alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 6

- 00 410

- C V



### ____________________

ASHLEY NICOLE STRITTMATTER

, Appellant

V.

MARIA DE LA CRUZ , Appellee

_____________________________________________ __ ___ _ ___ _ __ ___ __ ___ __ _ ____

On A ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. 16

- 29649

__________________________________________________ _ ___ _ __ ___ __ ___ __ _ ____

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 14, 2016, the Clerk of the Court sent a notice requiring the

appellant’s response and warning that the appeal would be dismissed without

further notice on any date after December 29, 2016. No response has been filed.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c)

.2 AP PEAL DISMISSED.

________________________________ CHARLES KREGER

Justice

Submitted on January 18, 2017

Opinion Delivered January 19, 2017

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
### NUMBER 13 - 18 - 00523 - C R COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE SHANE MATTHEW BUCHEL
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa Memora ndum Opinion by Justice Longoria 1 Shane Matthew Buchel , proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause 2 through which he contends that the trial court erred by failing to

“ consolidate restitution

. ” Buchel argues that the trial court incorrectly allowed the collection of restitution for multiple cases according to each individual judgment and its corresponding order to withdraw funds from his inmate trust account cases , even though

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. ” ); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

2 Th is original proceeding arise s from trial court cause number 15

- 11

- 12 , 328A in the 24th District Court of DeWitt County, Texas

. The respondent in th is original proceeding is the Honorable Kemper Stephen Williams. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.2.2 the restitution was ordered in connection with concurrent sentences. Th is Court request ed and received a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from the State of Texas, acting by and through the District Attorney for DeWitt County, Texas

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.8(a),(b). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied for the reasons expressed in our opini on in In re Shane Matthew Buchel , No. 13

- 18

- 00509

- CR, 2018 WL ___, at *_ (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi Dec. 6 , 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication) , available at http: //www.search.txcourts .gov/case.aspx?cn=13

- 18

- 00509

- CR &coa=coa13

. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 52.8(d). We likewise deny Buchel’s motion for nihil dicit judgment. NORA L. LONGORIA Justice Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b). D elivered and filed the 6th da y of December, 2018.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1291 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a reduced excise 

tax rate for portable, electronically-aerated bait containers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 2, 2019 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself and Mr. SCOTT of Florida) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

a reduced excise tax rate for portable, electronicallyaerated bait containers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fishing Equipment 

5 Tax Relief Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. THREE PERCENT RATE FOR PORTABLE, ELEC7 TRONICALLY-AERATED BAIT CONTAINERS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4161(a) of the Internal 

9 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating paraVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:34 May 07, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1291.IS S1291

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1291 IS

1 graph (4) as paragraph (5) and by inserting after para2 graph (3) the following new paragraph: 

3 ‘‘(4) 3 PERCENT RATE FOR PORTABLE, ELEC4 TRONICALLY-AERATED BAIT CONTAINERS.—In the 

5 case of portable, electronically-aerated bait con6 tainers, paragraph (1) shall be applied by sub7 stituting ‘3 percent’ for ‘10 percent’.’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 this section shall apply to articles sold by the manufac10 turer, producer, or importer after December 31, 2019. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0579n.06 No. 08-3508 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT ISAAC ROSE, et al., P lai nt iffs- App e lle e s,
v. VOLVO CONSTRUCTION E QUIP MENT NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendan t-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT CO UR T F OR

THE NO RT HER

N D ISTRIC T OF OHI O AM EN DE D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N *

BEFORE: G ILMAN and McK EAGU E, Circuit Judges; and S ARG US, DistrictJudge. ** P ER CURIAM . Def

endant- appellant Volvo Construction Equipment North Amer ica, Inc.
a pp e a ls f ro m th e Ma

rc h 17 , 20 08 su mma

ry jud g me nt o rd e r o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt , e njo ini ngVo lvo to continue providing ful ly -funde d life insuranc e bene fits to plaintiffs-appellee s I saac Rose and a
cer tified class of similarly

situated retire es, and to c ontin u e p rovi ding f ully -funde d health ca

re insurance benef

its to t he cla ss member re tirees a nd elig ible spouses and de pendents.

