alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court **of Appeals** 
**f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 18

- 50497 Conference Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Luis Robert Vasquez,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:17

- CR

- 258

- 1

Before **Graves, Willett,** and **Duncan,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

The attorney appointed to represent Luis Robert Vasquez has moved
for leave to withdraw and has filed brief s in accordance with Anders

v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Vasquez has not filed a response. We have reviewed

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 25, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-50497 Document: 00515875414 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2021No. 18

- 50497

2 counsel’s brief s and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 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

. Case: 18-50497 Document: 00515875414 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/25/2021
EXHIBIT (21)-1-

                     COMPANIES OWNED BY UNIMAR COMPANY


     The following is a list of companies owned, directly and
indirectly, by Unimar Company, together with their respective
jurisdictions of incorporation.  In each case, all of the
outstanding voting securities of each company listed are owned by
the company indicated by indentation as its parent, except as
otherwise noted.


                                                 State of
                                               Incorporation

Unimar Company (a General Partnership under The
 Texas Uniform Partnership Act)
  Unimar Financing Corporation                       Delaware
  ENSTAR Corporation.                                Delaware
       VICO 7.5, Inc.                                Delaware
      Virginia Indonesia Company                     Delaware
        Virginia Services, Inc.                      Delaware
        Virginia Services, Ltd.                Delaware
        Purchasing Services, Inc.                    Delaware
    ENSTAR Indonesia, Inc.                           Delaware
      Virginia International Company                 Delaware
        VICO Trading, Inc.                           Delaware
    ENSTAR Petroleum Ltd.                            Canada
**Exhibit31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

I, Douglas W.Cowan, certify that:

1.             I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Retractable Technologies, Inc.;

2.             Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate 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 report;

3.             Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, 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 report;

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

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

b.            Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

c.             Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.             The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

a.             Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, andreport financial information; and

b.            Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date:       May 15, 2007

 
|        |   | /s/ Douglas W. Cowan                       |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | DOUGLAS W. COWAN                           |
|   |   | VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER |

 

----
No. 00-1061.

#### Ortiz *v.*Tennessee.

Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   Exhibit  23.1


BARRISTER GLOBAL SERVICES NETWORK, INC.



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors
Barrister Global Services Network, Inc.:



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 33-8749 and 333-89947) on Form S-8 of Barrister Global Services Network,
Inc. of our report dated June 26, 2000, relating to the balance sheet of
Barrister Global Services Network, Inc. as of March 31, 2000, and the related
statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the years
ended March 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related schedule, which report appears in
the March 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of Barrister Global Services
Network, Inc.




KPMG LLP
Buffalo, New York
June 18, 2001
EXHIBIT 23.2
<PAGE>



                        [Atkinson & Co., Ltd. letterhead]




                       Consent of Independent Accountants



Board of Directors
GFSB Bancorp, Inc.

We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statement  (No.
33-07131) on Form S-8 of GFSB Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated August 11, 1997,
relating to the  consolidated  statements of earnings,  changes in stockholders'
equity and cash flows for the year ending June 30, 1997, for GFSB Bancorp,  Inc.
which report  appears in the June 30, 1998 annual  report on Form 10-KSB of GFSB
Bancorp, Inc.



                                            /s/ Atkinson & Co., Ltd.


September 28, 1998
Albuquerque, New Mexico
#### Kay Wonder WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. KWIK MIX CONCRETE CORPORATION, etc., et al., Respondents.

No. 40891.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 26, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., dissent.
# C_2023015EN.01001901.xml

| 16.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/19

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 September 2022 — Maen Haikal v Council of the European Union

(Case C-113/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against the Syrian Arab Republic - Measures directed against leading businesspersons operating in Syria - Lists of persons subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Proof that the inclusion of the appellant’s name on those lists is well founded - Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)

(2023/C 15/19)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Appellant: Maen Haikal (represented by: S. Koev, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Karaleev and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Mr Maen Haikal shall pay, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Maen Haikal shall pay, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.

---
#### Elmer JOHNSON v. Edward J. HUGHES, etc., et al.

No. 6055.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Dec. 30, 1936.

D. J. Bentall and H. E. Baker, both of Chicago, 111., for appellant.

Otto Kerner, of Chicago, 111., for appellees.

Before SPARKS, Circuit Judge, and ALSCHULER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Now this day come the parties by their counsel and present and file a stipulation to dismiss this appeal, which said stipulation is in the words and figures following, to wit: “It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between David J. Bentall and Hart E. *1012Baker, counsel for appellant, and Otto Kerner, counsel for appellees, that the appeal in the above entitled cause shall be dismissed without costs to either party. It is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court that this appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed without costs to either party pursuant to the foregoing stipulation.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





This 29th day of March 2010.





/s/ David D. StovallChief Executive Officer/s/ Annette BanksChief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30, 1996, and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                             463
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,470
<ALLOWANCES>                                       423
<INVENTORY>                                     15,095
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,878
<PP&E>                                          16,512
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,344
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  59,457
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,185
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           137
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,073
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    59,457
<SALES>                                         43,328
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,328
<CGS>                                           28,978
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,864
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 153
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,333
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,675
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,658
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
        


</TABLE>
# C_2022418EN.01002501.xml

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — SB v eu-LISA

(Case T-217/21) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - Staff of eu-LISA - Dismissal decision at the end of the probationary period - Obligation to state reasons - Normal probationary conditions - Right to be heard - Procedural irregularities - Duty of care - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of sound administration)

(2022/C 418/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: SB (represented by: H. Tagaras, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (represented by: M. Chiodi, acting as Agent, and A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA) of 3 August 2020 by which his contract as a member of the contract staff was terminated at the end of the probationary period.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders SB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders SB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

---
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Raul L. YANES, Appellee.

