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

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-409-CR

ANTHONY CHINOYE MADU APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

After waiving a jury and entering an open plea of guilty, appellant

Anthony Chinoye Madu appeals his conviction and twenty-five-year sentence

for aggravated sexual assault of a child. We affirm.

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to

withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
avers that, in his professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief

and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California

2

by presenting a

professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable

grounds for relief. We gave appellant the opportunity to file a pro se brief, and

he has filed one. The State has not filed a brief.

Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw

on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of

Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the

record.

3 Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.4

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s

pro se brief. We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and

without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the

2 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).

3 See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991);

Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no

pet.).

4 See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351

(1988).

2
appeal.

5 Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the

trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: CAYCE, C.J.; GARDNER and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: November 25, 2009

5 See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App.

2006).

3
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Javier CAZARES-SAENZ, also known as Javier Cazzres-Saenz, Appellant.

No. 07-2517.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 16, 2008.

Filed: June 24, 2008.

Henri J. Watson, Watson & Dameron, LLP, Kansas City, MO, Cenobio Lozano, Jr., Harrisonville, MO, for appellant.

David A. Barnes, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO (John F. Wood, U.S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Javier Cazares-Saenz appeals the district court’s1 denial of his motion to suppress all physical evidence seized and statements taken from him, arguing that police officers illegally seized him and searched his motel room, and that his con*493sents to the search of his motel room and of his vehicle were not voluntary and did not purge the taint of the officers’ initial illegal acts. Having carefully reviewed the record and considered Cazares-Saenz’s arguments, we find no basis for reversal. *See United States v. Esquivias,*416 F.3d 696, 699-700 (8th Cir.2005) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable John T. Maughmer, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
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.

May 28, 2013

t0520 

# Order

Clerk May 28, 2013

146360 & (10)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHI GAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146360

COA: 309470

Ingham CC: 09

- 001284

- FC

DONTREL MARQUIS BIRGE

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 8, 2012

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The

motion to remand is DENIED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20- 0456 IN THE MATTER OF: J.M., Respondent and Appellant . **ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 28, 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 23 2021

07/23/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0456
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 of Closure Medical Corporation (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Daniel A. Pelak, President and Chief Executive 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, to my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. (s) 78m(a) or (s) 78o(d)); and



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



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|DANIEL A. PELAK                      
|Daniel A. Pelak                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|May 10, 2004
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Tuboscope Vetco International Corporation of our report dated February 14,
1997, included in the 1996 Annual Report to Stockholders of Tuboscope Vetco
International Corporation.

Our audits also included financial statement schedules of Tuboscope Vetco
International Corporation listed in Item 14(a). These schedules are the
responsibility of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an
opinion based on our audits.  In our opinion, the financial statement schedules
referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements
taken as a whole, present fairly in all material respects the information set
forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8) pertaining to the 1996 Equity Participation Plan (No. 333-05233) and
the D.O.S. Ltd. 1993 Stock Option Plan (No. 333-05237) of Tuboscope Vetco
International Corporation of our report dated February 14, 1997, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of Tuboscope Vetco International
Corporation incorporated by reference in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) and our
report included in the preceding paragraph with respect to the financial
statement schedules included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 1996, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                            ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Houston, Texas
March 25, 1997

                                       1
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3088 

To direct the Secretary of Defense to post on the public Web site of the 

Department of Defense the cost to each American taxpayer of each 

of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 4, 2011 

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia (for himself, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. FILNER, Ms. LEE of 

California, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. CONYERS, Ms. 

WOOLSEY, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Ms. 

JACKSON LEE of Texas, Mr. STARK, and Mr. PAYNE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Defense to post on the public 

Web site of the Department of Defense the cost to each 

American taxpayer of each of the wars in Afghanistan, 

Iraq, and Libya. 

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 ‘‘Cost of War Act of 

5 2011’’. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3088 IH

1 SEC. 2. COST OF WARS. 

2 The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 

3 Commissioner of Internal Revenue, shall post on the pub4 lic Web site of the Department of Defense the cost to each 

5 American taxpayer of each of the wars in Afghanistan, 

6 Iraq, and Libya. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2585 

To delay any presumption of death in connection with the kidnapping in 

Iraq or Afghanistan of a retired member of the Armed Forces to ensure 

the continued payment of the member’s retired pay. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2009 

Mr. BROUN of Georgia (for himself and Mr. FILNER) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To delay any presumption of death in connection with the 

kidnapping in Iraq or Afghanistan of a retired member 

of the Armed Forces to ensure the continued payment 

of the member’s retired pay. 

