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

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-11,944-12

EX PARTE ANTHONY EUGENE ROBINSON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 970258 IN THE 147 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

assault and sentenced to thirty-five years’ imprisonment. The Third Court of Appeals affirmed his

conviction. Robinson v. State, No. 03-97-00215-CR (Tex. App. – Austin, January 29, 1998, pet.

ref’d.).

In the instant application, Applicant contends in his first and third grounds for review that

he is actually innocent and is entitled to an expunction of his conviction. In his second ground for
2

review, Applicant contends that he is being improperly denied release to parole. 

This Court has reviewed Applicant's first and third grounds for review and has determined

that they are barred from review under Article 11.07, Section 4 of the Texas Code of Criminal

Procedure. Therefore, those claims are dismissed. Applicant's remaining claim concerning the

denial of parole is without merit; thus, it is denied. 

Filed: October 22, 2014

Do not publish
[No. 67009-3-I.

Division One.

November 13, 2012.]

#### Debra Stewart, *Appellant,*v. Griffith Industries, Inc., et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 08-2-09845-1, Kimberley Prochnau, J., entered March 15, 2011. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per

Lau, J.,

concurred in by Schindler and Verellen, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1



                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
           As adopted to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


I, E. Gerald Kay, the Chief Executive Officer of Integrated BioPharma,  Inc.
(the "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly
         period ended March 31, 2005 (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. 78m or 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.



Date:   May 16,  2005          By: /s/ E. Gerald Kay
                               ---------------------
                               E. Gerald Kay
                               Chief Executive Officer
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-18-00238-CV

U-HAUL CO. OF TEXAS,

Appellant

v.

STEVEN SUMMERS, JR.,

Appellee

From the 85th District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-002178-CV-85

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, U-Haul Co. of Texas, appealed the trial court’s final judgment rendered 

against it. It has now filed an Agreed Motion to Dismiss Appeal Pursuant to Settlement 

and requests the Court to dismiss the appeal, order the release of the supersedeas bond 

that was filed below, and order costs be borne by the party that incurred them.

Appellant’s motion is granted. This appeal is dismissed, the supersedeas bond 

filed below is ordered released, and costs are taxed against the party incurring same. See
U-Haul Co. v. Summers Page 2

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a); 43.4.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed November 27, 2019

[CV06]
Exhibit 32

      Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
                   Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Annual  Report of Equus Gaming Company L.P. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the
year  ended  December  31,  2001  (the  "Report"),  I,  Thomas  B. Wilson, Chief
Executive  Officer  and  Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  Sec.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to Sec. 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,  as  amended; 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/ Thomas B. Wilson
-----------------------
Thomas B. Wilson, Chief
Executive Officer and Acting
Chief Financial Officer

October 14, 2004


<PAGE>
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  RG  America,  Inc.,  a  Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission (the  "Report"),  Bruce A.
Hall, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify,  pursuant
to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to his
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 results of operations of the Company.


/s/ Bruce A. Hall
---------------------------
Bruce A. Hall
Principal Financial Officer
May 23, 2005

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

                                       27
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ronald HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-11221

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 19, 2011.

Leigha Amy Simonton, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, Shawn Lee Smith, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, William Ernest Hermesmeyer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Ronald Hernandez raises arguments that are foreclosed by *United States v. Betancourt,*586 F.3d 303, 308-09 (5th Cir. 2009), *cert. denied,*-U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 1920, 176 L.Ed.2d 390 (2010), which reaffirmed the holding in *United States v. Gamez-Gonzalez,*319 F.3d 695, 700 (5th Cir.2003), that knowledge of drug type and quantity is not an element of the offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841. He also raises arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by *United States v. Brown,*920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir.1991), *abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Candia,*454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir.2006), which held that a district court may order a term of imprisonment to run consecutively with an unimposed state sentence. Finally, Hernandez raises arguments that he acknowledges are foreclosed by *United States v. London,*568 F.3d 553, 564 (5th Cir.2009), *cert. denied,*—U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 631, 178 L.Ed.2d 507 (2010). The Supreme Court adopted the position advanced in *London. See Abbott v. United States,*—U.S.-,-, 131 S.Ct. 18, 23, 178 L.Ed.2d 348 (2010) (holding that a defendant is subject to a mandatory, consecutive sentence for a conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) even if the defendant received a higher mandatory minimum on a different count of conviction).

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pui'suant to 5th Cm. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit
      32.1




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED**


**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




Certification
      of CEO




The
      undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof: (i)
      the
      foregoing Annual Report on Form 10-KSB filed by KH Funding Company (the
      "Issuer") for the year ended December 31, 2006, fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) the information contained in that Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the period presented
      therein.


Dated:
                April 6, 2007
            
            
            /s/
                Robert L. HarrisRobert
                L. HarrisPresident
                and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3386 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3386

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 16, 2009

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 1165 2nd Avenue in Des Moines, Iowa, as the ``Iraq and Afghanistan 
                    Veterans Memorial Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS MEMORIAL POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1165 2nd Avenue in Des Moines, Iowa, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Memorial Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Iraq and 
Afghanistan Veterans Memorial Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 15, 2009.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                  FORM 10-QSB/A

       QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
                              EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED September 30, 2001
                 Securities and Exchange Commission File Number
                                    000-26369


                         REALITY WIRELESS NETWORKS, INC.
                         -------------------------------
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

                  Nevada                                      88-0422026
                  ------                                      ----------
     (State or other jurisdiction of                       (I.R.S. Employer
      incorporation or organization)                    Identification Number)

           #120 W. Campbell Ave., Suite E, Campbell, California 95008
           ----------------------------------------------------------
          (Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)

                                 (408) 379-3822
                                 --------------
              (Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code)



         Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such
requirements for the past 90 days.

