alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-10600 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TOMMY HAYNES, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:99-CR-63-4-C

- - - - - - - - - - February 14, 2001 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Tommy Haynes appeals his conviction and sentence after pleading guilty to a single count of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of amphetamine. See 18 U.S.C. § 2; 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(C). He argues that the district court erred during the guilty-plea hearing because it (1) failed to inform him of the effect of supervised release; (2) failed to inform him that it could depart from the sentencing guidelines; and (3) failed to inquire whether anyone besides the Government coerced him into pleading guilty. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11.No. 00-10600 -2- As part of a written agreement, Haynes waived his right to appeal the conviction, judgment, or sentence. He reserved the right to appeal (1) any punishment imposed in excess of the statutory maximum; (2) any punishment to the extent it constitutes an upward departure from the guideline range deemed most applicable by the sentencing court, and an improper computation of the applicable guideline level; and (3) any claim based on a Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Haynes has waived his right to challenge any Rule 11 omissions on appeal. See United States v. Packer , 70 F.3d 357, 359 (5th Cir. 1995)(applying waiver when defendant argued that the court failed to advise him of an essential element of the offense). He does not challenge the validity of the waiver provision in his plea agreement. See United States v. Robinson , 187 F.3d 516, 517-18 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, Haynes’ appeal is DISMISSED.
Union membership of wage and salary workers, 
selected States, 2008


		      Percent

North Carolina		3.5
Georgia			3.7
South Carolina		3.9
Virginia		4.1
Texas			4.5
Louisiana		4.6
UNITED STATES	       12.4
Alaska		       23.5
Hawaii		       24.3
New York	       24.9
Exhibit 99.2



               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 on Form 10-Q of Diacrin, Inc.
(the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Kevin Kerrigan, Controller, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

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

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


Date: November 13, 2002                        /s/  Kevin Kerrigan
                                             ----------------------
                                                    Kevin Kerrigan
                                                    Controller
CIRCUIT COURT OF SHENANDOAH COUNTY

#### Randall Snowling et al. v. Massanutten Military Academy

January 17, 2002

Case No. (Law) CL98-23

By judge Dennis lee Hupp

This is an action at law to recover monies paid by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant for their son’s tuition, room, and board. Plaintiffs’ son was expelled from the Academy rather early in the school year. Plaintiffs’ counsel wants to contact informally four former employees of the Defendant who are witnesses to the facts and circumstances forming the basis for the discharge of the student. Indeed, they were witnesses in the school’s administrative proceeding wherein the decision to expel was made. The Defendant objects to the *ex parte*contact, insisting that access to these former employees be obtained through formal discovery procedures only.

I will allow the Plaintiff to contact *ex parte*the former employees of the Defendant who were named at our hearing on January 3, 2002. Such contact is ethically permitted under Legal Ethics Opinion No. 1670. These persons are no longer employees of the Defendant, and I do not believe thattiiey were part of the “control group” when they were employed by MMA.

I have reviewed the opinion of the Honorable John E. Wetsel, Jr., Judge of the Twenty-Sixth Judicial Circuit, in *Dupont*v. *Winchester Medical Center,*34 Va. Cir. 105 (Winchester, 1994). While I do not disagree with Judge Wetsel’s reasoning, there is, in my view, an important difference between the situation presented there and the one at hand. That distinction lies in the employment status of the persons with whom the Plaintiff seeks contact. In our case, these persons are no longer employed by the Defendant.

I realize this ruling puts me at odds with Magistrate Judge Sargent in *Armsey*v. *Medshares Management Services,*184 F.R.D. 569 (W.D. Va. *2851998); however, I find myself in agreement with the opinions handed down in those several cases cited in *Armsey*where *ex parte*contact with former non-managerial employees was allowed.
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                 |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (i)    | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                |
|   |
|   | (ii)   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|   |   |             |   |                            |   |   |   |
|--------|--------|------------------|--------|---------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|   |   | /s/ Ransom Jones |   |                            |   |   |
|   |   |             | Name   | Ransom Jones                    |   |   |
|   |   |             | Title: | Interim Chief Executive Officer |   |   |
|   |   |             | Date:  | April 14, 2016                  |   |   |
|   |   |             |   |                            |   |   |
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-18-00009-CV

FREDRICK-MARSHAL VAN HORN,

Appellant

v.

STATE OF TEXAS/ELLIS COUNTY,

Appellee

From the 40th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 97022

ORDER

The relief requested in the document filed on February 14, 2018 titled “Peoples 

Response to The Tenth Court of Appeals & Trial Court Fraud, the Gov’ & its counsel’ 

many corrupt, fraudulent, & downright criminal acts etc.” is Denied.1 

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion Denied

Order issued and filed February 28, 2018

 

1 The document might be considered a motion for rehearing but is not titled as such.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 28, 2014

s0224 

# Order

Clerk February 28, 2014

148202

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIG AN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148202

COA: 315723

Van Buren CC: 12

- 018471

- FC

WESLEY DALE MITCHELL,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 23, 2013

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Robert Steven Dudley, * From the 244th District

 Court of Ector County,

 Trial Court No. C-37,722.

Vs. No. 11-12-00110-CR * March 20, 2014

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is 

no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2


        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND
         18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the filing of Zunicom, Inc. and Subsidiary (the
"Company") Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"),I, John C. Rudy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Exchange Act and 18 U.S.C. (SS) 1350, as
enacted 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 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,


/s/ John C. Rudy
----------------------
John C. Rudy
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer

August 13, 2009



























                                Exhibit 32.2 - 1
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42127]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18770]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): September 6, 
2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
August 30, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail 
Contract 345 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-180, CP2017-281.

