alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued March 11, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-01047-CR

———————————

TYSON BUSBY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1391450

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Tyson Busby, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of possession 

of a controlled substance. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(a), 

(c) (West 2010). The trial court found appellant guilty and, in accordance with the 

terms of appellant’s plea bargain agreement with the State, sentenced appellant to 
2

confinement for two years. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. We dismiss 

the appeal.

In a plea bargain case, a defendant may only appeal those matters that were 

raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial 

court’s permission to appeal. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West 

2006); TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be dismissed if a certification

showing that the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the 

record. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

Here, the trial court’s certification is included in the record on appeal. See id. 

The trial court’s certification states that this is a plea bargain case and that the 

defendant has no right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record 

supports the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must 

dismiss this appeal. See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App.

2006) (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an 

appellant who plea-bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must 

dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the 

appeal.”).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any 

pending motions as moot.
3

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
**Exhibit
      32.1**





CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Energy Infrastructure Acquisition Corp.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned hereby 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
      the undersigned’s 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 result of operations of the Company for the period
      certified.





Signed
      on
      this 15th day of April, 2008




/s/
                Ramesh AkellaRamesh
                AkellaPresident,
                Chief Strategy Officer and Director(Principal
                Executive Officer and Principal Financial
                Officer)
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 2, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132039 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 132039 COA: 270789 Macomb CC: 04-003459-FH AARON MICHAEL BREVICK, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 19, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., would grant leave to appeal.

s0425 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 2, 2007

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          64,456
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,646
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               102,822
<PP&E>                                         240,008
<DEPRECIATION>                                  50,184
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 309,994
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           70,324
<BONDS>                                        279,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    198,847
<COMMON>                                         1,864
<OTHER-SE>                                   (241,714)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   309,994
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                66,677
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,656
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,918
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,548
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,445)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,445)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)


</TABLE>
Before the Third Division,

January 3, 1947

No. 51502.

#### Protests 47669-K, etc., of Products From Sweden, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of oat-meals or oatmeal saucers the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Copeland & Thompson, Inc.*v. *United States*(12 Cust. Ct. 85, C. D. 833). In accordance therewith the merchandise was held dutiable as claimed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                              45,785
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       33,449
<ALLOWANCES>                                         5,821
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    62,782
<PP&E>                                             121,491
<DEPRECIATION>                                      31,903
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     211,159
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               59,181
<BONDS>                                            270,282
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                37
<OTHER-SE>                                        (119,959)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       211,159
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    56,907
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       37,248
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    23,119
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   6,632
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (10,092)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (10,092)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.10)
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research.

The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research.                    

*Date:*                         November 29, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate personnel qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Lynn M King, Ph.D., Director, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-5006,                         *lynn.king@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.121, Oral Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 30, 2023.

Melanie J. Pantoja, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-24226 Filed 11-1-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 8, 2018

No. 04-17-00570-CR

Jesse NAJERA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-CR-4704

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On February 26, 2018, appellant’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as 

counsel. Attached to her motion was a copy of a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 368 U.S. 

738 (1967) and a copy of a letter informing her client of various rights. Although the brief was

attached to the motion as an exhibit, the brief was not filed in this court as a separate document. 

See Anders, 368 U.S. at 744 (indicating request to withdraw must be accompanied by a brief). 

Moreover, counsel’s letter to her client fails to comply with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 

313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) because it does not inform appellant of appellant’s pro se right to 

seek discretionary review should the court of appeals declare appellant’s appeal frivolous. See 

Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319-20. The letter also does not establish whether counsel took concrete 

measures “to initiate and facilitate the process of actuating his client’s right to review the 

appellate record” because the letter does not indicate whether a form motion for pro se access to 

the appellate record was provided by counsel to appellant. See id. at 320. The letter should 

further advise appellant that the form motion should be filed within ten days, so that he may 

timely effectuate his right. See id. 

We therefore ORDER appellant’s counsel to file a copy of his brief as a separate 

document in this court on or before March 19, 2018. We further ORDER appellant’s counsel

to provide a letter to appellant complying with Kelly v. State on or before March 19, 2018. The 

letter should inform appellant of the above mentioned rights and include a copy of a form motion 
for pro se access to the appellate record. Appellant is also ORDERED to file a response in this 

court on or before March 23, 2018 that such letter was provided to appellant.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on this 8th day of March, 2018.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
A89A2096.

