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

IN AUSTIN, TEXAS

Ex parte Daniel Lee Lopez, 

 Cause No. _______________

 Applicant

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL 

APPEALS:

On January 23, 2013, the Honorable Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of Texas appointed undersigned 

Counsel to represent Daniel Lee Lopez in federal habeas proceedings. Order, 

Lopez v. Thaler, No. 2:12-cv-00160, ECF No. 17. As the federal court noted, 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3599(e) and Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180 (2009), this 

appointment “continue[s] through ‘every subsequent stage of judicial proceedings

... and all available post-conviction process together with applications for stays of 

execution and other appropriate motions and procedures....” Id. at 2. 

As this Court is aware, pursuant to the Court’s order of January 14, 2015, 

undersigned Counsel cannot practice or appear before this Court without first 

obtaining leave to do so. In re Dow, Nos. WR-61,939-01, -02, at *3 (Tex. Crim. 

App. Jan. 14, 2015). Counsel therefore respectfully prays the Court grant him

leave to appear to file a motion to stay Lopez’s execution and a subsequent 

WR-77,157

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 7/27/2015 10:31:34 AM

Accepted 7/27/2015 11:32:32 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
application for postconviction writ of habeas corpus on behalf of his client, Daniel 

Lee Lopez – scheduled to be executed on August 12, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

Counsel for Daniel Lee Lopez

/s/ David R. Dow 

David R. Dow 

Texas Bar No. 06064900 

University of Houston Law Center 

100 Law Center 

Houston, Texas 77204-6060 

Tel. (713) 743-2171 

Fax (713) 743-2131 

Email ddow@central.uh.edu 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 27, 2015, a copy of the foregoing motion was 

served on Nueces County District Attorney, Mark Skurka, via email to

nueces.districtattorney@nuecesco.com. 

/s/ David R. Dow

David R. Dow
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>                           0000811222
<NAME>                          CARDIFF INTERNATIONAL, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,962
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       320,314
<OTHER-SE>                                    (340,276)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,429
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,429)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,429)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.01)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statements  No.
33-16059,  No.  33-12755,  No.  33-55614,  No.  33-80504,  No.  333-327  and No.
333-44180 of Sharper  Image  Corporation  on Form S-8 of our reports dated March
25, 2002,  appearing in and  incorporated  by reference in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Sharper Image Corporation for the year ended January 31, 2002.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

San Francisco, California
April 30, 2002
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 98-4815 CHARLES LEE BREWER, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-10) Submitted: June 30, 1999 Decided: September 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Scott A. Curnutte, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellant. David E. Godwin, United States Attorney, Paul T. Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________OPINION PER CURIAM: Charles Lee Brewer appeals the sentence imposed as a result of his guilty plea and conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). On appeal,Brewer challenges the district court's calculation of his Criminal History Category, see U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1, and the court's refusal to grant a two-point downward adjustment for acceptance of res ponsibility. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Finding no merit to either of his assignments of error on appeal, we affirm Brewer's conviction and sentence. Brewer suggests that the district court erred by including two priorstate sentences that were under appeal at the time of Brewer's sentencing in this case. The Sentencing Guidelines provide that "[p]rior sentences under appeal are counted except as expressly provided" in the Commentary. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(l). The district court followed the express provisions of the Guidelines in reaching Brewer's Criminal History Category. Consequently, we find that there was no error which would require this court to remand the case for resentencing. See Williams v. United States , 503 U.S. 193, 203 (1992). Neither didthe district court clearly err in declining to grant the downward adjustment. See United States v. Castner , 50 F.3d 1267, 1279 (4th Cir. 1995); U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.5). The court appropriately considered the timing of Brewer's decision to plead guilty and his lack of candor in reporting his assets to the probation officer. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(h)); United States v. Falesbork , 5 F.3d 715, 721-22 (4th Cir. 1993).Accordingly, we affirm Brewer's conviction and sentence. 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
2
1997 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-6-1997

Villanueva v. Brown

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 95-5072

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1997 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Villanueva v. Brown" (1997). 1997 Decisions. Paper 6.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997/6
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 

No. 95-5072 

 

JACK VILLANUEVA, ADMINISTRATOR PENDENTE LITE 

OF THE ESTATE OF ELLA OSTROFF, 

 Appellant 

v. 

