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

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00610-CR

Siddiq FRAZIER,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR11204

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 16, 2023

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

This is an appeal from a conviction for continuance violence against the family. Appellant 

applied for deferred adjudication and pleaded no contest on December 7, 2020. Appellant was 

required to follow the terms of community supervision for three years. He failed, and his 

community supervision was revoked. On May 3, 2023, Appellant was sentenced to two years’ 

imprisonment and a $4,000 fine. 

The trial court at first certified that Frazier had waived his right to appeal, but then corrected 

the certification to show that Frazier maintained a right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). 
04-23-00610-CR

- 2 -

On June 12, 2023, Frazier filed a notice of appeal pro se. Contra TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a) (requiring 

a defendant to perfect his appeal within thirty days of the judgment). On June 23, 2023, the trial 

court filed an amended certificate of appeal that certified Frazier had waived his right of appeal.

See id. R. 25.2(a)(2).

On July 14, 2023, we issued an order to show cause, requiring Appellant to explain why 

the appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction both because his notice of appeal was 

untimely1 and because the trial court certified that he did not have a right to appeal.2

 We warned 

Appellant that if he failed to provide a reasonable explanation, his appeal would be dismissed 

without further notice. Appellant filed no response.

We now dismiss the purported appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish

1 A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke a court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 

522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). 

2 Contra TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2)
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 on Form 20-F of IRSA
Propiedades Comerciales S.A. (the “Company”) for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), Matias Gaivironsky, as Chief Financial
Officer of the company, hereby certifies, 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.





IRSA Propiedades Comerciales S.A.October
10, 2017.
By:
/s/ Matias
GaivironskyMatias
GaivironskyChief
Financial Officer





This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except as to the
extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed
by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Before the First Division,

October 15, 1957

No. 61261.

protests 230748-K, etc. (New York).

#### Ducaire Import Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *457Abstract 59105, the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked with the letter “B” at 10 percent under the provision in paragraph 1528, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52836), for imitation semiprecious stones, faceted, and (2) the items marked with the letter “C” or “D” at 30 percent under the provision in said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 51802, supplemented by T. D. 51898, for imitation semiprecious stones, not faceted.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHESTER COUNTY HOSPITAL, : NO. 2:02-cv-02746-JRP

Plaintiff :

:

VS. :

:

INDEPENDENCE BLUE CROSS, et al.,:

Defendants :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 6

th day of November, 2003, it is hereby ORDERED

that oral argument is scheduled before the undersigned concerning

all outstanding discovery motions/disputes for Thursday, November

13, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3D, 3rd Floor, United States

Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

_________________________________

 CHARLES B. SMITH

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11/6/03 Copy via fax to:

See attached list

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 152 Filed 11/06/2003 Page 1 of 1
# C_2018022EN.01006201.xml

| 22.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/62

---

Order of the General Court of 22 November 2017 — Baradel and Others v FEI

(Case T-509/16) (1)

1

(2018/C 022/83)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013 (case initially registered at the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-72/13 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES OF DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 

 : MDL DOCKET NO. 1203 

IN RE DIET DRUGS : 

(PHENTERMINE/FENFLURAMINE/ : 

DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS : 

LIABILITY LITIGATION : MDL NO. 02-20131 

 : 

 : 

CATHY CHERAMINE, ET AL. : 

(PORSCHE INTERVENTION) : 

 : 

v. : 

 : 

AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS : 

CORPORATION, ET AL. : 

 : 

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 

 AND NOW TO WIT: This ____ day of _______________, 2005, it having been 

reported that the issues between the parties have been settled with respect to plaintiff Cheryl 

Guidry in the above-captioned action, and upon Order of the Court pursuant to Rule 41.1(b) of 

the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is hereby 

 ORDERED that, pursuant to agreement of counsel, all claims of plaintiff Cheryl Guidry 

in the above-captioned action are DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs as to all named 

Defendants. 

