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

San Antonio, Texas

November 16, 2017

No. 04-17-00735-CR

Porucha Denise PHILLIPS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR9222A

The Honorable Laura Lee Parker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

A trial court’s certification of defendant’s right of appeal has been filed in this appeal. 

The trial court judge has certified that the underlying criminal case “is a plea-bargain case, and 

the defendant has NO right of appeal.” Therefore, we ORDER the trial court clerk to file an 

electronic clerk’s record within TEN DAYS from the date of this order containing the following 

documents:

1. all pre-trial orders and the related pre-trial motions;

2. the Court’s Admonishments, the defendant’s Waiver, Consent to Stipulation of 

Testimony, and any other stipulations, and all other documents relating to the 

defendant s plea bargain;

3. the Judgment;

4. all post-judgment motions and orders;

5. the Notice of Appeal;

6. the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal; and

7. the Criminal Docket Sheet.
We DIRECT the clerk of this court to send a copy of this order to the attorneys of record, 

the trial court clerk, and the court reporter(s) responsible for preparing the reporter’s record in 

this appeal.

All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court. 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 16th day of November, 2017.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 99
                           ==========

        Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the Quarterly Report of DrGoodTeeth.com, Registrant
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Anchana Chayawatana, Chief Executive Officer of Registrant, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the bet of my
knowledge and belief:

   (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 Registrant.


Date: November 3, 2002        /s/ Anchana Chayawatana
                              ----------------------------------
                              Chief Executive Officer of
                              DrGoodTeeth.com, Registrant





  Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906
     of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
  ----------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dr. GoodTeeth.com, the
Registrant, on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Lt.Dr. Somdul Manpiankarn, Chief Financial Officer of
Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the bet of my knowledge and belief:

   (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 Registrant.



Date: November 3, 2002    /s/ Lt.Dr. Somdul Manpiankarn
                          ----------------------------------
                          Chief Financial Officer of
			  DrGoodTeeth.com, Registrant
UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

___________________________________ ) SEA N Q UA LLS, ) ) P la in t if f, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-311 (C KK ) ) ISAAC F ULWOOD, JR. et al., ) ) De fend ant s. )

___________________________________ )
M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint ag ainst the Chairman a nd members of

the United States Parole Commission, asserting that he was e ntitled to, but di d not rec eive, a parole decision base d on the 1987 par ole guidelines. As re lief, the plaintiff sought (1) a de clar atory judgme nt that the defe ndants’ application of the 2000 parole g uidelines violated the e x post facto c lause, (2) an order direc ting the Commission to conduct within 45 day s a newparole hear ing usingthe 1987 parole g uidelines. Plaintiff also reque sted this Court to retain jurisdiction to ensure complianc e wi th t he or de r s ou g ht. The de fenda

nts filed a motion to dism iss the complaint as moot, stating that the Commis sio n h a d s c he du le d a no the r p aro le he ari ngfo r t he pla int if

f o n Jun e 24 , 2 00 9, at w hic h it would apply

the 1987 par ole guidelines. The plaintiff oppose d the motion, because the hea ring had not y et occ urre d. Subsequently , the def endants c onfirmed that on June 24, 2009, plaintiff had a pa role he aringusing the 1987 g uidelines. See Def s.’ Reply at 1. A show c ause or der iss ue d, dir e c tin gthe pla int if f t o s tate why

the mot ion

to d ism iss sh ou ld n ot b e g ra nte d. In h is response to the show ca

use orde r, the plaintiff r elies on Anyanwutaku v. M oore, 151 F.3d 1053,Plaintiff’s argument ref lects the incor

