alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-30673

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BENJAMIN HARRIS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:06-CR-55-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Benjamin Harris,

federal prisoner # 04549-095, has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a

brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Harris has

not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief

discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 15, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-30673 Document: 00511382470 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2011
Exhibit 32

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

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of THQ Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2009,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Brian J. Farrell, Chief Executive Officer and Paul J. Pucino, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:



/s/ Brian J. Farrell Brian J. Farrell
Chief Executive Officer
May 22, 2009/s/ Paul J. Pucino Paul J. Pucino
Chief Financial Officer
May 22, 2009


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
#### Willie SETTLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-194.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 30, 1970.

Robert W. Rawlins, Public Defender, and Don C. Kilgore, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Morton J. Hanlon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is the second time this case has been before this court on the same assignment of error. Settle v. State, Fla.App.1969, 223 So.2d 385. In this appeal the public defender has filed an “Anders” brief,1 and asks permission to withdraw as counsel. We see no reason for the procedure set out in Leone v. State2 to be followed. Therefore, the order appealed from is affirmed and the public defender’s motion to withdraw is granted.

Affirmed.

HOBSON, C. J., and LILES and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.

1

. See Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493.

2

. Fla.App.1970, 233 So.2d 404.
NO. 12-15-00021-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE: 

KEITH PATRICK MCKAY,

RELATOR

§

§

§

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Relator, Keith Patrick McKay, was convicted of aggravated sexual assault, injury to an 

elderly individual, burglary of a habitation, and burglary of a habitation with intent to commit an 

assault. This Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. See McKay v. State, No. 

12-05-00282-CR, 2006 WL 2106981 (Tex. App.–Tyler July 31, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication). 

In this original mandamus proceeding, Relator complains that his trial counsel was 

ineffective and the DNA evidence is legally insufficient to convict him of sexual assault. 

Consequently, he asks that his four felony convictions be set aside. These convictions have been 

final for over eight years.1 Thus, although Relator characterizes the relief he seeks as mandamus 

relief, he is, in substance, seeking postconviction habeas relief. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 11.07 § 1 (West Supp. 2014). 

We are not authorized to act on a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief from a 

final felony conviction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d) (West 2004). The Texas Court 

of Criminal Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over postconviction writs of habeas corpus in 

felony cases. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 § 3 (West Supp. 2014). Moreover, the 

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes the procedure for filing a postconviction habeas 

 

1

 This Court’s mandate issued on November 20, 2006.
2

application to seek relief from a final felony conviction in a Texas court. See TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2014). The intermediate courts of appeals have no role in 

this procedure. See id. Because the court of criminal appeals has exclusive authority to grant 

postconviction relief from a final felony conviction, we are without jurisdiction to consider 

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. Accordingly, Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered February 27, 2015.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

FEBRUARY 27, 2015

NO. 12-15-00021-CR

KEITH PATRICK MCKAY,

Relator

v.

HON. PAM FLETCHER,

Respondent

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Keith 

Patrick McKay; who is the relator in Cause No. 05-CR-005, pending on the docket of the 349th 

Judicial District Court of Houston County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having 

been filed herein on January 27, 2015, and the same having been duly considered, because it is 

the opinion of this Court that it lacks jurisdiction, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED 

and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income Fund X, Ltd. at December 31, 1997, and its statement of
income for the year then ended and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
the Form 10-K of CNL Income Fund X, Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,676,119<F2>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  261,759
<ALLOWANCES>                                   137,856
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      16,823,146
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,113,247
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              36,289,727
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,154,043
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                36,289,727
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,542,851
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  414,105
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,531,381
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,531,381
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,531,381
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F2>Cash balance includes $92,236 in restricted cash.
<F1>Due to the nature of its industry, CNL Income Fund X, Ltd. has an
unclassified balance sheet; therefore, no values are shown above for current
assets and current liabilities.
</FN>
        





</TABLE>
Exhibit 21

SYPRIS SOLUTIONS, INC.

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

The Companys subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 are as follows:



|(1) | Sypris Electronics, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | Sypris Data Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------



|(3) | Sypris Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------



|(4) | Sypris Technologies Marion, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------



|(5) | Sypris Technologies Kenton, Inc., a Delaware corporation.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------



|(6) | Sypris Technologies Mexican Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(7) | Sypris Technologies Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V., a Mexican limited liability company.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(8) | Sypris Technologies Toluca, S.A. de C.V., a Mexican corporation.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------



|(9) | Sypris Europe ApS, a Danish private limited liability company.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------
No. 10350.

#### Kerr *v.*Perry, Admr., et al.

Decided May 5, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Jefferson county.

*Mr. John FI. McKee*and *Mr. Dio Rogers,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Wood, Hitchcock & Morgan*and *Mr. Ernest L. Finley,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
#### John C. LABOSSIERE, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, Respondent.

No. 73-579.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 26, 1973.

Certiorari dismissed.
Exhibit 10.16







STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA


 


	COUNTY OF DURHAM	SIXTH AMENDMENT TO LEASE




 





 


THIS SIXTH
AMENDMENT TO LEASE is made and entered into this the 1st day of March, 2014, by and between Biopharm Properties, LLC (“Landlord”)
and Chimerix, Inc. (“Tenant”).