MICHAEL E. KUNZ, Clerk of Court 

BY: ____________________________ 

Katherine Gallagher 

Deputy Clerk 

Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 8 Filed 04/13/2005 Page 1 of 1
# C_2016232EN.01000601.xml

| 27.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/6

---

Appeal brought on 11 April 2016 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 February 2016 in Case T-142/14: SolarWorld AG and Others v Council of the European Union

(Case C-205/16 P)

(2016/C 232/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: SolarWorld AG (represented by: L. Ruessmann, Avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Brandoni solare SpA, Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA, Council of the European Union, European Commission, China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded;

| — | set aside the General Court's Order in Case T-142/14; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the General Court's Order in Case T-142/14;

| — | rule on the substance and annul Article 2 of Regulation 1239/2013, or refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance of the Application for annulment; and |
| --- | --- |

—

rule on the substance and annul Article 2 of Regulation 1239/2013, or refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance of the Application for annulment; and

| — | order the Council to pay the Appellant's costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the Appellant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court committed an error in law in finding that Article 2 of Regulation 1239/2013 (1) is not severable from the remainder of that regulation. Changing the form of measures does not change the scope of the Regulation imposing them. The scope of countervailing measures is all imports from producers found to have engaged in injurious subsidisation, and their objective, regardless of the form, is to be adequate to remove the injury suffered by the EU producers. This scope is not changed by the annulment of Article 2.

1

The Contested Order violates the Appellant's right under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as it denies the EU industry a legal remedy in trade defence cases against definitive measures which fail to respect the requirements of the Basic Regulation. In addition, the Contested Order violates the Appellant's right under Article 20 of the of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by putting exporting producers in a better position than the EU industry, as the jurisprudence recognises their right of appeal.

---

(1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China

1

OJ L 325, p. 66

---
Case No. 14,999.

#### UNITED STATES v. DULANY.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 510.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1808.

Criminal Law — Indictment — Indorsement of Prosecutor’s Name.

When a presentment for a misdemeanor is found by the grand jury without the name of a prosecutor, the court will order an indictment to be sent up without the indorsement of a prosecutor, upon the suggestion of the attorney of the United States.

On motion of Mr. Jones, the attorney for the District, to send up an indictment [against Benjamin Dulany] to the grand jury upon a presentment made by them* no person being indorsed as prosecutor, THE COURT (DUCKETT, Circuit Judge, absent) said that in such cases, upon the motion of *923the attorney for the United States, they would order Indictments to be sent up without a prosecutor’s name being indorsed, upon the attorney’s suggesting that in his opinion the cases require such interposition.

Mr. Jones replied that he could not undertake to give any opinion, but he should never make a motion in any case which should appear to him to be malicious or trifling.
### DEPARTMEN TO F RA!'!SPORTATiO N •<: m UHhHAilON S Mayor' s Offic e Kitt yPierc y 

### ZOiOTT- ! AK3:2 U Cit yo f Eugen e 77 7 Pear l Street , Roo m 10 5 Eugene , Orego n 97401-279 3 (541)682-501 0 (541 ) 682-541 4 Fa

x Augus t 10 , 201 0 Susan Kurlan d Assistan t Secretar y for Aviatio n & Internationa l Affairs , X- 1 U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S E W88-32 4 Washington , D C 2059 0 Subject : Smal l Communit y Ai r Servic e Developmen t

Progra m Docke t DOT-OST-2010-012 4 Eugen e Airpor t Dea r Ms , Kurland : A s th e Mayo r

o f Eugene an dafrequent

ai r traveler , I strongl y support th e ai r servic e proposal detaile di n th e subjec t Smal l Community Ai r

Servic e Developmen t

Program gran t application
. Non-sto p servic e t o Sa n Jos e o r alternatel y Sa

n Dieg o woul db e a significan t benefi t t o ou r region an dwoul dstimulat e economi c growt h for th e City o f Eugene
. Increasm g commercia l ai r servic e options i s critica l t o ou r economy . Th e propose dplan wil l attrac t

a n excellen t

airlin e wit

h th e right-sizedaircraf

t t o provid e servic e t o eithe r o f th e tw o destination s mentione di n th e plan
. W e appreciat e th e opportunity that th e Smal l Community Ai r Servic e Developmen t Programprovide s for

communitie s like ours . Pleas e cal l i f 1 ca n b e o f

fiirther assistance
. Sincerely , , / ) ^
Kitty Piferc

y 0 Mayo r

isi'-

. pcii.'e ; I- - 'TV'i e •'• ' '-''iV- rpo M co^i-iirn^ rf-crvduC i 'ibe i
January 18, 1945

No. 49972.

