alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 18

- 00002

- CR

ROGER DEE BENEFIELD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 188th District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 46,894

- A

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Roger Dee Benefield was arrested for public intoxication by Longview Police Officer

Larry Solomon at Magrill Plaza in Longview. As Benefield was being transported to jail, he spat

on Solomon, causing his saliva to come in contact with Solomon’s right hand and right arm.

Co nsequently, a Gregg County jury convicted Benefield of harassment of a public servant 1 and

assessed him forty

- five years in prison, after enhancement.

In his appeal, Benefield complains that the trial court erred in admitting a 1989 conviction

for aggrava ted sexual assault during the guilt/innocence phase of his trial. 2 However, w e have

carefully reviewed the record and have found that the only prior conviction admitted during the

guilt/innocence phase of Benefield’s trial was a 2006 conviction for failur e to register as a sex

offender, which was admitted without objection. 3 Benefield did not complain (either at trial or on

appeal) regarding the admission of evidence pertaining to his conviction for failing to register as a

sex offender.

1 See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 22.11(a)(3) (West Supp. 2017).

2 For instance, Benefield argues,

F or the defense, arguing that the Defendant should have been believed over the officer became impossible when his aggravated sexual assault conviction was admitted. That credibility dispute was, as a practical matter, completely resolved by admission of th e aggravated sexual assault conviction. Juries are swayed quite strongly by previous convictions, particularly for sex crimes, because of the horrific nature of the crime combined with the widely

- held belief that sex criminals are incurable. Once that co nviction was admitted, the guilt

- innocence phase was essentially over and the Defendant was facing twenty

- five to life.

Further, Benefield cites Theus v. State , 845 S.W.2d 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)
, some eight times in his brief. Theus is a case involvi ng evidence of a prior conviction introduced during the guilt/innocence phase of a trial.

3 The 1989 conviction for aggravated sexual assault was introduced during the punishment phase of the trial without objection and was one of the convictions alleg ed for en hancement purposes. Extraneous

- offense evidence may be offered during the punishment phase. T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. a rt. 37.07 , § 3(a)(1) ( West Supp. 2017 )

.3

Consequently, we find that Benefield’s complaint is without merit. We overrule his sole

issue.

For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Bailey C. Moseley Justice

Date Submitted : June 20, 2018 Date Decided: June 26 , 2018

Do Not Publish
Exhibit 32.2


                            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 First Ipswich Bancorp (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
J. Wolnik, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

      This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B ("Item 601(b)(32)") promulgated under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act"). In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32),
this certification (A) shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of
the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B)
shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the
Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company
specifically incorporates it by reference.


/s/ Michael J. Wolnik
------------------------------------
Michael J. Wolnik
Chief Financial Officer

August 12, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
NINE WEST GROUP INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF OCTOBER
31, 1998 AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME AND CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE THIRTY-NINE WEEKS THEN ENDED
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                          16,330
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  157,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (52,651)
<INVENTORY>                                    502,456
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               680,918
<PP&E>                                         262,198
<DEPRECIATION>                                (86,920)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,272,698
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          181,295
<BONDS>                                        558,669
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           359
<OTHER-SE>                                     466,430
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,272,698
<SALES>                                      1,461,960
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,461,960
<CGS>                                          848,001
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  848,001
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               497,002
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,898
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,628
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 73,431
<INCOME-TAX>                                    28,638
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             44,793
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,923
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    47,716
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.34
        


</TABLE>
#### ATLANTIC LEASING CO., Inc., v. GENERAL OUTDOOR ADVERTISING CO., Inc.

District Court, S. D. New York.

April 5, 1943.

Arthur M. Loeb, of New York City, for plaintiff.

William E. Beehan, of New York City, for defendant.

HULBERT, District Judge.

The attached proposed order, presented ex parte, approving a stipulation attached thereto, dated April 1, 1943, consisting of 13 legal sheets, is returned without my signature.

The stipulation recites the commencement in this court of three actions, viz.: On December 29, 1939, January 6, 1942, and December 23, 1942, respectively, two of which were consolidated by order dated March 30, 1942. No answer has been interposed to any of the three complaints filed. The stipulation provides for the manner in which the deposition of certain witnesses shall be taken notwithstanding, I would *123say, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

Rule 26(a) provides:

> “Depositions shall be taken only in accordance with these rules.”

Of course, an examination can be had, by order of the court, before the joinder of issue, but the stipulation provides that it shall be taken with the same force and effect as if issue had been joined, and makes comparable provision with respect to the examination of an employee and the continuance of an examination already begun of another employee, with the same force and effect as if they were officers of the Company, with unusual conditions in the event that employment of such persons should terminate meanwhile.

The stipulation also refers to the proceedings heretofore taken and orders entered therein, which are not before me. I do not know what is contained therein referred to in the stipulation and embodied in the proposed order.

While Rule 1, defining the scope of the Rules, provides: “They shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action” and were intended for the simplification of procedure in our courts, I cannot resist the conclusion that the provisions of the stipulation are more likely to complicate than simplify the progress of these actions.
S. Con. Res. 2 Agreed to January 12, 2015

One Hundred Fourteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the sixth day of January, two thousand and fifteen 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 

SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR CEREMONY TO 

PRESENT CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL TO FIRST SPECIAL SERVICE FORCE. 

Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center is authorized 

to be used on February 3, 2015, for a ceremony to present the 

Congressional Gold Medal to the First Special Service Force collectively, in recognition of its superior service during World War 

II. Physical preparations for the conduct of the ceremony shall 

be carried out in accordance with such conditions as the Architect 

of the Capitol may prescribe. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives.