alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### T ERRENCE 

### A

. 

### G AISER Attorney at Law 2900 Smith Street, Suite 220 Houston, Texas 77006 (713) 225

- 0666

April 10, 2015

Mr. Clifford Baker TDCJ -ID 01953874 Gist Unit AMENDED LETTER 3295 FM. 3514 Beaumont, Texas 77705

Re: Clifford Baker v. State of Texas, Cause Number 01-14 -00852- CR & 01-14 -00852- CR

Dear Mr. Baker

Enclosed please find a copy of the Appellant’s Brief that has been filed in this cause. In my professional judgment there is no reversible error in this case on direct appeal You have a right to file a pro se brief on your own behalf, if you so desire. This is explained in the brief.

As far as your transcript is concerned, as is also explained in the brief, you have a right to examine the record in order to prepare a brief, and a right to an extension of time for filing the brief. In addition, I am enclosing a copy of a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record. The court of appeals is located at 301 Fannin, Suite 245, Houston, Texas 77002. Should you desire to file a brief, please notify me, or the Court of Appeals, as soon as possible. When your appeal is affirmed you also have the right to file a Petition for Discretionary Review in the Court of Criminal Appeals.

As this ends my duties as appellate counsel, I am also filing a motion to withdraw as attorney of record.

Sincerely,

Terrence Gaiser TG/cc Enclosures. CMRRR 7012 1010 0001 4778 1617 ACCEPTED 14-14-00853-CR FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/17/2015 12:22:39 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK
Exhibit 32

Certificate Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of the PBSJ Corporation (the Company) hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                                  
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2008 |  | /s/ John B. Zumwalt III                          
|                      |  | John B. Zumwalt III                              
|                      |  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
|                      | 
|Date: August 14, 2008 |  | /s/ Donald J. Vrana                              
|                      |  | Donald J. Vrana                                  
|                      |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# DLA Distribution celebrates 243rd Navy birthday 

DLA Distribution Public Affairs

                NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa.  –              
To honor the United States Navy’s 243rd birthday, DLA Distribution employees gathered together in the Distribution Headquarters lobby on Oct. 17.

Opening the celebration, DLA Distribution’s commanding officer Navy Rear. Adm. Kevin M. Jones thanked the Distribution workforce for allowing the event to be delayed to allow for him to be in attendance. 

Jones recounted how the Navy began during the Revolutionary War, “In October 1775, Stephen Hopkins of Rhode Island spoke before the Continental Congress in Philadelphia and introduced a resolution calling for ‘the building and equipping of an American fleet as soon as possible.’”

In closing, Jones thanked all of the organization’s active, reserve and retired Navy sailors, and invited them forward to help cut the ceremonial cake.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLADLA DistributionDistributionUS Navy243rd Navy Birthday
# C_2013225EN.01007801.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/78

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Celtipharm v OHIM — Alliance Healthcare France (PHARMASTREET)

(Case T-411/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PHARMASTREET - Earlier national word mark PHARMASEE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 225/173

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Celtipharm (Vannes, France) (represented by: P. Greffe and C. Fendeleur, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alliance Healthcare France SA (Gennevilliers, France)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2012 (Case R 767/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Celtipharm and Alliance Healthcare France SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 June 2012 (Case R 767/2011-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 June 2012 (Case R 767/2011-2);

| 2. | Upholds the opposition as regards goods in Class 5 corresponding to the description ‘pharmaceutical preparations; dietetic substances adapted for medical use’, on the one hand, and services in Class 35 corresponding to the description ‘business management, business administration and office functions’, on the other; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Upholds the opposition as regards goods in Class 5 corresponding to the description ‘pharmaceutical preparations; dietetic substances adapted for medical use’, on the one hand, and services in Class 35 corresponding to the description ‘business management, business administration and office functions’, on the other;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.

1

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1





              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8/S-3 No. 333-34202 and S-8 No. 333-42952) pertaining to the 1998 Stock
Plan, as amended, the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 1999 Directors
Option Plan, the Holographix Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan, as amended, and the
Holographix Inc. 2000 Stock Plan, as amended, of Avanex Corporation of our
report dated July 25, 2000 with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of Avanex Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended June 30, 2000.



