alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed January 25, 2019.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00249
- CR OCTAVIO PUENTE , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16
- 55240
- K 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Osborne Opinion by Justice Osborne A jury convicted Octavio Puente for continuous sexual abuse of a child younger than fourteen years of age. The trial court assessed punishment at forty

- three years’ imprisonment. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and
without merit. The brief meets the r equirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 81 2 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 197 8) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders ) . Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

– 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) ( noting appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel).– 2

–

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824,
82 6

– 2 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/Leslie Osborne/

________ _____________ LESLIE OSBORNE JUSTICE

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 180249F.U05– 3

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT
OCTAVIO PUENTE, Appellant
No. 05

- 18

- 00249

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16

- 55240

- K. Opinion delivered by Justice Osborne. Justices Myers and Molberg participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered this 25th day of January, 2019.
# C_2016251EN.01000901.xml

| 11.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 20 April 2016 — Casertana Costruzioni Srl v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Provveditorato Interregionale per le opere pubbliche della Campania e del Molise, Azienda Regionale Campana per la Difesa del Suolo — A.R.CA.DI.S.

(Case C-223/16)

(2016/C 251/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Casertana Costruzioni Srl

Applicant:

Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Provveditorato Interregionale per le opere pubbliche della Campania e del Molise, Azienda Regionale Campana per la Difesa del Suolo — A.R.CA.DI.S.

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Do Article 47(2) and Article 48(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC, (1) as replaced by Article 63 of Directive 2014/24/EU, (2) preclude national rules which exclude, or may be construed as excluding, any possibility for an economic operator, that is to say a tenderer, of appointing another undertaking to replace the undertaking originally relied upon as ‘auxiliary undertaking’ where the latter no longer has the capacity to participate or that capacity is diminished, thus resulting in the economic operator being excluded from the tendering procedure for reasons that are neither objectively nor subjectively imputable to it?

1

2

---

(1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

1

(2)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

2

---
Order filed, January 10, 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 12

- 01088

- CV

____________ REMOTE CONTROL HOBBI ES LLC, ET AL , Appellant

V.

AIRBORNE FRIEGHT COR P., ET AL , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Civil Ct at Law No 1

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 829934

- 401



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due December 14, 2012

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the
record. The record has not be en filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Lettie Witter , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 10 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
# C_2018032EN.01002601.xml

| 29.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2017 — Léon Van Parys v Commission

(Case T-125/16) (1)

1

((Customs union - Imports of bananas from Equador - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Application for the remission of import duties - Decision adopted following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision - Reasonable time))

(2018/C 032/34)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Firma Léon Van Parys NV (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. Vlaemminck, B. Van Vooren, R. Verbeke and J. Auwerx, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros, B.-R. Killmann and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, first, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 95 final of 20 January 2016 finding that post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties is justified and that remission of those duties is justified with regard to a debtor and is in part justified in the particular case of another debtor but in another part not justified with regard to that particular debtor, and modifying Commission Decision C(2010) 2858 of 6 May 2010, and, second, for a declaration that Article 909 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) had effect with regard to the applicant following the judgment of 19 March 2013, Firma Van Parys v Commission (T-324/10, EU:T:2013:136).

Firma Van Parys

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1(4) of Commission Decision C(2016) 95 final of 20 January 2016 finding that post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties is justified and that remission of those duties is justified with regard to a debtor and is in part justified in the particular case of another debtor but in another part not justified with regard to that particular debtor, and modifying Commission Decision C(2010) 2858 of 6 May 2010; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1(4) of Commission Decision C(2016) 95 final of 20 January 2016 finding that post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties is justified and that remission of those duties is justified with regard to a debtor and is in part justified in the particular case of another debtor but in another part not justified with regard to that particular debtor, and modifying Commission Decision C(2010) 2858 of 6 May 2010;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Firma Léon Van Parys NV. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Firma Léon Van Parys NV.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.

1

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification of Nevada Classic Thoroughbreds, Inc.  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  regarding Annual Report on Form 10-KSB  for the year ended June 30, 2006**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title  18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Nevada Classic  Thoroughbreds, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), doeshereby certify that, based upon his knowledge:

1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended    June 30, 2006 (the "Form 10-KSB") fully complies with the    requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of  the Company.

> 
 

| Dated: October 2, 2006 | By: /s/ Brad Brimhall   |
|------------------------|-------------------------|
|                   |                         |
|                   | Brad Brimhall           |
|                   | Chief Executive Officer |

>
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification of Nevada Classic Thoroughbreds, Inc.  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  regarding Annual Report on Form 10-KSB  for the year ended June 30, 2012**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title  18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Nevada Classic  Thoroughbreds, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), doeshereby certify that, based upon his knowledge:

1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended    June 30, 2012 (the "Form 10-KSB") fully complies with the    requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of  the Company.

> 
 

| Dated: September 24, 2012 | By: /s/ Brad Brimhall   |
|---------------------------|-------------------------|
|                      |                         |
|                      | Brad Brimhall           |
|                      | Chief Executive Officer |

>
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 154 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 154 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 154 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 154 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 4 of 4
# C_2018042EN.01002102.xml

| 5.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Ascendo Medienagentur (SLIMDYNAMICS)

(Case T-700/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark SLIMDYNAMICS - Earlier national word mark DYNAMIN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 042/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Ascendo Medienagentur AG (Gamprin-Bendern, Liechtenstein)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2016 (Joined Cases R 1814/2015-4 and R 1780/2015-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ern and Ascendo Medienagentur.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.