__________________________ *This amende d memorandum opini on corr ects a cler ical er

ror in the memor andum opinion filed on August 11, 2009, simpl y substitut ing the term “he alth care insura nce be nefits” f

or “life insurance benef

its” in the fourth and f

ifth lines of the first par ag raph. **Honora ble Edmund A. Sargus, J r., Unit ed S tates Dist rict J udg e for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by

desig nation.No. 08-3508

Rose et al. v. V

olvo Constr. Equipment N. Am., Inc.

- 2 - Havinghad the be n ef

i t of ora l argument and havingcar efully considere d the re cord on appea l, the arguments adv an ce d b y t h e parties in their brief s, and the a

pplicable law , we a

re not pe rs ua de d th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d in awa rd ingsu mma

ry jud g me nt t o th e pla int if

f c la ss m e mbe rs . I n our opinion, Volvo’s core arguments are satisfac torily an d p ro p er l y

answe red w ithin the four
c or ne rs of the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s ru lin g . Ins of ar a s Vol vo no w as se rt s ar g ume nts no t fir st a dd re sse d to the dis tr ic t c ourt , th e y

are no t pro pe rl y be fo re us a nd , in any e ve nt, are ins uf fi c ie nt on the ir

me ri ts to undermine the integ rity of the district c ourt’s analy sis. Bec ause w e conc lude that the re asoning which supports awa

rd of judgme nt to the plaintiff cla ss members has be en cor rec tly articulated by the district court, issuanc e of a detailed wr itten opinion by this court would be dupli cative a nd serve no useful purpose
. Acc ording ly , the judgme nt of the district court is, upon the re asoning employ ed in its opinion d a t e d M ar c h 1 7 , 2 0 0 8 , h e r e b y AF F IRMED.
@article{1214751,
  author = {Arang Rhie and Sergey Nurk and Monika Cechova and Savannah Hoyt and Dylan Taylor and Nathanael David Olson and Justin Zook and Adam Phillippy},
  title = {The complete sequence of a human Y chromosome},
  year = {2023},
  number = {621},
  month = {2023-08-23 04:08:00},
  publisher = {Nature},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935967},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06457-y},
  language = {en},
}
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher A. Smith, Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 782]

The defendant’s specific contentions regarding the Supreme Court’s *Sandoval*ruling *(see People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371, 375 [1974]) are unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Jones,*41 AD3d 507 [2007]; *People v Melvin,*223 AD2d 604 [1996]). In any event, the Supreme Court’s ruling struck an appropriate balance between the probative value of the defendant’s prior crimes on the issue of his credibility and the possible prejudice to him *(see People v Springer,*13 AD3d 657 [2004]; *People v Sobers,*272 AD2d 418 [2000]; *People v Dwyer,*243 AD2d 645 [1997]). Lifson, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Garni, JJ., concur.
Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD   Document 5    Filed 03/08/11   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 22

Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD   Document 5    Filed 03/08/11   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 23
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Balance
Sheet, Statement of Operations, Statements of Cash Flows and Notes thereto
incorporated in Part II, Item 7. of this Form 10-QSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1992
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1992
<CASH>                                             187
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   187
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     187
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              170
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,400
<OTHER-SE>                                          17
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       187
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   252
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   80,306
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               211,861
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (219,915)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (78,684)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                               (213,231)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (213,231)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)
        

</TABLE>
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



I, Andrew Hamilton, hereby 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of IndieMV Media Group, Inc.for the period ended December 31, 2008 (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 IndieMV Media Group, Inc.



|Dated: February 16, 2009 |  |                              
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|                         |  |                              
|                         |  |                              
|                         |  | /s/ Andrew Hamilton          
|                         |  | Andrew Hamilton              
|                         |  | Title: President and Director
|                         |  | Principal Executive Officer  
|                         |  | IndieMV Media Group, Inc.    