 


WITNESSETH:


 


WHEREAS,
Landlord and Tenant entered into a Lease Agreement dated September 1, 2008 and amended February 9, 2009, June 9, 2009, May 17,
2011, February 29, 2012 and again November 30, 2012 (collectively, known as the “Lease”), under the terms of which
Landlord leases to Tenant certain premises in or near the City of Durham, North Carolina, and


 


WHEREAS,
the parties hereto desire to further revise and clarify certain provisions of the Lease in order to more accurately reflect the
terms of their business arrangement.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
of which is hereby acknowledged by each of the parties hereto, the parties hereto do agree that the Lease shall be amended and
modified as follows:


 


		1.	The Lease expired February 28, 2014, but the Landlord and the Tenant have
elected to extend the Term of the Lease for the Premises for a period to commence on March 1, 2014 and expire June 30, 2014 (the
“Extension Period”).



 


		2.	During the Extension Period, Tenant’s monthly Base Rent shall be $13,752.98
for the Extension Period. The monthly Additional Rent during this Extension Period shall be $1,832.33.



 


		3.	Tenant shall surrender possession of the Premises as defined in the Lease
on or before June 30, 2014, in accordance with the terms of Article 28 of the Lease relating to surrender of possession.



 


		4.	All other terms and conditions will remain the same.



 


		5.	All capitalized terms used herein, but not otherwise defined, shall have
the meaning ascribed to them in the Lease. Unless otherwise amended, modified, or supplemented herein, all the other terms, covenants,
and conditions of the Lease shall remain in full force and effect.



 


SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE


 






    	1



    	 



    

 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Sixth Amendment to Lease to be executed as of the date first set forth above.


 


 


	 	LANDLORD:  BIOPHARM PROPERTIES, LLC
	 	By:      Granite Investments, LLC, Manager
	 	 
	 	By:      /s/ C. Richard Vaughn                                     
	 	Its:      Manager                                                            
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	TENANT:  CHIMERIX, INC.
	 	 
	 	 
	 	By:      /s/ Timothy W. Trost                                      
	 	
        Its:      SVP &
        CFO                                                       

         





 






    	2
EXHIBIT 31.1

 CERTIFICATION OF INTERIM PRESIDENT, PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                         AND ITEM 307 OF REGULATION S-K

I, David Pollock, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Hydron Technologies,
   Inc.;

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 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 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 under our supervision,
      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 report is being
      prepared;

   b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report our conclusion 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

   c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
      over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's first
      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:

   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.

/s/ David Pollock
-----------------
David Pollock
Chief Executive Officer, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer

November 22, 2005
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5001]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

Sunshine Act Meeting; Public Hearing in Maine: Marine Accident

    In connection with its investigation of the ramming of the Portland 
Bridge at Portland, Maine, by the Liberian Tank Ship JULIE N on 
September 27, 1996, the National Transportation Safety Board will 
convene a public hearing at 9:00 a.m., (local time) on March 13, 1997, 
at the Sheraton Tara Hotel, 363 Maine Mall Road, South Portland, Maine 
04106. For more information, contact Pat Cariseo, Office of Public 
Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20594, telephone (202) 314-6100.

    Dated: February 25, 1997.
Bea Hardesty,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-5001 Filed 2-25-97; 10:48 am]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-P
```
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Tommy Glynn EPPERSON v. Barney SCHOENBERGER, Sheriff, Plaquemines Parish, and C. Murray Henderson, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 54171.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 15, 1974.

In re: Tommy Glynn Epperson applying for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Writ refused. There is no merit in the petition as to any matter not disposed of in the appeal of this case.
255 La. 152

#### MICHIGAN WISCONSIN PIPE LINE COMPANY v. Elroy HEBERT.

No. 50229.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1970.

In re: Elroy Hebert applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Acadia. 227 So.2d 615.

Writ refused. There appears no error of law in the judgment complained of.

SANDERS, J., is of the opinion a writ should be granted.

SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS,  STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS,  STATEMENT OF
STOCKHOLDERS'  DEFICIENCY  AND  STATEMENT  OF CASH  FLOWS  FROM FORM 10Q FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED APRIL 3, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
        
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-2-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              APR-3-1999
<CASH>                                         2,163
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 92,605
<ALLOWANCES>                                   4,533
<INVENTORY>                                   58,147
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              14,319
<PP&E>                                        19,432
<DEPRECIATION>                                10,759
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               278,619
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        119,856
<BONDS>                                      155,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (2,223)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 278,619
<SALES>                                      354,808
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             356,866
<CGS>                                        322,453
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                350,197
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (511)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4,353
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,827
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,349
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,478
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,478
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Michael J. Quinn, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of CardioGenesisCorporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this Annual Report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this AnnualReport;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this Annual Report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis Annual Report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrantand we have:
(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this Annual Report isbeing prepared;
(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this Annual Report based on such evaluation; and
(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors:
(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.
/s/ MICHAEL J. QUINN
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. McLEOD AND WESTERMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Appellee.

No. 72-178.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 26, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.