alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion filed April 20 , 201 7



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

______ _ ___ No. 11

- 1 7

- 00 0 9 3

- C R

__________ IN RE JIMMY RAY MADRIGAL

Original Mandamus Proceeding

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Relator, Jimmy Ray Madrigal
, has filed a pro se petit ion for writ of mandamus
in this court

. He requests that we require Jamie Clem , the district clerk of Nolan County, to perform ministerial duties relat ed to Article 11.07, section 3(c) of the
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN . art. 11.07 , § 3(c) (Wes t 2015 ). Relator asserts that Clem has failed to transmit a copy of certain documents as required

. We di smiss Relator ’ s petition for want of jurisdicti on

. A court of appeals has no general writ power over a person other than a judge of a district or county court unless issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce the

court ’s jurisdiction. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 22.221 ( West 2004 ). A court of appeals has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk unless2

necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court of appeals

. In re Washington , 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding). Relator has not shown that a writ of mandamus directed to the district clerk is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the district clerk.
Additi onally, Relator references the clerk’s duties to transmit copies under
Article 11.07 , section 3(c) so that the Court of Criminal Appeals can act on Relator’s writ of habeas corpus

. W e have no jurisdiction to grant the relief requested by Relator with resp ect to a pending Article 11.07 writ

. See Pad ieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex. , Fifth Dist

. , 392 S.W.3d 115, 117

– 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013 ) (indicating that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction when an Article 11.07 application is pending)

. We have no authority to issue writs of mandamus in criminal law matters pertaining to proceedings under Article 11.07. In re M cAfee
, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). Should an applicant find it necessary to complain about the processing of an Article 11.07 application for writ of habeas corpus, the applicant may seek mandamus relief
from the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Benson v. Dist. Clerk , 331 S.W.3d 431 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

April 20 , 2017 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J. , and Bailey, J.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                              L Q CORPORATION, INC.
                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 L Q Corporation, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Melvyn Brunt,
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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Dated: May 15, 2007

                                                   /s/ Melvyn Brunt
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Melvyn Brunt
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
                                                                    ------------

                                  SUBSIDIARIES
                                  ------------

     Innkeepers USA Trust, a Maryland real estate investment trust (the
"Company"), operates principally through two entities, (i) Innkeepers Financial
Corporation, a Virginia corporation ("IFC"), which is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of the Company, and (ii) Innkeepers USA Limited Partnership, a Virginia limited
partnership (the "Partnership"), of which IFC is the sole general partner. All
of the Company's hotels are owned by the Partnership or subsidiary limited
partnerships which are owned 99% by the Partnership and 1% by either the Company
directly or corporations which are wholly-owned by the Company. The Company also
has a taxable REIT subsidiary which leases one of the Company's hotels.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Christopher Levell McFADDEN, Appellant.

No. 08-1736.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 21, 2008.

Filed: May 1, 2008.

*840Christopher Levell McFadden, pro se.

Joe J. Volpe, AUSA, argued, Little Rock, AR, for Appellee.

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Christopher McFadden appeals from the district court’s1 order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG), which reduced the base offense levels in USSG § 2D 1.1(c) based on the quantity of cocaine base (crack).

McFadden pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of a mixture containing cocaine base and to using a communication facility to distribute cocaine base. He was sentenced to 108 months’ imprisonment.

Although McFadden’s original drug quantity-driven sentencing range was 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment, he faced a 108-month statutory maximum (five-year maximum on the conspiracy charge, *see*18 U.S.C. § 371, and a four-year maximum on the use of communication facility, *see*21 U.S.C. § 843(b)(d)), which became his guidelines sentencing range, *see*USSG § 5Gl.l(a) (‘Where the statutorily authorized maximum sentence is less than the minimum of the applicable guideline range, the statutorily authorized maximum sentence shall be the guideline sentence.”).

