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

San Antonio, Texas

May 24, 2019

No. 04-18-00771-CV

Gail GILLETTE,

Appellant

v.

Stephen GRAVES,

Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI03140

Honorable Richard Price, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s Third Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 24th day of May, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      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, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this annual report is being prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused
such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under
our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting;
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in
internal controls; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
controls over financial reporting.
 Dated:  February 1, 2010
    By:
    /s/ David Bruce HongDavid Bruce HongChief Financial Officer
# C_2013225EN.01006603.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/66

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Omnis Group v Commission

(Case T-74/11) (1)

1

(Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Market for the provision of Enterprise Resource Planning software (ERP) and Enterprise Application Software (EAS) - Decision rejecting a complaint - No European Union interest)

2013/C 225/147

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Omnis Group Srl (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: D.-A.-F. Tarara, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, A. Biolan and J. Bourke, subsequently by A. Biolan and C. Hödlmayr, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Microsoft Corp. (Redmond, Washington, United States) (represented by: A.-M. Baciu and G. Harapcea, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 8529 of 1 December 2010 rejecting the complaint (Case COMP/39.784 — Omnis/Microsoft) concerning alleged infringements of Articles 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 106 TFEU by Microsoft Corp. on the market for Enterprise Application Software, referred to as ‘Enterprise Application Software/Enterprise Resource Planning’ systems.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Omnis Group Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Omnis Group Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.

1

---
Appliance Standards - Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners - Framework Document Public Meeting

Search Help More Search Options Search EERE Information Center 

## Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Framework Document Public Meeting Date: October 1, 2001 Purpose: The purpose of this meeting was to hear the views of interested persons on the issues and process involved in a rulemaking to consider energy efficiency standards for commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps. The Department of Energy considered the views presented and comments submitted in formulating its approach in the rulemaking. The following documents are available as Adobe Acrobat PDFs. Download Acrobat Reader . Public Meeting Materials: ● Notice of public workshop and availability of the Framework Document Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Energy Efficiency Standards ( PDF 51 KB ) ● Agenda Meeting Presentations ● Introduction, ( PDF 240 KB ) ● Market and Technology Assessment, ( PDF 240 KB ) ● Screening Analysis, ( PDF 150 KB ) ● Engineering Analysis, ( PDF 181 KB ) ● Life-Cycle Cost Analysis, ( PDF 181 KB ) ● Consumer Subgroup Analysis, ( PDF 79 KB ) ● National Energy Saving and Net Present Value Analysis, ( PDF 125 KB ) ● Manufacturer Impact Analysis, ( PDF 106 KB ) ● Employment Impact, ( PDF 75 KB ) ● Utility Impact Analysis, ( PDF 89 KB ) ● Environmental Analysis, ( PDF 79 KB ) Framework Document ● Framework Document ( PDF 125 KB )

Printable Version

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/cuac_framework_meeting.html (1 of 2)11/10/2005 7:00:45 AMAppliance Standards - Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners - Framework Document Public Meeting Webmaster | Security & Privacy | Building Technologies Program Home | EERE Home U.S. Department of Energy Content Last Updated: 07/28/2004

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/cuac_framework_meeting.html (2 of 2)11/10/2005 7:00:45 AM
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1113

TOTES-ISOTONER CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in case no. 07-0001, Chief

Judge Jane A. Restani, Judge Donald C. Pogue, and Judge Judith M. Barzilay.

ON MOTION

Before MOORE Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Wolff Shoe moves for leave to file a brief amicus curiae and to participate at oral

argument. The United States opposes.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Wolff Shoe's motion for leave to file a brief amicus curiae is granted.
(2) Wolff Shoe's motion to participate in oral argument is denied without

prejudice to renewal.

FOR THE COURT

APR 2 2009	

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Date

cc:	Curtis W. Knauss, Esq.

John M. Peterson, Esq.

Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Esq.

s20

Jan Horbaly

Clerk FILED

eOURT OF APPEA Ft/

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT "

APR 0 2 2009

JRN aUtiona

CLERK

2009-1113	 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MYLES ALEXANDER #862651, No. 14-14629

v. District Judge George Caram Steeh

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

RANDALL HAAS, ET AL.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL 

Plaintiff, a pro se litigant in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983,

has filed a motion for appointment of counsel [Dock. #27].

Unlike criminal cases, there is no constitutional or statutory right to the appointment

of counsel in civil cases. Rather, the Court requests members of the bar to assist in 

appropriate cases. In Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-606 (6 Cir. 1993), the Sixth th

Circuit noted that “[a]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right. It is

a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances.” (Internal quotations and

citations omitted).

