alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-24-00061- CR

CEDRIC DAMAR FORD , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 202nd District Court Bowie County, Texas Trial Court No. 19F1203-202

Be fore Stevens , C.J., van Cleef and Rambin , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION

Cedric Damar Ford has file d an untimely notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment
revoking his community supervision and sentencing him to ten years’ imprisonment for
tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. 1 We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
The judgment of conviction in this matter indicates that Ford ’ s sentence was imposed on

March 7 , 20 24 , a nd F ord did not file a mo tion for new trial, making his notice of appeal due on
or before April 8, 2024. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 26.2(a)(1)

. Ford’s notice of appeal w as filed on April 9, 2024, one day beyond the April 8 deadline. Consequentl y, F ord’s attempt to appeal his

convictio n in this matter was untimely.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has expressly held that, without a timely filed

notice of appeal, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal. See Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d

5 19, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also S laton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 209 n.3 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1998) (per curiam).
We notified Ford by letter that his notice of appeal appeared to be untimely and that the
appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jur isdi ction. We gave Ford ten days to respo nd to
our letter and to demonstrate how we had jurisdiction over the appeal notwithstanding the noted

defect. While Ford responded, through counsel, he did not provide a sufficient basis for
retaining this matter on o ur docket

.

1 See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 3 7 .0 9 (Supp.)

.3 Because Ford has not timely perfected h is appeal, we dismiss th e appeal for want of
jurisdiction. 2

Jeff Rambin Justice

Date Submitted: May 20, 2024 Date Decided: May 21, 2024

Do Not Publish

2 Based on our disposition of this a ppe al , we deny Ford’s pending motion to abate the appeal to allow him time to seek leave from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to file an out

- of

- time appeal. As the Court of Criminal Appeals stated in Olivo , “ W hen a noti ce of ap peal, but no motion for ext ensi on of time, is filed within the fifteen

day period, the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to dispose of the purported appeal in any manner other than by dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. ” Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 523. O ur disposition will not for eclo se Ford’s ability to seek leave to file an out

- of

- time appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeals.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JON ROYAL FLEMING,

Petitioner,

v.

KEN QUINN,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5719RJB

ORDER DENYING COUNSEL

AND GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

AN EXTENSION OF TIME

This 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief has been referred to the undersigned

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) and local Rules MJR 3 and 4. Petitioner in this

action is seeking federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Petitioner has asked for appointment of counsel. (Dkt. # 9). There is no right to have

counsel appointed in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. §2254 unless an evidentiary hearing is required,

because the action is civil, not criminal, in nature. See Terravona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424, 429

(9th Cir. 1988); Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 1992); and Rule 8(c) of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. An evidentiary hearing has not

been granted in this case. Further, the claims in the petition are adequately set forth and articulated. 

Case 3:05-cv-05719-RJB Document 22 Filed 01/30/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER- 2

Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is therefore DENIED.

To the extent that petitioner seeks an extension of time to reply to the response to his motion

for appointment of counsel that motion is also DENIED. (Dkt. # 18). Petitioner’s motion for an

extension of time to file a traverse to the answer is GRANTED. (Dkt. # 18). 

The clerk is directed to note this matter for 60 days from today to give petitioner an

opportunity to file a traverse. The clerk is further directed to send copies of this order to petitioner

and counsel for respondent

DATED this 30th day of January, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05719-RJB Document 22 Filed 01/30/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

December 11, 1968

No. P68/508.

protest 68/15416 (Baltimore).

#### Oxford International Corp. *v.*United States,

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise (“Bicycle locks, Batchet type #100S”) covered by the foregoing protest consists of padlocks, not of pin tumber or cylinder construction, in widths over 1% inches but not over *2y2*inches, the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Shriro Trading Corp.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 422, C.D. 2669), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 59747.