rec t presumption that “if A, then B ” is the same a s 1
“ only if A, then B .” Obviously , the condition “if” is not the equivalent of the c ondition “only if.” -2- 1057 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (whe re a prisoner’ s subsequent re lease on parole mooted his complaint for injunctive and dec laratory relief reg ardinghis parole e ligibility date) , to argue that the instant complaint cannot be mooted unless the plaintiff is rele ased on pa role. See Pl.’s Response ¶ 4. He a lso states that his request for a new parole hear ing w as “but one of seve ral issues pre sented upon which re lief wa s reque sted.” Id. Plaintiff’s argument is unavailing . His interpre tation of the cited c ase la w is based on faulty logic and is incorr ect. The instant complaint soug ht a new pa role he aringusing the 1987 1 g uidelines, and plaintiff ha s rea liz ed that re lief. B eca use the super sedingparole hear ing r ender ed the prior one ineffe ctive, ther e is no long er a need f or a de clar atory

judgme nt reg ardingthe 2000 g uidelines. Ther e is also no nee d to retain jurisdiction to ensure compliance with any order
. There fore , beca

use the plaintiff ha s rea liz ed all ava ilable re lief, the c omplaint is m oot and will be dismiss ed. A sepa rate order acc ompanies this memorandum opinion.
/ s / C O LLE E N K O LLA R
- K O T E LLY Da t e: Au gu s t1 4 , 2 0 0 9 Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2272 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2272

    To designate a mountain in the State of Alaska as Mount Denali.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 29, 2012

 Ms. Murkowski introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To designate a mountain in the State of Alaska as Mount Denali.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF MOUNT DENALI IN THE STATE OF ALASKA.

    (a) In General.--The mountain located at 63 04' 12" N, by 151 00' 
18" W, in the State of Alaska shall be known and designated as ``Mount 
Denali''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the mountain described 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to ``Mount 
Denali''.
                                 <all>
```
|   | 1. | I      have reviewed this 10-Q of Sonoma Valley  Bancorp; |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Based      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a      material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the      statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements      were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this      report; |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | Based      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the      registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this      report; |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 4. | The      registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant      and have: |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 5. | The      registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on      our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,      to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's      board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent      functions): |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  |       May      1, 2008 |   |        /s/ Mel Switzer, Jr.           |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                 |   | Mel      Switzer, Jr.                      |
|   |                                                 |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                                 |   | (Principal      Executive Officer)         |
# C_2013101EN.01001102.xml

| 6.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 28 January 2013 — Nordea Bank Danmark A/S v Skatteministeriet (Ministry of Taxation)

(Case C-48/13)

2013/C 101/24

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nordea Bank Danmark A/S

Applicant:

Defendant: Skatteministeriet (Ministry of Taxation)

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Are Article 49 TFEU, read together with Article 54 (formerly Article 43 EC, read together with Article 48) and Article 31 of the EEA Agreement, read together with Article 34, to be interpreted as precluding a Member State, which allows a company situated in that State to deduct losses on an ongoing basis from a permanent establishment situated in another Member State, from making full recapture from the company of the losses arising from the permanent establishment (in so far as they are not matched with profits in future years) in the event of the permanent establishment closing down, in connection with which part of the establishment’s business is transferred to an affiliated company within the group which is resident in the same State as the permanent establishment, and where it must be assumed that the possibilities for applying the losses in question have been exhausted?

---
Exhibit 10.117

AMENDMENT TO THE  EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This Amendment Agreement, made as of the 18th day of December, 2001 is between Staff Builders, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (the "Company") now called ATC
Healthcare Services, Inc. and Edward Teixeira (the "Employee").

WHEREAS,
the Company and the Employee entered into an Employment Agreement, dated as of April 15, 1999 and

WHEREAS,
the parties now desire to amend the Agreement as provided herein;

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:

Except
as expressly amended herein, all other terms, conditions, agreements, representations and warranties contained in the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

| |  | ATC HEALTHCARE, INC.
| |  | --------------------
| |  | By                  
| |  | EMPLOYEE            
| |  |                     

---

QuickLinks
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 199 

To require the obligation of certain highway funding within a 3-year period. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 26, 2011 

Mr. CASEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To require the obligation of certain highway funding within 

a 3-year period. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Use It or Lose It Act 

5 of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. OBLIGATION OF CERTAIN HIGHWAY FUNDING. 

7 (a) DEFINITION OF EARMARK.—In this section, the 

8 term ‘‘earmark’’ means— 

9 (1) a congressionally directed spending item, as 

10 defined in clause 5(a) of rule XLIV of the rules of 

11 the Senate for the 112th Congress; or 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 199 IS

1 (2) a congressional earmark, as defined in 

2 clause 9(d) of rule XXI of the rules of the House 

3 of Representatives for the 112th Congress. 

4 (b) OBLIGATION OF FUNDING.— 

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

6 provision of law, funds made available from the 

7 Highway Trust Fund through an earmark to carry 

8 out a highway project under title 23, United States 

9 Code, shall be obligated for the earmarked project 

10 by not later than 3 years after the date on which the 

11 earmarked funds are first made available. 

12 (2) RETURN AND REDISTRIBUTION.—Funds de13 scribed in paragraph (1) that are not obligated by 

14 the deadline specified in that paragraph shall be— 

15 (A) released to the State transportation 

16 department of the State with jurisdiction over 

17 the original recipient of the earmark; and 

18 (B) redistributed by the State for expedi19 tious use for other federally approved transpor20 tation projects in the State. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
No. 48267.

#### Protests 666346-G, etc., of Henry Pollak, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with agreement of counsel certain of the harvest hats which were imported and withdrawn for consumption prior to February 1, 1936, were held dutiable at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (5), Tariff Act of 1930, and those imported or withdrawn for consumption subsequent to said date were held dutiable at 12J4 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) of said act and the Netherlands Trade Agreement (T. D. 48075).
(Reap. Dec. 9933)

#### Yale Sales Company *v.*United States

Entry No. DE-15034, etc.

(Decided March 1, 1961)

*Lawrence <& Tuttle (Edward N. Glad*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*William H. Orriclc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard E. EiteGiEbon,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

JOHNSON, Judge:

When this appeal for reappraisement was called for trial, it was submitted upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> Mr. Glad : May it please the Court, this appeal is abandoned except as to entry number 22036, and is abandoned as to that entry except for item number 150 C.

> I offer to stipulate that the export value during the period of exportation of this particular item for such or similar merchandise was 90 cents, less 33% per cent, net packed.

> Mr. FitzGibbon : That is agreed.

> Mr. Glad : I offer to stipulate that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise during the period of exportation.

> Mr. FitzGibbon : That is agreed.

*616On the agreed facts, I find that the export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise described on the invoice covered by entry No. 22036 as item number 150 C and that such value is 90 cents, less 33% per centum, net packed.

As to all other entries and items of merchandise, the appeal, having been abandoned, is dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 43271.

#### Protest 12109-K of Polack Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of Russian bristles in small packages covered with paper, bearing the legend “Origin Siberia, TJ. S. S. R.” On the authority of Abstract 42272 the protest was sustained.
EXHIBIT 31.2
                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Andrew Reiben, certify that:

1. I HAVE REVIEWED THIS ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K OF ATC HEALTHCARE, INC.;

2.  BASED ON MY  KNOWLEDGE,  THIS  ANNUAL  REPORT  DOES NOT  CONTAIN  ANY UNTRUE
STATEMENT OF A MATERIAL FACT OR OMIT TO STATE A MATERIAL FACT  NECESSARY TO MAKE
THE STATEMENTS MADE, IN LIGHT OF THE  CIRCUMSTANCES  UNDER WHICH SUCH STATEMENTS
WERE MADE,  NOT  MISLEADING  WITH  RESPECT TO THE PERIOD  COVERED BY THIS ANNUAL
REPORT;

3.  BASED  ON MY  KNOWLEDGE,  THE  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS,  AND  OTHER  FINANCIAL
INFORMATION  INCLUDED  IN THIS ANNUAL  REPORT,  FAIRLY  PRESENT IN ALL  MATERIAL
RESPECTS THE FINANCIAL  CONDITION,  RESULTS OF OPERATIONS  AND CASH FLOWS OF THE
REGISTRANT AS OF, AND FOR, THE PERIODS PRESENTED IN THIS ANNUAL REPORT;

4.  THE  REGISTRANT'S  OTHER  CERTIFYING  OFFICERS  AND  I ARE  RESPONSIBLE  FOR
ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING  DISCLOSURE  CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES (AS DEFINED IN
EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13A-15(E) AND 15D-15(E)) FOR THE REGISTRANT AND HAVE:

            (A) DESIGNED SUCH DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES, OR CAUSED SUCH
DISCLOSURE  CONTROLS  AND  PROCEDURES  TO BE DESIGNED,  TO ENSURE THAT  MATERIAL
INFORMATION RELATING TO THE REGISTRANT, INCLUDING ITS CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES,
IS MADE KNOWN TO US BY OTHERS  WITHIN THOSE  ENTITIES,  PARTICULARLY  DURING THE
PERIOD IN WHICH THIS ANNUAL REPORT IS BEING PREPARED;

            (B)  EVALUATED  THE  EFFECTIVENESS  OF THE  REGISTRANT'S  DISCLOSURE
CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES AND PRESENTED IN THIS REPORT OUR  CONCLUSIONS  ABOUT THE
EFFECTIVENESS  OF THE DISCLOSURE  CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES,  AS OF THE END OF THE
PERIOD COVERED BY THIS REPORT BASED ON SUCH EVALUATIONS; AND

            (C) DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT ANY CHANGE IN THE REGISTRANT'S INTERNAL
CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL  REPORTING THAT OCCURRED DURING THE  REGISTRANT'S  FOURTH
FISCAL  QUARTER  THAT  HAS  MATERIALLY  AFFECTED,  OR IS  REASONABLY  LIKELY  TO
MATERIALLY AFFECT, THE REGISTRANT'S  INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL  REPORTING;
AND

5. THE REGISTRANT'S OTHER CERTIFYING OFFICERS AND I HAVE DISCLOSED, BASED ON OUR
MOST RECENT  EVALUATION OF INTERNAL  CONTROL OVER  FINANCIAL  REPORTING,  TO THE
REGISTRANT'S AUDITORS AND THE AUDIT COMMITTEE OF REGISTRANT'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS
(OR PERSONS PERFORMING THE EQUIVALENT FUNCTIONS):

            (A) ALL  SIGNIFICANT  DEFICIENCIES  AND MATERIAL  WEAKNESSES  IN THE
DESIGN OR  OPERATION  OF INTERNAL  CONTROL OVER  FINANCIAL  REPORTING  WHICH ARE
REASONABLY  LIKELY TO  ADVERSELY  AFFECT  THE  REGISTRANT'S  ABILITY  TO RECORD,
PROCESS, SUMMARIZE AND REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION; AND

            (B) ANY FRAUD, WHETHER OR NOT MATERIAL,  THAT INVOLVES MANAGEMENT OR
OTHER EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE REGISTRANT'S INTERNAL CONTROL
OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING.

Date:  _____, 2004
                                   _/s/ ANDREW REIBEN
                                   Andrew Reiben
                                   Chief Financial Officer,
                                   Senior Vice President, Finance and Treasurer
#### The United New Jersey Railroad and Canal Company et al., respondents, *v.*The Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Hudson, appellant.

[Decided October 11th, 1918.]

On appeal from an order of the court of chancery advised by' Vice-Chancellor Griffin, whose opinion is reported *ante p. 95.*

*Messrs.*Vredenburgh, *Wall &*Carey, for the respondents.

*Mr. John J.*Fallon, for the appellant.

Per Curiam.

The order appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Griffin.

*For affirmance*— The Chief-Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner — 12.

*For reversal*— None.