alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismissed and Opinion Filed November 27, 2019.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 01408

- CR

FREDERICK MITCHELL , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F18

- 56989

- I


### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Evans Opinion by Justice Molberg Frederick Mitchell pleaded guilty to possession of le ss than one gram of methamphetamine, and the trial court placed him on deferred adjudication for three years. In September 2019, the

State filed a motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt, alleging appellant had violated

numerous terms and conditio ns of his probation. On September 20, 2019 , the trial court continued appellant on probation, modifying the terms to include participation in a treatment program

. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on October 29, 2019. As a general rule, an appellate cou rt may consider appeals by criminal defendants only

after conviction. Wright v. State , 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1998, no pet.). With regard to deferred adjudication, the Legislature has authorized appeal of only two types of orders:
(1) an or der granting deferred adjudication, and (2) an order imposing punishment pursuant to an– 2

–

adjudication of guilt. Davis v. State , 195 S.W.3d 708, 711 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Orders modifying the terms or conditions of deferred adjudication are not in themse lves appealable. Id

. Here, there is no judgment of conviction. Rather, the trial court continued appellant on probation . W e do not have jurisdiction over an order continuing a defendant on community supervision

. See id

. We dismiss th is appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b)

191408f.u /Ken Molberg// KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE– 3

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

FREDERICK MITCHELL, Appellant

No. 05

- 19

- 01408

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F18

- 56989

- I. Opinion delivered by Justice Molberg, Justices Reichek and Evans participating. Based on the Court’s opinio n of this date, we DISMISS this appeal.

Judgment entered this 27 th day of November, 2019.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

March 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129880 & (67) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED

AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & 

AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS 

OF AMERICA and UNITED BROADCASTING 

NETWORK, INC.,

Plaintiffs/CounterdefendantsAppellants, 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129880 

 COA: 248412 

Washtenaw CC: 97-008442-CB 

HELEN DORSEY, PAT CHOATE, and

EDWARD A. MILLER,

Defendants/Counterplaintiffs/ThirdParty Plaintiffs-Appellees,

and 

KAY CASEY,

 Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, 

and 

DANIEL SHERRICK, ROY WYSE, and JOYCE 

FRANK, 

Third-Party Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for admittance pro hac vice is GRANTED. The 

application for leave to appeal the October 4, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is 

considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, for the 

reasons stated in the partial dissent in the Court of Appeals, we REVERSE that part of 

the Court of Appeals opinion that granted a new trial, and REMAND this case to the 

Court of Appeals for consideration of the issues defendants raised in their motion for new 

trial that the Court of Appeals did not reach. Should the Court of Appeals affirm the 

circuit court’s denial of defendants’ motion for new trial, it shall reinstate mediation 

sanctions. 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

s0322 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

March 29, 2006 

Clerk
Exhibit 15.2
  [BDO Auditores S.L. letterhead]


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-187533, 333-102288 and 333-92491)  pertaining to the Employee Stock Option plans of Ellomay Capital Ltd. (the “Company”) and Form F-3 (File Nos. 333-199696 and 333-144171) of the Company of our report dated April 29, 2015 and our report dated March 31, 2014 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Ellomay Spain S.L. included in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2014.
 /s/ BDO Auditores S.L.
  BDO Auditores S.L.
  Certified Public Accountants
  Madrid, Spain
 April 29, 2015
§ 212.90 What actions must I take to control the distribution of PET drug products? ( a ) *Written distribution procedures.* You must establish, maintain, and follow written procedures for the control of distribution of PET drug products shipped from the PET drug production facility to ensure that the method of shipping chosen will not adversely affect the identity, purity, or quality of the PET drug product.
( b ) *Distribution records.* You must maintain distribution records for each PET drug product that include or refer to the following: ( 1 ) The name, address, and telephone number of the receiving facility that received each batch of a PET drug product;
( 2 ) The name and quantity of the PET drug product shipped;
( 3 ) The lot number, control number, or batch number for the PET drug product shipped; and
( 4 ) The date and time you shipped the PET drug product.
38631.

#### RIDER v. THE STATE.

Townsend, Presiding Judge.