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to IndieMV Media Group, Inc.and will be retained by IndieMV Media Group, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 32.1****STRATEX NETWORKS, INC.**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the periodic report of Stratex Networks, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Report”), I, Thomas H. Waechter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of thedate hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,that to the best of my knowledge:(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, 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 at the dates and for theperiods indicated.This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities andExchange Commission.        Date: June 14, 2006 /s/ Thomas H. Waechter   Thomas H. Waechter        Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Robert G. Costantini, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ORBCOMM Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 14, 2007       /s/ Robert G. Costantini     Name: Robert G. Costantini  Title: Executive Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 24, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, May 24, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17I0217. AMANDA GAIL MARQUIS v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2015CR190
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

November 13,
2007

U.
S. Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, N. E.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies
and Gentlemen:

The
certification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code. This certification is not to be deemed to be filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and does not constitute a part of the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q (the "Report") accompanying this letter and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

I,
J. William Holden, III, the Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Mirant North America, LLC (the "Company"), certify that, subject to
the qualifications noted below, to the best of my knowledge:



|Name: | /s/J. WILLIAM HOLDEN, IIIJ. William Holden, III Senior Vice
President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer | 
|----- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Mirant North America, LLC and will be retained by Mirant
North America, LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
A06A0760.

#### CHAVIS v. BRISKER.

(631 SE2d 807)

Decided June 1, 2006.

Phipps, Judge.

Brandon Brisker filed a dispossessory warrant against Tasha Hopkins and Kevin Chavis, alleging failure to pay rent under a lease agreement. Chavis answered and counterclaimed, asserting that Brisker had misstated the amount of rent due and failed to make requested repairs. After a hearing, the State Court of DeKalb County awarded a writ of possession to Brisker and ordered Chavis to pay $23.50 in rent. Chavis appeals, asserting that the court failed to properly calculate the payments he had made under a lease-purchase agreement with Brisker. The record, however, does not include the hearing transcript.

> Where an appeal is taken which draws in question the transcript of the evidence and proceedings, it shall be the duty of the appellant to have the transcript prepared at his expense. Thus, where the transcript is necessary for review and the appellant omits it from the record on appeal, the appellate court must assume the judgment below was correct and affirm.1

Chavis’s claim requires consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing. “In the absence of a transcript or other evidence in the record, however, we must assume the court’s judgment was correct and affirm.”2

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Ruffin, C. J., and Smith, P. J., concur.*

*614Kevin E. Chavis, *pro se.*

Brandon Brisker, *pro se.*

1

*Seay v. Chase Manhattan Mtg. Corp.,*270 Ga. App. 349 (606 SE2d 586) (2004) (citation omitted); see also *Hensley v. Young,*273 Ga. App. 687 (615 SE2d 771) (2005).

2

*Seay,*supra (citation omitted); see also *Young v. Pryer,*257 Ga. App. 768 (572 SE2d 99) (2002).
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 quarterly report of Viscorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), each of 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:



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.





Dated:  November 15, 2006



/s/ Charles Driscoll

Name: Charles Driscoll

Title:  Chief Executive Officer







Dated:  November 15, 2006



/s/ Charles Driscoll

Name: Charles Driscoll

Title:  Chief Financial Officer
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 60179 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

TONY D. CRAWFORD

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:17

- CR

- 14

- 1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Tony D. Crawford has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Crawford has filed a response. The record is not sufficien tly developed to allow

us to make a fair evaluation of Crawford ’s claim of ine ffective assistance of

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 29, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-60179 Document: 00514742125 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2018No. 18

- 60179

2 counsel; we therefore decline to co nsider the claim without prejudice to

collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014 )

. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Crawford ’s response. We concur with counsel’s

asse ssment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused
from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. Case: 18-60179 Document: 00514742125 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/29/2018