alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

 39

 40

 41

 42

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/04

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 04 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL
Order filed April 12, 2022 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-21-00529-CR

NO. 14-21-00530-CR

____________

EX PARTE AMY AMANDA REGALADO

On Appeal from the 240th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 21-DCR-096266 & 21-DCR-096265

ORDER

In each of these cases, appellant is appealing the denial of an application for 

a writ of habeas corpus. On September 28, 2021, the trial court clerk filed the 

clerk’s record in each of these cases. The records do not contain a certification of 

appellant’s right to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), 34.5(a)(12); see also

Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 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); Dears, 154 

S.W.3d at 613. Rule 25.2(a)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure instructs 
the trial court to enter a certificate of the defendant’s right of appeal each time it 

enters a judgment of guilt or other appealable order. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2) 

(emphasis added). This includes the entry of an order on a defendant’s application 

for writ of habeas corpus. See Ex parte Vazquez, No. 3-19-00885-CR, 2019 WL 

6972681 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 20, 2019, no pet.) (order).

On November 2, 2021, we ordered the trial court to execute a certification

of appellant’s right to appeal and direct the trial court clerk to prepare and file a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing the certification with this court on or before 

December 2, 2021. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c)(2), 37.1, 44.4; Vazquez, 2019 WL 

6972681 at *1. Two notices have been delivered informing the trial court the 

requested records have not been filed with the clerk of this court. As of this date, 

no records have not been received. 

Accordingly, for each case we order the trial court to execute a certification 

of appellant’s right to appeal and direct the trial court clerk to prepare and file a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing the certification with this court on or before

May 12, 2022. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c)(2), 37.1, 44.4; Vazquez, 2019 WL 

6972681 at *1.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Poissant and Wilson.
No. 61904.

#### Grossman & Weissman, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 303409-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Beer Stern Import Corp.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 294, C. D. 1944), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
PCSupport.com, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(333-42756 and 333-53816) on Form S-8, on Pre-effective  Amendment No. 1 to Form
SB-2 on Form S-3/A  (333-51680),  and on Post-effective  Amendment No. 1 to Form
SB-2 on Form S-3 (333-37760) of PCSupport.com,  Inc. and to the reference to our
firm under the heading  "EXPERTS" in the prospectus.  Our report dated September
12, 2001, except as to note 12(c) which is as of September 21, 2001, contains an
explanatory paragraph that states that the Company has suffered recurring losses
from operations and negative cash flows from  operations that raise  substantial
doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements
do not  include  any  adjustments  that might  result  from the  outcome of this
uncertainty.


/s/ KPMG LLP
---------------------


Vancouver, Canada
October 12, 2001
##### 



U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 Form 40-F
 o
    
    REGISTRATION STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 OR
 þ
    
    ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13(a) OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007
    
    Commission File Number 001-15014
 Sun Life Financial Inc.
  Canada
 52411
 Not Applicable
 150
King Street West, 6th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5H 1J9 (416) 979-4800
 Sun
Life Assurance Company of Canada  U.S. Operations Holdings, Inc.
One Sun Life Executive Park
Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts 02481
(781) 237-6030
  Title of each class
    
    
    Name of each exchange on which registeredCommon Shares
    
    
    New York Stock Exchange
  Not Applicable
  Not Applicable




---



##### 



þ      Annual information form
    
    þ      Audited annual financial statements
  Common Shares
    
    
    564,141,706Class A Preferred Shares Series 1
    
    
    16,000,000Class A Preferred Shares Series 2
    
    
    13,000,000Class A Preferred Shares Series 3
    
    
    10,000,000Class A Preferred Shares Series 4
    
    
    12,000,000Class A Preferred Shares Series 5
    
    
    10,000,000
  o þ
  þ o
 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
  Disclosure Controls and Procedures
 2007 Annual MD&A
 Managements Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
 2007 Annual Financial Statements
 Attestation Report of the Registered Public Accounting Firm
  Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting




---



##### 



Identification of Audit Committee
 2007 AIF
 Audit Committee Financial Expert
 .
 Code of Ethics
  Principal Accountant Fees and Services
   Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
  Tabular Disclosure of Contractual Obligations
  UNDERTAKING




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  Sun Life Financial Inc.By:
    /S/ Thomas A. BogartThomas A. Bogart
Executive Vice-President and
General CounselDated: February 14, 2008   EXHIBITS
 1.
    
    Annual Managements Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 20072.
    
    Consolidated Financial Statement for the Year Ended December 31, 20073.
    
    Annual Information Form dated February 13, 20084.
    
    Sun Life Financial Code of Business Conduct5.
    
    Consent of Independent Registered Chartered Accountants6.
    
    Consent of Appointed Actuary7.
    
    Certifications required by Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of United States Code, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 20028.
    
    Certifications required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a), pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v TED I. DUMAS, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

No. 28,865

January 10, 1975

*Colonel Victor A. DeFiori, Captain Leland M. Stenehjem, Jr.,*and *Captain Sammy S. Knight*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Ronald M. Holdaway, Lieutenant Colonel Donald W Hansen, Captain Richard S. Kleager,*on the pleadings for Appellee, United and *Captain David A. Schlueter*were States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam:

The accused was in the Army less than 5 months when he committed the offenses with which he was charged. The evidence indicates that he was just 17 years of age when he enlisted and was still 17 at the time of trial. It further appears from sworn testimony that when the Army recruiter, the accused’s probation officer, and the judge "got together,” the accused was enlisted as an alternative to confinement in a civilian juvenile detention camp. The accused’s mother was his legal guardian, but her consent was not obtained, and, in fact, she did not know of the enlistment. Trial counsel cross-examined the witnesses extensively, but his examination merely reaffirmed the recited facts. On the record, therefore, the accused’s enlistment was void, and there is no reasonable basis for a conclusion that a valid constructive enlistment could have been ef-. fected. *United States v Catlow,*23 USCMA 142, 48 CMR 758 (1974).

Government counsel have moved to remand the case for a "further eviden-tiary hearing” because defense counsel, at trial, had indicated that he perceived "no jurisdictional problem.” Apparently, the judge had sensed the existence of a problem, but put aside his apprehension when both trial counsel and defense counsel indicated that there was no issue. However, their mistake does not negate the legal effect of the undisputed facts of record. The present application for remand presents nothing to suggest that the operative facts are otherwise than as they appear in the record. Accordingly, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

The motion for remand is denied, and the decision of the Court of Military Review is reversed. The findings of guilty and the sentence are set aside, and the charges are ordered dismissed.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman,
Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahr a Bridget M. McCormac k
David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstei n Kurtis T. Wilde r Elizabeth T. Clement,
J ustices

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 t he direction of the Court.

May 29, 2018

s0521 

# Order

Clerk 

### May 29, 2018

156284

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 15 6284 COA: 337141 Saginaw CC: 08-030784-FC ROBERT DERRELL RUCKER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 18, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, becaus e the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
Exhibit
32





Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002







In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Nelnet, Inc. and subsidiaries (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.







Date:
      November 9, 2009
              /s/ MICHAEL S.
      DUNLAP
 Michael S. Dunlap
 Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer
    /s/ TERRY J.
      HEIMES
 Terry J. Heimes
 Chief Financial Officer
# C_2007166EN.01001601.xml

| 20.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/16

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid for employment

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 166/07)

| Aid No | XE 17/07 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | France |
| Region | Toutes les régions de France métropolitaine et les départements d'outre-mer |
| Title of aid scheme | Aide au recrutement de cadre |
| Legal basis | Règlement d'exemption (CE) no 2204/2002 prolongé par le règlement (CE) no 1976/2006
  Pour les collectivités territoriales: articles L. 1511-2 et L. 1511-3 du Code général des collectivités territoriales (CGCT) — Pour l'État, articles L. 2251-1, L. 3231-1, L. 4211-1 du CGCT. |
| Budget | Annual budget: EUR 13 million; Overall budget: — |
| Maximum aid intensity | In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(5), 5 and 6 of the Regulation |
| Date of implementation | 1.5.2007 |
| Duration | 30.6.2008 |
| Objective | Art. 4 Creation of employment; Art. 5 Recruitment of disadvantaged and disabled workers; Art. 6 Employment of disabled workers |
| Economic sectors | All Community sectors  (1)eligible for employment aid |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Soit le Ministère de l'industrie/DGE, soit les collectivités territoriales, chacun en ce qui le concerne.
  Pour le Ministère de l'industrie/DGE:





  12, rue Villiot |
| F-75572 Paris Cedex 12 |

Aid No

XE 17/07

Member State

France

Region

Toutes les régions de France métropolitaine et les départements d'outre-mer

Title of aid scheme

Aide au recrutement de cadre

Legal basis

Règlement d'exemption (CE) no 2204/2002 prolongé par le règlement (CE) no 1976/2006

o

o

Pour les collectivités territoriales: articles L. 1511-2 et L. 1511-3 du Code général des collectivités territoriales (CGCT) — Pour l'État, articles L. 2251-1, L. 3231-1, L. 4211-1 du CGCT.

