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

**San Antonio, Texas**

February 22, 2023

No. 04

- 22

- 00801

- CR

Francisco Javier ESCAMILLA Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 341st Judicial District Court

, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CRF000097D3

Honorable Rebecca Ramirez Palomo , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, this appeal is

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on February 22, 2023.

_

____________________________ Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 22nd day of February, 2023

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz

, Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT23.1**

# ** **

# **CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

 

We hereby consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(commission file No. 333-93229), and on Form S-3 (commission file No.333-96901) of our report dated February 4, 2005, with respect to the financialstatements and financial statement schedule of Datalink Corporation appear inthis Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.

 
| /s/ McGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|

 

 

Minneapolis, Minnesota

March 31, 2005

 

----
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-18-0000348

20-NOV-2018

09:55 AM
Exhibit
23.1

CONSENT OF
INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.
333-69951, 333-90635 and 333-39460), and in the Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (Nos. 333-87749 and 333-32342), of Answerthink, Inc. of our report dated
March 1, 2004, relating to the financial statements and financial statement
schedule, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Miami, Florida
March 15, 2004

---

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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

No. 98-20559 Summary Calendar

VICTOR LEE HALL, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus THERESA A. LEGG; E.D. MURDOCK, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 96-CV-3719

- - - - - - - - - - July 29, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). An examination of the record in this case discloses that the notice of appeal is ineffective. Victor Lee Hall, prisoner #624871, seeks to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The final judgment was entered on April 23, 1998. On April 22, 1998, Hall filed a motion for new trial and amendment ofjudgment. On June 19, 1998, after being granted an extension of

time in which to file his appeal, Hall filed his notice of appeal. The district court has not ruled on the motion for new trial and amendment of judgment. Rule 4(a)(4), Fed. R. App. P., provides that, if a timely motion is made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, a notice of appeal filed after entry of the judgment, but before disposition of the motion, is ineffective until the entry of the order disposing of the motion. A motion for new trial is a Rule 59(b) motion and a motion to alter or amend judgment is a Rule 59(e) motion. Hall’s motion was filed within the 10-day limit for Rule 59 motions.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b), (e). As the Rule 59 motion has not yet been disposed of, the petitioner’s notice of appeal is ineffective. See Burt v. Ware , 14 F.3d 256, 260-61 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the case must be remanded, and the record returned to the district court, for consideration of the outstanding motion.
REMANDED.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 95 (Thursday, May 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 27836]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9510]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1697-DR]


Texas; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Texas (FEMA-1697-DR), dated May 1, 2007, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 7, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following area 
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of May 1, 2007:

Denton County for Individual Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs, 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 [FR Doc. E7-9510 Filed 5-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
Before the Third Division,

October 8, 1943

No. 48847.

#### Protests 599004-G, etc., of Jose Serrano et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese in question is similar to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstracts 42146 and 48269. The protests were therefore sustained.
No. 92-8096.

#### Turino *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2374
GEROD STUKES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AETNA INSULATED WIRE COMPANY; HOWARD JACKSON; SAM KIMBALL, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-1247-2) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 21, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luther Cornelius Edmonds, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. James P. Naughton, Sharon S. Goodwyn, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Norfolk,Virginia; Thomas G. Servodidio, DUANE, MORRIS & HECKSCHER, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Gerod Stukes appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Defendants in his suit alleging constructive discharge, disparate discipline, and unlawful denial of promotion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (1994). On appeal, Stukes challenges only the district court's disposition of his claims of discriminatory denial of promotion. Finding no error, we affirm. Stukes claims that he was discriminatorily denied a promotion on sixteen occasions. We find that eight of the instances of alleged discrimination are barred from consideration because Stukesfailed to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") within 300 days of the discriminatory conduct. See42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) (1994). Three of the allegations of discriminatory denial of promotion are meritless because Stukes was no longer an employee when these positions were filled. Finally, we find Stukes's remaining claims of discriminatory failure to promote meritless because Stukes failed to rebut Defendants' legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not promoting him, which included unacceptable attendance ratings and multiple disciplinary warnings. See Alvarado v. Board of Trustees , 928 F.2d 118, 121 (4th Cir. 1991). 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 10.12

FIRST CLASS MANAGEMENT S.A.

January 9, 2008

First Class Navigation Corporation

22 Ethnikis Antistaseos Street

152 32 Halandri 

Athens, Greece

Gentlemen:

The undersigned hereby agrees to pay up to $25,000 to cover the costs and expenses incurred in connection with the dissolution and liquidation of First Class Navigation Corporation  (the “Company”) to the extent the Company is unable to fund such costs and expenses from the funds held outside of its trust account maintained at Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company. The undersigned further agrees not to seek repayment from the Company of any such costs and expenses.

 

 


	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                        Very truly yours,
 
	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                        FIRST CLASS MANAGEMENT S.A.
 
	 	 	 	 
	
                           
 	
                         
 	
      By: 
 	
                           
 
	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                        Name:
 
	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                         
 	
  Title:
 




 

 


	
                        AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:
 	
                         
 	
                         
 
	
                        FIRST CLASS NAVIGATION CORPORATION
 	
                         
 	
                         
 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
      By: 
 	
                          
 	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                         
 
	
                         
 	
                        Name: 
 	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                         
 
	
                         
 	
                        Title:
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 29, 2022

No. 04

- 21

- 00466

- CV

PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC. , and Karla Waples,

Appellants

v.

BANDERA WRANGLERS

,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court

, Bandera County, Texas

Trial Court No. CVOC

- 20

- 0000171

Honorable M. Rex Emerson , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On June 20, 2022, appellants filed a “Motion for Leave to File Notice of Supplemental

Authority,” attached t o which is appellant’s Notice of Supplemental Authority. On June 28,

2022, appellee filed an “Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Response to Appellants’ Notice of

Supplemental Authority,” attached to which is appellee’s response. The motions are

GRANTED

.

