alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00372-CR

Ricardo CORONADO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR8371

Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 3, 2016

APPEAL DISMISSED

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Ricardo Coronado pleaded guilty to the 

offense of indecency with a child-contact. As part of his plea-bargain, appellant signed a separate 

“Waiver of Appeal.” The trial court imposed sentence and signed a certificate stating that this “is 

a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” and “the defendant has waived the 

right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). After appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, 

the clerk sent copies of the certification and notice of appeal to this court. See TEX. R. APP. P.
04-16-00632-CR

- 2 -

25.2(e). The clerk’s record, which includes the plea bargain agreement and the trial court’s Rule 

25.2(a)(2) certification, has been filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). 

The clerk’s record establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the 

punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record also does not indicate the trial court gave appellant permission to 

appeal. After reviewing the clerk’s record, the trial court’s certification therefore appears to 

accurately reflect that this is a plea bargain case and appellant does not have a right to appeal. See 

Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court of appeals should 

review clerk’s record to determine whether trial court’s certification is accurate). This court must 

dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been 

made part of the record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

On June 22, 2016, we gave appellant notice that the appeal would be dismissed unless 

written consent to appeal and an amended certification showing appellant has the right to appeal 

were signed by the trial judge and made part of the appellate record by July 22, 2016. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order), 

disp. on merits, No. 04-03-00176-CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 2, 2003, 

pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication). Neither written permission to appeal nor an amended 

certification showing appellant has the right to appeal has been filed. We therefore dismiss this 

appeal. 

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2992 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2992

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the use of 
             public funds for political party conventions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 23, 2009

Mr. Cole (for himself and Mr. Jordan of Ohio) introduced the following 
   bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the use of 
             public funds for political party conventions.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITING USE OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUNDS FOR 
              PARTY CONVENTIONS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 95 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
amended by striking section 9008.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections of chapter 95 of 
such Code is amended by striking the item relating to section 9008.

SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

    (a) Availability of Payments to Candidates.--The third sentence of 
section 9006(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
striking ``, section 9008(b)(3),''.
    (b) Reports by Federal Election Commission.--Section 9009(a) of 
such Code is amended--
            (1) by adding ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
            (2) by striking the semicolon at the end of paragraph (3) 
        and inserting a period; and
            (3) by striking paragraphs (4), (5), and (6).
    (c) Penalties.--Section 9012 of such Code is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking the second sentence; 
        and
            (2) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (2) and 
        redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
    (d) Availability of Payments From Presidential Primary Matching 
Payment Account.--The second sentence of section 9037(a) of such Code 
is amended by striking ``and for payments under section 9008(b)(3)''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to 
elections occurring after December 31, 2009.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                         190,921
<SECURITIES>                                    17,705
<RECEIVABLES>                                      870
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               125,737
<PP&E>                                         939,780
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,257
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,195,449
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,236
<BONDS>                                        970,932
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           300
<OTHER-SE>                                     160,108
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,195,449
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,828
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                49,226
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             113,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,097)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,097)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (94,911)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (112,008)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.73)
        

</TABLE>
#### Jennifer Galvin, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 91067.)

[666 NYS2d 673]

—In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from *419a judgment of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), dated October 8, 1996, which, after a nonjury trial on the issue of liability, granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The claimant, Jennifer Galvin, was injured when the car in which she was a passenger went out of control due to the icy condition of the road and swerved onto the shoulder and down an embankment, stopping when the passenger side of the car hit a tree. Galvin’s claim against the State was predicated upon the State’s alleged failure to replace, at the location of the accident, a guardrail which had been removed several years earlier according to a highway safety plan.

It is well established that the State is required to maintain its roads and highways in a reasonably safe condition (see, *Freidman v State of New York,*67 NY2d 271, 283). This duty extends to furnishing safe guardrails (see, *Lattanzi v State of New York,*53 NY2d 1045; *see also, Kissinger v State of New York,*126 AD2d 139). Pursuant to the qualified immunity doctrine set forth in the seminal case of *Weiss v Fote*(7 NY2d 579), however, “liability for injury arising out of the operation of a duly executed highway safety plan may only be predicated on proof that the plan either was evolved without adequate study or lacked reasonable basis” *(Weiss v Fote, supra,*at 589).

The claimant failed to prove that the plan evolved without adequate study. Moreover, we cannot agree with the claimant’s contention that the State’s failure to replace the guardrail in question was inherently unreasonable. The record indicates that there were no prior accidents at the location of the instant accident. Further, there was no evidence presented as to the precise location of the original guardrail, which was removed five years before the accident, nor was there evidence as to the precise location where the claimant’s car left the road. Therefore, there was no basis for the court to determine whether the replacement of the guardrail in its previous location would have prevented or reduced the plaintiffs injuries.

