alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CERTA PROPAINTERS, LTD., : CIVIL ACTION

 Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

RALPH E. ROSSI, et al, : NO. 2:04-CV-4950-LDD

Defendants. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 6th day of September, 2005, based upon a letter from F. Joseph Dunn

dated September 6, 2005 stating that the matter addressed in the Motion to Re-Open the Case and

Enforce the Settlement Agreement was resolved, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is

DENIED as moot.

 

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ 

Legrome D. Davis, J.

Case 2:04-cv-04950-LDD Document 22 Filed 09/07/05 Page 1 of 1
EX-23.1



                                        Morgan & Company
                                        Chartered Accountants




                  INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference of our current
report dated December 3, 2001 with respect to the financial
statements of Commodore Minerals, Inc. included in the
Transitional Report on Form 10-KSB for the ten month period ended
September 30, 2001.


                                    /s/ MORGAN & COMPANY
                                      Chartered Accountants


December 28, 2001
Vancouver, Canada

Tel:  (604) 687-5841     Member of         P.O. Box 10007 Pacific Centre
Fax:  (604) 687-0075  ACPA International   Suite 1488 - 700 West Georgia Street
www.morgan-cas.com                         Vancouver, B.C. V7Y 1A1
No. 60698.

#### Camera Specialty Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 278334-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY : CIVIL ACTION 

:

v. :

:

FIRST STATE INSURANCE CO., et al. : No. 04-3509 

ORDER

AND NOW, this 20th day of June, 2011, “Plaintiff General Refractories Company’s

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Defendant AIU Insurance Company” (doc.

no. 278) is granted. A memorandum accompanies this order. 

BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Edmund V. Ludwig 

Edmund V. Ludwig, J.
Case 2:04-cv-04259-TON Document 1 Filed 09/08/2004 Page 1 of 16
Case 2:04-cv-04259-TON Document 1 Filed 09/08/2004 Page 2 of 16
Case 2:04-cv-04259-TON Document 1 Filed 09/08/2004 Page 3 of 16
Case 2:04-cv-04259-TON Document 1 Filed 09/08/2004 Page 4 of 16
Case 2:04-cv-04259-TON Document 1 Filed 09/08/2004 Page 5 of 16
Case 2:04-cv-04259-TON Document 1 Filed 09/08/2004 Page 6 of 16
Case 2:04-cv-04259-TON Document 1 Filed 09/08/2004 Page 7 of 16
Case 2:04-cv-04259-TON Document 1 Filed 09/08/2004 Page 8 of 16
Case 2:04-cv-04259-TON Document 1 Filed 09/08/2004 Page 9 of 16
Case 2:04-cv-04259-TON Document 1 Filed 09/08/2004 Page 10 of 16
Case 2:04-cv-04259-TON Document 1 Filed 09/08/2004 Page 11 of 16
Case 2:04-cv-04259-TON Document 1 Filed 09/08/2004 Page 12 of 16
Case 2:04-cv-04259-TON Document 1 Filed 09/08/2004 Page 13 of 16
Case 2:04-cv-04259-TON Document 1 Filed 09/08/2004 Page 14 of 16
Case 2:04-cv-04259-TON Document 1 Filed 09/08/2004 Page 15 of 16
Case 2:04-cv-04259-TON Document 1 Filed 09/08/2004 Page 16 of 16
# C_2015328EN.01001601.xml

| 5.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/16

---

Action brought on 28 July 2015 — U-R LAB/OHIM (THE DINING EXPERIENCE)

(Case T-423/15)

(2015/C 328/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: U-R LAB (Paris, France) (represented by: G. Barbaut, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘THE DINING EXPERIENCE’ — Application for registration No 12 553 442

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2015 in Case R 2541/2014-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul and alter the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul and alter the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

TODD : 02-3885

WINDING : 02-3894

HEDSTROM, et al. : 02-3908

GONZALEZ, et al. : 02-3915

GOMEZ, et al. : 02-3941

MATUSZAK, et al. : 02-3944

BICK : 02-4109

ROGERS : 02-4122

ALLEN : 02-4124

BREWER : 02-4132

SHAPIRO : 02-4198

FINCH, et al. : 02-4219

WHITESIDE, et al. : 02-4245

TKACH : 02-4248

RITTHALER, et al. : 02-4263

SCHULEIN, et al. : 02-4264

WONG, et al. : 02-4278

DENTS, et al. : 02-4303

DURAN, et al. : 02-4314

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

Case 2:02-cv-04132-WY Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 1 of 2
[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota..