                                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

San Jose, California
September 18, 2000



                                       6
SCWC

- 20

- 0000 101

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ‘ I

STATE OF HAWAI ‘ I, Respondent / Plaintiff

- Appell ee ,

vs.

LEONARD SPORIK , Petitioner / Defendant

- Appell ant

.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP

- 20

- 0000 101 ; CASE NO. 1DTA

- 18

- 03076 )

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson , and Eddins , J J.)

Petitioner/ Defendant

- Appellant’s Application for Writ

of Certiorari filed on August 6 , 202 1 , is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, September 29, 2021

. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-20-0000101 29-SEP-2021 10:13 AM Dkt. 11 ODAC
Exhibit 10.18
 Additional Grantor Administrative Agent Lenders
  SuperHoldings Holdings Borrower Credit Agreement
 Guarantee and Collateral
Agreement
    Guarantee and Collateral Agreement
 2. Governing Law . THIS ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED AND
INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.




---



##### 



CAMPUS AUTHENTIC LLCBy:
    /s/ Alan G. SiemekName:
    Alan G. SiemekTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary




---



##### 



Annex 1-A
 Schedule 1




---



##### 



Schedule 2
  Pledged Stock: None.
 Issuer
    
    Class of Stock
    
    
    Stock Certificate No.
    
    
    No. of Shares
 Pledged Notes: None.
 Issuer
    
    Payee
    
    
    Principal Amount




---



##### 



Schedule 3
  Uniform Commercial Code Filings
 Grantor
    
    State
    
    JurisdictionCampus Authentic LLC
    
    DE
    
    Secretary of State




---



##### 



Schedule 4
  Grantor
    
    LocationCampus Authentic LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
    
    Jurisdiction of Organization: DelawareChief Executive Office: Lincoln, Nebraska
Organizational ID Number: 3446488




---



##### 



Schedule 5
  Grantor
    
    LocationsCampus Authentic LLC
    
    4700 South 19th StreetLincoln, Nebraska 68501




---



##### 



Schedule 6
      Trademark
    
    Serial No.
    
    Registration No.
    
    Jurisdiction
    
    Owned by:Campus Authentic
    
    77/105056
    

    3328622
    
    
    U.S. Federal
    
    Nebraska Book Company, Inc.




---



##### 



Schedule 7
# C_2012389EN.01000502.xml

| 15.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/5

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany), lodged on 8 October 2012 — HARK GmbH & Co. KG Kamin- und Kachelofenbau v Hauptzollamt Duisburg

(Case C-450/12)

2012/C 389/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HARK GmbH & Co. KG Kamin- und Kachelofenbau

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is heading 7321 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, (1) as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the stove pipe sets described in greater detail in the grounds can be regarded as parts of stoves, ranges, grates, and cookers? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is heading 7321 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, (1) as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the stove pipe sets described in greater detail in the grounds can be regarded as parts of stoves, ranges, grates, and cookers?

1

2

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, can the stove pipe sets then be classified under heading 7307? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, can the stove pipe sets then be classified under heading 7307?

---

(1)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 2008 L 291, p. 1.

2

---
No. 46455.

#### Protest 993060-G of Lockheed Aircraft Corp. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

-The examiner testified that the wooden case was a special carrying ease designed and built to hold the gauge when not in use, and that “it was not dedicated for use only with the imported gauge, but for that particular kind or type of gauge.” .He stated that in his answer to the protest he described the merchandise as “an inspection gauge to be used only during the construction of an airplane for determining that the gun mount will fit properly when installed after construction (and exportation) of the airplane and that *296the guns will have the proper clearances.” There was nothing in the record which would warrant disturbing the collector's classification of this gauge proper under said paragraph 397, but the court was satisfied that the collector erred in treating the importation as an entirety. The wooden transport case was therefore held separately dutiable at *33%*percent under paragraph 412 as a manufacture of wood, not specially provided for, as claimed. *United States*v. *Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher*(22 C. C. P. A. 281, T. D. 47330), *United States*v. *Leitz, Inc.*(22 id 277, T. D. 47329), and *Coty Processing Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(23 id 117, T. D. 47768) cited.
No. 48834.