In any event, contrary to the claimant’s contention, the credible evidence indicated that the shoulder and the slope of the embankment over which the car traveled once it left the roadway did not, according to State guidelines, require a guardrail. Under the circumstances, and in light of the evidence that there was no history of accidents in the immediate vicinity, the State’s discretionary determination not to replace the guardrail was reasonable *(see, Kissinger v State of New York, supra,*at 143). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 12, 2013

NO. 03-13-00151-CV

S. H., Appellant

v.

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error requiring reversal in the trial 

court’s decree of termination: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that the 

trial court’s decree of termination is in all things affirmed. It FURTHER appearing to the Court 

that appellant has filed an affidavit of inability to pay costs, it is FURTHER ordered that no 

costs of appeal be assessed against appellant; and that this decision be certified below 

for observance.
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**CHIEF
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER**




I,
      Gary
      Herman, certify that:





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Digital Creative Development Corporation
      (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2008
      (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.





Date:
      November 19, 2008


/s/
                Gary HermanGary
                HermanPresident







**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICER**




I,
      Vincent De Lorenzo, certify that:





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Digital Creative Development
      Corporation. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September
      30, 2008 (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company, certifies,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.





Date:
      November 19, 2008


/s/
                Vincent De LorenzoVincent
                De LorenzoChief
                Financial Officer
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed October 18, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-204

Lower Tribunal No. 21-31046 CC

________________

Seduction Cosmetic Center Corp.,

Appellant,

vs.

Von Dunbar,

Appellee.

An appeal from a non-final order from the County Court for Miami-Dade 

County, Patricia Marino Pedraza, Judge.

Lalchandani Simon PL, Kubs Lalchandani, and Daniel E. Davis, for 

appellant.

Feinstein & Mendez, P.A., Claudia Cobreiro, and Jessika Interian, for 

appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES, and MILLER, JJ. 

MILLER, J.
2

Appellant appeals from an order denying a motion to compel the 

arbitration of a dispute over the return of monies advanced for surgical 

services. In the proceedings below, appellee contended no services were 

provided, as was necessary to trigger the application of the parties’ 

arbitration clause. Appellant sharply disputed this assertion and alternatively 

argued that, even if services were not provided, the dispute fell within the 

ambit of the clause. The trial court resolved the disputed facts in favor of 

appellee and denied the motion. Drawing upon well-settled precedent, we 

conclude that the court should have, at a minimum, conducted an evidentiary 

hearing to resolve the parties’ competing contentions. See Tandem Health 

Care of St. Petersburg, Inc. v. Whitney, 897 So. 2d 531, 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 

2005) (“[W]here the facts relating to the elements the trial court is required 

to consider in determining a motion to compel arbitration are disputed, the 

trial court is required to hold an evidentiary hearing in order to resolve the 

matter.”); Epstein v. Precision Response Corp., 883 So. 2d 377, 379 (Fla. 

4th DCA 2004) (“[T]he facts supporting the issues of arbitration were 

disputed and the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing to 

resolve them.”); Est. of Blanchard ex rel. Blanchard v. Cent. Park Lodges 

(Tarpon Springs), Inc., 805 So. 2d 6, 9–10 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (reversing 

trial court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration without first holding 
3

evidentiary hearing). We therefore reverse and remand for further 

proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted
Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Vincent C. Smith, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly Report of Quest Software, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Quest Software, Inc.



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                       |  |  | 
|Date: December 7, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Vincent C. Smith
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Name:                |  | Vincent C. Smith,      
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Title:               |  | Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
  
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         92,008
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  263,603
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,059,619
<PP&E>                                         50,502
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,091,397
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,505,534
<BONDS>                                        1,336,196
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,249,667
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,091,397
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               104,432
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               76,122
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                28,310
<INCOME-TAX>                                   14,519
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            13,791
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   13,791
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2
**CERTIFICATION**
  I, Joseph R. Sandoval, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of R&G FinancialCorporation; 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 thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe 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 (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: August 9, 2004 /s/ JOSEPH R. SANDOVALJoseph R. SandovalChief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AS OF AND
FOR THE TWENTY-SIX WEEK PERIOD ENDED JUNE 28, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1997
<CASH>                                         111,646
<SECURITIES>                                 1,244,140
<RECEIVABLES>                                  473,811
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (42,363)
<INVENTORY>                                    301,809
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,797,488
<PP&E>                                      12,263,866
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,293,351)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,269,593
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          921,054
<BONDS>                                         57,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        46,675
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,097,726
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,269,593
<SALES>                                      9,004,747
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,293,817
<CGS>                                        2,870,752
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,615,987
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                14,163
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (95,285)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                758,952
<INCOME-TAX>                                   291,437
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            467,515
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                    (129,041)
<NET-INCOME>                                   338,474
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
        

</TABLE>