It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

William H. Yohn, Jr., Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04132-WY Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 2 of 2
September 19, 2013

Mr. Hal W. Raber

Director of Operations

Executive Jet Management, Inc.

4556 Airport Road

Cincinnati, OH 45226

Dear Mr. Hal Raber:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§ 91.1605 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your September 9, 2013 exemption request on behalf of Executive Jet 

Management, Inc. into the public docket (No. FAA-2013-0805), but we are unable to process 

your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of 

the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

• The specific reasons why you need to exercise the privileges of your exemption outside 

the United States. 
2

In addition, it was assesses the petition for exemption does address an equivalent level of 

safety, which necessarily incorporates the B050 8900.1 guidance on hostile areas (i.e. flight 

following, real-time information, operational control, security plan, and a training program for 

part 119 officials and pilots.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we 

receive this required information from you. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send 

your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the 

exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Courtney

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3

Project No.: AFS-13-538-E

Project Officer: _______________

ARM-101:KJones:9/18/2013:Doc#36977

ARM-1/100/104:Program Office AFS-200

MR HAL W RABER

DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS

EXECUTIVE JET MANAGEMENT INC

4556 AIRPORT ROAD

CINCINNATI OH 45226
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1042 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1042

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code to exclude Segal Americorps 
            Education Awards and related awards from income.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 4, 2017

Mr. Bennet (for himself and Mr. Isakson) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code to exclude Segal Americorps 
            Education Awards and related awards from income.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Segal AmeriCorps Education Award 
Enhancement Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF SEGAL AMERICORPS EDUCATION AWARDS AND RELATED 
              EDUCATIONAL AWARDS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 117(c) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of 
subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) 
and inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(D) a national service educational award under 
                subtitle D of title I of the National and Community 
                Service Act of 1990.''.
    (b) Exclusion of Discharge of Student Loan Debt.--Subsection (f) of 
section 108 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding 
at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(5) Payments under national service educational award 
        programs.--In the case of an individual, gross income shall not 
        include any amount received under a national service 
        educational award under subtitle D of title I of the National 
        and Community Service Act of 1990.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to payments made in taxable years beginning after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 12.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, Ernesto López Mozo, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Telefónica Móviles, S.A.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact 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 financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

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

 

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

 

(b) [Reserved]; 

 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about 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 company’s internal control of internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theperiod covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’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 significant role in the company’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: June 23, 2005
## Schlemmer , Kevi n (OST ) 

# m M o r From : Mar k Lovi n [miovin®pueblo.us ] ^ i !'-;i'''^'d^'"v-.'->i.!^-- , Sent : Thursday , Octobe r13 , 201 1 12:1 4 P M i;r i OPhRn i lUri : To : Schlemmer , Kevi n (OST ) Subject : RE : Cornmunit ycomment s wer e du e Oct . 1 2 . , ^, - ,- , o ii-? Q Kevin , I apologiz e fo rthat . W e d o no t hav e an yoperationa l concern s regardin g th e Grea t Lake s servic e i n Pueblo . Durin g th e previou s year , Grea t Lake s hav e improve d th e reliabilit yan d timelines s ofth e servic e a s wel l a s addin g a 4' ^ flight , mid-mornin g flight . Thes e change s continu e t o resul t i n positiv e growt h number s fo rPueblo . Obviously , th e Cit yof Puebl o prefer s th e highe rsubsid yrat e of3 flight s pe rday . However , w e recogniz e th e DO Tservic e leve l ofOptio n 1 , 2 flight s pe rday . Thank s fo rsolicitin g ou rfeedbac k an d giv e m yregard s t o Dennis . Pleas e contac t m e a t 719-553-276 0 i fyo u hav e an yquestions . Mar k From : Kevin.Schlemmer(g)dot.qo vrmailto:Kevin.Schlemmer(ja)dot.qov 1 Sent : Thursday , Octobe r13 , 201 1 8:4 8 A M To : Mar k