Elizabeth A. Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2017-18770 Filed 9-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 23 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 23

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection 
   Agency relating to ``Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas 
  Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: 
                  Electric Utility Generating Units''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 26, 2015

 Mr. McConnell (for himself, Mr. Manchin, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. 
  Blunt, Mr. Lee, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. 
Wicker, Mr. Scott, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Rounds, 
Mr. Roberts, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Thune, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Coats, 
  Mr. Cotton, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Risch, Mr. Vitter, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. 
 Barrasso, Mr. Moran, Mr. Flake, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Isakson, 
Mr. Enzi, Mr. Perdue, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Paul, Mrs. Ernst, 
 Mr. Hatch, Mr. Daines, Mr. Sasse, Mr. McCain, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Toomey, 
  Mr. Grassley, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Corker) introduced the following 
joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection 
   Agency relating to ``Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas 
  Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: 
                  Electric Utility Generating Units''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to 
``Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, 
Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 
Generating Units'' (published at 80 Fed. Reg. 64510 (October 23, 
2015)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF AUGUST 31, 1996 AND INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
AUGUST 31, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM
10-Q FILING.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                       3,091,000
<SECURITIES>                                 4,010,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,396,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   400,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,540,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,436,000
<PP&E>                                      12,658,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,520,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,535,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,333,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        37,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,026,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,535,000
<SALES>                                      8,410,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,957,000
<CGS>                                        7,329,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,170,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,691,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                50,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,001,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   776,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,225,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,225,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35
        

</TABLE>
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
13
- 14
- 00016
- CV
Sandra Lea Flinn v. Sara Ann Guardiola On Appeal from the County Court at Law No

. 3 of Cameron County , Texas

Trial Cause No. 2013
- CCL
- 0355

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered t his cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. Costs are taxed against the party incurring
same
. We further order this decision certified below for observance. April 3 , 2014
Filed 1/7/21 P. v. Stewart CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Responde nt,

v.

KARL FRANKLIN STEWART

,

Defendant and Appellant

. B 30 64 8 0

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. B A 144475 )

APPEAL from a n order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura F. Priver

, Judge

. Dismiss ed

. Richard B. Lennon

, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 In 1999 , appellant Karl Franklin Stewart was convicted of murder in the first degree, attempted robbery, and burglary. T he trial court sentenced appellant to life impris on ment without the possibility of parole, and imposed a restitution fine of $10,000

. Appellant appealed, and in 2001, we affirmed.
In May 2020 , appellant filed a “Motion for Modification
of Restitution Order

, ” asking the trial court to strike the $10,000 restitution fine and reduce the amount to what appellant had already paid ( $492.84 )

. The court denied the motion, and a ppellant timely a ppeal ed

. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues and invoking People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 ( Serrano ). Under Serrano , when appointed
counsel raises no issue in an appeal from a post

- judgment proceeding following a first appeal as of right, an appellate court need not independently review the record. ( Id. at 498.) We directed counsel to send the record and a copy of the brief to appellant, and notified appellant of his right to respond within 30 days. We have received no response. Because neither appellant nor his counsel has raised any claims of error, we dismiss the appeal as abandoned. (See ibid .)3 DISPOSITION
The appeal is dis m iss e d

. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS

MANELLA, P. J.

We concur:

WILLHITE, J.

C OLLINS , J.
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company,



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

February 20, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00913

- CV

David MEDRANO

, Appellant

v.

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY , Successor by Merger Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, Barclays Capita l Real Estate Inc. d.b.a HOMEQ, as servicing Agent for Duetsche Bnk. National Trust Company as Trustee, Appellee s

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008

- CI

- 00027 The Honorable Richard E. Price, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment and an affidavit of indigence. A c ontest to the affidavit was filed and, on January 26, 2015, the trial court sustained

the contest. Medrano did not file a motion challenging the trial court’s order. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1(j)(1), (2) (party may challenge order sustaining contest by filing motion in court of appeal s no later than ten days after order sustaining contest is signed).

Both the court reporter and the district clerk have filed notifications of late record, stating

the records have not been filed because appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the clerk’s and reporter’s fees to prepare the record and appellant is not entitled to the record without paying the fees

.

We order appellant David Medrano to file, by March 2, 2015

, written proof that the

clerk’s and reporter’s fee s have been paid or arrangements satisfactory to the clerk and reporter have been made to pay the fee s

. If Medrano fails to timely comply with this order, th e appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(b)

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of t he said

court on this 20th day of February, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 943 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 943

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that a duty of 
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is to ensure that Internal Revenue 
  Service employees are familiar with and act in accord with certain 
                            taxpayer rights.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 15, 2015

  Mr. Portman 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 clarify that a duty of 
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is to ensure that Internal Revenue 
  Service employees are familiar with and act in accord with certain 
                            taxpayer rights.

    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 ``Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act of 
2015''.

SEC. 2. DUTY TO ENSURE THAT IRS EMPLOYEES ARE FAMILIAR WITH AND ACT IN 
              ACCORD WITH CERTAIN TAXPAYER RIGHTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 7803(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4) and by 
inserting after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) Execution of duties in accord with taxpayer rights.--
        In discharging his duties, the Commissioner shall ensure that 
        employees of the Internal Revenue Service are familiar with and 
        act in accord with taxpayer rights as afforded by other 
        provisions of this title, including--
                    ``(A) the right to be informed,
                    ``(B) the right to quality service,
                    ``(C) the right to pay no more than the correct 
                amount of tax,
                    ``(D) the right to challenge the position of the 
                Internal Revenue Service and be heard,
                    ``(E) the right to appeal a decision of the 
                Internal Revenue Service in an independent forum,
                    ``(F) the right to finality,
                    ``(G) the right to privacy,
                    ``(H) the right to confidentiality,
                    ``(I) the right to retain representation, and
                    ``(J) the right to a fair and just tax system.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```