#### Protest 974737-G of International Harvest Hat Co. (St. Louis).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that certain items consist of “8-bu paper hats” similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664). In accordance therewith, those imported or withdrawn for consumption prior to Netherlands Trade Agreement (T. D. 48075) were held dutiable at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) and those imported or withdrawn for consumption subsequent thereto were held dutiable at 12J4 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) and T. D. 48075, as claimed.
#### D. W. Matthews, assignee of J. W. Woods, plaintiff in error, *vs.*George A. Tally and William S. Tally, defendants in error.

*Error to Henry.*

The tourt will refuse to hear proof of any oral agreement betwaen 1⁄8« contending counsellors, to treat the pleadings as amended, when they are not, and to oíiow an issue different from that presented by the pleadings on file.

This was an action of debt, brought by D. W. Matthews assignee of James Weston Woods, against William S. Tally, and George A. Tally, upon a promissory note for $50. The cause was tried at March term 1842, before Judge Mason, and a jury, and a verdict and judgment for defendant. The grounds relied upon by Matthews, plaintiff in error, to reverse the judgment below are embraced in the opinion of the court.

Hall & Woods, for plaintiff in error.

G. W. Teas, for defendant in error.

Per Curiam,

Mason, Chief Justice.

The record in this case appears very loosely made up, either from the neglect of the clerk or attorneys. The defendant pleaded three pleas, one of *non est factum,**160and two of accord and satisfaction. To the first plea there was a joinder in issue. The second plea was demurred to, the demurrer sustained and the defendant ruled to plead anew, which does not appear ever to have been done. To the third plea there was a replication.— This was demurred to, and the demurrer sustained. The record then states that the plaintiff amended his replication (without stating wherein or how) and issues being joined, thereupon carne a jury, &c. As the demurrer to the replication was special, the amendment will be presumed to be merely as to formal defects leaving the substance of the replication as it was originally.

It appears irom the bill of exceptions, that the plaintiff’s attorney contended that there was a verbal agreement between him and the attorney for the defendants by which it would seem, the old replication to the third plea, to which the demurrer had been sustained, was permitted to remain, with a verbal agreement between the attorneys, that the said replication should be regarded on the trial as traversing the entire plea. An affidavit to that effect, was also filed by the plaintiff’s attorney, upon which he moved for a new trial. The court it appears, on the motion for a new trial, refused to hear evidence of the parol agreement of the attorneys, which as alleged, was made a substitute for the amended replication above mentioned, which appears to be the burden of the errors assigned in the case.

In all this there is no error. On these subjects, the District Courts have a right to establish their own rules, and it certainly would be a very proper one, to refuse to hear proof of any verbal agreement between attorneys, which went to vary the effect of a pleading, as set forth upon the record.

The record shows no error*of any kind, that we perceive. The only errors urged in the argument, are, those of omission. But if parties will go to trial without a complete record, it will require a stronger case than the present, to induce this court to disturb the verdict rendered thereupon.

Judsment affirmed.
No. 73-1888.

#### United States *v.*Alaska.

C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 419 U. S. 1045.] Motion of respondent for divided argument granted.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

I, Douglas M. Pihl, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of MathStar, Inc.;

 

2.          Basedon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.          Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.          Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)         Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)        [intentionally omitted];

 

c)         Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour 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

 

d)        Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.          Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

a)         All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

----

 

b)        Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| May 15, 2006 |   |
|--------------|--------|
|         | By     |   | /s/ Douglas M. Pihl |
|         |   | Douglas M. Pihl |
|         |   | President and Chief Executive  Officer |
|              |        |  |  |  |

 

----
# C_2015065EN.01002902.xml

| 23.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2015 — France v Commission

(Case T-1/12) (1)

1

((State aid - Aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty - Restructuring aid planned by the French authorities for SeaFrance SA - Capital increase and loans granted by the SNCF to SeaFrance - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market - Concept of State aid - Criterion of private investor - Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty))

(2015/C 065/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: initially E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, then G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. Bousin, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, B. Stromsky and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2012/397/EU of 24 October 2011 on State aid SA 32600 (2011/C) — France — Restructuring aid to SeaFrance SA granted by the SNCF (OJ 2012, L 195, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.

1

---