No. 69-409.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

May 23, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
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 Annual Report of Magnetek, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending July 3, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Peter M. McCormick, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Marty J. Schwenner, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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 results of operations of the Company.








/s/  PETER M. MCCORMICKPeter M. McCormickPresident and Chief Executive Officer





/s/  MARTY J. SCHWENNERMarty J. SchwennerVice President and Chief Financial Officer








Dated: August 31, 2011
# C_2021028EN.01006001.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/60

---

Action brought on 23 November 2020 — Bimbo Donuts Iberia v EUIPO — Hijos de Antonio Juan (DONAS DULCESOL)

(Case T-697/20)

(2021/C 28/89)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bimbo Donuts Iberia, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Ceballos Rodríguez and M.I. Robledo McClymont, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hijos de Antonio Juan, SL (Villalonga, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for word mark DONAS DULCESOL — Application for registration No 17 917 477

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 September 2020 in Case R 514/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs;

| — | order the intervener to pay the costs, if it take parts in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the intervener to pay the costs, if it take parts in the proceedings.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### Barrett vs. Jones et al.

Whore a note is declared upon as having been made upon a particular day, but the note produced on oyer bears no date, any question as to the date must be raised br plea, and not by demurrer as for variance.

*Writ of Error to Pulaski Circuit Court.*

Hon. John J. Clendenin, Circuit Judge.

Garland & Randolph, for plaintiff.

*456Mr. Justice Faiiichii.d

delivered the opinion of the court.

Jones and Cummins sued Barrett on a note, charging it to be made on the first of January, 1858, which, when produced an oyer, had no date. Barrett demurred for the variance, and his demurrer was overruled; he pleaded *nil d:bet*and payment, to which the plaintiff replied.

Upon his failure to obtain a continuance of the case, on application made by him, he thought best to withdraw his pleas, which the court gave him leave to do, and rest upon his demurrer, and the court gave judgment against him.

"We do not approve of this mode of pleading backwards in order to have the benefit of a defence strictly technical, if it be any defence at all, yet the court below having permitted it, the case must be considered as resting upon the demurrer.

If the allegation concerning the note had been that it was made on the 1st January, 1858, due at one day from date, but that the note itself bore no date, that would have been a subject of proof, and no question of variance could have been raised upon the note.

And bringing the note upon record by oyer, it then becomes a part of the declaration; and the whole pleading, that is, the original declaration and the note, is equivalent to the allegation above supposed; the defendant was put to a plea to raise any question about the date of the note; otherwise his demurrer would have the effect of a simple denial of a fact, which cannot be.

Let the judgment be affirmed.
# C_2021297EN.01002501.xml

| 26.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’arrondissement (Luxembourg) lodged on 21 May 2021 — G-Finance SARL, DV v Luxembourg Business Registers

(Case C-317/21)

(2021/C 297/29)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’arrondissement

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: G-Finance SARL, DV

Defendant: Luxembourg Business Registers

Questions referred

Are the provisions of Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, and amending Directives 2009/138/EC and 2013/36/EU, (1) and in particular Article 1(15)(c) thereof, amending Article 30(5) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, as amended by the aforementioned Directive (EU) 2018/843, in so far as they grant a right of access to information on the beneficial owners of companies and other legal entities to ‘any member of the general public’,

invalid because they:

| (a) | infringe the principle of proportionality, as set out, in particular, in Article 5(4) TEU; and/or |
| --- | --- |

(a)

infringe the principle of proportionality, as set out, in particular, in Article 5(4) TEU; and/or

| (b) | infringe Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (freedom to conduct a business); and/or |
| --- | --- |

(b)

infringe Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (freedom to conduct a business); and/or

| (c) | infringe Articles 20 (equality before the law) and 21 (non-discrimination) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; and/or |
| --- | --- |

(c)

infringe Articles 20 (equality before the law) and 21 (non-discrimination) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; and/or

| (d) | infringe the general principle of European law of protection of business secrecy? |
| --- | --- |

(d)

infringe the general principle of European law of protection of business secrecy?

---

(1)  OJ 2018 L 156, p. 43.

---
EXHIBIT 21

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF BROOKTROUT, INC.

|                                                |                                        | Jurisdiction of
Incorporation |                | Percent Owned |    
|----------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------- | ----------------------------- | -------------- | ------------- | ---
|Brooktrout Technology, Inc.                     |                                        | Delaware                      |                | 100           | %  
|Brooktrout Technology Foreign Sales Corporation |                                        | Virgin Islands                |                | 100           | %  
|Brooktrout Securities Corporation               |                                        | Massachusetts                 |                | 100           | %  
|Brooktrout International, Inc.                  |                                        | Massachusetts                 |                | 100           | %  
|                                                | Brooktrout Technology (Europe) Limited |                               | United Kingdom |               | 100
|                                                | Brooktrout Japan, Inc.                 |                               | Delaware       |               | 100

---

QuickLinks