It is so ORDERED on July 29, 2022.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

_________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, CLERK OF COURT
No. 40448.

#### Petition 5644-R of Brooks Shoe Mfg. Co. et al. (St. Albans).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

From the evidence submitted, the court was unable to find that the importer was without intention to defraud the revenue. *Schrikker*v. *United States*(13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 562, T. D. 41433), *Wolf*v. *United States*(id. 589, T. D. 41453), and *Lowe*v. *United States*(15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 418, T. D. 42590) cited. The petition was therefore denied.
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-2349

JOHN B. SHELTON, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES POST OFFICE; EMPLOYEE ONE/JOHN DOE I; EMPLOYEE TWO/JOHN DOE II, Supervisor, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:08-cv-00399-JRS)

Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 2, 2009

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John B. Shelton, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: John B. Shelton appea ls the district court’s orders dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Shelton v. United States Post Office , No. 3:08-cv-00399-JRS (E.D. Va. Oct. 17, 2008 & Oct. 30, 2008). We deny as moot Shelton’s motion for a ten-day stay of this appeal. 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.
AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32


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


         I,  Michael  Chou,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB of C&D Production Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2004
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information  contained in such Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition
and results of operations of C&D Production Inc.

         I,  Chien-Te  Chou,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB of C&D Production Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2004
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information  contained in such Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition
and results of operations of C&D Production Inc.


By:  /s/ MICHAEL CHOU
     ______________________________________
     Michael Chou
     Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive
     Officer and Secretary


By:  /s/ CHIEN-TE CHOU
     ______________________________________
     Chien-Te Chou
     Chief Financial Officer and
     Administrative and Financial Manager



August 20, 2004
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration 

                    By Notice dated November 28, 2006, and published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on December 7, 2006, (71 FR 70988), Rhodes Technologies, 498 Washington Street, Coventry, Rhode Island 02816, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Oxymorphone (9652), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.                 

The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substance in bulk for conversion and sale to dosage form manufacturers. 

No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Rhodes Technologies to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Rhodes Technologies to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. 

Dated: May 14, 2007. 

Joseph T. Rannazzisi, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. 

 [FR Doc. E7-9614 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
Before the Third Division,

November 4, 1942

No. 47697.

#### Protests 80766-K, etc., of Quan Hing et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel certain of the merchandise in question was held entitled to free entry as crude drugs under paragraph 1669, and the merchandise consisting of drugs, sliced, was held dutiable as drugs advanced in value or condition at 10 percent under paragraph 34, as claimed. *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372) followed
No. 74-945.

#### Riess et ux. *v.*Murchison et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 10.20



ADDENDUM TO ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT



This Addendum (the Addendum) is entered into effective as of January 1, 2005, by and between NEVADA RADIATION
THERAPY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a Nevada corporation (MANAGEMENT SERVICES) and MICHAEL J. KATIN, M.D., PROF. CORP, a Nevada professional corporation (the PA). This Addendum amends Section 3.1 of the Administrative Services
Agreement dated January 1, 2002 between the parties (the Agreement) to adjust the monthly Service Fee of $521,516.67 paid in 2004 to a monthly Service Fee of $570,683.33, and replaces the Addendum of that same Section dated January 1,
2004. From and after the date hereof, Section 3.1 shall read as follows:



3.1. Service Fee. For the services to be provided hereunder by MANAGEMENT SERVICES, the PC shall pay to MANAGEMENT SERVICES a monthly Service Fee of $570,680.33. The parties agree that the Service Fee
represents the fair market value of the services provided by MANAGEMENT SERVICES hereunder and that the parties shall meet annually to reevaluate the value of services provided by MANAGEMENT SERVICES and shall establish the fair market value thereof
for purposes of this Section 3.1.



|          |  |                                                    |  |                       
|--------- |  | -------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Accepted: |  | NEVADA RADIATION THERAPY MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, INC.
|          |  |                                                   
|          |  | By:                                                |  | /s/ David Koeninger   
|          |  |                                                    |  | David Koeninger       
|          |  |                                                    |  | Vice President and CFO
|          | 
|Accepted: |  | MICHAEL J. KATIN, M.D., PROF. CORP.               
|          |  |                                                   
|          |  | By:                                                |  | /s/ Michael J. Katin  
|          |  |                                                    |  | Michael J. Katin, M.D.
|          |  |                                                    |  | President
No. 96-5813.

#### Brown v. United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (No. 333-65749) pertaining to the Plourde Computer Services, Inc. 1991
Stock Option Plan; Form S-8 (No. 333-65259) pertaining to the IVI Checkmate
Corp. 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan and the IVI Checkmate Corp. Amended and
Restated 1998 Directors Stock Option Plan; the Post- Effective Amendment No. 2
to the Form S-4 Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-53629) pertaining to
the Checkmate Electronics, Inc. 1988 Employee Incentive Stock Option Plan,
Checkmate Electronics, Inc. 1993 Stock Option Plan, Checkmate Electronics, Inc.
1994 Director's Stock Option Plan, International Verifact Inc. 1997 Stock Option
Plan and Checkmate Electronics, Inc. Non-Incentive Stock Option Agreement; and
the Post-Effective Amendment No. 5 to the Form S-4 Registration Statement on
Form S-3 (No. 333-53629), pertaining to the registration of shares of common
stock for issuance upon the exchange of exchangeable shares, of our report dated
February 12, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
of IVI Checkmate Corp. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 1998.



                                         /s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

Toronto, Ontario
March 24, 1999