A two-level decrease based on drug quantity would result in a sentencing range of 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment, with the result that McFadden’s newly calculated guideline range would still be limited by USSG § 5Gl.l(a) and would remain unchanged at 108 months. McFadden is thus not entitled to a reduction under Amendment 706. *See*USSG § lB1.10(a)(2)(B) (“A reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment ... is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) *841if — [a]n amendment listed in subsection (c) does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range”).

The district court’s judgment denying McFadden any relief pursuant to the retroactive amendments is summarily affirmed. *See*8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

1

. The Honorable William R. Wilson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2743
WILLIE J. DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Tommy E. Miller, Magistrate Judge. (CA-96-285) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie J. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. John R. Crumpler, Jr., KAUFMAN & CANOLES, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order entering judgment in favor of the United States in Davis’s maritime personal injury action after a bench trial. On appeal, Davis seeks a new trial butdoes not make any specific allegations of error below by the district court. Davis did not move for a new trial after the district court entered judgment. We therefore decline to consider Davis'srequest for a new trial because plain error or a fundamental miscarriage of justice is not apparent from the record. See Muth v. United States , 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 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.

AFFIRMED
#### Jeffrey H. BECK, Liquidating Trustee of the Estates of Crown Vantage, Inc. and Crown Paper Company, petitioner, v. PACE INTERNATIONAL UNION, et al.

No. 05-1448.

Jan. 19, 2007.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted.
**Exhibit 32.1**
**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
     I, Billy F. Mitcham, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of Mitcham Industries, Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certify that the accompanying Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended January 31, 2005(the “Report”), filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereofpursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 fully complies with therequirements of that section.
     I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Date: June 8, 2005      /s/ Billy F. Mitcham, Jr.
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK

#### D. R. Poston v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co.

May 1, 1979

Case No. (Law) L-79-50

By JUDGE EDWARD L. RYAN, JR.

Defendant says that the more convenient forum is the locality in North Carolina where the casualty occurred. Under Code § 8.01-265 a pending action may be transferred to another Virginia forum, but there may *not*be transfer if the more convenient forum is a jurisdiction other than in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Defendant adds that this classification violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and to retain jurisdiction in this court would be unreasonable and therefore offensive to traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The General Assembly cannot empower or authorize a Virginia court to transfer a cause of action to the courts of another state. Denial of a right cannot be claimed if the supposed right cannot be granted.

But defendant says that the unfairness of trial in this court may be cured by dismissing the pending action and inviting plaintiff to proceed in a North Carolina court having jurisdiction; however, any discomfort caused defendant is not the result of any State action but is an exercise of plaintiff’s free choice of forum in a transitory cause of action.

The basic claim of unfairness may be reduced to the fact that an alleged North Carolina joint tortfeasor cannot be joined in this action as a third-party defen*549dant. The present defendant may cure this by giving prompt notice that it will later seek redress in a North Carolina court, if the result here is unfavorable to it.

The general rule is that equal protection of the laws is not denied if the course of procedure would be applied to any other person in this state under similar circumstances and procedures. 16 Am. Jur. 2d, *Constitutional Law,*§ 533.

Finally, a state may adopt those policies and procedures of forum non conveniens that it deems advisable.

> According to its own notions of procedural policy, a State may reject, as it may accept, the doctrine for all causes of action begun in its court. *Ex rel. Southern R. Co.*v. *Mayfield,*340 U.S. 1 (1950).