#### Joseph A. Paredes & Co. a/c Northern Glass Co. *v.*United States,

protest 245497-K (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended May 25, 1955, effective July 1, 1955, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Annual Report of Integrated Circuit Systems,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending June 29, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Justine F. Lien, Chief Financial Officer 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:

         (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/ Justine F. Lien
-------------------
Justine F. Lien
Chief Financial Officer
November 12, 2002
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




In
connection with the Amendment No. 2 to Annual Report of Universal Solar
Technology, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Wensheng Chen, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
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:
January 31, 2011





/s/ Wensheng ChenWensheng
      Chen, Principal Executive Officer
                and
      Principal Financial Officer
From: rsbennie2@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:46:09 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I personally do not agree with abortion, and the reasons that you would find it necessary to give away

free contraceptives etc, which I believe is to keep the sexually immoral actions of our society working

full steam ahead. Try teaching abstinence, sexual morality & responsibility, and throw in some family

values that are probably no longer politically correct because I don't condone or recognize gay

partnerships.

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Robert Bennie

New Port Richey, FL 34653
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DARRU K. “KEN” HSU,

INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS TRUSTEE

OF THE DARRU K. HSU AND GINA T.

HSU LIVING TRUST U/A05/05/03,

INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF

ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES INC.,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 11-17131

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-02076-WHA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

William H. Alsup, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 7, 2012** 

San Francisco, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, Senior

FILED

FEB 11 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 *** The Honorable David A. Ezra, Senior U.S. District Judge for the

District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.

2

District Judge.*** 

Darru K. “Ken” Hsu (“Hsu”) appeals from the district court’s dismissal of

his action under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“IAA”), 15 U.S.C. § 80b-1

et seq., against UBS Financial Services Inc. (“UBS”). We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm the dismissal of the First Amended

Complaint (“FAC”). 

Hsu argues that UBS deceived clients — thereby violating its fiduciary duty

as an investment advisor under § 206 — by leading them to believe that they

waived certain “unwaivable fiduciary duties” through a series of “hedge clauses.” 

He fails to state a claim because he never identifies or explains what those

“unwaivable fiduciary duties” are and therefore has not provided UBS with fair

notice of the wrongs it has allegedly committed. Cf. Cooper v. Pickett, 137 F.3d

616, 625 (9th Cir. 1997) (to satisfy Rule 9, “a plaintiff must set forth more than the

neutral facts necessary to identify the transaction. The plaintiff must set forth what

is false or misleading about a statement, and why it is false.”). Assuming that Hsu

could pursue an action for rescission based on an alleged violation of § 215, Hsu’s

claim fails because the clauses he points to do not waive compliance with any

provision of the IAA.
3

Hsu also argues for the first time on appeal that the wrap fee contract

fraudulently provides that clients may select an investment manager of their choice

when, in practice, UBS allegedly requires clients to use a manager from a UBSapproved list. However, “we will not consider arguments that are raised for the

first time on appeal.” Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Thus, this Court affirms the dismissal of the FAC for failure to state a claim. 

The Court therefore need not address which statute of limitations properly applies

to the IAA.

AFFIRMED.
From: ken.nielson@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:18:40 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Ken Nielson

Waynesburg, KY 40489
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

April 9, 2021

t0324 

# Order

Clerk April 9, 2021

161042

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 161042

COA: 345687

Macomb CC: 2017

- 002185

- FC

TRAVIS DUANE PARKINS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of January 20, 2021, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the

application for leave to appeal the January 7, 2020 judgment of t he Court of Appeals. On

order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is

again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal,

we REVERSE in part the judgment of the Court of App eals, VACATE the sentence of

the Macomb Circuit Court, and REMAND this case to the trial court for resentencing.

As noted by dissenting Judge Shapiro, the trial court did not justify its sentence with

appropriate reasons for sentencing the defendant as it did. The trial court simply stated

that the sentencing guidelines range was inappropriate, but failed to explain how the

guidelines variables did not adequately account for the seriousness of the offense or the

character of the offender. See People v Mi lbourn , 435 Mich 630, 660 (1990). Nor did

the trial court adequately explain, for purposes of enabling appellate review, how the

extent of the departure

— a life sentence out of a guidelines range of 51 to 85 months

— was justified, particularly in light of the defendant’s minimal prior record. People v

Smith , 482 Mich 292, 304 (2008). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED,

because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed

by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 63 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to ensure that Members 

have a reasonable amount of time to read legislation that will be voted 

upon. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 12, 2007 

Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

ensure that Members have a reasonable amount of time 

to read legislation that will be voted upon. 