                             YES  [X]         NO  [ ]

The number of issued and outstanding shares of the Registrants Common Stock,
$0.001 par value, as of September 30, 2001, was 26,632,653.




<PAGE>
PART I - Financial Information

Item 1.  Financial Statements:

The following have been reviewed by Reality Wireless Networks, Inc.'s auditors,
Malone & Bailey, PLLC:

         Consolidated Balance Sheets as at September 30, 2001 and
         December 31, 2000;

         Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three months and nine
         months ended September 30, 2001 and September 30, 2000; and

         Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the nine months ended
         September 30, 2001 and September 30, 2000


                                   SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.



                         REALITY WIRELESS NETWORKS, INC.
                         -------------------------------
                              (Name of Registrant)



Date:  April 1, 2002                By: /s/ Victor Romero
                                        -----------------------------
                                        Victor Romero, President
                                        and Chief Operations Officer






                                       2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6086
MARK WHITE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. N. ROBERTSON, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-98-492-2) Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 31, 1999 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark White, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Mark White appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. The district court assessed a filing fee in accordance with Evans v. Croom , 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied , 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and dismissed the case without prejudice when Appellant failed to comply with the fee order. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the district court’s order. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          36,227
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,447
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,521
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,367
<PP&E>                                           3,249
<DEPRECIATION>                                     630
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,044
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,028
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,871
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,044
<SALES>                                          2,601
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,601
<CGS>                                              795
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      795
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,922
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  55
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (577)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (577)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (577)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
#### Darryl Gaiter et al., Appellants, v City of Buffalo Board of Education et al., Respondents.

[987 NYS2d 921]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Timothy J. Drury, J.), entered February 4, 2013 in a personal injury action. The order awarded plaintiffs monetary damages.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

*1508Memorandum: On appeal from an order entered after a nonjury trial, plaintiffs contend that the verdict sheet failed to include an award for past medical expenses despite a stipulation of the parties to the inclusion of such an award in a specified amount. We are unable to determine the merits of plaintiffs’ contention inasmuch as the 28-page record on appeal does not contain sufficient information to enable us to determine whether there was an enforceable stipulation and, if so, whether plaintiffs requested that the verdict sheet contain the alleged stipulated sum for past medical expenses. Plaintiffs, as the appellants, must suffer the consequences of having submitted an incomplete record *(see Matter of Rodriguez v Ward,*43 AD3d 640, 641 [2007]).

Present—Smith, J.P, Fahey, Peradotto and Valentino, JJ.
#### Lynette M. HENRY, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2009-7111.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 25, 2011.

*976Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves without opposition to vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and to remand for further proceedings.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Veterans Claims more than 120 days after the Board of Veterans’ Appeals mailed its decision in her case. That court dismissed the appeal as untimely, concluding that the 120-day appeal period established by 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) for seeking review of Board of Veterans’ Appeals decisions is jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling. The appellant sought this court’s review.

This court stayed the briefing schedule in this appeal pending the United States Supreme Court’s review of our decision in *Henderson v. Shinseki,*589 F.3d 1201 (Fed.Cir.2009) (en banc) (affirming Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims determination that period to appeal to that court is not subject to equitable tolling). In *Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki,*— U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011), the Supreme Court reversed this court’s decision and concluded that the 120-day deadline for filing an appeal with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims does not have jurisdictional consequences. Because the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims erred in concluding that the appeal deadline established by § 7266(a) is jurisdictional, we vacate the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The motion is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

(2) All sides shall bear their own costs.
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2950 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to allow for prepayment of repayment contracts between the United States 

and the Uintah Water Conservancy District. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2950 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. PREPAYMENT OF CERTAIN REPAYMENT CON2 TRACTS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND 

3 THE UINTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DIS4 TRICT. 

5 The Secretary of the Interior shall allow for prepay6 ment of the repayment contract no. 6–05–01–00143 be7 tween the United States and the Uintah Water Conser8 vancy District dated June 3, 1976, and supplemented and 

9 amended on November 1, 1985, and on December 30, 

10 1992, providing for repayment of municipal and industrial 

11 water delivery facilities for which repayment is provided 

12 pursuant to such contract, under terms and conditions 

13 similar to those used in implementing section 210 of the 

14 Central Utah Project Completion Act (Public Law 102– 

15 575), as amended. The prepayment— 

16 (1) shall result in the United States recovering 

17 the net present value of all repayment streams that 

18 would have been payable to the United States if this 

19 Act was not in effect; 

20 (2) may be provided in several installments to 

21 reflect substantial completion of the delivery facili22 ties being prepaid, and any increase in the repay23 ment obligation resulting from delivery of water in 

24 addition to the water being delivered under this con25 tract as of the date of enactment of this Act; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 2950 RFS 

1 (3) shall be adjusted to conform to a final cost 

2 allocation including costs incurred by the Bureau of 

3 Reclamation, but unallocated as of the date of the 

4 enactment of this Act that are allocable to the water 

5 delivered under this contract; 

6 (4) may not be adjusted on the basis of the 

7 type of prepayment financing used by the District; 

8 and 

9 (5) shall be made such that total repayment is 

10 made not later than September 30, 2019. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 29, 

2009. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4. 1

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-07-415-CV

JANICE CIMINO APPELLANT

V.

ANTHONY C.J. CIMINO APPELLEE

----------

FROM THE 211 DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY TH

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT 1

----------

We have considered “Appellant’s Voluntary Motion To Dismiss Appeal.”

It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we

dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution

issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL D: MCCOY, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J.

DELIVERED: March 13, 2008