alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00256-CR

Gilbert MARTINEZ, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 08-1504-CR

Honorable Dwight E. Peschel, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 19, 2010

DISMISSED

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that “this criminal case is a plea-bargain 

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea 

bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the 

prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial court’s certification accurately 

reflects that the underlying case is a plea-bargain case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). 
04-10-00256-CR

- 2 -

Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “The appeal must be 

dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part 

of the record under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). On April 1, 2010, we ordered that this 

appeal would be dismissed pursuant to rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification 

showing that the appellant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate record by April 

30, 2010. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005); Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). No 

response was filed. In the absence of an amended trial court certification showing that the 

appellant has the right of appeal, rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this appeal. 

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Summit Exploration Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended November 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Alan Hart, 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; and

(2)    The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 20th day of February, 2007.

BY:
/s/ ALAN HART                        Alan  Hart, Principal Executive Officer **
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6215

MARCUS A. JOSEPH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

D. TAYLOR, Warden; W. L. EAGLETON, Associate

Warden; C. FELDER; A. PINCKNEY, Supervisor

ASU, in their individual, official and professional capacities; L. TURNER; E. J. OLSON,

Nurse,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-95-4084-2-17AJ)

Submitted: June 12, 1997 Decided: January 26, 1998

Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Marcus A. Joseph, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Kendrick Bell, ROBINSON,

MCFADDEN & MOORE, P.C., Columbia, South Carolina; Larry Cleveland

Batson, Robert Eric Petersen, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina; William Henry Davidson, II, James

Miller Davis, Jr., ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A.,

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a South Carolina inmate, appeals the district

court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)

complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1997). We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the

magistrate judge's recommendation and find that this appeal is

frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. Joseph v. Taylor, No. CA-95-4084-2-17AJ (D.S.C.

Jan. 27, 1997). We deny Appellees' motions to dismiss and for sanctions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andrew Blake, Appellant.

Submitted July 29, 2013;

decided August 22, 2013

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Richard M. Greenberg, Esq., Office of the Appellate Defender, 11 Park Place, *1025Suite 1601, New York, NY 10007 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
financial  statements of the Company for the nine-month  period ended  September
30,  1997 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such  financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,554
<SECURITIES>                                    22,608
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,495
<ALLOWANCES>                                       495
<INVENTORY>                                      7,725
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,825
<PP&E>                                           9,564
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,403
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  67,885
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,489
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,131
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,265
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    67,885
<SALES>                                         51,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,600
<CGS>                                           21,620
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,042
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,924)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,482
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,061
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,421
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,421
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25
        


</TABLE>
10/^ ew^b!

oft C&UMseV

f AAq^Y-^^^-^^^^^^ •*

\l

"T^vr ^-tebc e£ Tev^s

rA^tfe^ feiL^xnoMA i

oP ^ouaj^gI

FILED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL ArPEALSJUL 14 2015

"Aoei Acosta, Clerk

RECEIVED IN

-eatlRT^F-eRlMINAtrAPPEAtSiUtrfe-2*

.AfeelAcosia,Clerk

Comes uouO ftkjtJKoiot^ EA^Jl (AJ^ki/v^t^^iJojAsi-i^JgLgte^J^feiJlpdiJ^fafe/ ^nuu^p( ftufft^ cOeMtt- fitbxsmg-cf ftg.

^jg: NitLlKfrSff (Rbqsohs corns* >uquj ANtWjet^ ff«<gi k^frfe/igtoo

^^^(Wft7l ^flSJSE^ MO^ l*f~)3-eom-'<ig- ~fe -frig rtp/UOft^te

fc^l
T^fef^/c^aDir^

Ogpgg

Ao^QMy E«<*lI U3^*/jftrQ cmtfre cUs^.

of c^oir; CAttsp up, /4-<3-oom-£fc', comes^Bdks

HtW fc/^MUfefr <2budrfsb -fec-rimr Q®fr?ooff)UyP CoiAjgl /Is

"ifofegrtEbf /fort -to ggfew*?

jffttiiwb -s/c^iatw
Order entered July 13, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00412-CR

BRANDON ALEXANDER BLACKNALL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F10-23902-U

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant 

has been deprived of the reporter’s record because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any 

other reason.

 The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If 

the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeal, it shall 

make a finding to that effect.

