alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-07-0405-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

JUNE 17, 2008

______________________________

LEE OLIVER BROUSSARD, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 252ND DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY;

NO. 43230; HONORABLE LAYNE WALKER, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

ABATEMENT AND REMAND

Appellant Lee Oliver Broussard appeals from an order denying post-conviction DNA

testing. The clerk’s record was filed on November 16, 2007. A supplemental clerk’s record

was filed on May 5, 2008. 

Neither the clerk’s record nor the supplemental clerk’s record contains a certification

by the trial court of appellant’s right of appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

25.2(d). Rule 25 requires the trial court to enter such a certification “each time it enters a
2

judgment of guilt or other appealable order.” Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Courts have

required certification of the right to appeal orders denying post-conviction DNA testing.

See, e.g., Rodriguez v. State, 153 S.W.3d 245 (Tex.App.–El Paso 2004), aff’d No. 08-04-

00178-CR, 2005 WL 2313637 (Tex.App.–El Paso Sept. 22, 2005) (mem. op., not

designated for publication); Lopez v. State, 114 S.W.3d 711 (Tex.App.–Corpus Christi

2003, no pet.). Following the plain language of Rule 25.2, we find certification is required

here.

Consequently, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for

further proceedings. On remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to

secure a Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal in compliance with Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), regarding appellant’s appeal of the trial court’s denial of his

request for post-conviction DNA testing. This certification must comply with the

requirements effective September 1, 2007. Once executed, the certification shall be

included in a supplemental clerk’s record and filed with this Court on or before July 14,

2008. 

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000106827
<NAME> WHITEHALL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,656
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,979
<ALLOWANCES>                                       518
<INVENTORY>                                      6,440
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,671
<PP&E>                                          22,192
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,538
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,936
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,448
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           767
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,936
<SALES>                                         70,170
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                70,170
<CGS>                                           59,809
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   64,465
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  61
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,523
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,206
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,317
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,317
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.75
        

</TABLE>
## SATURNA INVESTMENT TRUSTSextant Core Fund

### Supplement dated December 8, 2016 to theProspectus dated March 29, 2016

**The following paragraph replaces the paragraph under the section titled "Portfolio Manager" on page 9 of the Prospectus:**

**Portfolio Managers**

Mr. Phelps McIlvaine, a vice president of Saturna Capital Corporation, and Mr. Christopher Paul, senior investment analyst, are the portfolio managers jointly and primarily responsible for the day-to-day management of the Sextant Core Fund. Mr. McIlvaine and Mr. Paul have been the portfolio managers since 2016.

**The following paragraphs replace the fourth and fifth paragraphs under the section titled "Investment Adviser" on page 20 of the Prospectus:**

Mr. Phelps McIlvaine, portfolio manager of Sextant Short-Term Bond Fund, Sextant Bond Income Fund, and Sextant Core Fund has been a vice president and director of Saturna Capital since 1994. Mr. McIlvaine also manages the Idaho Tax-Exempt Fund, another fund of the Trust.

Mr. Christopher Paul, MBA, CFA, portfolio manager of the Sextant Core Fund and senior investment analyst, joined Saturna Capital in 2016. From 2008 to 2015, Mr. Paul served as director of research and research analyst with Cannell Capital, an alternative investment manager.

 

*Please retain this document for your future reference*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-4400

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

AUDWIN L. DAVIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CR-97-331-3)

Submitted: October 30, 2002 Decided: November 8, 2002

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Paul G. Gill,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, S. David

Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Audwin L. Davis appeals the district court’s revocation of

supervised release imposed pursuant to a conviction for possession

of a firearm by a controlled substance abuser. Davis’s attorney has

filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. On

Davis’s behalf, counsel contends that the district court abused its

discretion in sentencing Davis to twelve months of incarceration

for his violations of the terms of supervised release. Davis was

advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has

not done so.

We have reviewed the claims and find no abuse of discretion in

the sentence imposed. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-

43 (4th Cir. 1995). In addition, we have examined the entire record

in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders and find

no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm. 

This court requires that counsel inform his client, in

writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United

States for further review. If the client requests that a petition

be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to

withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a

copy thereof was served on the client. Finally, we dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
3

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Wisconsin Gas Company Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1995 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements and the
related footnotes.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      375,401
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         171,569
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       166,483
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 713,453
<COMMON>                                             9
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      118,842
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             76,310
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 195,161
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           154,246
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      145,000
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  57,500
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    4,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 302,546
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  713,453
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      519,398
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            17,097
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     459,736
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     476,833
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         42,565
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               (176)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  42,389
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        14,312
<NET-INCOME>                                    28,077
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   28,077
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        16,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                          983
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          64,956
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7239

TIMOTHY SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

HOUSTON SHIFLETT, Support Unit Manager;

JOHN/JANE DOE, Records Office Manager; J. K.

VAUGHAN, SR., Hearing Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CA-02-549)

Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 21, 2002

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Smith, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2002)

complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2000). We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that

this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Shiflett, CA-02-

549 (E.D. Va. July 17, 2002). 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
No. 1297.

#### Clouse *v.*Ragen, Warden.

June 10, 1946.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Clark County, Illinois, denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOSHUA GARNER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 343 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8th day of January, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

   PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

     The undersigned executive officer of Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin, Inc. (the
"Registrant") hereby certifies that the Registrant's Form 10-Q for the three
months ended June 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Registrant.