1. The pertinent facts of this case are briefly as follows. The defendant was indicted at the March, 1959, term of the Superior Court of Lumpkin County, at which term there were jurors impaneled and qualified to try him, and filed his demand for trial during that term. At the next or September, 1959, term he was placed on trial and a mistrial was declared. The date of the mistrial is not shown, but the bill of exceptions recites that the term was adjourned by operation of law five days prior to the March, 1960, term of court. The defendant subsequently moved for a dismissal of the case on the ground that he had not been *185tried at the term of his demand or the next subsequent term in accordance with his demand under *Code-*§ 27-1901 and was therefore entitled to an acquittal. The overruling of this motion is assigned as error.

Decided February 22, 1961.

2. The mistrial was not a “trial” within the meaning of the Code provision, and the defendant was accordingly entitled to be again tried during the term or released at its end. *Geiger v. State,*25 Ga. 667.

An exception to the demand statute is recognized ini the *Geiger*case if the mistrial is the result of inevitable accident such as the death of the judge or a juror. Also such an exception is recognized in *Brown v. State,*85 Ga. 713, 716 (11 S. E. 831). However, both of those Supreme Court cases, which of course are binding on this court unless the language to that effect constitutes obiter which is not binding on any court, were already decided at the time of *Nix v. State,*5 Ga. App. 835 (63 S. E. 926). In that case this court held the exception recognized in *Geiger*and *Brown,*supra, to be obiter and stated that *Code*§ 27-1901 confers a right upon the defendant, in aid of the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial, which does not admit of an implied exception. A re-examination of those decisions shows that the exception indicated in the *Geiger*case did not occur there and the statement was not necessary to a decision of the case. Also in the *Brown*case the exception there recognized of the trial continuing until the end of the term by operation of law was obiter as to the facts of that case. The holding in the *Nix*case that those decisions are obiter and not binding is therefore conclusive on this court unless overruled.

Since the purpose of the demand statute is to secure to defendants in criminal cases their rights guaranteed by Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of our Constitution to a speedy and public trial, the courts should seek to uphold rather than, whittle away by judicial construction this and other provisions of our Bill of Rights, which secure to us the guarantees of freedom upon which this country is founded.

The trial court erred in overruling the motion to discharge and acquit the defendant.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Carlisle, Frankum and Jordan, JJ., conmr.*

*186
      *Herbert Edmondson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Jeff C. Wayne, Solicitor-General, Sidney 0. Smith, Jr.,*contra.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-11076

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARMANDO MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ, also known as Natanael Ramirez-Rios,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:17-CR-451-14

Before HIGGINSON, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Armando Martinez-Martinez has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Martinez-Martinez has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 4, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-11076 Document: 00514982988 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2019
No. 18-11076

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 18-11076 Document: 00514982988 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2019
**Exhibit 32.1**
WESTCORP
CERTIFICATION OF CEO
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Westcorp (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, to the best of hisknowledge and belief and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Chapter 63, Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operationsof the Company.
The foregoing Certification is furnished solely for purposes of complying withthe provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and is not intended tobe used for any other purpose.     **WESTCORP**      /S/ ERNEST S. RADY     Ernest S. Rady  Chairman of the Board and  Chief Executive Officer      Date: May 4, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,178
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,548
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,005
<INVENTORY>                                        550
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,492
<PP&E>                                          69,406
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,392
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  74,473
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,103
<BONDS>                                          7,615
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           15,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            65
<OTHER-SE>                                          36
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    74,473
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                93,861
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   90,127
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,621
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,407
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,407
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,407
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.36)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7385 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7385

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 23, 2024

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 29 Franklin Street in Petersburg, Virginia, as the ``John Mercer 
                    Langston Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. JOHN MERCER LANGSTON POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 29 Franklin Street in Petersburg, Virginia, shall be known 
and designated as the ``John Mercer Langston Post Office Building''.
    (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 ``John 
Mercer Langston Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 22, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1007 

To prevent a severe reduction in the Federal medical assistance percentage 

determined for a State for fiscal year 2006. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 11, 2005 

Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mrs. 

HUTCHISON, Mr. REID, and Mr. JEFFORDS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To prevent a severe reduction in the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for a State for fiscal year 

2006. 

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 ‘‘Medicaid Formula 

5 Fairness Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•S 1007 IS 

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON SEVERE REDUCTION IN THE MED2 ICAID FMAP FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006. 

3 (a) LIMITATION ON REDUCTION.—In no case shall 

4 the FMAP for a State for fiscal year 2006 be less than 

5 the greater of the following: 

6 (1) HALF PERCENTAGE POINT DECREASE.— 

7 The FMAP determined for the State for fiscal year 

8 2005, decreased by 0.5 percentage points. 

