alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that th i s

opinion s h ould not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________
No. 00-20612 Summary Calendar

_______________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GENE LESSLEY PRICE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CR-313-2

_________________________________________________________________ September 19, 2001

Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. *

PER CURIAM:

Cou nsel for Gene Lessley Price has moved for leave to

withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California
,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Price has received copies of counsel’s motion

and brief and has filed a response. Our independent review of the

brief, the response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issuefor appeal. S ee id. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANT ED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, Price’s motion for new counsel is DENIED,

and Price’s APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SLR PARTNERS, LLC and 

ROZI MEDICAL DEVICES LIMITED, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v. 

 B. BRAUN MEDICAL INC., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

.____________________ 

2010-1188 

______________________

 

 Appeal from the United States District Court for 

the Southern District of California in no. 09-CV-1145, 

Judge Jeffrey T. Miller. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

JONATHAN HANGARTNER, X-Patents, APC, of La Jolla, 

California, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. 

JOHN C. O’QUINN, Kirkland & Ellis LLP of 

Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. With 

him on the brief were DANIEL F. ATTRIDGE, EDWARD C.

DONOVAN and NATHAN S. MAMMEN. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (GAJARSA, LINN, and Prost, Circuit 

Judges). 
AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

October 12, 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
Exhibit 32





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


In connection with the annual report of TBC Global News Network, Inc. (“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Report”), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that to his knowledge:
  1.           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  2.           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: April 15, 2010
By:
/s/ Glenn W. McMachen, Sr.Glenn W. McMachen, Sr., Director
---

|CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICER
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|PURSUANT TO                                                               
|18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,                                                   
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                                                    
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002                             

I, Steven Vestergaard, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Destiny Media Technologies, Inc. for the
year ended August 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the
information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Destiny Media Technologies, Inc. (the Company)

| | By:    | /s/ Steve Vestergaard      
| | ------ | ---------------------------
| | Name:  | STEVEN VESTERGAARD         
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer    
| |        | and Chief Financial Officer
| |        |                            
| | Date:  | December 19, 2005          

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on Form
10-KSB. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
10-KSB pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 10934, as amended (the
Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

---
#### Bertrand Clover, Jr., *Respondent, v.*The Boynton Saw and File Company, *Appellant, Impleaded, etc.*

— Interlocutory judgment of sale affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Barnard, P. J. ;

Pratt, J., not sitting.
Linda Icenhauer-Ramirez

1103 Nueces, Austin, Texas 78701

Phone: 512-477-7991 Fax: 512-477-3580

E-Mail: ljir@aol.com

Attorney and

Counselor at Law

April 22, 2015

Mr. Jeffrey Kyle, Clerk

Third Court of Appeals of Texas

P.O. Box 12547

Austin, Texas 78711

Re: State of Texas v. Daniel Lopez Cardoza

Appeal of Cause No. D-1-DC-12-201877, 331st District Court of Travis County, Texas

 Third Court of Appeals Cause No: 03-13-00269-CR

Dear Mr. Kyle:

In accordance with Tex.R.App.Proc. 48.4, please be advised that I have sent Mr. Lopez 

Cardoza a copy of the opinion in his case as well as a letter informing him of his right to file a 

petition for discretionary review. I am attaching a copy of the return receipt for this mailing. If 

you have any questions, please contact me.

.

 

Sincerely,

Linda Icenhauer-Ramirez

Enclosure

cc: Ms. Lisa Stewart, Asst. Dist. Attorney

Travis County District Attorney’s Office

P.O. Box 1748

Austin, Texas 78767

 

 

ACCEPTED

03-13-00269-CR

4995668

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

4/22/2015 4:56:31 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/22/2015 4:56:31 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
iNDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION 

Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete 

item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. 

Print your name and address on the reverse 

so that we can return the card to you. 

Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, 

or on the front if space permits. 

. Article Addressed to: 

COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY 

A. Sign re 

Agent 

.44 (3 Addressee 

B.jiel Felved by ( Irdiaryigm) s C, gal 9tpallyery 

)11a4/1 -e-i / 

D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑ Yes 

If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No 

X 

ce\ 

\1`-‘5 a C rn R-"\-`8 

\-, `41, 

3. Service_Type 

0 Certified Mall 

❑ Registered 

❑ Insured Mall 

0 Express Mall 

0 Return Receipt for Merchandise 

0 C.O.D. 

4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 

2. Article Number 

(Transfer from service label) 7012 1640 0002 1049 0748 

PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M- 15
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00399

- CR

Stephan Andrew Cox

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§

§ From 396th District Court

o f Tarrant County (1325641D )

Ma y 12, 2016

Opinion by Justice Sudderth

Concurrence by Justice Dauphinot

( p)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

________________ Justice Bonnie Sudderth
No. 53651.

protests 468305-G, etc. (New York).

