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

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-92,942-01

EX PARTE TERRELL NELSON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. W07-47440-V(A) IN THE 292 DISTRICT COURT ND

FROM DALLAS COUNTY 

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to fifty years’

imprisonment. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Nelson v. State, No. 05-08-

01017-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 7, 2009). Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas

corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. 

On July 15, 2021, the trial court entered an order designating issues. The district clerk

properly forwarded this application to this Court under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

73.4(b)(5). However, the application was forwarded before the trial court made findings of fact and

conclusions of law. We remand this application to the trial court to complete its evidentiary
investigation and make findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from

the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court’s

findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things,

affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from

hearings and depositions. See TEX.R.APP. P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested

by the trial court and obtained from this Court. 

Filed: August 25, 2021

Do not publish
IV 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 22

Electing certain ranking minority members to standing committees. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2003

Mr. CLYBURN submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION

Electing certain ranking minority members to standing 

committees.

1 Resolved, That the following named Members be, and 

2 they are hereby, elected to the following standing commit3 tees of the House of Representatives: 

4 COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE: Mr. Stenholm of 

5 Texas. 

6 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS: Mr. Obey of Wis7 consin. 

8 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES: Mr. Skelton of 

9 Missouri. 

10 COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET: Mr. Spratt of South 

11 Carolina. 
2

•HRES 22 ATH 

1 COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE: 

2 Mr. George Miller of California. 

3 COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE: Mr. Din4 gell of Michigan. 

5 COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr. Frank of 

6 Massachusetts. 

7 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM: Mr. Wax8 man of California. 

9 COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: Mr. 

10 Lantos of California. 

11 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY: Mr. Conyers of 

12 Michigan. 

13 COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES: Mr. Rahall of West Vir14 ginia 

15 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE: Mr. Hall of Texas. 

16 COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS: Ms. Vela ́zquez of 

17 New York. 

18 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRA19 STRUCTURE: Mr. Oberstar of Minnesota. 

20 COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS: Mr. Evans of 

21 Illinois. 

22 COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: Mr. Rangel of 

23 New York.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                    5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE IS A RESTATEMENT OF A PREVIOUSLY  FILED SCHEDULE TO DISCLOSE BASIC
AND  DILUTED  EARNINGS  PER SHARE AS NOW  REQUIRED  BY  STATEMENT  OF  FINANCIAL
ACCOUNTING   STANDARDS  NO.  128.  THIS  SCHEDULE   CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL
INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE  CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1997
AND THE  CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT  OF EARNINGS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                 1,000
<CURRENCY>                   U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                              24,715
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       28,892
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                        939,684
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                              20,937
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,086,662
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                            563,068
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                18
<OTHER-SE>                                         299,812
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,086,662
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,186,262
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      963,329
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   160,924
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     62,009
<INCOME-TAX>                                        22,323
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 39,686
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     (1,285)
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        38,401
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         2.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         2.15
        

</TABLE>
## **Exhibit 31.2**

 

**Certification of the Chief Financial Officer**

(Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a))

 

I, Gary Williams, certify that:

 

1.     Ihave reviewed this Form 10-Q of Focus Enhancements, Inc.;

2.     Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining 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 causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 
| Date: May 16, 2005     |
|-----------------------------|
|                        |
|                        |
| /s/ Gary Williams      |   |
|  Gary Williams         |
|  VP of Finance and CFO |

 

----
#### Rebecca M. CANNON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPOKANE MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, a Washington corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 12-35012.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 7, 2012.

Filed Dec. 20, 2012.

Michael D. Kinkley, Scott Michael Kink-ley, Michael D. Kinkley, P.S., Alan L. McNeil, Esquire, University Legal Assistance, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Carl E. Hueber, Winston *&*Cashatt, Herbert Joseph Landis, Olson, Loeffler & Landis, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.

Before: W. FLETCHER and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and QUIST, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, Senior United States District Judge for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Rebecca M. Cannon appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. We vacate and remand.

1. The district court erred in concluding that the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine applies to this case. Cannon is not a state-court loser complaining of injuries caused by an allegedly erroneous state court judgment, nor does she seek relief from the state court judgment. *See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp.,*544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005). Because she “asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly illegal act or omission by an adverse party, *Rooker-Feldman*does not bar jurisdiction.” *Noel v. Hall,*341 F.3d 1148, 1164 (9th Cir.2003). That the subject matter of the federal action may be “intertwined” with the subject matter of the state court action does not require dismissal under *Rooker-Feld-man,*because Cannon does not seek to bring a de facto appeal of a state court judgment. *Id.*at 1158 (“Only when there is already a forbidden de facto appeal in federal court does the ‘inextricably intertwined’ test come into play....”).

2. Because the district court clearly “reaffirm[ed] its dismissal of plaintiffs claim on *Rooker-Feldman*grounds,” which is jurisdictional, we construe the court’s order to not reach the issue of res judicata, which is an affirmative defense that goes to the merits of Cannon’s claims. *See Exxon Mobil,*544 U.S. at 293, 125 S.Ct. 1517. The applicability of this defense involves issues of state law that were not analyzed by the district court in its order denying reconsideration. Additionally, resolution of this issue requires further development and explication of the factual basis for Cannon’s claims than was presented to this court. We therefore decline to reach the applicability of res judicata and leave it to the district court to determine in the first instance should Spokane *684raise the issue on remand. *See Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc.,*359 F.3d 1136, 1143-44 (9th Cir.2004)(discussing examples *of*state preclusion law and remanding for the district court to determine in the first instance after reversing the district court’s dismissal on *Roolter-Feldman*grounds).