#### COLLINS v. SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION.

(390 SE2d 294)

Carley, Chief Judge.

Appellant-plaintiff suffered an on-the-job injury. Alleging that appellee-defendant had negligently designed and maintained the machinery which caused his injury, appellant brought this action for damages. Appellee answered and subsequently moved for summary judgment based upon the defense that it was appellant’s employer. Appellant appeals from the order of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of appellee.

1. Appellant urges that a genuine issue of material fact remains as to appellee’s status as his statutory employer.

At the time of his injury, appellant worked at Southern Fibre Products Company (Southern Fibre). In support of its motion for summary judgment, appellee produced evidence that, at the time of appellant’s injury, Southern Fibre was a division of Northern Fibre Products, Inc. (Northern Fibre) and that Northern Fibre was, in turn, appellee’s wholly-owned subsidiary. In opposition, appellant attested only to his lack of personal knowledge of this corporate structure. The lack of such personal knowledge on the part of appellant creates no genuine issue of material fact as to appellee’s status as his employer or as to the viability of appellee’s immunity defense to this tort action. It follows that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of appellee. *Harvey v. Fine Prods. Co.,*156 Ga. App. 649 (275 SE2d 732) (1980). The fact that, subsequent to appellant’s injury, Northern Fibre may have lost its status as a wholly-owned subsidiary by being merged directly into appellee is of no material significance whatsoever.

2. Appellant’s remaining enumerations of error have been considered and found to be without merit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*McMurray, P. J., and Beasley, J., concur.*

*264Decided January 18, 1990.

*Watkins & Watkins, John D. Watkins,*for appellant.

*The Fulcher Firm, David H. Hanks, Jeanne M. Hyder,*for appellee.
No. 62409.

#### Amerorient Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 139373-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of olives in brine similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Moscahlades Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 127, C. D. 1917), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Xtract Informatics Inc.

1818 Cornwall Avenue - Suite 22

Vancouver, BC

V6J 1C7


May 28, 2003


Garry Kupecz

707 - 1295 Richards Street

Vancouver, BC

V6B 1B7


Dear Garry:


Re: Xtract Informatics Inc.

This letter serves to confirm the terms of your employment by Xtract Informatics Inc. (the "Company"). You have been hired as Chief Operating Officer and in that capacity will be responsible for the operations of the Company, its parent company XML-Global Technologies, Inc. and the other companies in the group. Your title, duties and responsibilities may change from time to time at the direction of the board of directors of XML-Global Technologies, Inc.

These employment terms are for the period April 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004.

Your compensation will comprise the following:

	
*
	
Base salary of C$6,000 per month, increasing to C$8,000 per month after two profitable quarters. For the purpose of this clause, "profitable" is based on the following definition of profit: revenue recognized in the reviewed / audited financial statements (as applicable) less cost of revenue, less all operating expenses but before (1) costs relating to the March 2003 reorganization; (2) depreciation and amortization; (3) stock-based compensation; (4) financing charges; and (5) income taxes. These expenses are excluded as they are largely outside your control.

	
*
	
Bonus of 3% of sales, payable when sales are collected. In addition, at the option of the company's Compensation Committee, the Company may pay a further discretionary bonus.

	
*
	
Two million stock options in XML-Global Technologies, Inc. exercisable at $0.04 per share vesting on the following basis:

	 	
-
	
250,000 at commencement of employment 

	 	
-
	
250,000 after three months 

	 	
-
	
250,000 after one year 

	 	
-
	
250,000 after two years 

	 	
-
	
250,000 when revenues in fiscal 2004 exceed US$750,000 

	 	
-
	
250,000 when revenues in fiscal 2004 exceed US$1,500,000 

	 	
-
	
250,000 when revenues in fiscal 2004 exceed US$2,000,000 

	 	
-
	
250,000 when revenues in fiscal 2004 exceed US$3,000,000

	 	
For the purpose of this clause, revenues will be as disclosed in the consolidated financial statements of XML-Global Technologies, Inc. reviewed or audited by the company's external accountants.