Budget

Annual budget: EUR 13 million; Overall budget: —

Maximum aid intensity

In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(5), 5 and 6 of the Regulation

Date of implementation

1.5.2007

Duration

30.6.2008

Objective

Art. 4 Creation of employment; Art. 5 Recruitment of disadvantaged and disabled workers; Art. 6 Employment of disabled workers

Economic sectors

All Community sectors  (1)eligible for employment aid

1

Name and address of the granting authority

Soit le Ministère de l'industrie/DGE, soit les collectivités territoriales, chacun en ce qui le concerne.

Pour le Ministère de l'industrie/DGE:

12, rue Villiot

F-75572 Paris Cedex 12

---

(1)  With the exception of the shipbuilding sector and other sectors subject to special rules in regulations and directives governing all State aid within the sector.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8475

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee,

v. ROBERT HENRY DAVIS, a/k/a Pops, Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:00-cr-00424-PJM-2; 8:08-cv-02777-PJM)

Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 27, 2009

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Henry Davis, Appellant Pro Se. John Walter Sippel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Robert Henry Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s orders treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions as successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 2006 & Supp. 2008) motions, and dismissing them on that basis. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El

v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we grant Davis’s motion to supplement his appeal, deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Davis’s notice of appeal, informal brief, and motion to supplement as an application to file a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States

23 v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2006). Davis’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
----

----

| 1. | In Article 75.8,  instead of sub-section (b)(3) shall come: |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | a. | "(3) a call made by dialing a number with a special access code for a free of charge service for the person initiating the call, that was allotted to the Subscriber in accordance with an agreement with him;" |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | b. | Article 75.9 of the License shall be deleted. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Article 2.2 of the First Annex to the License , after item 45, shall come: |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 46. | Free of charge service for the caller | The initiator of the call shall not be charged for the call. The receiver of the call shall be charged in accordance with appropriate billing arrangements | 3/2010 | In accordance with the service file1 |
|-----|---------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|

| 3. | The commencement of this amendment shall be from the effective date of the relevant amendments to the payment regulations and the interconnect regulations or on 28 March 2010, the later of the dates. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (sgd)  ________________Eden Bar Tal, Adv.              Director-General | (sgd)________________         Zeev RazTemporary Senior Deputy Director-General,Engineering and Licensing |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

----

1 In accordance with the service file "free of charge call for the caller" ("1-800 service")

----

----
Exhibit








QORVO, INC.
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PROGRAM


The following is a summary of compensation paid to the directors of Qorvo, Inc. (the “Company”) effective August 4, 2016.  


Compensation of Non-Employee Directors


The Company maintains a non-employee director compensation program pursuant to which our non-employee directors are paid as follows:


		
	•
	Annual cash retainer of $80,000 payable quarterly in arrears;


		
	•
	Additional annual retainer of $68,000 for the Non-Employee Chairman;


		
	•
	Additional annual retainer of $20,000 for the Lead Director;


		
	•
	Additional annual retainer for Committee Chairs:


		
	o
	$20,000 for the Audit Committee Chair; 


		
	o
	$20,000 for the Compensation Committee Chair; 


		
	o
	$10,000 for the Governance and Nominating Committee Chair; and 


		
	o
	$10,000 for the Corporate Development Committee Chair. 


		
	•
	Annual restricted stock unit award, representing shares of Company common stock valued at $190,000. 




The annual restricted stock unit awards are granted on the date of the annual stockholders meeting at which directors are elected, or as soon as practicable thereafter. Newly elected non-employee directors appointed to the Board other than at an annual stockholders meeting would receive a pro rata annual restricted stock unit award based on the number of full months remaining until the first annual stockholders meeting following the director’s initial appointment to the Board. Each award vests and becomes non-forfeitable as to 100% of the shares subject to the award on the first anniversary of the date of grant, subject to the director’s continued service from the date of grant until the vesting date. Directors may defer their annual restricted stock unit awards pursuant to the Qorvo, Inc. 2012 Stock Incentive Plan.


Directors may defer all or a portion of their cash retainers by participating in our Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan. 


Directors are eligible to participate in our group medical and dental plans.


Directors are reimbursed for customary expenses for attending Board and committee meetings.


Compensation of Directors who are Employees of the Company 


Directors who are employees of the Company are not paid for their service as a director.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 07-919 

________________________________________________________________________ 

NUCLEAR SAFETY 

 Arrangement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and MEXICO 

Signed at Vienna September 19, 2007 

with 

Addenda 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
MEXICO 

Nuclear Safety 

 Arrangement signed at Vienna September 19, 2007; 

 Entered into force September 19, 2007. 

 With addenda. 











Note: At the present time, the Treaty Office does not have the Spanish text of this Arrangement. If the Spanish text becomes available, it will be added to this publication.