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

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

LUIS BERNAL,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-11-00251-CR

Appeal from

 409th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 20100D04018)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Luis Bernal appeals his conviction of aggravated assault. Finding that Appellant has no right

of appeal, we dismiss the appeal.

Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure requires the trial court to certify the

criminal defendant’s right of appeal under Rule 25.2(a)(2). TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(a)(2) and (d). 

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, including the trial court’s certification as required byRules

25.2(a)(2) and 25.2(d), but the certification reflects that the appeal “is a plea-bargain case, and the

Defendant has NO right of appeal.” 

In a plea-bargain case, a defendant may appeal only those matters raised by written motion

and ruled on before trial, or after getting the court’s permission to appeal. TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(a)(2). 

The record reflects that Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea and the trial court followed the

plea bargain. The Clerk’s Office notified Appellant’s counsel that the certification reflects that

Appellant has no right of appeal in this case and requested a response addressing whether appellant

has a right of appeal. The El Paso County Public Defender has filed a response confirming that the

trial court followed the plea bargain, there are no pretrial rulings which could be appealed, and the
trial court has denied permission to appeal any other issues. Based on the trial court’s certification

and the record before us, we dismiss the appeal.

November 2, 2011 

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, J., and Chew, C.J. (Senior)

Chew, C.J. (Senior), not participating

(Do Not Publish)
EXHIBIT 32.1


           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
                         RULE 13a-14(b) OR 15d-14(b) AND
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection  with the annual report of GeneMax Corp.  (the  "Company") on
Form  10-KSB  for  fiscal  year  ended  December  31,  2004,  as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  Grant R.
Atkins,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of the  Company,  and Vaughn  Barbon,  Chief
Financial  Officer of the Company,  each  certifies for the purpose of complying
with Rule  13a-14(b) or Rule  15d-14(b) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
(the  "Exchange  Act") and Section  1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code, that:

     1.   the Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the  Exchange  Act; and 2. the  information  contained in the
          Report  fairly  presents,  in all  material  respects,  the  financial
          condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: March 29, 2005                 By:  /s/ GRANT R. ATKINS
                                               _______________________
                                               Grant R. Atkins
                                               Chief Executive Officer



Dated: March 29, 2005                 By:  /s/ VAUGHN BARBON
                                               _______________________
                                               Vaughn Barbon,
                                               Chief Financial Officer
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals 29636 28-OCT-2013 08:59 AM
EXHIBIT 24

                               Consent of Independent Auditors

                               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated January 28,
2000 relative to the consolidated balance sheet of Killbuck Bancshares, Inc.
as of December 31, 1999 and the related consolidated statements of income,
changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the three years in
the period ended December 31, 1999.  Said report is included in the 1999
Annual Report to Shareholders of Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. (Exhibit 13 to
this Form 10-K).


/s/ S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.



Steubenville, Ohio
March 14, 2000



S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.
626 North Fourth Street
Steubenville, Ohio 43952-1982
Phone: 740-282-2771
Facsimile: 740-282-1606
§ 13.213 Extension of time. ( a ) The parties may agree to extend for a reasonable period the time for filing a document under this subpart. The party seeking the extension of time must submit a draft order to the administrative law judge to be signed by the administrative law judge and filed with the FAA Hearing Docket. The administrative law judge must sign and issue the order if the extension agreed to by the parties is reasonable.
( b ) A party may file a written motion for an extension of time. A written motion for an extension of time must be filed with the FAA Hearing Docket in accordance with § 13.210. The motion must be filed no later than seven days before the document is due unless good cause for the late filing is shown. The party filing the motion must serve a copy of the motion in accordance with § 13.211. The administrative law judge may grant the extension of time if good cause for the extension is shown.
( c ) If the administrative law judge fails to rule on a motion for an extension of time by the date the document was due, the motion for an extension of time is deemed granted for no more than 20 days after the original date the document was to be filed.
|                                      |                                                         |                                        |
|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
| Date: February              14, 2006 | By:                                                | /s/ Nataliya              Hearn, Ph.D. |
|                                      | Nataliya              Hearn, Ph.D.                           |
|                                      | President              and              Director   |

|                                      |                                                      |                            |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                                 |                                                 |                       |
| Date: February              14, 2006 | By:                                             | /s/ Jim              Morin |
|                                      | Jim              Morin                                    |
|                                      | Secretary/Treasurer,CFO                and Director  |