G. MICHAEL BROWN; GUY MICHAEL; BROWN & MICHAEL; 

GREENBERG MARGOLIS 

v. 

HELEN CONN; SAMUEL RUBIN; JOSEPH RUBINSTEIN 

 Third Party Defendant 

 

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

 

(Civil No. 92-CV-02268) 

Argued MARCH 22, 1996 

Before: BECKER and McKEE, Circuit Judges, and 

POLLAK, District Judge*

ORDER AMENDING OPINION FILED JANUARY 8, 1997 

 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Slip Opinion filed in this 

case on January 8, 1997, be amended as follows: 

On page 5, first paragraph, second sentence, add the name 

"Rubinstein" after "However,"; and 

On page 24, under subsection VI, delete the word "vacate" 

 

 

* The Honorable Louis H. Pollak, United States District 

Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by 

designation. 
and replace it with "reverse". 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 By the Court: 

 /s/ Theodore A. McKee 

 

 Theodore A. McKee 

 Circuit Judge 

Dated: January 8, 1997
**Exhibit 23**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC****ACCOUNTING FIRM**
        We consent to the incorporation by reference in Post-EffectiveAmendment No. 4 to the Registration Statement(Form S-8 No. 2-72410) pertaining to the UST Inc.Employees’ Savings Plan, the Registration Statement(Form S-8 No. 333-36844) pertaining to the 1992 StockOption Plan, Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to theRegistration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-60698)pertaining to the 2001 Stock Option Plan, the RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 33-59229) pertaining to theNonemployee Directors’ Stock Option Plan, the RegistrationStatement (Form S-4 No. 333-101036) pertaining to theregistration of senior notes due July 15, 2012, theRegistration Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-85285)pertaining to the registration of senior notes due June 1,2009, and the Registration Statement (Form S-4No. 333-36908) pertaining to the registration of seniornotes due March 15, 2005, of our reports datedMarch 3, 2005 with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and schedule of UST Inc., UST Inc. management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal controlare financial reporting of UST Inc. included in this AnnualReport (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,2004.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

David Harris and Steven Thompson, :

Appellants :

:

v. : No. 169 C.D. 2022

:

SEPTA Police Detective Daniel :

Burgmann, SEPTA Police Detective :

Stewart, SEPTA Police Detective :

Bacon, and SEPTA Police :

Detective Bryan McCauley :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, July 6, 2023, having considered Appellees’ application for 

reconsideration and Appellants’ answer in response thereto, the application is 

DENIED.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

DEANO S. ESPOSITA,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D17-3552

SUNTRUST BANK, AMY C. ESPOSITA,

REGIONS BANK D/B/A AMSOUTH BANK

AND MAGNOLIA PLANTATION

HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Appellees.

/

Opinion filed February 2, 2018

Appeal from the Circuit Court for

Seminole County,

Susan Stacy, Judge.

Deano S. Esposita, Lake Mary, pro se.

Charles P. Gufford, of McCalla Raymer 

Leibert Pierce, LLC, Orlando, for 

Appellee, SunTrust Bank.

No appearance for other Appellees.

