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

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00895-CR

Gary PETERSON,

Appellant

v.

The State of 

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court, Wilson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-10-0393-CRC

Honorable Marvin Quinney, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 23, 2014

AFFIRMED

Gary Peterson was convicted of the offense of misdemeanor driving while intoxicated and 

sentenced to twelve months of community supervision. Peterson appealed. 

Peterson’s brief was originally due on March 24, 2014. When no brief was filed, the clerk 

of this court notified Peterson’s counsel of the deficiency. Peterson’s counsel is retained. When 

Peterson’s counsel failed to respond to the clerk’s notice, we abated the appeal and remanded the 

case to the trial court for a hearing. The trial court held a hearing. Peterson’s counsel appeared at 

the hearing and represented that Peterson was not indigent and that Peterson no longer desired to 
04-13-00895-CR

pursue the appeal. After the hearing, the trial court filed written findings indicating that Peterson 

is not indigent and that Peterson no longer desires to pursue the appeal.

In a criminal case, we may not dismiss or consider an appeal without briefs unless it is 

shown that the appellant no longer desires to prosecute his appeal, or that he is not indigent and 

has failed to make the necessary arrangements for filing a brief. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(4). 

However, when the trial court finds that the appellant no longer desires to prosecute the appeal, or 

that the appellant is not indigent but has not made the necessary arrangements for filing a brief, we 

may consider the appeal without briefs, as justice may require. Id.; Lott v. State, 874 S.W.2d 687, 

688 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (affirming conviction on record alone when an appellant failed to file 

a pro se brief after being properly admonished).

We have reviewed the record in this appeal for fundamental error and have found none.

See Jaimes v. State, No. 04-04-00525-CR, 2005 WL 50115, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2005, no 

pet.) (not designated for publication) (reviewing record for fundamental error after the trial court held 

a hearing and found the appellant no longer desired to pursue the appeal); McMahon v. State, No. 04-

01-00442-CR, 2002 WL 1285137, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, no pet.) (not designated for 

publication) (reviewing record for fundamental error after the trial court held a hearing and made 

appropriate findings). The trial court’s judgment is therefore affirmed.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

- 2 -
#### Billy J. McCOMBS, R. James Stillings, d/b/a Gastill Company, David A. Ons-gard, Basin Petroleum Corporation, and Bill Forney, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent. United Gas Pipe Line Company, Intervenor.

No. 75-1829.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

March 31, 1983.

Before SETH, Chief Judge, HOLLOWAY, McWilliams, barrett, wil-liam E. DOYLE, McKAY, LOGAN and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

This matter comes on for consideration of the joint motion of petitioners and interve-nor in the captioned cause for an order vacating and withdrawing the court’s opinion of November 7, 1980, 705 F.2d 1177, and motion to dismiss.

Upon consideration whereof:

1. The opinion of the court filed November 7, 1980, and the dissenting opinion of Judge Holloway are withdrawn.

2. The judgment entered by this court in the captioned appeal on November 7, 1980, is hereby vacated.

3. The captioned cause is dismissed. Each party shall bear its own costs.
Skip Navigation

#         Archive-It      

Login

      - HOME
      - EXPLORE
      - LEARN MORE
      - CONTACT US

### The leading web archiving service for collecting and accessing cultural heritage on the web 

Built at the Internet Archive

        - Explore
        - U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
        - News Releases

#  News Releases 

**Collected by:** U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

**Archived since:**Sep, 2013

**Description:**
This collection includes HHS news and announcements from 1991+.

**Subject:**    	    Government - US Federal,     	    Science & Health

**Creator:**    	    OS/ASPA

## Narrow Your Results

**Group**

Sort By:
- Count
- (A-Z)
              - HHS News Releases (1)

Sites for this collection are listed below. Narrow your results at left, or enter a search query below to		      find a site, specific URL or to search the text of archived webpages.
Clear
            - Date :  2014           X        
            - Date :  2014           X        
            - Creator :  Hhs/aspa           X        

              - Sites
              - Search Page Text

Page 1 of 1  (1 Total Results)

**Sort By:**
                - Title (A-Z)
                - Title (Z-A)
                - URL (A-Z)
                - URL (Z-A)

### 	  Title:       2014 HHS News Releases    	  

### URL:     http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2014pres/2014.html

**Description:**	  	2014 news releases of the US Department of Health and Human Services	  

	  	Loading Wayback Capture Info...	  