----
SERVED MAY 4, 2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

rv J"jT n r T:-- '..•• lo ^TCFlH-iSPOBWiON 

IN THE MATTER OF 

PRECISION DISPLAYS AND TOOLS 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP09AL0008 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2009-0733 

NOTICE OF HEARING DATES 

Paragraph #2 of the Procedwal Order is amended as follows: 

WHEREFORE, the parties be and are hereby ORDERED to adhere to the following 

procedural schedule: 

... On or before August 1, 2010, the parties shall conclude all discovery 

including, but not limited to, depositions, document production, responses to 

production requests and/or interrogatories. If the parties cannot resolve a 

discovery dispute they shall submit the dispute to the undersigned for resolution 

in a timely manner... 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and considered 

on August 17,18,19 and 20,2010, inclusive, in the U.S. Tax Court: Room 2-1350, 

Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 

94102. Hearings will commence at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at 4:30 p.m. each day. The 

parties should vacate the courthouse on or before 5:00 p.m. each day. 

Settled cases will not be removed from the docket until the Judge receives the 

proper pleading(s). Pleadings may be forwarded by fax, express mail, courier or 

postal service. 

SO ORDERED. 

cnard C. Goodwir 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP09AL0008 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000^ 

ONE COPY 

Robert Persekian, Owner 

Precision Displays and Tools, Respondent 

1555 Alum Rock Avenue, Suite 20 

San Jose, CA 95116 

TEL: 408-504-2515 

Howard L. Martin, Jr., Complainant's Counsel 

Regional Counsel, Office of the Regional Counsel, AAL-7 

Alaskan Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

222 West 7*^ Avenue, Box 14 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

TEL: 907-271-5269 

FAX: 907-271-2800 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Hearing Docket, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building - Room 

2014, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
###### Editorial Note on Part 211

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 211 appear at 61 FR 34725, July 3, 1996.

#### § 211.16 Oral hearing.

If an oral evidentiary hearing is convened, the applicant must make available witnesses who are competent and able to testify to the accuracy of the statements and documents submitted.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3024-0068)

[ER-1386, 49 FR 33439, Aug. 23, 1984, as amended by ER-1397, 49 FR 50027, Dec. 26, 1984]
<PAGE>


                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.1

    NUMBER                                                            SHARES
     040

                       HARTMAN COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES REIT

                      A Texas Real Estate Investment Trust

This Certifies that _________________________________ is the registered holder
of ____________ Common Shares of Beneficial Interest of the fully paid and
non-assessable shares of the Capital Stock of HARTMAN COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES REIT
transferable only on the books of the Trust by the holder hereof in person or by
Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.

        In Witness Whereof, the said Trust has caused this Certificate to be
signed by its duly authorized officers and and its Corporate Seal to be hereunto
affixed this _______ day of __________, A.D., _______.


---------------------------                         ----------------------------
President                                           Secretary
___________ No. 95-2489

___________ Bjorn Michael Rydder, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Susan Marie Rydder, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 6, 1996 Filed: March 20, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Before the court is an appeal from the district court's award o f attorneys' fees occasioned by the first appeal in this case. See Rydder v. Rydder , 49 F.3d 369 (1995). In that opinion, we noted that an award of more th an $10,000 for fees occasioned by the trial of the case would b e "clear ly inappropriate" ( see 42 U.S.C. § 11607(b)(3)) because of Mrs . Rydder's "straitened financial circumstances." Because we see no evidence in the record that Mrs. Rydder's financial circumstances have ameliorated, we reverse the award of the district court and direct it to enter a n amended judgment awarding Mr. Rydder $10,000 in fees and expenses.

