alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 2 9 , 20 20

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 19

- 00650

- CR NO. 14

- 19

- 00651

- CR

JASMYNE LAMARQUE VAUGHN , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 178th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 1590390 and 1590391

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Jasmyne Lamarque Vaughn appeals his convictions for possession
of a controlled substance. Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.115(d). Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeals are frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d2

807, 811

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised
of his right to inspect the appellate records and file a pro se response to the brief. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than 60 days have passed and no pro se resp onse has been filed.
We have carefully reviewed the records and counsel’s brief and agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the
records . We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an An ders brief when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v.
State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, the trial court’s judgments are affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Bourliot

. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Exhibit 10.20  FOURTHAMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT  THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this Amendment), is made effective as of March 8, 2011, to the Employment Agreement dated July 24, 2009, as amended by the First, Second and Third Amendment (the Employment Agreement), between State Bank and Trust Company, a banking corporation organized under the laws of the State of Georgia (the Bank), and J. Daniel Speight, a resident of the State of Georgia (the Employee).  WHEREAS, Employee and the Bank entered into the Employment Agreement which provides for the terms and conditions of the Banks employment of Employee;  WHEREAS, given the Banks growth, the Bank has determined to divide the role of Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer into two separate officer positions;  WHEREAS, the Bank desires that Employee continue to serve as Chief Operating Officer and Vice Chairman and has appointed a new Chief Financial Officer;  WHEREAS, Employee has resigned from his position as Chief Financial Officer of the Bank but will continue to serve under the Employment Agreement as Chief Operating Officer and Vice Chairman;  WHEREAS, the Bank and Employee desire to amend certain provisions of the Employment Agreement to reflect such resignation and to expressly waive any rights that the parties may have otherwise had to assert that Employees resignation as Chief Financial Officer constituted termination of the Employment Agreement for any reason;  NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Bank and Employee hereby agree as follows:  1.        Section 1.7.2(b) and Section 2.1 of the Employment Agreement are hereby amended by deleting the reference to Chief Financial Officer.  Employee shall have no duties or responsibilities assigned to him to serve as Chief Financial Officer under the Employment Agreement, including those set forth in Exhibit A of the Employment Agreement.  2.        The Bank and Employee hereby waive any rights that either party may have otherwise had to assert that Employees resignation as Chief Financial Officer constituted termination of the Employment Agreement for any reason.  3.        Terms defined in the Employment Agreement shall have the same meaning herein unless otherwise defined herein or unless the context clearly requires otherwise.  4.        Except as expressly amended hereby, all terms, provisions, conditions and covenants contained in the Employment Agreement are not modified by this Amendment and continue in full force and effect as originally written.  [Signatures Appear on Following Page]


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed and delivered as of the date first written above.  BANKSTATE   BANK AND TRUST COMPANY/s/ Joseph W.   EvansName:
Joseph W. EvansTitle:
Chairman and Chief   Executive OfficerATTEST:/s/ Kim M.   ChildersName:
Kim M. ChildersTitle:
President and   Chief Credit OfficerEMPLOYEE/s/ J. Daniel   SpeightName:
J. Daniel Speight
ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 7 

Attachment 7 

Recycled Wastewater Cooling 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 7 

Page 2 of 13 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 7 

Page 3 of 13 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 7 

Page 4 of 13 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 7 

Page 5 of 13 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 7 

Page 6 of 13 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 7 

Page 7 of 13 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 7 

Page 8 of 13 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 7 

Page 9 of 13 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 7 

Page 10 of 13 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 7 

Page 11 of 13 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 7 

Page 12 of 13 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 7 

Page 13 of 13
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Cartoon Acquisition, Inc.
(the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Randolph S.
Hudson, President, Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, Treasurer, and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, 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; and

(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

/s/
Randolph S. Hudson

Randolph
S. Hudson Chief Financial Officer

---
# C_2007183EN.01000301.xml

| 4.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-127/05) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Directive 89/391/EEC - Article 5(1) - Employer's duty to ensure the safety and health of workers in every aspect related to the work - Employer's liability)

(2007/C 183/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M.-J. Jonczy and N. Yerrell, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Gibbs, Agent, D. Anderson, QC, and D. Barr, Barrister)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 5(1) and (4) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1) — National legislation restricting the duty on employers to ensure the safety and health of workers in every aspect related to work

Operative part of the judgment

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.