Suit 4477.

#### Stephen *Rug Mills*v. *United States.*

C. D. 831 reversed, and said cause remanded to United States Customs Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, on December 11, 1944. C. A. D. 293.
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 the Treasury

###### Office of Foreign Assets Control

# AGENCY:

Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.

# DATES:

                        See                         **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**                         section for applicable date(s).                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

OFAC: Bradley Smith, Director, tel.: 202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or Assistant Director for Sanctions Enforcement, Compliance & Analysis, tel.: 202-622-2490.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Electronic Availability

                    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (                    *ofac.treasury.gov*).                

## Notice of OFAC Action(s)

On November 14, 2023, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.

## Individuals:

      ( print page 80384)          ( print page 80385)          ( print page 80386)    

Dated: November 14, 2023.

Bradley T. Smith,

Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P

[FR Doc. 2023-25440 Filed 11-16-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-C
# C_2017269EN.01001901.xml

| 14.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/19

---

Order of the General Court of 26 June 2017 — L'Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER PRECISE)

(Case T-181/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MASTER PRECISE - Prior national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly unfounded in law - Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure))

(2017/C 269/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: L'Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Guinot (Paris) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2911/2014-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | L’Oréal shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

L’Oréal shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.

1

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

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.

November 24, 2015

p1116 

# Order

Clerk November 24, 2015

148440

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148440

COA: 317904

Kent CC: 10

- 011177

- FH

RYAN MICHAEL BYLSMA,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of June 11, 2014, the application for leave to appeal the November 12,

2013 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending t he decision in People

v Hartwick (Docket No. 148444) and People v Tuttle (Docket No. 148971). On order of

the Court, the case having been decided on July 27, 2015, 498 Mich 192 (2015), the

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

leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration, as on

leave granted, of whether the defendant, who possessed, cultivated, manufactured, or

delivered marijuana to a patient or caregiver to whom he was not connected through the

registration process of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421

et seq ., “may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana in a motion to dismiss, and

the charges shall be dismissed following an evidentiary hearing where the person shows

the elements listed in subsection (a).” MCL 333.26428(b). Cf., State v McQueen, 493

Mich 135, 156 ns 59 & 60 (2013). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED,

because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presen ted should be reviewed

by this Court.

We further ORDER that this case be argued and submitted to the Court of Appeals

together with the case of People v Overholt (Docket No. 149795), which we remanded to

the Court of Appeals for consideration as on lea ve granted by order of the same date, at

such future session of the Court of Appeals as both cases are ready for submission.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 WESTERN RESERVE BANCORP, INC.
FORM 10-QSB
Quarter ended September 30, 2005
 CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Western Reserve Bancorp, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a 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 financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;4.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e) for the small business issuer and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the small business issuer, 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)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most
recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers
auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer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 financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date:  November 14, 2005
    /s/ Edward J. McKeonEdward J. McKeon, President and CEO
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 74 Filed 07/31/06 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 74 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 74 Filed 07/31/06 Page 3 of 3
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

J.C., a child

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No s . 4D 19

- 1375 and 4D19

- 1376

[ February 27, 2020 ]

Consolidated a ppeal s from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Michael J. Orlando , Judge; L.T. Case
No s

. 18

- 2938DL and 18

- 3415DL

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Patrick B. Burke, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appell ant.

No appearance for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

W ARNER , D AMOORGIAN and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 57645.

#### Airport Clearance Service and Fuldheim, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 186951-K, etc. (New York).

*310Opinion by

Ford, J.

At the trial, it was stipulated that the merchandise described on the invoices by item numbers 50139, 50137, 10414, 10383, 50131, 50171, 51/23017, and 12840/1376, whether or not modified or qualified by additional numbers, letters, or other description, consists of veils or veilings, made on a lace or net machine, wholly or in chief value of rayon or other synthetic textile or of silk. Accepting the stipulation as a statement of fact, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained as to the above-enumerated item numbers.