                                       /s/ Michael W. Helser
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Michael W. Helser, Treasurer and
                                       Chief Financial Officer

August 5, 2004

NOTE: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin, Inc.
and will be retained by Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. .

                                       32
REPORT AND CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 
 
 The Board of Directors
 Wells-Gardner Electronics Corporation:
 
 
 The audits referred to in our report dated March 9, 2011, included the related financial statement schedule for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, included in Form 10-K.  This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the company’s management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this financial statement schedule based on our audits.  In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.
 
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 2-72090, 2-09137, 33-63920, 3361535, 33,02981, and 333-72629) on Form S-8 of Wells-Gardner Electronics Corporation of our report dated March 9, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Wells-Gardner Electronics Corporation as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008 and our report in the preceding paragraph regarding the related consolidated financial statement schedule, which reports appear in or are incorporated by reference in this annual report on Form 10-K of Wells-Gardner Electronics Corporation.
 
 
  
 
 Chicago, Illinois
 March 9, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       6,480,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               36,874,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             140,099,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,862,000
<BONDS>                                     72,535,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        91,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  49,611,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               140,099,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            55,759,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            51,714,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,045,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,181,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,864,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29


</TABLE>
IV 

House Calendar No. 9

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 19

[Report No. 108–29] 

Designating the room numbered H–236 in the House of Representatives 

wing of the Capitol as the ‘‘Richard K. Armey Room’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2003

Mr. NUSSLE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

MARCH 10, 2003

Additional sponsor: Mr. BURGESS

MARCH 10, 2003

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION

Designating the room numbered H–236 in the House of 

Representatives wing of the Capitol as the ‘‘Richard K. 

Armey Room’’.

Whereas, at the end of the 107th Congress, Representative 

Richard K. Armey retired after 18 years of distinguished 

service in the House of Representatives, including service 

as the Majority Leader for 8 years, the longest tenure of 
2

•HRES 19 RH 

any Republican Majority Leader in 92 years: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the room numbered H–236 in the 

2 House of Representatives wing of the Capitol shall be 

3 known and designated as the ‘‘Richard K. Armey Room’’. 

House Calendar No. 9

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 19

[Report No. 108–29] 

RESOLUTION

Designating the room numbered H–236 in the 

House of Representatives wing of the Capitol as the ‘‘Richard K. Armey Room’’. 

MARCH 10, 2003

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7011

JOHN GRIMES WELLS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

TOMMY A. COLEMAN, Officer; JIMMY BROWN, Captain; JOHN BAKER, Sheriff,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District

Judge. CA-97-416-5-BR)

Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 21, 1997

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Grimes Wells, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a North 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. § 1915(e)(2) (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We

have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find

that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal

on the reasoning of the district court. Wells v. Coleman, No. CA97-416-5-BR (E.D.N.C. July 1, 1997). 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
Nicor Gas Company
                                                                       Form 10-K
                                                                   Exhibit 23.01


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-65486 on Form S-3 of our report, dated February 28, 2005, relating to the
financial statements and financial statement schedule of Northern Illinois Gas
Company, and management's report on the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Northern
Illinois Gas Company for the year ended December 31, 2004.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Chicago, Illinois
February 28, 2005
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Timothy S. Belcher, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 898]

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to *888withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Rivera, J.P., Lifson, Miller, Garni and Eng, JJ., concur.
#### BINGLE v. LIGGETT DRUG CO., Inc.

Civ. No. 50-886.

United States District Court D. Massachusetts.

Sept. 25, 1951.

Harry J. Williams and Killion, Connolly & Williams, all of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Robert N. Daley and Parker, Coulter, Daley & White, all of Boston, Mass., for defendant.

FORD, District Judge.

Plaintiff here moves that defendant be ordered to comply with an order of this court dated April 23, 1951 directing defendant to permit the inspection and copying of designated documents in possession and .control of the defendant. Defendant has refused to produce certain of the statements listed in the previous order on the ground that they are not in the possession or control of' defendant..

The action is one for personal injuries allegedly received by plaintiff when she fell in defendant’s store. The attorney representing defendant is the attorney of the insurance company which is defending the action on behalf of its assured, the Liggett Drug Company. The statements in question were obtained not by defendant or by the-attorney, but by agents of the insurance company. They are in the custody of defendant’s attorney, or at least available to him, but defendant contends that he holds them, not as its attorney, but only in his capacity as attorney for- the insurance company, and that they are -not in defendant’s possession or control within the meaning of Rule 34, F.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A.

Some cases have held that statements such as these taken by an insurer, are not within the control of the insured who is the party of record in the action and have denied motions for production of them. Poppino v. Jones Store Co., D.C., 1 F.R.D. 215; Bough v. Lee, D.C., 26 F.Supp. 1000. But in a larger number of the report*594ed cases, and those the more recent ones, production of the documents has been ordered in such a situation. The latter view seems to be the better one, and more in accordance with the liberal interpretation which should be given to the rules relating to discovery. As a practical matter the insurer is a real litigant here, and one whose interests are closely connected with those of the defendant of record. It is in fact defending the case on behalf of defendant. To hold that statements obtained by it for the purpose of this very litigation are immune from' discovery would make possible the evasion of Rule 34 on the many occasions on which a defendant’s case is actually prepared and controlled by a liability insurer. Simper v. Trimble, D.C., 9 F. R. D. 598; Martin v. N. V. Nederlandsche Amerikaansche Stoomvaart Maatchappij, D.C., 8 F.R.D. 363; Price v. Levitt, D.C., 29 F.Supp. 164.

Motion allowed.