Lovi n Subject : Communit ycomment s wer e du e Oct . 1 2 Comment s fro m Puebl o wer e du e yesterday . I haven' t receive d any . Woul d yo u confir m i fyo u an d th e CityManage rare/ar e no t sendin g comments ? Regards , Kevi n Unite d State s Departmen t o fTransportatio n 120 0 Ne wJerse yAv e S E Washington , D

C 2059 0 202-366-317 6 phon e 202-366-763 8 fa x

Thi s e-mai l transmissio n (includin g an yattachments ) contain s informatio n that i s confidentia l an d ma yb e legall yprivileged . I t i s intende d fo rth e us e o f th e addresse e only . I fyo u receive d thi s e-mai l i n error , we request that yo u contac t u s immediatel yb

ytelephon e o rretur n e-mail , an d that yo u delet e thi s messag e fro m you rcomputer . Ifyo u ar e no t th e intende d recipient , pleas e b e advise d that an ydissemination , distribution , o rcopyin g o f thi s e-mai l i s strictl yprohibited .
# C_2015107EN.01003801.xml

| 30.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/38

---

Action brought on 9 February 2015 — Shoe Branding Europe v OHIM (Parallel slanted stripes)

(Case T-64/15)

(2015/C 107/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (representation of two parallel slanted stripes) — Application for registration No 10 984 102

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2014 in Case R 2563/2013-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
FINAL REPORT 

March 10,2008 

Chemicals Evaluation and Research Institute, Japan, Kurume 
Title 

Study munber 
Title 

Study number 



-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-
-29-
-30-
-31-
-32-
.. 

-33-
-34-
-35-
-36-

. 

- ----·----
-37-
-38-
-39-
-40-
SfJJX; 1 9 ±F 1 2 .F.J 2 1 8 

.Qt 617* A 

/ I!$=T § 2 ilf 7 i% 

1 6 o o 

S

O

October 12,2007 

Chemicals Evaluation and Research Institute, Japan, Kurume 
Title 

Study number 
-1-
-2-
-3-
-4-
-5-
-6-
-7-
-8-
-9-
-10-
-11-
-12-

----·· 

·-·-----------
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED
215 Deposit Ticket Report
Generated: 02/26/2018 08:34:47 AM EST
From Date: 02/26/2018
To Date: 02/26/2018

215 - Summary

Summary number of count:
Summary of total amount:

2
$151,670.00

Page 2 of 2

SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED



SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED
215 Deposit Ticket Report
Generated: 02/26/2018 08:34:47 AM EST
From Date: 02/26/2018
To Date: 02/26/2018

215 - Deposit Ticket
OTC Endpoint:2018000201 Deposit Ticket No: 606386 Settlement Date:02/26/2018 Voucher Date: 02/23/2018
Fiscal Agent:FRB Cleveland

Cashier ID Transaction Date Summary Count Summary Amount
215 - Detail
OTC Endpoint:2018000201 Description: Credit Accounting Branch ALC+2: 2018000201
02/23/2018 2 $151,670.00
Total ALC: 2018000201 2 $151,670.00

151,470.00 - 201299
200.00 - 201099.18
$151,670.00

Page 1 of 2

SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED



N

we tbcOUte Osu wO2 85% Ow J

Deed Sica ao ol

‘000'0IS WIAO SLWV NO G30H3N STUNLVNOIS ONL

40 w3q¥O
XAUNSVIAL SALVIS GALINN muoL

#aaeeeS.LNJO ON CNV SYVTIOG ALNSATS GIAGNNH UNOS GNVSNOHL ANO ALald GAUGNNH NOs AV

#00 OLY TSTS e400 81/12/20
ANNOWY 393HO ava NOHO
OZ8ST0 61001 AN JOA ANIN
ee noe SS