Loading video data...

**Group:**    	    HHS News Releases

**Creator:**        	HHS/ASPA        

**Date:**        	2014        

Page 1 of 1  (1 Total Results)

Archive It

#### Archive-It 

*Built at the Internet Archive*
2014 Archive-ItThe leading web archiving service for collecting and accessing  cultural heritage on the web 

      - Home
      - Learn More         - About Archive-It
        - News/Press
        - Meet the Team
        - Publications
      - Contact Us
**EXHIBIT
        23.4**
 
 **CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
  
  COMC,
        Inc.
 Concord,
        California
 
  We
        hereby
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
        Form
        SB-2 of COMC, Inc. of our report dated May 27, 2005 relating to the consolidated
        financial statements as of December 31, 2004 and for the year then ended,
        which
        appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB. Our report contains an explanatory
        paragraph regarding the Company’s ability to continue as a going
        concern.
  PISENTI
        & BRINKER LLP
  Petaluma,
        California
 June
        17,
        2005
# C_2022073EN.01001501.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg) lodged on 1 December 2021 — GV v Caisse nationale d’assurance pension

(Case C-731/21)

(2022/C 73/20)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation: GV

Respondent in cassation: Caisse nationale d’assurance pension

Question referred

Does European Union law, in particular Articles 18, 45 and 48 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union, (1) preclude provisions of the law of a Member State, such as Article 195 of the Luxembourg Social Security Code and Articles 3, 4 and 4-1 of the amended Law of 9 July 2004 on the legal effects of certain partnerships, which make the grant, to the surviving partner of a partnership properly entered into and registered in the Member State of origin, of a survivor’s pension, due as a result of the exercise by the deceased partner of a professional activity in the host Member State, subject to the condition that the partnership was recorded in a register kept by that State for the purposes of verifying compliance with the substantive conditions required by the law of that Member State in order to recognise a partnership and ensure its effectiveness vis-à-vis third parties, whereas the grant of a survivor’s pension to the surviving partner of a partnership entered into in the host Member State is subject to the sole condition that the partnership has been properly entered into and registered there?

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.

---
#### Robert Winston COBB, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 66-577.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 18, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**394 CA 13-01376**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND WHALEN, JJ.

ROY PURDY AND ELINOR PURDY, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,

V ORDER

UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER/STRONG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

FITZSIMMONS, NUNN & PLUKAS, LLP, ROCHESTER (JASON E. ABBOTT OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS.

THE WOLFORD LAW FIRM LLP, ROCHESTER (JAMES S. WOLFORD OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Evelyn Frazee, J.), entered May 22, 2013. The order and judgment granted the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: May 2, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6828

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CYNTHIA GILMORE, a/k/a Lady Bynt, a/k/a Cynthia Young,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:17-cr-00134-FDW-DSC-19; 3:21-cv00530-FDW)

Submitted: November 22, 2022 Decided: November 29, 2022

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cynthia Gilmore, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Margaret Greenough, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6828 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Cynthia Gilmore seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The United States has moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party in a civil case, the notice 

of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final 

judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal 

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court entered its order on April 1, 2022. Gilmore filed the notice of 

appeal on June 28, 2022.

*

 Because Gilmore failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to 

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant the United States’ motion 

to dismiss the appeal and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Gilmore’s 

motion to appoint counsel. 

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.

DISMISSED

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of 

appeal is the earliest date Gilmore could have delivered the notice to prison officials for 

mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6828 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
#### GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA and Norman Hammett, Appellants, v. Frederick S. McKEON, Appellee.

No. 77-668.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 4, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 8, 1977.

Kuvin, Klingensmith & Lewis and R. Fred Lewis, Coconut Grove, for appellants.