It is the practice of this Court to defer any attempt to obtain counsel for pro se civil

rights Plaintiffs until after motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment have been

denied. At this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff’s request for counsel is premature.

2:14-cv-14629-GCS-RSW Doc # 28 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 117
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Counsel [Dock. #27] is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ R. Steven Whalen 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: May 21, 2015

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record

on May 21, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.

s/Carolyn M. Ciesla 

Case Manager to the

Honorable R. Steven Whalen

2:14-cv-14629-GCS-RSW Doc # 28 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 118
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 No. 14-MJ-30216 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

 

GAVIN AWERBUCH, 

 

 Defendant. 

________________________________/ 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY 

EXAMINATION/PRELIMINARY HEARING 

 The United States of America and the defendant, through their respective counsel, 

stipulate and agree that there is good cause to continue the preliminary examination/preliminary 

hearing in this case, which is presently scheduled to take place on Monday, December 21, 2015. 

The parties stipulate that the required preliminary examination/preliminary hearing should be 

continued until Monday, May 2, 2016. The parties also stipulate and agree that this Stipulation 

and any order resulting therefrom shall constitute excludable delay under the Speedy Trial Act, 

18 U.S.C. § 3161(b). The delay is requested based on the ends of justice and the interests of the 

defendant, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7), due to factual and legal complexity of 

the case, as well as to the extensive volume of discovery to be analyzed and reviewed that may 

be relevant to the case and to any preliminary hearing. The parties stipulate and agree that all of 

the aforementioned considerations are in the interests of justice. 

2:14-mj-30216-DUTY Doc # 14 Filed 12/20/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 63
2 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

 

s/JOHN K. NEAL 

Assistant United States Attorney

United States Attorney’s Office 

Eastern District of Michigan 

211 W. Fort Street, Ste. 2001 

Detroit, MI 48226 

(313) 226-9644 

John.Neal@usdoj.gov

s/MARK KRIGER 

Attorney for Gavin Awerbuch 

LaRene and Kriger PLC 

645 Griswold Street, Suite 1717 

Detroit, MI 48226 

(313) 987-0100 

mkriger@sbcglobal.net

 

 

Date: December 16, 2015 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: December 20, 2015 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 HONORABLE ANTHONY P. PATTI 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

2:14-mj-30216-DUTY Doc # 14 Filed 12/20/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 64
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and accompanies the
quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the "Form
10-QSB") of Community Shores Bank Corporation (the "Issuer").

     I, Heather D. Brolick, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer,
certify that to my knowledge:

     (i)  the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
          or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Issuer.

Dated: May 15, 2007


                                        /s/ Heather D. Brolick
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Heather D. Brolick
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit
10.3


 


FIRST
AMENDMENT TO THE SERIES A-2 EXCHANGE CONVERTIBLE NOTE ISSUED ON DECEMBER 20, 2018


 


THIS
FIRST AMENDMENT to the Note (as defined below) (the “Amendment”) is entered into on June 18, 2020 (the “Effective
Date”), by and between Simplicity Esports and Gaming Company, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Maxim
Group LLC (the “Holder” and collectively with the Company, the “Parties”).


 


BACKGROUND


 


A.
The Company and Holder are the parties to that certain Series A-2 exchange convertible note in the original principal amount of
$1,000,000.00, which was issued by the Company to the Holder on December 20, 2018 (as amended from time to time, the “Note”);
and


 


B.
The Parties desire to amend the Note as set forth expressly below.


 


NOW
THEREFORE, in consideration of the execution and delivery of the Amendment and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:


 


1.
The Holder’s sale of the Company’s common stock (the “Common Stock”) underlying the Note (including but
not limited to all Common Stock issued pursuant to a conversion under the Note), during each trading day beginning on the Effective
Date and continuing until the Note is extinguished in its entirety, shall be limited to the 10% of the daily volume of the Common
Stock on such respective trading day.


 


2.
The Maturity Date (as defined in the Note) shall be extended to December 31, 2020.


 


3.
The current principal amount of the Note shall be increased by $100,000.00 as of the Effective Date.


 


4.
The reference to “$1.93” in Section 4(b) of the Note shall be replaced with “$1.15” as of the
Effective Date.


 


6.
This Amendment shall be deemed part of, but shall take precedence over and supersede any provisions to the contrary contained
in the Note. Except as specifically modified hereby, all of the provisions of the Note, which are not in conflict with the terms
of this Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, with the
same effect as if the parties hereto had signed the same document. All references in the Note to “this Note” or to
the same effect shall be construed as referring to the Note as amended by this Amendment.