SN GUDLYNDIS 3H NIONINI QUOI SVH ONY HUY ANUSLYMV SNIVINOD HOIHM SGV SALOVaG IWOINS tence iene SIL

22001 AN “TYOA MAN
SONNHAV HLS StL
NOILVWOduOO dANUL FHL



ENDORSE HERE
x .

00 NOY WRITE, STAMP GA SIGN BELOW THIS
RESERVED FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION USE”

TP aru tne ind lo al those ot

oes ey cece. teas tur yt teat,
a
se eee

tee reer

—
forcrertmmet: Taek aan Pah Msn seas Ps aon

XS


Morgan Lewis

Sheri Ditlon
Partner
1-202-373-5749

February 22, 2018

Gifts to the United States

U.S. Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20220

Re: — Gift to the United States

To Whom It May Concern:

On behalf of The Trump Organization, please find enclosed a check for $151,470 made payable
to the United States Treasury. The Trump Organization is pleased to make this voluntary
donation to the U.S. government and requests that it be deposited into the “Gifts to the United
States” account for the unconditioned and general use of the federal government.

Sincerely,

Shall WA

Sheri A. Dillon

Morgan, Lewls & Bockius LLP

111 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20004-2541 @ +1.202.739,3000
United States @ +1.202.739.3001
Exhibit 32.1
 
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of ProtoKinetix, Inc., a Nevada corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ross L. Senior, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:
 
 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/ Ross L. Senior
 Ross L. Senior
 Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
 
 December 10, 2010
Opinion issued August 30, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-18-00404-CR

———————————

ANGELA A. LARA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 268th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 08-DCR-048501

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Angela A. Lara attempts to appeal an interlocutory order signed 

May 10, 2018, denying her motion to recuse the trial judge in a post-conviction 

habeas corpus proceeding. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
2

In April 2018, appellant filed a third post-conviction application for a writ of 

habeas corpus in the trial court, along with a motion to recuse the trial judge. The 

trial judge declined to recuse himself and referred the motion to Judge Susan Brown, 

presiding judge of the Eleventh Administrative Judicial Region of Texas. Judge 

Brown denied the recusal motion. On May 21, 2018, appellant filed a notice of 

appeal from the order denying her motion to recuse.

The State moved to dismiss the appeal for want of appellate jurisdiction. The 

procedures for recusal of judges, in both civil and criminal cases, is set out in Texas 

Rule of Civil Procedure 18a. See Arnold v. State, 853 S.W.2d 543, 544 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1993). An order denying a motion to recuse is reviewable only on appeal from 

a final judgment. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(j). This rule does not permit an appeal of 

an interlocutory order denying a recusal motion. See Neveu v. State, No. 01–14–

00638–CR, 2014 WL 4890720, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 30, 

2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). This court has jurisdiction 

to hear appeals from interlocutory orders only in narrow circumstances not present 

here. See id.; Means v. State, 825 S.W.2d 260, 260 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

1992, no writ) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction appeal from interlocutory order 

denying recusal motion).

Moreover, appellant’s felony conviction is final. See Lara v. State, No. 01–

09–00763–CR, 2010 WL 4484346 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 10, 2010, 
3

no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). This court has no jurisdiction 

over an appeal from an order denying a recusal motion in a post-conviction 

proceeding. See Hamid v. State, Nos. 01–12–00141–CR & 01–12–00142–CR, 2012 

WL 1564332, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 3, 2012, no pet.) (mem. 

op., not designated for publication) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction 

because only Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction 

felony proceedings). 

Accordingly, the State’s motion to dismiss is granted. This appeal is dismissed 

for lack of jurisdiction. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale.

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