alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
564 P.2d 78

#### STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Earl Gene MORRIS, Appellant.

No. 3560-PR.

Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc.

April 11, 1977.

Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen., William J. Schafer III, Chief Counsel, Grim. Div., Teresa S. Thayer, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.

Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender, Garth V. Smith, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant.

GORDON, Justice:

Appellant was charged with four counts of first degree burglary and one count of grand theft. Pursuant to an unwritten plea agreement, appellant pled guilty to three counts of first degree burglary. The other charges were dropped. Concurrent sentences of ten to fifteen years for each count were imposed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, 26 Ariz.App. 459, 549 P.2d 239 (1976). The opinion of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

The issue raised on appeal is whether a clear violation of 17 A.R.S. Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 17.4(b)1 suffices to warrant reversal absent an allegation of prejudice to the appellant.

Failure to abide by rule 17.4(b) can require reversal in certain cases. *State v. Lee,*112 Ariz. 283, 541 P.2d 383 (1975). However, in this case, as distinguished from Lee, *supra,*there is no allegation or even suggestion that the terms of appellant’s plea bargain or his constitutional rights were not fully understood by him, or that he was misled thereby or by counsel. Neither is it even suggested that the State did not fulfill its part of the bargain. Appellant received exactly what he knowingly bargained for. Under these circumstances, the mere failure to execute a written plea bargain pursuant to the terms of 17 A.R.S. Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 17.4(b) is non-prejudicial and harmless error.

As appellant’s only contention is that rule 17.4(b) was not complied with, we affirm the judgment of conviction.

CAMERON, C. J., STRUCKMEYER, V. C. J., and HAYS and HOLOHAN, JJ., concur.

1

. “Rule 17.4(b). *Plea Agreement.*The terms of a plea agreement shall be reduced to writing and signed by the defendant, his counsel, if any, and the prosecutor. An agreement may be revoked by any party prior to its acceptance by the court.”
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the special financial report pursuant to Rule 15d-2 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the Report) of National Atlantic Holdings Corporation (the Company), I,
Frank J. Prudente, Executive Vice President  Corporate Finance and Treasurer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: April 27, 2005 /s/ Frank J.Prudente  
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version 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.
# C_2016287EN.01003701.xml

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/37

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 June 2016 — Gyarmathy v EMCDDA

(Case F-22/14) (1)

1

(2016/C 287/45)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 21/7/2014, p. 34.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements for Anaren Microwave, Inc. filed with Form
10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2000 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                    SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                            8,304,735
<SECURITIES>                                    116,286,665
<RECEIVABLES>                                    12,187,828
<ALLOWANCES>                                         55,000
<INVENTORY>                                      15,588,314
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                110,577,556
<PP&E>                                           44,683,426
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (29,047,611)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  197,866,787
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             8,670,995
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                            125,621
<OTHER-SE>                                      158,531,458
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    197,866,787
<SALES>                                          22,223,974
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 22,223,974
<CGS>                                            13,397,703
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    17,947,789
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   40,767
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   6,104,086
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2,123,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               3,981,086
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3,981,086
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0.34



</TABLE>
# C_2014142EN.01001601.xml

| 12.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ‘s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 10 February 2014 — X, interested party: Directeur van het onderdeel Belastingregio Belastingdienst/X van de rijksbelastingdienst

(Case C-72/14)

2014/C 142/21

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Gerechtshof te ‘s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: X

Appellant:

Interested party: Directeur van het onderdeel Belastingregio Belastingdienst/X van de rijksbelastingdienst

Interested party:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | In the Fitzwilliam
   (1) judgment the Court of Justice ruled that an E 101 certificate, issued by the competent institution of a Member State, is binding on the social security institutions of other Member States, even if the content of that certificate is incorrect. Does that decision also apply to cases such as that at issue here, where the designation rules of the Regulation (2) do not apply? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the Fitzwilliam
   (1) judgment the Court of Justice ruled that an E 101 certificate, issued by the competent institution of a Member State, is binding on the social security institutions of other Member States, even if the content of that certificate is incorrect. Does that decision also apply to cases such as that at issue here, where the designation rules of the Regulation (2) do not apply?