See also 20 Am. Jur. 2d, *Courts,*§ 172, 173 (fn. 4).
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, WILSONS THE LEATHER EXPERTS INC.
I, Peter G. Michielutti, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer andChief Operating Officer, Wilsons The Leather Experts Inc., certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Wilsons TheLeather Experts Inc.  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this quarterly report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this quarterly report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:
 a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this quarterlyreport is being prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisquarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the periodcovered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   December 9, 2004 /s/ Peter G. Michielutti   Peter G. Michielutti Executive Vice President,Chief Financial Officer andChief Operating Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS FOUND ON PAGES F-1 AND
F-2 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         308,565
<SECURITIES>                                   243,035
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,603,840
<ALLOWANCES>                                    40,000
<INVENTORY>                                 18,776,758
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,968,644
<PP&E>                                       5,437,544
<DEPRECIATION>                                 873,548
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,532,640
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,553,015
<BONDS>                                      2,464,385
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        86,018
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,429,222
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,532,640
<SALES>                                     39,018,904
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            39,018,904
<CGS>                                       29,487,983
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               29,487,983
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,799,235
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                20,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             576,224
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,346,055
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,980,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,366,055
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,366,055
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40<F1>
<FN>
<F1>** Diluted EPS includes addback of after-tax effect of interest expense 
for convertible debentures.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>



                                  Exhibit 32(b)


                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350 Certification

           I hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that the accompanying Form 10-KSB of Cecil Bancorp, Inc. ("Bancorp") for
the annual period ended December 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or 78o(d)); and that the information contained in this Form 10-KSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Bancorp.


By: /s/ R. Lee Whitehead                                      March 24, 2006
   ---------------------------------------------------       -----------------
   R. Lee Whitehead                                               Date
   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
   (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 46043]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21318]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE:  Wednesday, October 11, 2017, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

PLACE:  Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East-West Highway, 
Bethesda, MD.

STATUS:  Commission Meeting--Open to the Public

Matter To Be Considered:  Briefing Matters: (1) Revision to the Notice 
of Requirements (NOR) for Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care 
Articles Containing Specified Phthalates--Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking; (2) Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care Articles 
Containing Specified Phthalates--Final Rule
    A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at https://www.cpsc.gov/live.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  Rockelle Hammond, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: September 29, 2017.
Alberta E. Mills,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-21318 Filed 9-29-17; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
AMENDMENT TO FINANCIAL ADVISORY AGREEMENT
                    DATED NOVEMBER 20, 1997

Whereas,  M.S. Farrell & Co., Inc. ("MSF") and Software  Publishing  Corporation
Holdings,   Inc.,   its   affiliates,   successors,   subsidiaries   or  assigns
(collectively,  the "Company") desire to modify the Financial Advisory Agreement
between them dated November 20, 1997 (the "Agreement"), the parties hereby agree
as follows:

1. MSF shall  represent  the Company,  at such mutually  convenient  time as the
parties agree, at one or more Regional  Investment Banker  Association  ("RIBA")
capital  conferences as the Company's  investment  banking sponsor.  As such MSF
shall advise the Company on its format, presentation, and slides or accompanying
materials, to the extent applicable.

2. MSF shall advise the Company on a non-exclusive basis regarding future merger
and  acquisition  proposals and proposed  transactions to be entered into by the
Company.

3. MSF shall,  at such  appropriate  time as  mutually  agreed to by the parties
hereto,  introduce the Company to higher tier investment  banks than MSF for the
purpose of raising capital and/or investment banking services.

4.  At  the  execution  of,  and  in  consideration   of,  this  amendment ("the
"Amendment")  the  Company  shall  forthwith  adjust the  Warrants  and  Options
(previously  defined in the  Agreement) to an exercise price equal to the lesser
of: a) $1.27  per  share,  or b) 120% per  share of the  price of any  shares of
common  stock or imputed  price of any shares of common  stock  included  in any
units  (without  attributing  any value to any  warrant or any other  derivative
security included in any unit), as applicable of the Company sold by the Company
to a  source  introduced  to the  Company  by MSF  within  the  next 12  months;
provided, however, that the exercise price per share of the Warrants and Options
shall not in any event be less than $1.06,  nor more than $1.27.  The expiration
date of the Warrants and Options shall be extended to August 20, 2002.

Software Publishing Corporation Holdings., Inc.

By: /s/ Mark E. Leininger                                         Date  1/28/98
       Mark E. Leininger, Vice President and Chief Operating Officer


 M.S. Farrell & Co., Inc.

By: /s/ Martin Schacker                                           Date  1/28/98
      Martin Schacker, Chairman