 If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall next 

determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs 

for the reporter’s record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the 

trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial 

court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective 

representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds 

appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the 

appeal.
 The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who 

recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay 

in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can 

be filed. 

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record, containing the written findings of fact, 

any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date 

of this order.

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal 

shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, 

whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7558

FLOYD GLENN WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GERTRUDE HAWKINS, Clerk of the Court, Prince

George's County,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-95-

1207-L)

Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 18, 1996

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Floyd Glenn Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

motion to vacate the court's earlier order denying relief on his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Williams

v. Hawkins, No. CA-95-1207-L (D. Md. Aug. 28, 1995). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D 21

- 354

_____________________________

F. Y. J., Mother of R.L.J., a Minor Child

,
Appellant,

v.

D EPARTMENT OF C HILDREN A ND F AMILIES
,
Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal fro m the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Aaron K. Bowden , Judge

.
September 23, 2021

P ER C URIAM

.

A FFIRMED

. See D.R. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams. , 236 So. 3d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (“Even in a termination of parental rights proceeding, the lack of a transcript mandates affirmance unless fundamental error appears on the face of the order.”); see also Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee , 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) ( “ Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court ’ s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. Without knowing the factua l context, neither can an appellate court2 reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal. ” ).

R AY
, O STERHAUS
, and N ORDBY
, JJ., concur

.

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

.

_____________________________

Michael R. Yokan

, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Ward L. Metzger, Children’s Legal Services, Tallahassee; Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallaha ssee; Javier Enriquez, General Counsel for Department of Children and Families, Tallahassee; Tracy Sorcek and Kimberly M. Dodd

, Children’s Legal Services, Jacksonville; Jenna Lea Meadows, Guardian ad Litem, Jacksonville; Rebecca Lynn Bartlett

, Tallahassee for Appellee.
EXHIBIT
32
  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 Crown Partners, Inc. on Form 10-K for the
period from ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities
and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of his knowledge:
  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 operation of the Company.
 /s/
      Montse ZamanMontse
      ZamanCFODated:
      March 10,2009
  This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the
extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the
Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.




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 Crown Partners, Inc. on Form 10-K for the
period from ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities
and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of his knowledge:
  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 operation of the Company.
 /s/
      Kenneth BosketKenneth
      BosketCEODated:
      March 10, 2009
  This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
----

**BAUSCH      & LOMB INCORPORATED**

**EMPLOYMENT      AGREEMENT**

----

----

| Age  | Percentage                of Final Average                Compensation  |
|-----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 53   | 30%                                                                     |
| 54   | 34%                                                                     |
| 55   | 40%                                                                     |
| 56   | 44%                                                                     |
| 57   | 48%                                                                     |
| 58   | 52%                                                                     |
| 59   | 56%                                                                     |
| 60   | 60%                                                                     |

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

** **

----

----

----

| Dated:                April 24, 2007                   | /s/                Ronald L. Zarrella            Ronald                L. Zarrella                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|--------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|    Dated:                April 24, 2007 |    Bausch                & Lomb Incorporated                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|                                                   |   By:                /s/ Jonathan S. Linen           Name: Jonathan                S. Linen Title: Chairman                of the Compensation Committee             of                the Board of Directors |
|   Dated:                April 24, 2007       |   Bausch                & Lomb Incorporated                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|                                                   |   By:                /s/ David R. Nachbar           Name: David                R. Nachbar Title: Senior                Vice President - Human Resources                                                                                                                   |
LARRY DOE,

 Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

 Appellee.

_______________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED.

CASE NO. 1D16-3208

Opinion filed January 6, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Virginia Baker Norton, Judge.

Larry Doe, pro se, Appellant.

Nichole Geary, General Counsel, and Sarah Young Hodges, Chief Appellate 

Counsel, Department of Health, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee’s motion to dismiss is granted, and this appeal is dismissed as 

moot.

OSTERHAUS, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
97-747.

#### State v. Sizemore.

Cuyahoga App. No. 69944. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 15, 2010

d0708 

# Order

July 15, 2010

140568

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140568 COA: 286173 Kent CC: 07-009738-FC JEFFERY MICHAEL MATA, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 29, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lorenzo Gil, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 445]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J.), rendered on or about May 10, 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— Buckley, EJ., Tom, Saxe, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.