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to SunTrust Bank’s Confession of Error, we reverse the Summary Final 

Judgment of Foreclosure, as the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment

because the case had been removed to federal court. We remand this matter to the trial 
2

court for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SAWAYA, ORFINGER, and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-2688

___________________________

Rodney McCain

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro

____________

 Submitted: January 26, 2017

Filed: February 3, 2017 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, ARNOLD, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Rodney McCain appeals the district court’s order affirming the denial of 1

disability insurance benefits. We agree with the district court that substantial

The Honorable Jerome T. Kearney, United States Magistrate Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
evidence on the record as a whole supported the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s)

determinations as to credibility and residual functional capacity (RFC). See Harvey

v. Colvin, 839 F.3d 714, 715 (8th Cir. 2016) (reviewing de novo district court’s

decision, and affirming if Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial

evidence on record as whole, including new evidence considered by Appeals

Council). Because the ALJ gave several valid reasons for finding Mr. McCain’s

subjective complaints not entirely credible, we find that the credibility determination

is entitled to deference. See Julin v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 1082, 1086 (8th Cir. 2016) (if

ALJ’s credibility determination is supported by good reasons and substantial

evidence, this court will defer to ALJ’s determination). As to the RFC determination,

it was supported by some medical evidence, such as the assessments of a consulting

physician, and also the RFC findings of reviewing physicians, which were less

restrictive than those of the ALJ. See Boyd v. Colvin, 831 F.3d 1015, 1020 (8th Cir.

2016) (it is ALJ’s responsibility to determine RFC based on all relevant evidence:

medical records, observations oftreating physicians and others, and individual’s own

description of his limitations); Hensley v. Colvin, 829 F.3d 926, 932 (8th Cir. 2016)

(RFC is medical question, and must be supported by some medical evidence of

claimant’s ability to function in workplace). Further, we agree with the ALJ that no

treating or examining physician found any greater limitations. Accordingly, the

judgment of the district court is affirmed, and Mr. McCain’s motion to supplement

the record is denied. 

______________________________

-2-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7276

LARRY L. LONDON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department

of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelly, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-04-746-2)

Submitted: December 12, 2005 Decided: December 28, 2005

Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry L. London, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Larry L. London seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that London 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 adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>                  9
<CURRENCY>   U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1,000
<CASH>                                            15,424
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                                 0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    4293
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                       0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      181,346
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                                 0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                   0
<LOANS>                                          363,812
<ALLOWANCE>                                      (3,077)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   591,151
<DEPOSITS>                                       363,953
<SHORT-TERM>                                      66,628
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                5,076
<LONG-TERM>                                      110,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             11,934     
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                             480
<OTHER-SE>                                        32,580
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                   591,151
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   26,281
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 12,047
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     114
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  38,442
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                11,751
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                21,585
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             16,857
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        760
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 1,731
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   16,267
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    6,739
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         6,739
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                       4,371
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       1.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       1.17
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                      7.39
<LOANS-NON>                                          681
<LOANS-PAST>                                          50
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                       0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                        0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   2,280
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        224
<RECOVERIES>                                         261
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  3,077
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               1,833
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            1,244
        





</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 23, 2015

No. 04-15-00093-CR

EX PARTE Greg SAUL,

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-01-002-HCW

Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

The court has considered appellant Greg Saul’s motion for stay of mandate and has 

determined that said motion is DENIED. Appellant may present the motion and appendix to the 

clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration and determination. See TEX. R. APP. P.

31.4(c).

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 23rd day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1013 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1013

  To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize school-based 
                health centers, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 3, 2019

  Ms. Stabenow (for herself and Mrs. Capito) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize school-based 
                health centers, and for other purposes.

    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 ``School-Based Health Centers 
Reauthorization Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF SCHOOL-BASED HEALTH CENTERS.

    (a) Elimination of Limitation on Eligibility of Health Centers.--
            (1) Repeal.--Section 399Z-1(f)(3) of the Public Health 
        Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280h-5(f)(3)) is amended by striking 
        subparagraph (B).
            (2) Conforming change.--Section 399Z-1(f)(3) of the Public 
        Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280h-5(f)(3)) is amended by 
        striking ``Limitations'' and all that follows through ``Any 
        provider of services'' and inserting ``Limitation.--Any 
        provider of services''.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 399Z-1(l) of the 
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280h-5(l)) is amended by striking 
``2010 through 2014'' and inserting ``2019 through 2024''.
                                 <all>
```