

Quick Links
- The NIH Director
- Take the Virtual Tour
- NIH…Turning Discovery Into Health®
- Impact of NIH Research
- Science, Health, and Public Trust
 

## You are here

Home

# 20221213-hiv.jpg

###     Media Folder  

2022

###     Title  

###     Caption  

###     Credit  

###     Description  

OD

###     Site_Section  

NIH Research Matters

###     Alt Text  

## Connect with Us

              - Contact Us
              - X
              - Facebook
              - Instagram
              - YouTube
              - Flickr
              - More Social Media from NIH

## Footer

- NIH Home
- Virtual Tour
- En Español
- Visitor Information
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Privacy Policy
- Disclaimers
- Accessibility
- NIH Website Archives

- Nondiscrimination Notice
- Freedom of Information Act
- No Fear Act
- HHS Vulnerability Disclosure
- Office of Inspector General
- USA.gov

NIH…Turning Discovery Into Health®

National Institutes of Health, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Back to Top
#### GEORGE FRANK *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 25295)

Lavery, C. J., and DiPentima and Harper, Js.

Submitted on briefs May 27

officially released July 19, 2005

*327
      *Kevin E. Dehghani,*special public defender, filed a brief for the appellant (petitioner).

*James E. Thomas,*state’s attorney, *Eileen F. McCarthy,*assistant state’s attorney, and *Vicki Melchiorre,*senior assistant state’s attorney, filed a brief for the appellee (respondent).

*Opinion*

PER CURIAM.

The habeas court denied the amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus that was filed by the petitioner, George Frank. The petitioner claimed that his trial counsel rendered ineffective legal assistance. The petitioner appeals following the court’s denial of his petition for certification to appeal. We dismiss the appeal.

We have reviewed the issues raised by the petitioner in his amended petition as well as the court’s thorough resolution of those issues. We conclude that the petitioner has not demonstrated that the issues raised are debatable among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner or that the questions raised deserve encouragement to proceed further. See *Lozada*v. *Deeds,*498 U.S. 430, 431-32, 111 S. Ct. 860, 112 L. Ed. 2d 956 (1991). Having failed to satisfy any of those criteria, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the court’s denial of his petition for certification to appeal reflects an abuse of discretion. See *Simms*v. *Warden,*230 Conn. 608, 616, 646 A.2d 126 (1994).

The appeal is dismissed.