1 Resolved, That (a) the Rules of the House of Rep2 resentatives are amended by adding at the end the fol3 lowing new rule: 

4 ‘‘RULE XXIX

5 ‘‘TIME TO READ LEGISLATION BEFORE VOTING

6 ‘‘1. Notwithstanding any provision of these rules, no 

7 bill, joint resolution, conference report, or amendment be8 tween the Houses shall be voted on by the House unless 

9 the text of that measure has been available to all Members 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 63 IH 

1 and their staffs in both printed and electronic format for 

2 at least 10 days and any manager’s amendment or other 

3 amendment which makes substantive changes to the legis4 lation has been made available in both printed and elec5 tronic versions for at least 72 hours before the scheduled 

6 vote on such legislation. 

7 ‘‘2. Clause 1 shall not apply to— 

8 ‘‘(1) the intelligence authorization bill, appro9 priations, or other legislation containing classified 

10 information, or conference report thereon, if Mem11 bers have at least 7 days to study the contents of 

12 such measure; and 

13 ‘‘(2) congressional declarations of war or au14 thorization of military force to respond to attacks on 

15 the United States. 

16 ‘‘3. (a) Any Member who votes for any measure that 

17 has been placed before the House in violation of this rule 

18 shall be deemed to have violated House ethics rules and 

19 be subject to censure. 

20 ‘‘(b) Notwithstanding any provision of these rules, 

21 any citizen who is eligible to vote and who is not an em22 ployee of the executive or judicial branch of the Govern23 ment may petition the Committee on Standards and Offi24 cial Conduct to investigate allegations that a Member 

25 voted for any measure that violated this rule.’’. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 63 IH 

1 (b) Clause 6(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

2 of Representatives is amended by striking the period at 

3 the end of subparagraph (2) and inserting ‘‘; or’’ and by 

4 adding at the end the following new subparagraph: 

5 ‘‘(3) a rule or order that would waive the provi6 sions of rule XXIX.’’. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66500-66501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20969]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

[234A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900]


Indian Gaming; Approval of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact 
Amendment Between Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe and the State of Washington

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice publishes the approval of the Eighth Amendment to 
the Tribal-State Compact between the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe and the 
State of Washington.

DATES: The Amendment takes effect on September 27, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of 
Indian Gaming, Office of the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, 
Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., the 
Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register notice 
of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class 
III gaming activities on Indian lands. As required by 25 CFR 293.4, all 
compacts and amendments are subject to review and approval by the 
Secretary. The Amendment authorizes the Tribe to offer Electronic Table 
Games at the Tribe's class III gaming facilities, establishes 
limitations on wagers, credit, gaming stations, and player terminals, 
and increases contributions to problem gaming resources. Additionally, 
the Amendment compels the Tribe to establish education and awareness 
programs for problem gaming and makes minor adjustments to accepted 
forms of payment, allows the Tribal Court jurisdiction to hear civil 
disputes arising from the conduct of gaming, and allows the Tribe to 
increase its maximum wagers and purchase prices

[[Page 66501]]

to match an increase in prices in the Washington State Lottery.

Bryan Newland,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2023-20969 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
Exhibit 10.1


 


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


 


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (No. 333-217194) and related Prospectus and in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-54356, 333-117849, 333-136633, 333-158983, 333-164064, 333-173480 and 333-187953) of Ceragon Networks Ltd. of our report dated March 27, 2018, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Ceragon Networks Ltd. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Ceragon Networks Ltd. included in its Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2017.


 


	
Tel-Aviv

	
/s/ Kost Forer Gabbay & Kasierer


	
March 27, 2018

	
A Member of Ernst & Young Global
Exhibit 23.2




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 To the Board of Directors of
 7 Days Group Holdings Limited:
 
 
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-170726) on Form S-8 of 7 Days Group Holdings Limited of our reports dated May 4, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of 7 Days Group Holdings Limited and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2009 and 2010, and the related consolidated statements of operations, equity (deficit) and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, which reports appear in the December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 20-F of 7 Days Group Holdings Limited.
 
   Hong Kong, China
 May 4, 2011