#### Comet Textile Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

By virtue of the decision in *United States*v. *American Viscose Corporation*(30 C. C. P. A. 240, C. A. D. 239), the protests were dismissed.
# C_2007100EN.01001001.xml

| 4.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/10

---

Notice from the Government of the Republic of Cyprus concerning Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 100/09)

In accordance with Article 10 of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (1), the Republic of Cyprus notifies the European Commission that the only Competent Authority is the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Cyprus.

1

Without prejudice to the application of the provisions regarding national security, of Article 2(2) of Directive 94/22/EC, the Republic of Cyprus hereby notifies all interested persons that the criteria, which shall be used when granting authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons, are:

| (a) | the technical and financial ability of the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the technical and financial ability of the applicants;

| (b) | the ways in which the applicant intends to carry out the activities that are specified in the licence; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the ways in which the applicant intends to carry out the activities that are specified in the licence;

| (c) | the financial consideration that the applicant is offering in order to obtain the licence; and, |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the financial consideration that the applicant is offering in order to obtain the licence; and,

| (d) | any lack of efficiency and responsibility that the applicant has shown under any previous licence or authorisation of any form in any country of the world. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

any lack of efficiency and responsibility that the applicant has shown under any previous licence or authorisation of any form in any country of the world.

If, following evaluation under the above criteria, two or more applications have equal merit, the proposals of the applicants regarding the protection of public safety, public health, security of transport, protection of the environment, protection of biological resources and of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value, safety of installations and workers and planned management of hydrocarbon resources, shall be taken into account.

In accordance with Article 5(2) of Directive 94/22/EC, information on the conditions and requirements concerning the exercise or termination of the activity, which apply to each type of authorisations, is given in a Model Production Sharing Contract, available to all interested persons, upon request addressed to the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism, 1421 Nicosia, Cyprus.

---

(1)  OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3.

1

---
#### City of Miami Beach, *et al.,*v. Gulf Oil Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation.

178 So. 110.

Division B.

Opinion Filed January 8, 1938.

*582
      *J. Harvey Robillard*and *Loftin, Stokes & Calkins,*for Appellants;

*Johnson H. Pace,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court denying a motion to dismiss appellee’s bill and granting a temporary injunction restraining the enforcement of an ordinance recently adopted by the appellant City of Miami Beach which in effect prohibits the bulk storage of gasoline and other petroleum products anywhere in the City of Miami Beach, North of the Government channel.

The interlocutory order appealed from will be and the same is hereby affirmed on the' authority of the decision this day made in the case of City of Miami Beach, *et al.,*v. The Texas Company.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Ci-iapman, J. J., concur.

Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
#### SHELTON *v.*SHELTON

[No. 379,

September Term, 1968.]

*Decided October 9, 1969.*

*152The cause was argued before Hammond, C. J., and Marbury, Barnes, McWilliams, Finan, Singley and Smith, JJ.

*John C. La Prade,*with whom was *Hugh A. Feeley*on the brief, for appellant.

No brief filed on behalf of appellee.

Per Curiam.

The appellant asks this Court to say that the trial court erred (1) in refusing to deduct from the accumulated amount he owed his wife under his promise of weekly support payments in a separation agreement certain sums he paid vendors on account of furniture and appliances that became the absolute property of the wife under the terms of the agreement; and (2) in finding him to be in arrears to the tune of $1,117.00.

Maryland Rule 828 b 1 requires that “the printed extract shall contain such parts of the record as may reasonably be necessary for the determination of the questions presented by the appeal * *

To determine the questions raised the separation agreement would have to be construed and the number and amount of the payments the husband made and the identity of the various payees would have to be determined and considered. None of this material was furnished the Court in printed form. Paragraph i 2 of Rule 828 authorizes the Court to dismiss an appeal for violation of paragraph b of the rule.

We neither see nor sense any merit in the appellant’s case and deem it appropriate to exercise the authority given by the rules to dismiss the appeal.

*Appeal dismissed, costs to be paid by appellant.*
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v LEON H. SMITH, Private E-1, U. S. Army, Appellant

9 USCMA 69, 25 CMR 331

No. 10,314

Decided March 28, 1958

*Captain John F. Christensen*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused.

*Major Thomas J. Nichols*argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief was *Lieutenant Colonel John G. Lee.*

Opinion of the Court

HOMER FERGUSON, Judge:

The accused entered a plea of guilty to the following specification framed as a violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 892:

> “Specification: In that Private Leon H. Smith, U. S. Army, U. S. Army Special Processing Detachment, Fort George G. Meade, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, then a *70member of Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 33d Field Artillery Battalion, Fort Riley, Kansas, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Master Sergeant John E. Harvey to proceed without delay on the first available transportation to Fort Riley, Kansas, and to report on arrival to his commanding officer, an order which it was his duty to obey, did, at or en route to Fort Riley, Kansas, on or about 28 November 1956, fail to obey the same.”