Noriega, Bartel, Chopp, Schatz, Levine & Shuford and Paul J. Levine, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and NATHAN and KEHOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed. *Cunningham v. Romano,*278 So.2d 631 (Fla.3d DCA 1973); *Proctor & Gamble Distributing Company v. McGlamery,*341 So.2d 521 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); *Mejiah v. Rodriguez,*342 So.2d 1066 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); *McKay v. Motley,*343 So.2d 668 (Fla.2d DCA 1977); *Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Company,*351 So.2d 29 (Fla.1977), opinion filed September 8, 1977.
# C_2022213EN.01001802.xml

| 30.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/18

---

Appeal brought on 15 December 2021 by Wolfgang Kappes against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 13 October 2021 in Case T-436/20, Sedus Stoll AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-785/21 P)

(2022/C 213/23)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Wolfgang Kappes (represented by: B. Schneiders, J. Schneiders, T. Pfeifer, N. Gottschalk, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Sedus Stoll AG, European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 5 April 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.

---
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350) In connection with the Annual
Report of China Nutrifruit Group Limited, a Nevada corporation (the Company),
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Jinglin Shi, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to  § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his knowledge: (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. June 30, 2009 /s/Jinglin
ShiJinglin ShiChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) [A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to China Nutrifruit Group Limited and will be
retained by China Nutrifruit Group Limited and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Charles Urso FIORELLA, Relator, v. The Honorable Arthur E. HUTTOE, as Judge of the Circuit Court acting in the capacity of a Judge of the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 71-1074.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 13, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Prohibition dismissed.
#### Edward ANDERSON, a/k/a Eddie Chambers, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1036.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 16, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Clinical Trial Implementation Cooperative Agreement (U01).                    

*Date:*                         August 7, 2018.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Chelsea D. Boyd, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, DEA/NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC-9823, Rockville, MD 20852-9834, 240-669-2081,                         *chelsea.boyd@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 10, 2018.

Natasha M. Copeland, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2018-15046 Filed 7-12-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 2 2

- 1457

SUZANNE SCIBEK , individually, and on behalf of her minor children, C.S., J.S., E.S.; JACOB SCIBEK; J.S., a minor; E.S., a minor; C.S., a minor , Plaintiff s - Appellant s ,

v. LAURA GEE GILBERT; CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE, INC. , Defendant s - Appellee s
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 2 :20

- cv - 0 2638

- DCN )

Submitted : J anuary 13 , 202 3 Decided: October 3, 2023

Before KING, WYNN, and RUSHING, Circuit Judge s
.

Dismiss ed by unpublished per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Kevin B. Smith, Amanda R. Itterly, HOFFMEN LAW FIRM, LLC, North Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellants. Helen F. Hiser, James D. Smith, Jr., MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, LLC, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellee Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. Michelle N. Endemann, CLARKSON WALSH & COULTER, PA, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee Laura Gee Gilbert.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this c ircuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1457 Doc: 30 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM : Suzanne and Jacob Scibek sued Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. and one of its employees, Laura Gee Gilbert, after the Scibeks and Gilbert were involved in a vehicle
collision. The Scibeks brought claims for negligence against G ilbert and Cracker Barrel as well as a claim for negligent hiring against Cracker Barrel. Cracker Barrel moved for summary judgment on the two claims against it ; Gilbert did not move for summary judgment on the one claim against her

. T he district court g ranted summary judgment for Cracker Barrel, and the Scibeks appeal that order

. We have jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

– 546 (1949). T hough the district court ’s summary judgment order resolved the claims against Cracker Barrel , the claim against
Gilbert remains pending in the district court

. The court’s order , therefore, is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, and we must dismiss the appeal for lack of jur isdiction. 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.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1457 Doc: 30 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
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 ViroPharma Incorporated (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                         
|/s/ Vincent J. Milano                                                    
|Vincent J. Milano                                                        
|President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

April 28, 2008
260 La. 691

#### CITY OF NEW ORLEANS v. Yvonne MARTIN.

No. 52140.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 8, 1972.

In re: Yvonne Martin applying for writs of review, certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Writ refused. The judgment of the lower court is correct.

BARHAM, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted. The ordinance appears unconstitutional on its face being over-broad in scope, ambiguous, and inconsistent and violative of First Amendment U.S. Const. See Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 91 S.Ct. 1686, 29 L.Ed.2d 214 (1971).

TATE, J.,

concurs in Barham, J.’s, dissent. See also Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971).

DIXON, J.,

dissents from the refusal to grant writs. See City of New Orleans v. Lewis, 257 La. 993, 244 So.2d 860.