1

---
E/'ECUT/VE 

< FL!TEWAVS 

February 4, 2013 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building ground floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Exemption 1 0289 

ONE CLARK DRIVE, RONKONKOMA, NY 11779 

(631) 588-3480 ext. 128 fax: (631) 588-5527 

Regulatory Docket No: FAA-2011-0098 

To Whom It May Concern: 

Executive Fliteways, Inc. is currently operating with Exemption No: 10289 and has 

received notice of its planned expiration on 07/31/2013. I would request an extension of 

this exemption for the maximum allowable duration. 

There have been no changes to our operations or equipment that would have a 

negative effect on our ability to safely operate under this exemption. Should you have 

any questions or require additional information, please contact me at your earliest 

convenience. 

Regards, 

Kenneth S. Gray 

Director of Operations 

. t · ··· ·r~··, / · :L' ": :~; r,. ··.~.r~ .. ,·, .. 

. -·. ' 

. f -~ ·: 

,:, •'
|   | (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 Registrant as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    |  /s/ Robert Segert                           |   | By:    |  /s/ Gregg Clevenger                              |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Name:  | Robert Segert                                     |   | Name:  | Gregg Clevenger                                        |   |
| Title: | Director, President & Chief Executive Officer |   | Title: | Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer |   |

----
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549



FORM 10-QSB/A2



|x | Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005
|- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | or
| | --



|__ | Transition report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





333-109763

(Commission File No.)



FACE PRINT GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC.

(name of small business issuer in its charter)







|                                                               |                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------
|Wyoming                                                        | 33-0619256                          
|(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) | (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
|                                                               |                                     
|1111 E. Herndon Ave., Suite 115
Fresno, California             | 93720                               
|(Address of principal executive offices)                       | (Zip Code)                          



Issuers telephone number: (559) 436-1060



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).  Yes [  ]  No [ X ]



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [ X ]  No [ ]



As of November 21, 2005, the Registrant had 71,834,726 common shares outstanding.





---





The Form 10-QSB of FacePrint Global Solutions, Inc. (FacePrint or the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2005 is hereby amended to include an updated certification, attached hereto as Exhibit 31.1.





---





SIGNATURES



In accordance with the requirements of the Exchange Act, the Registrant caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.



FACE PRINT GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC.



Dated:  April 27, 2006





By: /s/ Pierre Cote

Pierre Cote, Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
# C_2007170EN.01002402.xml

| 21.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 170/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/24

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 June 2007 — Europig v OHIM (EUROPIG)

(Case T-207/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark EUROPIG - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Absence of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2007/C 170/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Europig SA (Josselin, France) (represented by: D. Masson, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 31 May 2006 (Case R 1425/2005-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark EUROPIG as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261, 28.1.2006.

1

---
**Exhibit15.4**

  

 

November 29, 2019

 

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, DC 20549

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

We have read Item 16F of Form 20-F dated November 29, 2019,of ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd. and are in agreement with the statements contained in subsection (c) contained thereinregarding Marcum Bernstein & Pinchuk. We have no basis to agree or disagree with other statements of the registrant containedtherein.

  

 

Beijing, the People’s Republic ofChina
|        |
|--------|
|        |
|   |
|   | Advanced Search  		Search Tips  		Market News Search   **Browse by Subject**Market News 		    Commodity Areas 		      		    Grading, Certification and Verfication 		      		    Science and Laboratories 		      		    National Organic Program 		      		    Commodity Purchasing 		      		    Agricultural Transportation 		      		    Farmers Markets and Local Food Marketing 		      		    Regulatory Programs 		      		    Research and Promotion Programs 		      		    Marketing Orders 		      		    Grant Programs 		      		    International Marketing 		      You are here: Home / Market News		  **National Weekly Pricing Report **Prepared for the American School Food Service Association and the American Commodity Distribution Association.**2010** (click on the date to access desired report, in PDF)12/0612/1312/2012/27--11/0111/0811/1511/2211/2910/0410/1210/1810/25--09/0709/1309/2009/27--08/0208/0908/1608/2308/3007/0607/1207/1907/26--06/0706/1406/2106/28--05/0305/1005/1705/2406/0104/0504/1204/1904/26--03/0103/0803/1503/2203/2902/0102/0802/1602/22--01/0401/1101/1901/25--**2009** (click on the date to access desired report, in PDF)12/0712/1412/2112/28--11/0211/0911/1611/2311/3010/0510/1310/1910/26--09/0809/1409/2109/28--08/0308/1008/1708/2408/3107/0607/1307/2007/27--06/0106/0806/1506/2206/2905/0405/1105/1805/26--04/0604/1304/2004/27--03/0203/0903/1603/2303/3002/0202/0902/1702/23--01/0501/1201/2001/26--   Download Adobe Reader 					  	      		  Last Modified Date: 10/12/2010 	 		 AMS Home | Site Map | Rulemaking | USDA govFOIA | Accessibility Statement | Privacy Policy | Non-Discrimination Statement | Information Quality | USA.gov | White House |
No. 41886.