	 	
-
	
Severance of one month's compensation during the first year of service, with the expectation that this will increase to two months' compensation in the second year of service.

	 	
-
	
Other benefits paid to company employees, as amended from time to time.







In consideration for the compensation outlined above, you are expected to devote substantially all your efforts to the Company and agree to sign the standard non-disclosure agreement (attached).

Please sign and return one copy of this letter to confirm your acceptance of the above terms.


Yours truly,

Xtract Informatics Inc.

Simon Anderson

Director

cc Laurie Horvath

_____________________________________________________________________________________


I agree with the terms set out above.

_____________________________

Garry Kupecz
# L_2022271EN.01002401.xml

| 19.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 271/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 271/24

---

Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/408 of 10 March 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 84 of 11 March 2022
  )

On page 9, table column ‘Identifying information’, row 131:

for:

‘DOB: 10.5.1980 or 21.10.1983
  ’,

read:

‘DOB: 21.10.1983
  ’.

---
# L_2022310DE.01001701.xml

| 1.12.2022 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 310/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2022

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 310/17

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) 2022/2065 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 19. Oktober 2022 über einen Binnenmarkt für digitale Dienste und zur Änderung der Richtlinie 2000/31/EG (Gesetz über digitale Dienste)

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 277 vom 27. Oktober 2022
  )

Seite 46, Artikel 9 Absatz 1

Anstatt:

„(1)   Nach Eingang einer Anordnung zum Vorgehen gegen einen oder mehrere bestimmte rechtswidrige Inhalte, die von den zuständigen nationalen Justiz- oder Verwaltungsbehörden auf der Grundlage des geltenden Unionsrechts oder des nationalen Rechts im Einklang mit dem Unionsrecht erlassen wurde, informieren die Anbieter von Vermittlungsdiensten der eine Anordnung erlassenden Behörde oder einer anderen in der Anordnung genannten Behörde unverzüglich über die Ausführung der Anordnung, und geben an, ob und wann sie die Anordnung ausgeführt haben.“

muss es heißen:

„(1)   Nach Eingang einer Anordnung zum Vorgehen gegen einen oder mehrere bestimmte rechtswidrige Inhalte, die von den zuständigen nationalen Justiz- oder Verwaltungsbehörden auf der Grundlage des geltenden Unionsrechts oder des nationalen Rechts im Einklang mit dem Unionsrecht erlassen wurde, informieren die Anbieter von Vermittlungsdiensten die eine Anordnung erlassende Behörde oder eine andere in der Anordnung genannte Behörde unverzüglich über die Ausführung der Anordnung, und geben an, ob und wann sie die Anordnung ausgeführt haben.“

Seite 47, Artikel 10 Absatz 1

Anstatt:

„(1)   Nach Eingang einer Auskunftsanordnung in Bezug auf bestimmte Informationen über einen oder mehrere bestimmte einzelne Nutzer, die von den zuständigen nationalen Justiz- oder Verwaltungsbehörden auf der Grundlage des geltenden Unionsrechts oder des nationalen Rechts im Einklang mit dem Unionsrecht erlassen wurde, informieren die Anbieter von Vermittlungsdiensten der erlassenden Behörde oder einer anderen in der Anordnung genannten Behörde unverzüglich über den Erhalt der Anordnung und die Ausführung der Anordnung, und geben an, ob und wann sie die Anordnung ausgeführt haben.“

muss es heißen:

„(1)   Nach Eingang einer Auskunftsanordnung in Bezug auf bestimmte Informationen über einen oder mehrere bestimmte einzelne Nutzer, die von den zuständigen nationalen Justiz- oder Verwaltungsbehörden auf der Grundlage des geltenden Unionsrechts oder des nationalen Rechts im Einklang mit dem Unionsrecht erlassen wurde, informieren die Anbieter von Vermittlungsdiensten die erlassende Behörde oder eine andere in der Anordnung genannte Behörde unverzüglich über den Erhalt der Anordnung und die Ausführung der Anordnung, und geben an, ob und wann sie die Anordnung ausgeführt haben.“

---