alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 29, 2016
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14
- 16
- 00568
- CR

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL DUPUY , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
On Appeal from the 405th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 13CR1365

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for abuse of official capacity

. T he State filed a motion to adjudicate. The trial court signed an order releasing appellant on personal bond and imposing certain bond conditions. Appellant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus challenging the bond order. The trial court denied th e application. A ppellant filed a notice of appeal from the denial of his application for habeas corpus. That appeal was assigned to this court and docketed as appeal number 14

- 16

- 00568

- CR.2

On Aug ust 5, 2016, the trial court granted the State’s motion to ad judicate and signed a judgment adjudicating guilt. Appellant filed a notice of appeal from that judgment. The appeal was assigned to this court and docketed as appeal number 14

- 16

- 00683

- CR. The judgment adjudicating guilt renders the issue of pretrial bond moot. See Ex parte Morgan , 335 S.W.2d 766, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960); Ex parte Bennet , 818 S.W.2d 199, 200 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no pet.) (stating that

“ where the premise of a habeas corpus application is destroyed by subsequent developm ents, the legal issues raised thereunder are rendered moot. ” ). Accordingly, we DISMISS this appeal as moot. Appeal number 14

- 16

- 00683

- CR remains pending.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, McCally, and Wise. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
#### STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Ronald L. BOREN, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 930275-CA.

Court of Appeals of Utah.

July 9, 1993.

Joan C. Watt (argued), Roger K. Scow-croft, Salt Lake Legal Defender Ass’n, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

Jan Graham, State Atty. Gen., Dave Thompson (argued), Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellee.

Before BENCH, BILLINGS and RUSSON, JJ. (Law and Motion).

ORDER

This case is before the court on appellant’s petition for certificate of probable cause. We deny the petition without prejudice for failure to comply with *State v. Neeley,*707 P.2d 647 (Utah 1985).

*State v. Neeley*requires that a petition for certificate of probable cause filed in an appellate court be accompanied by an affidavit containing “a statement of the crime for which the defendant was convicted; the sentence imposed; whether the defendant has previously applied to the district court for a certificate of probable cause and, if so, whether the issues presented were the same as those presented to this Court; the ruling of the district court on the issues; and the bases or reasons for the court’s ruling.” *Id.*at 649.

The affidavit filed in this case states that the district court denied a request for a certificate of probable cause, but it fails to state whether the issues presented to the district court were the same as those presented to this court, the ruling of the district court on those issues, and the bases or reasons for the court’s ruling. It is not sufficient that appellant has shown that the issues forming the basis for appeal were raised in the trial court. In order to comply with *Neeley,*appellant must also demonstrate that those issues were also raised in the trial court in distinct proceedings seeking a certificate of probable cause, and *693must set forth the trial court’s ruling and the bases or reasons for the ruling.

On the basis of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for certificate of probable cause is denied without prejudice to allowing appellant to file an affidavit that fully complies with *Nee-ley.*
      *1*

. An amendment to Rule 27, Utah Rules of Criminal Procedures, effective May 1, 1993, incorporates the *Neeley*procedural requirements. *See*Utah R.Crim.Proc. 27(d)(3).
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 4, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00082

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF I.M.D., I.M.D., I.M.D., AND M.V.D ., Children

From the 150th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Tr ial Court No. 2012CI18096

Honorable Tina Torres , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On August 1, 2022, appellee filed his brief. Appellee’s brief violates Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 9.9 in that Appendix 10 to the brief includes sensitive data, specifically the

birth dates and names of people who were minors when the underlying suit was filed, and such

data has not been redacted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.9. We therefore ORDER th at appellee’s brief is

STRICKEN . We further ORDER appellee to file an amended appellee’s brief in compliance

with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9 by August 15, 2022

.

I t is so ORDERED on this 4th day of August, 202 2

.