Fitzwilliam

1

2

| 2. | Is it significant for the answer to that question that it was not the intention of the competent institution to issue an E 101 certificate, yet for administrative reasons it consciously and deliberately used documents which, judging by their format and content, appear to be E 101 certificates, while the interested party believed, and was also reasonably entitled to believe, that he had received such a certificate? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it significant for the answer to that question that it was not the intention of the competent institution to issue an E 101 certificate, yet for administrative reasons it consciously and deliberately used documents which, judging by their format and content, appear to be E 101 certificates, while the interested party believed, and was also reasonably entitled to believe, that he had received such a certificate?

---

(1)  Case C-202/97 FTS [2000] ECR I-883.

1

FTS

(2)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition, 1971 (II) p. 416).

2

---
#### § 720.3 How and where to file.

Forms FDA 2512 and FDA 2514 (“Discontinuance of Commercial Distribution of Cosmetic Product Formulation”) are obtainable on request from the Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, or at any Food and Drug Administration district office. The completed form should be mailed or delivered to: Cosmetic Product Statement, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, according to the instructions provided with the forms.

[57 FR 3129, Jan. 28, 1992, as amended at 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 81 FR 49897, July 29, 2016]
# C_2014303EN.01001001.xml

| 8.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 21 May 2014 — Thomas Cook Belgium NV v Thurner Hotel GmbH

(Case C-245/14)

2014/C 303/13

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Thomas Cook Belgium NV

Appellant:

Respondent: Thurner Hotel GmbH

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European order for payment procedure (‘Regulation No 1896/2006’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a defendant may apply for a review by the competent court of the European order for payment in accordance with Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006 also where the order for payment was effectively served on him but was issued by a court which lacks jurisdiction on the basis of the information relating to jurisdiction provided in the application form? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European order for payment procedure (‘Regulation No 1896/2006’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a defendant may apply for a review by the competent court of the European order for payment in accordance with Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006 also where the order for payment was effectively served on him but was issued by a court which lacks jurisdiction on the basis of the information relating to jurisdiction provided in the application form?

1

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Do exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006 already exist in accordance with paragraph 25 of European Commission Notice 2004/0055 of 7 February 2006 where the European order for payment was issued on the basis of information provided in the application form which may subsequently prove to be inaccurate, particularly where the jurisdiction of the court depends on that information? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Do exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006 already exist in accordance with paragraph 25 of European Commission Notice 2004/0055 of 7 February 2006 where the European order for payment was issued on the basis of information provided in the application form which may subsequently prove to be inaccurate, particularly where the jurisdiction of the court depends on that information?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.1095 Ascorbic acid test system. ( a ) *Identification.* An ascorbic acid test system is a device intended to measure the level of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) in plasma, serum, and urine. Ascorbic acid measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of ascorbic acid dietary deficiencies.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 862.9.
[52 FR 16122, May 1, 1987, as amended at 65 FR 2305, Jan. 14, 2000]
39205.

39211.

39213.

39215.

#### BANKERS FIDELITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. STEGINS. BANKERS FIDELITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. MORGAN. BANKERS FIDELITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. WATERS. BANKERS FIDELITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. HAGAN.

Decided November 17, 1961

Rehearing denied November 30, 1961.

*Sam F. Lowe, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*L. H. Hilton, Hilton & Hilton,*contra.

Custer, Judge.

These cases being controlled by *Bankers Fidelity Life Ins. Co. v. Morgan,*ante, the judgment of the trial court overruling the general demurrer to the petition and sustaining certain demurrers to the answer is

*Affirmed.*

*Carlisle, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
SDW HOLDINGS CORPORATION'S (THE "COMPANY") CONDENSED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR
THE YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 2, 1996 AND BALANCE SHEET AS OF OCTOBER 2, 1996 FOUND ON
PAGES 16 AND 17, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE COMPANY'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K
FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 2, 1996.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-02-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-28-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-02-1996
<CASH>                                          49,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,300
<INVENTORY>                                    195,700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               355,400
<PP&E>                                       1,268,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                 153,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,725,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          245,600
<BONDS>                                        902,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           88,000
<PREFERRED>                                     49,000
<COMMON>                                           300
<OTHER-SE>                                     307,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,725,400
<SALES>                                      1,441,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,441,600
<CGS>                                        1,186,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,320,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             108,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,600)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,000)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,600)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.50)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32
----------




                             CERTIFICATIONS OF
            CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                    PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                        SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
            ---------------------------------------------------



      The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be
deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 or any other securities law:

      Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of ALP Liquidating Trust.




