alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order filed October 13, 2020. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00252-CV

____________

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF MAYRA LIZABETH 

RAMIREZ CARBAJAL AND VINCE CASIMIR

On Appeal from the 507th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-80554

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due October 5, 2020. No brief or motion for extension 

of time has been filed. 

Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before November 4, 2020, 

the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
Panel Consists of Justices Spain, Hassan, and Poissant.
No. 00-1018.

#### Werth *v.*Garvey, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Gertrude E. KENNEDY, f/k/a Gertrude E. Bohner, f/k/a Trude E. Bohner, Petitioner, v. Richard Lockhart BOHNER, a/k/a Richard L. Bohner, a/k/a R. L. Bohner, Respondent.

No. 44593.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 13, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 283 So.2d 900.

ADKINS, C. J., and BOYD, McCAIN and CARLTON (Ret.), JJ., concur.

DEKLE, J., dissents.
Exhibit
      32.1





**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 Preferred Voice, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mary G. Merritt,
      Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/
                Mary G. MerrittMary
                G. MerrittPrincipal
                Executive OfficerPrincipal
                Financial OfficerFebruary
                13, 2007
[No. 322-3.

Division Three.

October 14, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Richard McDonald *et al., Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Oka*919nogan County, No. 05434, Robert J. Murray, J., entered December 11, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1137 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1137

For the relief of the surviving children of Barbara Hutchings and Peter 
                               Hutchings.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 22, 1993

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
For the relief of the surviving children of Barbara Hutchings and Peter 
                               Hutchings.

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

SECTION 1. RETROACTIVE SURVIVOR'S BENEFITS.

    (a) In General.--The provisions of section 202(j)(1)(B) of the 
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(j)(1)(B)) shall not apply to the 
application for survivor benefits under section 202(d) of such Act (42 
U.S.C. 402(d)) filed by Barbara Hutchings on behalf of the surviving 
children of Peter Hutchings of Hawaii, and such application shall be 
deemed to have been filed before the close of the month of the death of 
Peter Hutchings.
    (b) Attorney's and Agent's Fees.--
            (1) In General.--It shall be unlawful for more than 10 
        percent of the amount paid pursuant to subsection (a) to be 
        paid to or received by any agent or attorney for any service 
        rendered in connection with the benefits provided by this Act.
            (2) Enforcement.--Any person violating the provisions of 
        paragraph (1) shall be fined not more than $1,000.