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 ‘‘PROTECT Act’’ or 

5 ‘‘Protecting the Retirement of Our Troops by Ensuring 

6 Compensation is Timely Act’’. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2585 IH

1 SEC. 2. PRESUMPTION OF DEATH FOR PARTICIPANTS IN 

2 SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN IN MISSING STA3 TUS. 

4 (a) CONDITIONS ON PRESUMPTION.—In the case of 

5 a participant in the Survivor Benefit Plan who has been 

6 determined by the Secretary of State to have been kid7 napped in Iraq or Afghanistan on or after October 7, 

8 2001, the Secretary of a military department may not 

9 make a determination under section 1450(l) of title 10, 

10 United States Code, that the participant is missing, with 

11 the presumption of death, until the earlier of— 

12 (1) a period of at least 7 years expires after the 

13 date of the determination of the Secretary of State; 

14 or 

15 (2) the date on which the participant is con16 firmed dead and a death certificate is delivered to 

17 the next of kin of the participant. 

18 (b) RESUMPTION OF RETIRED PAY; PAYMENT OF

19 BACK PAY.—In the case of a participant in the Survivor 

20 Benefit Plan described in subsection (a) who was pre21 sumed to be dead before the date of the enactment of this 

22 Act under section 1450(l) of title 10, United States Code, 

23 the Secretary of a military department concerned shall— 

24 (1) resume payment of any retired pay to which 

25 the participant is entitled to as a retired member of 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2585 IH

1 the Armed Forces pending satisfaction of the condi2 tions specified in subsection (a); and 

3 (2) pay retired pay for periods occurring before 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act for which re5 tired pay was not paid because of the presumption 

6 of death. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
```

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 187 (Thursday, September 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 45350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20739]

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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #15312 and #15313; U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Disaster 
Number VI-00010]

Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public 
Assistance Only for the U.S. Virgin Islands

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the U.S. Virgin Islands 
(FEMA-4335-DR), dated 09/15/2017.
    Incident: Hurricane Irma.
    Incident Period: 09/05/2017 through 09/07/2017.

DATES: Issued on 09/18/2017.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/14/2017.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/15/2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the U.S. Virgin 
Islands, dated 09/15/2017, is hereby amended to establish the incident 
period for this disaster as beginning 09/05/2017 through 09/07/2017.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2017-20739 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
```
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

I, Robert F. Hussey, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the registrant, Digital Lightwave, Inc. 

 

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

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated 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 theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting whichare reasonably 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 management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 12, 2005
efsh_ex101.htm

EXHIBIT 10.1

 

 


	 
	1

	


	 



 

 


	 
	2

	


	 



 

 


	 
	3

	


	 



 

 


	 
	4

	


	 



 

 


	5
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          12,923
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,437
<ALLOWANCES>                                       498
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,046
<PP&E>                                           5,608
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,007
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,228
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,558
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           136
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,706
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,228
<SALES>                                          2,175
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,293
<CGS>                                              295
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,596
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,230
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    86
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (90)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (427)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (110)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (317)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (317)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)


</TABLE>
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

#### Mary Armistead Carter etc. v. Ashley Christian Carter et al.

November 6, 1980

Case No. (Chancery) 11402

By JUDGE WILEY R. WRIGHT, JR.

Although I do not think it necessary to refer this matter to a Commissioner in Chancery for a full-scale hearing, I do think it desirable to ask the Commissioner heretofore appointed to supplement his report to cover anything that may have occurred subsequent to the filing of his report which would affect the sale.

Insofar as [the] recommendation that the Court accept "offer C" is concerned, I have serious reservations as to whether the Court should accept it in its present form. I note that the offer contains a requirement concerning the insurability of the title and warranties which are intended to survive closing. In this regard, I call your attention to the discussion which appears at page 67 of the 1955 edition of Lamb’s work entitled *A Virginia Cause*and 47 Am. Jur. 2d, *Judicial Sales,*Section 140. It is my understanding that a special commissioner of sale is not empowered to give anything more than a special warranty deed and the purchaser takes the property in whatever status or condition it may be in at the time the *Court*confirms the sale. Before confirming the sale, the Court would give the prospective purchaser an opportunity to examine the title; however, neither the special commissioner of sale nor the committee can give addition*13al warranties which would expose the estate to the possibility of subsequent liability.

If the maker of "Offer C" wishes to amend his offer so as to overcome the objections I have raised, he should be given an opportunity to do so.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2762 

To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to reauthorize the Overseas 

Private Investment Corporation, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1, 2011 

Mr. MANZULLO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to reauthorize 

the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Overseas Private In5 vestment Corporation Reauthorization Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ISSUING AUTHORITY. 

7 Section 235(a)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 

8 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2195(a)(2)) is amended by striking 

9 ‘‘2007’’ and inserting ‘‘2015’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donny Payne, Appellant.

[863 NYS2d 700]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Collini, J.), rendered October 17, 2006, convicting him of promoting prostitution in the second degree, criminal contempt in the first degree (three counts), and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s arguments regarding alleged prosecutorial misconduct during summation are unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Dien,*77 NY2d 885 [1991]; *People v Nuccie,*57 NY2d 818 [1982]). In any event, the comments alleged to denigrate the defense were fair comment on the evidence *(see People v Ashwal,*39 NY2d 105 [1976]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Florio and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
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 Braintech, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the nine months ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Edward A. White, the Principal Financial and Accounting 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 to my knowledge:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Edward A. White			Edward A. White
Principal Financial Officer and Accounting Officer

November 10, 2004