                                         /s/   Gary Nickele
                                         ------------------------------
                                         Gary Nickele
                                         Chief Executive Officer




                                         /s/   Gailen J. Hull
                                         ------------------------------
                                         Gailen J. Hull
                                         Chief Financial Officer and
                                         Principal Accounting Officer
jnp-ex101_259.htm



 

Exhibit 10.1

Addendum to Transition and Consulting Agreement

WHEREAS, Juniper Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) and Frank C. Condella, Jr. (the “Executive”), are parties to that certain Transition and Consulting Agreement, dated as of July 19, 2016 (the “Consulting Agreement”); and

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Consulting Agreement as set forth herein as of March 1, 2017.

NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby confirmed, the Company and the Executive hereby agree as follows:

1)The first sentence of Section 5(a) of the Consulting Agreement shall be amended and restated to read as follows:

“Beginning immediately on the Employment Termination Date and continuing through the earlier of (i) December 31, 2017, (ii) the Company’s termination of the Consulting Period (subject to clause (e) below) or (iii) Executive’s death or Disability (such applicable period, the “Consulting Period”).  Executive through Condella & Co., LLC, will be available to provide consulting and advisory services for up to two and one-half (2.5) workdays each month as may be reasonably requested by the Company’s Chief Executive Officer or the Board.”

2)Section 5(b) of the Consulting Agreement shall be amended and restated to read as follows:

“Executive shall be paid a monthly fee of $3,500.00 on the first business day of each month during the Consulting Period.  Executive shall submit quarterly invoices for the services performed and, if requested to do so, shall describe the services provided during the quarter.”

3)Except to the extent amended hereby, all other terms and conditions of the Consulting Agreement shall apply.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have caused this Addendum to be executed as of February 28, 2017.

 


	
JUNIPER PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
By:
	
 
	
/s/ Alicia Secor

	
Name:
	
 
	
Alicia Secor

	
Title:
	
 
	
CEO

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
EXECUTIVE

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
/s/ Frank Condella

Frank Condella
§ 806.40 Public availability of reports. ( a ) Any report submitted under this part is available for public disclosure in accordance with part 20 of this chapter.
( b ) Before public disclosure of a report, FDA will delete from the report: ( 1 ) Any information that constitutes trade secret or confidential commercial or financial information under § 20.61 of this chapter; and
( 2 ) Any personnel, medical, or similar information, including the serial numbers of implanted devices, which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under § 20.63 of this chapter or 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6); provided, that except for the information under § 20.61 of this chapter or 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), FDA will disclose to a patient who requests a report all the information in the report concerning that patient.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-09-00100-CR

SUSAN MEADOR,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 220th District Court

Bosque County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14,273

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After Susan Meador entered an open guilty plea to the state-jail felony offense of 

theft by check of $1,500 or more but less than $20,000, a jury assessed a two-year statejail term and a $7,500 fine. Meador appealed.

Meador’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an 

Anders brief, asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in 
Meador v. State Page 2

his opinion, the appeal is frivolous.1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 

18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Although informed of her right to do so, Meador did not file a pro se brief or 

response. The State waived the filing of a brief. We will affirm.

In an Anders case, we must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings, [] 

decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; 

accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is 

“wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy 

v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 

(1988).

We have conducted an independent review of the record, and because we find 

this appeal to be wholly frivolous, we affirm the judgment. Counsel must send Meador 

a copy of our decision by certified mail, return receipt requested, at Meador’s last 

known address. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. Counsel must also notify Meador of her right to 

file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Id.; see also Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 

673-74 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, effective upon 

counsel’s compliance with this notification requirement as evidenced by “a letter [to 

this Court] certifying his compliance.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.

 

1 Meador’s counsel does identify that the indictment contains a clerical error: it omits the last digit of the 

year for the grand jury’s July term, reading “200.” Counsel notes that no law exists that would afford 

Meador any relief based on this error. Moreover, Meador’s open guilty plea waived all nonjurisdictional 

defects. See Stahle v. State, 970 S.W.2d 682, 694 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, pet. ref’d) (“The law in this State 

is well settled that a guilty plea entered without benefit of a plea bargain waives all nonjurisdictional 

defects occurring prior to entry of the plea.”); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.14(b) (Vernon 

2005).
Meador v. State Page 3

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

(Chief Justice Gray concurs in the judgment. A separate opinion will not issue.)

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed April 13, 2011

Do not publish

[CR25]