                                 <all>
```
#### John GLASGOW and Conrad Maurice Farmer, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-56.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 5, 1974.

Joseph A. Varón of Varón, Stahl & Kay, Hollywood, for appellants.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Frank B. Kessler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

OWEN, Chief Judge.

Appellants were jointly charged with conspiracy to commit bribery, and additionally, appellant-Glasgow was charged with three offenses of bribery. On non-jury trial, appellants were found guilty on all charges and have appealed from the resulting judgments and sentences.

The count alleging the conspiracy consisted of a single sentence containing the following conclusionary allegation:

> “. . . that [appellants] between the 6th day of February, A.D. 1972, and the 15th day of February, A.D. 1972, in the County and State aforesaid, did unlawfully agree, conspire, combine or confederate with each other to commit a felony, to-wit: Bribery upon one F. Wood, contrary to F.S. 833.04.”

It is our view that the allegations of this count were insufficient as a matter of law, State v. Smith, Fla. 1970, 240 So.2d 807; State ex rel. Kelly v. Whisnant, Fla. 1955, 80 So.2d 611, and therefore it was error to deny appellant’s motion to dismiss this count of the information.

We have considered the other two points raised by appellant-Glasgow and find them to be without merit. Specifically, as to Point III, it is clear that the conduct of the public official which appellant-Glasgow sought to influence was within the scope of the officer’s legal duties, i. e., his on-going investigation of vice activities in Broward County, Florida. Nell v. State, Fla.1973, 277 So.2d 1, upon which appellant relies, involved conduct outside the official capacity of the public officer to perform, and is thus readily distinguishable. The facts in the instant case are *371substantially similar to those found in Zal-la v. State, Fla.1952, 61 So.2d 649, in which a conviction for bribery was affirmed.

The judgments and sentences as to appellants-Farmer and Glasgow on the charge of conspiracy to commit bribery are reversed. The judgments and sentences as to appellant-Glasgow on the charges of bribery are affirmed.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 6, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-60778

Summary Calendar

 

MAHMOOD SHAHID,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A72 054 470

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mahmood Shahid petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his application for

asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

Against Torture (“CAT”). This court lacks jurisdiction to

consider the denial of Shahid’s application for asylum because

the BIA denied the application as untimely. 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(a)(3). 

Regarding the withholding of removal, Shahid conclusionally

argues that he has a reasonable fear of future persecution, but
No. 04-60778

-2-

he does not specify on what statutorily protected ground he would

be persecuted, nor does challenge the Immigration Judge’s finding

that he holds no political opinion and is not a member of any

particular social group. He has thus abandoned any challenge to

those findings. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th

Cir. 1993). His claim for withholding of removal fails because,

even if it is assumed that the evidence established a likelihood

of future persecution, such persecution must be based on one of

the enumerated grounds. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906

(5th Cir. 2002); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1). His claim for relief

under the CAT similarly fails because there is no evidence that

he would be subjected to any government-sponsored torture if

returned to Pakistan. See Bah v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 348, 352

(5th Cir. 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1).

The petition for review is DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 26 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 26

To amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit putting 
   the question on final passage of any measure until copies of that 
      measure have been available to Members for at least one day.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

 Mr. Zeliff submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit putting 
   the question on final passage of any measure until copies of that 
      measure have been available to Members for at least one day.

    Resolved, That rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following new 
clause:
    ``10. (a) Except as provided by paragraph (b), it shall not be in 
order to put the question upon final passage of any bill or resolution 
until printed copies of that bill or resolution have been available for 
all Members for at least one calendar day (excluding Saturdays, 
Sundays, and legal holidays).
    ``(b) Paragraph (a) may be suspended upon the joint request of the 
Speaker and minority leader based upon a determination of national 
emergency and an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members voting, 
a quorum being present, to suspend that paragraph for a particular bill 
or resolution.''.

                                 <all>
```
H. Res. 586

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

November 29, 1994.

Resolved, That Members of the House express their profound thanks and appreciation to the Honorable Thomas S.

Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives for the very

fair and impartial manner with which he has presided over

our deliberations and performed the arduous duties of the

chair during his tenure as Speaker.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Danny BRIDGES, Appellant, v. Geraldine R. FIBLE, unmarried, Appellee.

No. O-216.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 24, 1971.

Millar & Fallin, for appellant.

John Paul Howard, Jacksonville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., RAWLS, J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO DEBENTURE


 


This Amendment No. 4 to Debenture (this
“Amendment”) dated this 15th day of January, 2021, by and among Bespoke Extracts, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”)
and The Vantage Group Ltd., a Delaware corporation (the “Holder”).


 


WHEREAS, the Holder is the holder of an
outstanding original issue discount convertible debenture of the Company, in the outstanding principal amount of $100,000, with
an original issue date of December 24, 2019, as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto, dated May 28, 2020, Amendment No. 2 thereto,
dated August 21, 2020, and Amendment No. 3 thereto, dated December10, 2020 (as amended, the “Debenture”);


 


WHEREAS, the Company and the Holder desire
to amend the Debenture as more particularly set forth below;


 


WHEREFORE, the parties do hereby agree
as follows:


 


1. The last sentence of Section 1.1(a)
of the Debenture is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:


 


The Conversion Price will be equal to $0.05
(subject to adjustment in all cases for stock splits, stock dividends, and similar transactions).


 


2. Except as modified herein, the terms
of the Debenture shall remain in full force and effect.


 


3. This Amendment may be executed in any
number of counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and shall be binding upon all parties,
their successors and assigns, and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same Amendment. A signature delivered
by facsimile or email shall constitute an original.


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 




     


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties
have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above. 


 


	BESPOKE EXTRACTS, INC.	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Dani Pollack	 
	Name:  	Danil Pollack	 
	Title: 	Chief Executive Officer	 


 


	THE VANTAGE GROUP LTD.	 
	 	 	 