9 (2) COMPUTATION WITHOUT RETROACTIVE AP10 PLICATION OF REBENCHMARKED PER CAPITA IN11 COME.—The FMAP that would have been deter12 mined for the State for fiscal year 2006 if the per 

13 capita incomes for 2001 and 2002 that was used to 

14 determine the FMAP for the State for fiscal year 

15 2005 were used. 

16 (b) SCOPE OF APPLICATION.—The FMAP applicable 

17 to a State for fiscal year 2006 after the application of 

18 subsection (a) shall apply only for purposes of titles XIX 

19 and XXI of the Social Security Act (including for purposes 

20 of making disproportionate share hospital payments de21 scribed in section 1923 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r– 

22 4) and payments under such titles that are based on the 

23 enhanced FMAP described in section 2105(b) of such Act 

24 (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(b))) and shall not apply with respect 

25 to payments under title IV of such Act (42 U.S.C. 601 

26 et seq.). 
3 

•S 1007 IS 

1 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

2 (1) FMAP.—The term ‘‘FMAP’’ means the 

3 Federal medical assistance percentage, as defined in 

4 section 1905(b) of the Social Security Act (42 

5 U.S.C. 1396d(b)). 

6 (2) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ has the mean7 ing given such term for purposes of title XIX of the 

8 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.). 

9 SEC. 3. REPEAL. 

10 Effective as of October 1, 2006, section 2 is repealed 

11 and shall not apply to any fiscal year after fiscal year 

12 2006. 

Æ
§ 211.65 Equipment construction. ( a ) Equipment shall be constructed so that surfaces that contact components, in-process materials, or drug products shall not be reactive, additive, or absorptive so as to alter the safety, identity, strength, quality, or purity of the drug product beyond the official or other established requirements.
( b ) Any substances required for operation, such as lubricants or coolants, shall not come into contact with components, drug product containers, closures, in-process materials, or drug products so as to alter the safety, identity, strength, quality, or purity of the drug product beyond the official or other established requirements.
#### § 26.35 Length and purpose of transition period.

There will be a 3-year transition period immediately following the date described in § 26.80(a). During the transition period, the parties will engage in confidence-building activities for the purpose of obtaining sufficient evidence to make determinations concerning the equivalence of conformity assessment bodies (CAB's) of the other party with respect to the ability to perform quality system and product evaluations or other reviews resulting in reports to be exchanged under this subpart.
§ 343.1 Scope. ( a ) An over-the-counter analgesic-antipyretic drug product in a form suitable for oral administration is generally recognized as safe and effective and is not misbranded if it meets each of the conditions in this part in addition to each of the general conditions established in § 330.1 of this chapter.
( b ) References in this part to regulatory sections of the Code of Federal Regulations are to chapter I of title 21 unless otherwise noted.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                                  SUBSIDIARIES
                                       OF

                       CYBEX COMPUTER PRODUCTS CORPORATION

<TABLE>
         <S>                                                           <C>
         Name of Subsidiary                                            State or Country of Organization
         ------------------                                            --------------------------------
         Cybex Europe, Ltd.                                            Ireland

         Cybex International Corporation                               Barbados

         Cybex Computertechnik, GmbH                                   Germany

         Elsner Computertechnik, GmbH                                  Germany

         PolyCon Data Systems, GmbH                                    Germany

         PolyCon Investments, Inc.
            d/b/a Elsner Technologies                                  Texas
</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 178

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 178 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 70 FR 72074, Dec. 1, 2005; and 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

#### § 178.3940 Tetraethylene glycol di-(2-ethylhexoate).

Tetraethylene glycol di-(2-ethylhexoate) containing not more than 22 parts per million ethylene and/or diethylene glycols may be used at a level not to exceed 0.7 percent by weight of twine as a finish on twine to be used for tying meat provided the twine fibers are produced from nylon resins complying with § 177.1500 of this chapter.
#### § 320.63 Retention of bioequivalence samples.

The applicant of an abbreviated application or a supplemental application submitted under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or, if bioequivalence testing was performed under contract, the contract research organization shall retain reserve samples of any test article and reference standard used in conducting an in vivo or in vitro bioequivalence study required for approval of the abbreviated application or supplemental application. The applicant or contract research organization shall retain the reserve samples in accordance with, and for the period specified in, § 320.38 and shall release the reserve samples to FDA upon request in accordance with § 320.38.

[58 FR 25928, Apr. 28, 1993, as amended at 64 FR 402, Jan. 5, 1999]