VACATED AND REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                                                
<ARTICLE>                               6
<LEGEND>                                                              
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE FUND AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY 
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>                                                             
<CIK>          811860
<NAME>              Saturna Investment Trust
<SERIES>    
   <NUMBER>                       5
   <NAME>           Idaho Tax Exempt Fund
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1
<CURRENCY>                 US Dollars
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              Nov-30-1995
<PERIOD-START>                 Dec-01-1994
<PERIOD-END>                 Nov-30-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                        1
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>          4,797,276
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>         5,048,501
<RECEIVABLES>                     97,090
<ASSETS-OTHER>                    79,140
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 5,224,731
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>               0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>          4,417
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                4,417
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                        0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>       5,033,109
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>            988,761
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>          1,437,148
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>            (26)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                 0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>          (63,994)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>               0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>         251,225
<NET-ASSETS>                   5,220,314
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                      0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                368,984
<OTHER-INCOME>                   (10,744)
<EXPENSES-NET>                    46,317
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>          311,923
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>         (64,404)
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>        751,487
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>            999,006
<EQUALIZATION>                         0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>       (311,941)
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>               0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                  0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>          225,327
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>     (717,954)
<SHARES-REINVESTED>               44,240
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>          (448,387)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>               (8)
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>              0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>             0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>             30,862
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                   62,406
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>           6,020,515
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>               4.76
<PER-SHARE-NII>                     0.26
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>             0.52
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>               (0.26)
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>              0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                   0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                 5.28
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                     0.75
<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>                 0
<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>                   0
        

</TABLE>
H. Res. 139

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

March 13, 2003.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order without intervention of any point of order

to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5) to improve patient

access to health care services and provide improved medical

care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system

places on the health care delivery system. The bill shall be

considered as read for amendment. In lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committees on the Judiciary and

on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the report of

the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall

be considered as adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage

without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate on

the bill, as amended, with 80 minutes equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

the Committee on the Judiciary and 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
2

•HRES 139 EH

member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2)

one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

SEC. 2. House Resolution 126 is laid on the table.

Attest:

Clerk.
================================================================================

                SPEAKING ROSES INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY


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

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned
Chief Executive Officer of Speaking Roses International, Inc., a Utah
corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the three months ended
September 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


By /s/ Alan K. Farrell
Alan K. Farrell
President and Chief Executive Officer

November 20, 2006














--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 23.1  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-02845, 333-42445, 333-42447, 333-44922, 333-47277, and 333-61128 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 13, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements and consolidated financial statement schedule of Wausau Paper Corp. and subsidiaries (the Company), and the effectiveness of the Companys internal control over financial reporting (which report on the Companys consolidated financial statements expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Companys adoption of the recognition provision of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158, Employers Accounting for Pension and Other Postretirement Benefit Plans(SFAS 158),on December 31, 2006, the measurement date provision of SFAS 158 on January 1, 2008, and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123R, Share-Based Payment, on January 1, 2006), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008. DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP Milwaukee, WI
March 13, 2009
IV 

House Calendar No. 7

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 105

[Report No. 108–21] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 534) to amend title 18, United 

States Code, to prohibit human cloning. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2003

Mrs. MYRICK, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 534) to amend 

title 18, United States Code, to prohibit human cloning.

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of 

3 rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee 

4 of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider5 ation of the bill (H.R. 534) to amend title 18, United 

6 States Code, to prohibit human cloning. The first reading 

7 of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 

8 against consideration of the bill are waived. General de-
2

HRES 105 RH 

1 bate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 

2 hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 

3 ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judici4 ary. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 

5 amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be 

6 considered as read. No amendment shall be in order except 

7 those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules ac8 companying this resolution. Each amendment may be of9 fered only in the order printed in the report, may be of10 fered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 

11 be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time spec12 ified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 

13 proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to 

14 amendment. All points of order against such amendments 

15 are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill 

16 for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 

17 bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 

18 adopted. The previous question shall be considered as or19 dered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 

20 without intervening motion except one motion to recommit 

21 with or without instructions. 

House Calendar No. 7

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 105

[Report No. 108–21] 

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 534) 

to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit human cloning. 

FEBRUARY 26, 2003

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Paul O. Ensell, Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 862]

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ([SORA] Correction Law § 168 *et seq.).*Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court’s determination of his risk level is supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence *(see*§ 168-n [3]; *People v Vacanti,*26 AD3d 732, 733 [2006], *lv denied*6 NY3d 714 [2006]; *People v Hamelinck,*23 AD3d 1060 [2005]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the case summary constitutes reliable hearsay, and the court properly considered it in determining defendant’s risk level *(see People v Woods,*41 AD3d 1299 [2007], *Iv denied*9 NY3d 809 [2007]; *People v Vaughn,*26 AD3d 776 [2006]). Finally, we conclude that defendant waived his right to be present at the SORA hearing inasmuch as the record establishes that he signed a written waiver of that right, in which he “was advised of the hearing date, of the right to be present at the hearing, and that the hearing would be conducted in his . . . absence” *(People v Porter,*37 AD3d 797 [2007]; *see People v Brooks,*308 AD2d 99, 105-106 [2003], *Iv denied*1 NY3d 502 [2003]). We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. Present—Martoche, J.P., Smith, Peradotto, Pine and Gorski, JJ.
No. 634.

#### Crum *v.*Hunter, Warden.

May 20, 1946.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.