 


[Signature
page to follow]


 






    	 	1	 



     


    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.


 


	Simplicity
    Esports and Gaming Company	 	Maxim
    Group LLC
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/
    Roman Franklin	 	By:	/s/
    Cliff Teller
	Name:	Roman
    Franklin	 	Name:	Cliff
    Teller
	Title:	President	 	Title:	Head
    of Banking


 




    	 	2
# C_2013147EN.01001801.xml

| 25.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 147/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 147/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2013 — Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços v OHIM — Parfums Rochas (PATRIZIA ROCHA)

(Case T-360/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark PATRIZIA ROCHA - Earlier national word mark ROCHAS - Refusal to register by the Opposition Division - Inadmissibility of the action brought before the Board of Appeal - Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 147/31

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: A. J. Rodrigues, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Parfums Rochas SAS (Paris, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2011 (Case R 2355/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Parfums Rochas SAS and Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.

1

---
# C_2013101EN.01003301.xml

| 6.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/33

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 February 2013 — BB v Commission

(Case F-17/11) (1)

1

(Civil Service - Contractual agent - Non-renewal of a fixed term contract - Action for annulment - Action for damages)

2013/C 101/61

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: BB (represented by: A. Blot, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to annul the decision of the defendant not to renew the contract of the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | The application is dismissed |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed

| 2. | The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay one third of the costs incurred by BB. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay one third of the costs incurred by BB.

| 3. | BB shall bear two-thirds of his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

BB shall bear two-thirds of his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011, p. 33.

1

---
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

 

The certification setforth below is being submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solelyfor the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of theUnited States Code.

 

November 19, 2007

 

Charles T. Chrietzberg, Jr., the Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Northern California Bancorp, Inc. certifies:

i.      that this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A, Amendment No. 1 for the year ended December 31, 2006fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

ii.     that information contained annual reporton Form 10-KSB/A, Amendment No. 1 for the year ended December 31, 2006 fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations  of Northern CaliforniaBancorp, Inc.

 
|   |   |
|--------|--------|
|   |   | /s/ Charles T.  Chrietzberg, Jr. |   |
|   |   | Charles T. Chrietzberg,  Jr. |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   | and President |

 

----
§ 169.561 Firemain. ( a ) Each vessel required to be provided with a power-driven fire pump must also be provided with a fire main, hydrants, hoses and nozzles.
( b ) Fire hydrants must be of sufficient number and located so that any part of the vessel may be reached with an effective stream of water from a single length of hose.
( c ) All piping, valves, and fittings must be in accordance with good marine practice and suitable for the purpose intended.
#### Havana Electric Railway Company, Appellant, *v.*Central Trust Company of New York, Respondent.

*Havana Electrie By. Co.*v. *Central Trust Co.,*122 App. Div. 829, affirmed.

(Argued December 6, 1909;

decided January 4, 1910.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 23, 1907, in favor of defendant upon the submission of a controversy under section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure as to whether the defendant, as trustee under the consolidated mortgage of the plaintiff, is required to authenticate and deliver consolidated mortgage bonds in exchange for first mortgage bonds of the plaintiff issued under a mortgage made by the plaintiff to the United States Mortgage and Trust Company and retired in pursuance of the sinking fund provisions of said last-mentioned mortgage.

*George B. Covington*and *David T. Davis*for appellant.

*Arthur H. Van Brunt*and *Henry V. Poor*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Scott, J., below.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Yann, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Hiscock, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18208-18209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1790]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Meeting of the President's Commission on Care for America's 
Returning Wounded Warriors

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION:  Notice; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On Friday, April 6, 2007 (72 FR 17136), the Department of 
Defense published a notice of a meeting of the President's Commission 
on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors. This notice makes 
corrections to that notice as follows:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON SUBMITTING STATEMENTS CONTACT: Col. Denise 
Dailey

[[Page 18209]]

or Adrianne Holloway, toll free (Change from previous submission) 877-
588-2035 or Fax statements (703) 588-2046.

13 April 2007

(Change from previous submission)
    On 13 April a Sub-Committee of the Commission will visit Bethesda, 
Naval Hospital. All other information remains unchanged.

    Dated: April 5, 2007.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD.
[FR Doc. 07-1790 Filed 4-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
May 15, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MICHAEL JOSEPH SNOWDEN, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00586-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard ON REMAND from the Court of Criminal Appeals 

on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record reveals no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment be AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.