1

---
# C_2017239EN.01001001.xml

| 24.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Posnania Investment SA

(Case C-36/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(a) - Article 14(1) - Taxable transactions - Meaning of ‘supply of goods for consideration’ - Transfer to the State or to a local authority of immovable property in order to settle a tax debt - Not included))

(2017/C 239/12)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister Finansów

Applicant:

Defendant: Posnania Investment SA

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(1)(a) and 14(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the transfer of ownership of immovable property by a person subject to value added tax, for the benefit of the State Treasury or a local authority of a Member State, occurring, as in the main proceedings, in payment of tax arrears, does not constitute a supply of goods for consideration that is subject to value added tax.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.

1

---
EX-4.41




 Exhibit 4.41 

Date: February 19, 2021 
 POWER OF
ATTORNEY 
 I, Lei Haiyun, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) with PRC ID number ******, hereby authorize any
individual appointed in writing by Beijing Chezhiying Technology Co., Ltd its successors or any of its designated entities (the “Authorizee”) to singly exercise the following powers and rights during the term of this Power of
Attorney (this “POA”): 
 I hereby assign the Authorizee the right to vote on my behalf at the shareholders’ meetings of Beijing
Shengtuo Hongyuan Information Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Company”) and to exercise full voting rights as the shareholder of the Company as granted to me by law and under the Articles of Association of the Company, such voting rights
including but not limited to the right to sell or transfer any or all of my equity of interest of the Company. Further, as my authorized representative at the shareholders’ meeting of the Company, I hereby assign the Authorizee the right to
designate and appoint the directors and management personnel of the Company. 
 In exercising the rights and powers provided hereunder, the Authorizee shall
act with due care and diligence and pursuant to this POA and applicable laws. 
 This POA shall become valid, binding and enforceable upon the execution
hereof. 
 This POA is prepared in both English and Chinese. Chinese version shall prevail over English version in case of any inconsistency. 

/s/ Lei Haiyun 

(Signature) 

Lei Haiyun 

  
 POWER OF ATTORNEY
– LEI HAIYUN
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Melinda S. Urion, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer andTreasurer of AmerUs Group Co., certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AmerUs Group Co.; 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 thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and34-47986]; c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Dated: November 4, 2004     By /s/ Melinda S. Urion           Melinda S. Urion        Executive Vice President,        Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer        AmerUs Group Co.
```

[Federal Register: October 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 208)]
[Notices]               
[Page 66419-66420]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28oc10-80]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7217]

 
Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Object of Devotion: Medieval English Alabaster 
Sculpture From the Victoria and Albert Museum''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Object of Devotion: Medieval English 
Alabaster Sculpture from the Victoria and Albert Museum,'' imported 
from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of 
cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Society of the 
Four Arts, Palm Beach, FL, from on or about December 2, 2010, until on 
or about January 16, 2011; at Bowdoin College Museum of Art, Brunswick, 
ME, from on or about February 5 until on or about May 15, 2011; at 
Tyler Museum of Art, Tyler, TX, from on or about September 3 until on 
or about November 13, 2011; at Princeton University Art Museum, 
Princeton, NJ, from on or about December 3, 2011, until on or about 
February 12, 2012; at Kalamazoo Institute of Arts, Kalamazoo, MI, from 
on or about March 3, until on or about May 13, 2012; and at Museum of 
Art,

[[Page 66420]]

Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, from on or about June 2 to on or 
about November 11, 2012, and at possible additional exhibitions or 
venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice 
of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202/632-6473). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-
5, L/PD, Fifth Floor, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: October 21, 2010.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-27298 Filed 10-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
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 21st day of February, 2012, the following are denied:

C “Plaintiff General Refractories Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Against All Defendants (doc. nos. 311, 312 (sealed)).

C “Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company and First State Insurance

Company’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on Regulatory Issues (doc.

nos. 321, 323 (sealed)).

C “Lexington Insurance Company and AIU Insurance Company’s Joinder in

Hartford and First State’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment Against All Defendants and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment

on Regulatory Issues” (doc. nos. 322, 366).

C “Certain Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding

Plaintiff’s Claim That Defendants’ Asbestos-Related Exclusions Are Invalid

and Unenforceable” (doc. no. 324 (sealed)).

C “Defendants’ Motion to Strike and Disregard the Declaration of Michael R.

Powers, Ph.D.” (doc. no. 354).

A memorandum accompanies this order.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Edmund V. Ludwig

Edmund V. Ludwig, J.

Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 418 Filed 02/22/12 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

 

FELIX D. WHITTINGTON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

DONALD VAUGHN, et al.,

 Defendants.

 CIVIL ACTION

 NO. 02-4346

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 30th day of October, 2002, it is hereby ORDERED that the

attached communication shall be filed by the Clerk.

BY THE COURT:

 

_______________________________________

MARVIN KATZ, S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04346-MK Document 44 Filed 10/30/2002 Page 1 of 1