### -2- A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, William J. McEntee, Jr., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Interep National Radio Sales, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) (Intentionally omitted) 

 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls 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 such evaluation; and 

 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors: 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.
Exhibit 23.1  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  We consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 No. 333-138736),
the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-128647, No. 333-138758
and No. 333-145404) pertaining to the Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
1998 Stock Plan, Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2001 Stock Plan, Sunesis
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2005 Equity Incentive Award Plan and Sunesis
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-132679) pertaining to the Sunesis
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2006 Employment Commencement Incentive Plan, of our
reports dated March 10, 2008 with respect to the financial statements of
Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting of Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., included in
this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.  /s/ Ernst & Young LLP  San Jose, California
March 14, 2008
Editorial Note on Part 221
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 221 appear at 84 FR 15929, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 221.41 Routing. ( a ) *Required routing.* The route or routes over which each fare applies shall be stated in the tariff in such manner that the following information can be definitely ascertained from the tariff: ( 1 ) The carrier or carriers performing the transportation,
( 2 ) The point or points of interchange between carriers if the route is a joint route (via two or more carriers),
( 3 ) The intermediate points served on the carrier's or carriers' routes applicable between the origin and destination of the fare and the order in which such intermediate points are served.
( b ) *Individually stated routings—Method of publication.* The routing required by paragraph (a) of this section shall be shown directly in connection with each fare or charge for transportation, or in a routing portion of the tariff (following the fare portion of the tariff), or in a governing routing tariff. When shown in the routing portion of the tariff or in a governing routing tariff, the fare from each point of origin to each point of destination shall bear a routing number and the corresponding routing numbers with their respective explanations of the applicable routings shall be arranged in numerical order in the routing portion of the tariff or in the governing routing tariff.
#### CEMENT SECURITIES COMPANY, A CORPORATION, v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. H-232.

Decided May 7, 1934]

*Mr. Robert R. Faulkner*for the plaintiff. *Mr. J. B. Grant*was on the brief.

*Mr. John A.*Rees, with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney Generad Frank J. Widemcm,*for the defendant.

*411Green, *Judge,*

delivered the opinion of the court:

This suit is brought to recover $52,415.24 paid as capital-stock taxes by the plaintiff corporation for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1920, to 1924, inclusive. The plaintiff alleges in substance in its petition that it was merely a holding company during the years in suit and transacted no business other than was incidental to its ownership of stock of operating corporations. The question involved is whether during the period in question the plaintiff was “ carrying on or doing business ” within the meaning of section 1000(a).(1) of the Revenue Act of 1918.

The Commissioner who heard the evidence in the case has made a very voluminous report of the facts pertaining to this question. This report has been accepted by both parties with the exception of some minor matters which, in any event, would not change the ultimate conclusion of the court upon all of the evidence in the case.

It is impossible within the reasonable limits of an opinion to refer to more than a very small part of the extremely numerous transactions in which the plaintiff was engaged during the period in question as shown by the evidence. To select a few of these items and discuss them would serve no useful purpose, for the conclusion which we reach is based upon the evidence as a whole, which abundantly satisfies us that the plaintiff was carrying on or doing business during the years involved in the case.

What has been said above makes it unnecessary for us to consider the other objections and defenses which defendant has set up against plaintiff’s case.

The plaintiff’s petition must be dismissed, and, it is so ordered.

Whaley, *Judge;*Williams, *Judge;*Littleton, *Judge;*and Booth, *Chief*Justice, concur.
# Official Journal C 107/3 Ma

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 107 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 483 May 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 107

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 483 May 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 107/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2005/C 107/2 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections | 2 |
| 2005/C 107/3 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections | 7 |
| 2005/C 107/4 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive 94/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 1994 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational craft (1) | 11 |
| 2005/C 107/5 | Adoption of two reference documents for the purpose of Council Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control | 12 |
| 2005/C 107/6 | Notice inviting applications for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block segment L16b of the Dutch continental shelf (1) | 13 |
| 2005/C 107/7 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3811 — Lagardère/France Télévisions/Jeunesse TV JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 14 |
| 2005/C 107/8 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3810 — Investcorp/Polyconcept) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 15 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2005/C 107/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2005/C 107/2

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections

2

2005/C 107/3

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections

7

2005/C 107/4

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive 94/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 1994 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational craft (1)

11

2005/C 107/5

Adoption of two reference documents for the purpose of Council Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control

12

2005/C 107/6

Notice inviting applications for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block segment L16b of the Dutch continental shelf (1)

13

2005/C 107/7

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3811 — Lagardère/France Télévisions/Jeunesse TV JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

14

2005/C 107/8

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3810 — Investcorp/Polyconcept) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

15

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN