alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-10-00411-CR

CURTIS TYLER LUNSFORD,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court No. FMM-10-20323

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After his jury trial on a charge of murder had begun, Curtis Lunsford changed 

his not-guilty plea to an open plea of guilty and waived his right to a jury. The trial 

court accepted the guilty plea and found Lunsford guilty. After a punishment hearing, 

Lunsford was assessed a seventy-five year prison sentence. Lunsford appealed, and his 

appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief,

asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, 

the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 
Lunsford v. State Page 2

493 (1967). Although informed of his right to do so, Lunsford did not file a pro se

response to the Anders brief.

In an Anders case, we must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings, [] 

decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; 

accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is 

“wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy 

v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 

(1988).

We have conducted an independent review of the record, and because we find 

this appeal to be wholly frivolous, we affirm the judgment. Counsel must send 

Lunsford a copy of our decision by certified mail, return receipt requested, at 

Lunsford’s last known address. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. Counsel must also notify Lunsford 

of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Id.; see also Ex parte Owens, 

206 S.W.3d 670, 673-74 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, 

effective upon counsel’s compliance with this notification requirement as evidenced by 

“a letter [to this Court] certifying his compliance.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed March 21, 2012

Do not publish

[CRPM]
Exhibit 23.1
                                                                    ------------








            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
            --------------------------------------------------------



We  hereby  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the Registration
Statement  on Form S-8 (File No. 333-121439) of our report, dated March 1, 2006,
relating  to  the  consolidated  financial  statements  of  N-Viro International
Corporation  included  in  this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the years ended
December  31,  2005  and  2004.







  /s/  UHY LLP
--------------
UHY LLP


Southfield, Michigan
March 1, 2006
EX 31.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Lucien R. Paquette, certify that:



1.

I have received this quarterly report of Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended February 28, 2002 of The Bralorne Mining Company, the registrant;



2.

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



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, other than financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



4.

The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



a.

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



b.

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and



c.

presented in this quarterly report our conclusion about effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors:



a.

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal control; and



b.

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and



6.

The registrants other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regards to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Dated:

June 9, 2004

/s/Lucien R. Paquette



Lucien R. Paguette,

Chief Financial Officer



Chief Accounting Officer

Secretary Treasurer and Director
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-974V

Filed: April 6, 2015

Not for Publication

*************************************

JAMES BERGERON, *

*

 Petitioner, * Attorneys’ fees and costs decision based on

 * stipulation of facts

v. *

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Alison H. Haskins, Sarasota, FL, for petitioner.

Gordon E. Shemin, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On April 3, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation of facts in which they agreed on an 

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case. 

In accordance with General Order #9, petitioner asserts that he did not incur any costs in 

pursuit of his petition. Petitioner submitted his request for attorneys’ fees and costs to 

respondent. During informal discussions, respondent raised objections to certain aspects of

petitioner’s application. Based on these objections, petitioner amends his application for 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made 

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is 

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to redact such information prior to the document=s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, 

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall 

redact such material from public access.
2

attorneys’ fees and costs to $17,299.24. Respondent does not object to this amount. The 

undersigned finds this amount to be reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards $17,299.24, 

representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the form of a 

check payable jointly to petitioner and Maglio, Christopher & Toale, P.A. for $17,299.24.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the 

court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2015 s/ Laura D. Millman

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master

 

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 31, 2014

h0127

Order 

Clerk

January 31, 2014

147878

PERCY LEWIS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147878

COA: 311528

Oakland CC: 11-122989-NO

CITY OF FERNDALE,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 10, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 32.3



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TransDigm Inc.
(the Company) for the thirteen and twenty-six week periods ended March 27, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, W. Nicholas Howley, President, Chief Executive Officer
and Director (Principal Executive Officer), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of the dates indicated and results of operations of the
Company for the periods indicated.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: May 5, 2004



/s/    W. Nicholas HowleyName: W. Nicholas Howley Title: President,
Chief Executive Officer and          Director (Principal Executive Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1595

JAMES ARTHUR SMITH,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

ANTHEM, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, 

District Judge. (2:15-cv-00197-AWA-LRL)

Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Arthur Smith, Appellant Pro Se. David Edward Constine, 

III, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Arthur Smith appeals the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment in favor of Anthem, Inc., on Smith’s 

discrimination and retaliation claims, brought pursuant to Title 

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012), and the Americans with Disabilities 

Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12300 (2012). On appeal, we confine our 

review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th 

Cir. R. 34(b). Because Smith’s informal brief does not 

challenge the basis for the district court’s dispositive 

rulings, Smith has forfeited appellate review of the district 

court’s order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 

430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004); see also Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 

178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (failure to raise issue in 

opening brief constitutes abandonment of that issue). 

Accordingly, we deny Smith’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis and affirm the district court’s judgment. See Smith v. 

Anthem, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00197-AWA-LRL (E.D. Va. May 20, 2016). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[104th Congress Public Law 154]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ154.104]

[[Page 110 STAT. 1391]]

Public Law 104-154
104th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To designate the bridge, estimated to be completed in the year 2000, 
that replaces the bridge on Missouri highway 74 spanning from East Cape 
Girardeau, Illinois, to Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as the ``Bill Emerson 
 Memorial Bridge'', and for other purposes. <<NOTE: July 2, 1996 -  [S. 
                                1903]>> 

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF BILL EMERSON BRIDGE.

    The bridge, estimated to be completed in the year 2000, that 
replaces the bridge on highway 74 spanning from East Cape Girardeau, 
Illinois, to Cape Girardeau, Missouri, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the bridge referred to in section 1 shall 
be deemed to be a reference to the ``Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge''.

    Approved July 2, 1996.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 1903:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 142 (1996):
            June 25, considered and passed Senate and House.

                                  <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 193 (Monday, October 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26413]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 95F-0040]


Chemie Research and Manufacturing Co., Inc.; Withdrawal of Food 
Additive Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the 
withdrawal, without prejudice to a future filing, of a food additive 
petition filed by Chemie Research and Manufacturing Co., Inc., 
proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for 
the safe use of a glycerin extract of dried grapefruit seeds and pulp 
as an antimicrobial agent in the processing of fresh or frozen poultry, 
fish, and shellfish.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valerie M. Davis, Center for Food 
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-206), Food and Drug Administration, 
200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal 
Register of March 16, 1995 (60 FR 14286), FDA announced that a food 
additive petition (FAP 2A4336) had been filed by Chemie Research and 
Manufacturing Co., Inc., 160 Concord Dr., P.O. Box 181279, Casselberry, 
FL 32718-1279. The petition proposed that the food additive regulations 
be amended to provide for the safe use of a glycerin extract of dried 
grapefruit seeds and pulp as an antimicrobial agent in the processing 
of fresh or frozen poultry, fish, and shellfish.
    By letter dated May 10, 1995, the agency notified the petitioner 
that consideration of the petitioned use for the glycerin extract of 
dried grapefruit seed and pulp would require the submission and 
evaluation of specific additional data. By letter of June 1, 1995, the 
petitioner provided a partial response to the agency's request for 
information and stated an intent to provide a complete response within 
180 days. However, no further information was submitted within the 180-
day time period.
    By letter of July 24, 1996, FDA again requested that the necessary 
data be submitted within 30 days and stated that a failure to respond 
would be considered to be an agreement by the petitioner to withdraw 
the petition. Because FDA has received no response from the petitioner, 
and the required information has not been submitted, the petition is 
now withdrawn without prejudice to a future filing (21 CFR 171.7(b)). 
Future consideration of the use of a glycerin extract of dried 
grapefruit seeds and pulp as an antimicrobial agent in the processing 
of fresh or frozen poultry, fish, and shellfish will require submission 
of a new food additive petition.

    Dated: September 22, 1997.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 97-26413 Filed 10-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20549

 

FORM N-CSR

 

| Investment Company Act file number | 811-04760 |
|------------------------------------|-----------|

 

DWS Advisor Funds

 (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

 

One South Street

Baltimore, MD  21202

(Address of principal executive offices)             (Zip code)

 

Registrant’s Telephone Number, including Area Code: (212) 454-7190

 

Paul Schubert

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10154

(Name and Address of Agent for Service)

 

| Date of fiscal year end: | 10/31 |
|--------------------------|-------|

 

| Date of reporting period: | 10/31/07 |
|---------------------------|----------|

 

 

**ITEM 1.**           **REPORT TO STOCKHOLDERS**

 

 

OCTOBER 31, 2007

Annual Report
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 197 (Friday, October 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26941]



[[Page 52987]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-73-008


Mississippi River Transmission; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

October 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 1, 1997, Mississippi River Transmission 
Corporation (MRT), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Third Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed below to be 
effective November 1, 1997.

Second Revised Sheet No. 71
Second Revised Sheet No. 72
Third Revised Sheet No. 73
Second Revised Sheet No. 74
Substitute Fourth Revised Sheet No. 80
Second Revised Sheet No. 83
Third Revised Sheet No. 118
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 120
Third Revised Sheet No. 149
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 224
Third Revised Sheet No. 225

    MRT states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the 
letter order issued in this docket on June 13, 1997.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington D.C. 20426, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary,
[FR Doc. 97-26941 Filed 10-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### William KATZ and Joseph Katz, d/b/a Orange Grove Kennels, Petitioners, v. Robert MENDHEIM, Respondent.

No. 41024.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 12, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 244 So.2d 560.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Nicklebys.com, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report’), I, Bruce Capra, Chief Accounting 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/ Bruce Capra                                     Bruce Capra			Chief Financial Officer			November 11, 2005

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 198 (Tuesday, October 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 53323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27056]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-4024-000 and EL95-62-000]


British Columbia Power Exchange Corporation; Notice of Issuance 
of Order

October 7, 1997.
    British Columbia Power Exchange Corporation (Powerex) filed an 
application for authorization to sell power at market-based rates, and 
for certain waivers and authorizations. In particular, Powerex 
requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 
34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liabilities 
by Powerex. On September 24, 1997, the Commission issued an Order 
Accepting for Filing Market-Based Rates and Granting and Denying 
Waivers and Authorizations (Order), in the above-docketed processing.
    The Commission's September 24, 1997 Order granted the request for 
blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the conditions found in 
Ordering Paragraphs (D), (E), and (G):
    (D) Within 30 days of the date of this order, any person desiring 
to be heard or to protest the Commission's blanket approval of 
issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities by Powerex should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214.
    (E) Absent a request to be heard within the period set forth in 
Ordering Paragraph (D) above, Powerex is hereby authorized to issue 
securities and to assume obligations or liabilities as guarantor, 
endorser, surety or otherwise in respect of any security of another 
person; provided that such issue or assumption is for some lawful 
object within the corporate purposes of Powerex, compatible with the 
public interest, and reasonably necessary or appropriate for such 
purposes.
    (G) The Commission reserves the right to modify this order to 
require a further showing that neither public nor private interests 
will be adversely affected by continued Commission approval of 
Powerex's issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities * * *.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is October 24, 1997.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-27056 Filed 10-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M