	By: 	/s/ Lyle Hauser	 
	Name: 	Lyle Hauser	 
	Title: 	Chief Executive Officer
# C_2022024EN.01002101.xml

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal correctionnel de Villefranche-sur-Saône (France) lodged on 29 October 2021 — Procureur de la République v K.B., F.S.

(Case C-660/21)

(2022/C 24/27)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal correctionnel de Villefranche-sur-Saône

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Procureur de la République

Defendants: K.B., F.S.

Question referred

Must Articles 3 (Right to information about rights) and 4 (Letter of Rights on arrest) of the Directive of the European Parliament of 22 May 2012 (1) and Article 7 (Right to remain silent) of the Directive of the European Parliament of 9 March 2016 (2) in conjunction with Article 48 (Presumption of innocence and right of defence) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding the prohibition on the national court raising of its own motion a violation of the rights of the defence as guaranteed by those directives, more specifically in so far as it is prohibited from raising of its own motion, with a view to the annulment of the procedure, a failure to give notification of the right to remain silent at the time of the arrest or a late notification of the right to remain silent?

---

(1)  Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1).

(2)  Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1).

---
*Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-10673

Summary Calendar

TOMMY J. HAMILTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

TEXACO, INC., A Texas Corporation and its Chairmans,

Executives, its Managers, its Agents, Servants, Employees

and Assigns; GREG TRUE; DIAZ; JIM BOWLES, Sheriff,

Individually and in his Official Capacity as Sheriff

of Dallas County, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(No. 3:95-CV-366-P)

December 7, 1995

Before THORNBERRY, GARWOOD, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tommy J. Hamilton appeals the dismissal with prejudice as

frivolous of his action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§§ 1091-1988. He

argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint,
2

as he states viable §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 claims. Because he

fails to argue whether he stated claims under §§ 1981, 1982, and

1994, these claims are considered abandoned on appeal, and we will

not address them. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th

Cir. 1993). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. We affirm for essentially the same reasons given by the

district court. Hamilton v. Texaco, No. 95-10673 (N.D. Tex. 19

July, 13, 1995).

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, David Kirwan, certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this annualreport on Form 10-K of Fischer Imaging Corporation;

 

2.Based on my knowledge, thisannual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report;

 

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

 

4.The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a.Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

b.Evaluated the effectiveness ofthe registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisannual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annualreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c.Disclosed in this annual reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

5.The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors:

 

a.All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

b.Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  March 31, 2005 | /s/  DAVID  KIRWAN |
|-----------------------|------------------------------|
|                  | David  Kirwan                |
| * *              | *Chief Financial Officer*    |

 

----
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

honorable V. J. Campbell County Attorney Oorsa County post, Texas Bear Sir:

question.

Si.nc:\-S&&e action on final passage vail not taken byarecord vote ehovlng that two-thirds of all memberselectedto the Senate approved the Aat, its emergemy olause vas of no effect, andit did not go into force until ninety dsye after adjournment of the Legislature. Stioticm 39, Constitution of Texas. Exparte May, 40 9. W. (2d v. Cole, 102 S. W. (2d) 173. OurOpinion No. O-51

### .f l&l.

gaomble V. J. CsmpDell, page 2

The 48th Lu$iel8ture adjourned onJleyll, 1943, The A;~g~estiOIi became effective ninet full days after adi Copua v. Chorn, 150 8. W. 2d) 70, 153 s. Y. (2d) 9 98. l 

### Verytruly rourr 

### ATTOMEY MUtERAL OFTEXAS
llgrdb
Exhibit
31.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 
 
 I, Mary
G. Merritt, certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Preferred Voice,
Inc.;
 
 2. Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
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 quarterly report.
 
 4. I am
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 I have:
 
 a.
designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 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 my conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;
 
 5. I have
disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and
the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent function):
 
 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 controls; 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. 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 regard to significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses.
   /s/ Mary G.
Merritt
  Mary G.
Merritt
 Chief
Executive Officer
 (Principal
Executive Officer
 and
Principal Financial Officer)
 February
13, 2009