#### Protest 115300-G of American Express Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the record it was found that certain items consist of laces similar to those involved in *Amrein*v. *United States*(T. D. 49551). The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefore sustained.
US Deportment 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

MAR 21 2016 

Mr. Christopher R. Meinhardt 

Director of Maintenance 

Air Methods Corporation 

7211 S. Peoria 

Englewood, CO 80112 

Dear Mr. Meinhardt: 

Southwest Region 

Arkansas, Louisiana, 

New Mexico, Oklahoma, 

Texas 

Fort Worth, Texas 76177-1524 

By letter dated June 3, 2015, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Air Methods Corporation for an exemption from § 27.1 (a) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow an increased gross 

weight from 7,000 pounds to 7,500 pounds for Air Methods Corporation's Bell Model429 

helicopter. 

The type certificate holder for the Model 429 helicopter, Bell Helicopter Textron Canada 

Limited, has previously petitioned for a similar exemption from§ 27.1(a) to allow an 

increase in gross weight to 7,500 pounds, and that petition was denied. Bell Helicopter 

Textron Canada subsequently requested reconsideration of the petition denial, and that was 

also denied. Your petition provides no information not already addressed in those denials. 

No further action will be taken on your petition. Your letter has been placed in the public 

docket No. FAA-2015-2542. 

Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate 

Aircraft Certification Service 

Enclosures: 

Original denial (Exemption No. 1 0598) 

Denial ofReconsideration (Exemption No. 10598A)
(Reap. Dec. 8329)

#### Nippon Dry Goods Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 5570.

(Decided August 10, 1954)

*Lawrence & Tuttle (George R. Tuttle*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General *(Mollie Strum,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Ford, Judge:

It has been agreed between counsel that the merchandise involved consists of articles or fabrics of rayon similar to the rayon involved in Reap. Dec. 5006, and that the appraised values *518of this merchandise, less any additions made by the importer by reason of the so-called Japanese consumption tax, to meet advances by the appraiser in similar cases, represent the prices at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that there were no higher foreign values at the date of exportation thereof.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, and following the cited authority, I find and hold the proper dutiable values of the merchandise covered by this appeal to be the values found by the appraiser, less any additions made by the importer by reason of the so-called Japanese consumption tax, to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Before the Second Division,

June 2, 1960

No. 64261.

protest 59/27899 (New York).

#### Miller Bros. Hat Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In *accordance*with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of straw hats similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Pollak Industrial Corp. et al.*v. *United States*(40 Cust. Ct. 251, C.D. 1991), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KRISTOPHER M. RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2625 MCE KJM P

vs.

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed May 20, 2005, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed

with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint states cognizable claims for relief under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the allegations of the amended complaint are proven,

plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of his Eighth Amendment claims

against defendants. With respect to the other claims and defendants identified in plaintiff’s

amended complaint, plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. Therefore, the court will only order service of process on the defendants identified

above.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02625-MCE -KJM Document 26 Filed 05/03/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for defendants Shaver, Sloan, Patton, Smith and

Kesslinger. 

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff five USM-285 forms, one summons,

an instruction sheet and a copy of the amended complaint filed June 13, 2005.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 1

above; and 

d. Six copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed June 13, 2005. 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States

Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4

without payment of costs. 

DATED: May 3, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

rich2625.1(6.13.05)

Case 2:04-cv-02625-MCE -KJM Document 26 Filed 05/03/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KRISTOPHER M. RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV-S-04-2625 MCE KJM P 

vs.

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 1 completed summons form

 5 completed USM-285 forms

 6 copies of the 6/13/05 

 Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-02625-MCE -KJM Document 26 Filed 05/03/06 Page 3 of 3