We granted review to consider whether the specification alleges an offense.

A careful reading of the specification convinces us that the travel order in question is not the type found in United States v Matthews, 8 USCMA 94, 23 CMR 318, which involved an order given by one who lacked authority to order travel that would necessitate the obligation of Government funds. Here, the accused was absent without authority from his organization. He was directed by his military superior, who had authority to act in the premises, to return to his unit and he was provided with a provisional pass to permit his return without being detained. There was no change of station or duty either contemplated or effected. The order given is nothing more than the familiar straggler order found in United States v Coombs, 8 USCMA 749, 25 CMR 253.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge LATi-MER concur.
R18-2-206. Lead

A. The primary ambient air quality standard for lead and its compounds, measured as elemental 

lead, is 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter - maximum arithmetic mean averaged over a threemonth period.

B. The secondary ambient air quality standard for lead and its compounds, measured as elemental 

lead, is 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter - maximum arithmetic mean averaged over a threemonth period.

C. The level of the standards shall be measured by a reference method based on 40 CFR 50, 

Appendix G and designated in accordance with 40 CFR 53, or by an equivalent designated in 

accordance with part 53 of this chapter.

D. The national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for lead are met when the 

maximum arithmetic three-month mean concentration for a three-year period, as determined 

in accordance with 40 CFR 50, Appendix R, is less than or equal to 0.15 micrograms per cubic 

meter.

E. The former primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for lead of 1.5 micrograms per 

cubic meter averaged over a calendar quarter shall apply to an area until one year after the 

effective date of the designation of that area, pursuant to section 107 of the Act, for the 

standards in subsections (A) and (B).

Historical Note

Former Section R9-3-207 repealed effective May 14, 1979 (Supp. 79-1). New Section R9-3-

207 adopted effective October 2, 1979 (Supp. 79-5). Amended effective August 29, 1980 

(Supp. 80-4). Amended by deleting subsections (B) through (D) effective September 22, 

1983 (Supp. 83-5). Former Section R9-3-207 renumbered without change as Section 

R18-2-207 (Supp. 87-3). Former Section R18-2-206 renumbered to R18-2-205, new 

Section R18-2-206 renumbered from R18-2-207 and amended effective September 26, 

1990 (Supp. 90-3). Amended by final rulemaking at 18 A.A.R. 1542, effective August 7, 

2012 (Supp. 12-2).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

September 12 , 2019 

# Order

Clerk September 12 , 2019

15 9 5 31 ( 10 2 )

LEOLA ROBERTSON, Personal

Representative of the ESTATE OF

MARTEL ROBERTSON,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 159531

v COA: 337961

Wayne CC : 15

- 010455

- NI

LADARIUS DEANGELO JOHNSON,

Defendant,

and

U

- HAUL CO. OF MICHIGAN, also known as

2013 U

- HAUL TITLING 1, LLC,

Defendant

- Appellant

.

_______________________________________ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of Truck Renting and Leasing Association

to extend the time for fil ing a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief will be

accepted fo r filing if submitted on or before September 17, 2019.
**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**AND
      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


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




In
      connection with this Quarterly Report of Travel Hunt Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2007, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Nancy Reynolds, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
      Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that:




1.  Such
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2007,
      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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
      the period ending April 30, 2007, fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Travel Hunt
      Holdings, Inc.




Dated:
      May 9, 2007





**TRAVEL
      HUNT HOLDINGS, INC.**




By: */s/
      Nancy Reynolds*


Nancy
      Reynolds


Chief
      Executive Officer and


Chief
      Financial Office
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION
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 Quarterly Report of American Surgical Holdings, Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, James A. Longaker, Chief Financial Officer, certify, 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 (15 U.S.C. 78 m or 78o (d));
      and2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of American
      Surgical Holdings, Inc.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.






AMERICAN
SURGICAL HOLDINGS, INC.




By:
            /s/
      James A. LongakerJames
      A. LongakerChief
      Financial Officer and
                Principal
      Accounting Officer




Date:
November 13, 2009
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Distributed Energy
Systems Corp. (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                              
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Dated: November 7, 2005 |  | /s/    WALTER W. SCHROEDER   
|                        |  | Walter W. Schroeder          
|                        |  | President                    
|                        |  | (Principal Executive Officer)



|                        |  |                                             
|----------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 7, 2005 |  | /s/    JOHN A. GLIDDEN                      
|                        |  | John A. Glidden                             
|                        |  | Vice President of Finance                   
|                        |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is accompanying
the Form 10-Q solely 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) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate
disclosure document.