PER CURIAM

AT TESTED TO :

_______________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40674

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DORA MARINA LIMA-DE ORTIZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:14-CR-442-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Dora Marina Lima-De Ortiz (Lima)

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Lima has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s 

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

 

* 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

February 17, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40674 Document: 00513385041 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2016
No. 15-40674

2

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: 15-40674 Document: 00513385041 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2016
**Exhibit13.1**

 

**Certificationpursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

 

Pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officersof Euro Disney S.C.A., (the “Company”), does hereby certify to such officer’sknowledge that:

 

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the yearended September 30, 2004 (the “Form 20-F”) of the Company fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| Dated January 10, 2005 |                    |
|------------------------|-------------------------|
|                   |                    |
|                   |                    |
| By:                    | /s/ André Lacroix  |   |
| Name:                  | André Lacroix      |
| Title:                 | Chairman of the Board   |
|                   | Chief Executive Officer |
|                   |                    |
|                   |                    |
| Dated January 10, 2005 |                    |
|                   |                    |   |
|                   |                    |   |
| By:                    | /s/ Jeffrey Speed       |   |
| Name:                  | Jeffrey Speed           |
| Title:                 | Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to Euro Disney S.C.A. and will be retained by Euro DisneyS.C.A. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

1

----
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  I, Alfred Fernandez, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of End Fuel Corp. on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of End Fuel Corp.   Dated: April 13, 2011 /s/ Alfred FernandezAlfred FernandezPresident, Chief Financial Officer, principal executive officer,
principal accounting and financial officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to End Fuel Corp. and will be retained by End Fuel Corp. and furnished to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3969

To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to provide

State, Federal, and Tribal agencies with sufficient time to implement

certain pesticide safety training programs.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 8, 1994

Mr. BOEHNER (for himself, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Mr. COMBEST, Mr. DARDEN, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. EMERSON, Mr.

BISHOP, Mr. DELAY, Mr. TEJEDA, Mr. MCCRERY, Mr. LIVINGSTON, Mr.

BARLOW, Mr. LINDER, Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina, Mr. PARKER, Mr.

BAESLER, Mr. HANSEN, Ms. DANNER, Mr. POSHARD, Mr. LANCASTER,

Mr. BONILLA, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. WILSON, Mr. DOOLITTLE,

Mr. MINGE, Mr. EWING, Mr. HAYES, Mr. HOAGLAND, Mr. BAKER of

Louisiana, Mr. OXLEY, and Ms. KAPTUR) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act to provide State, Federal, and Tribal

agencies with sufficient time to implement certain pesticide safety training programs.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3969 IH

1 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF FIFRA.

2 Section 25 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

3 Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136w) is amended by adding

4 the following at the end thereof:

5 ‘‘(f) COMPLIANCE DATE FOR STANDARD.—The April

6 15, 1994 compliance date for provisions of the regulations

7 under this Act referred to in 40 C.F.R. 170.5(c) (57 Fed.

8 Reg. 38152, Aug. 21, 1992) shall be extended to October

9 23, 1995. By April 23, 1995, the Administrator of the

10 Environmental Protection Agency shall develop and dis11 tribute pesticide safety training materials that convey, at

12 a minimum, the information set forth in 40 C.F.R. 170–

13 230(c)(4) (57 Fed. Reg. 38162 Aug. 21, 1992) and assist

14 the appropriate State, Federal, and Tribal agencies in im15 plementing pesticide safety training programs.

16 ‘‘(g) LABELING REQUIREMENTS.—The effective date

17 for the labeling statement required under amendments to

18 the regulations under this Act published in the Federal

19 Register on August 21, 1992 shall be extended to October

20 23, 1995 in lieu of the April 21, 1994 effective date set

21 forth in 40 C.F.R. 156.200(c)(3) (57 Fed. Reg. Aug. 21,

22 1992).’’.

Æ
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                 ------------

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Applied Digital Solutions, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 4 for the period ending December 31,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Evan C. McKeown, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Evan C. McKeown
-------------------
Evan C. McKeown
Chief Financial Officer
February 17, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Applied Digital Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by Applied
Digital Solutions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 20453 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Guadalupe Leal,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:18

- CR

- 716

- 1

Before **Wiener** , **Dennis** , and **Haynes** , Circuit Judges

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

The attorney appointed to represent Guadalupe Leal has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Leal has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the

* 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 March 17, 2022 Lyle W. Cayc e Clerk Case: 21-20453 Document: 00516243620 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2022No. 21

- 20453

2 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: 21-20453 Document: 00516243620 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2022
# C_2015274EN.01000501.xml

| 19.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/5

---

Corrigendum to Summary of Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) — (published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 91 of 18 March 2015
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 91 of 18 March 2015

(2015/C 274/06)

On page 2:

for:

for

‘Date of expiry of review period: 21 February 2019’,

read:

read

‘Date of expiry of review period: 18 March 2019’.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DORSEY TRAILERS, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               8
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,940
<ALLOWANCES>                                       129
<INVENTORY>                                     11,479
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,838
<PP&E>                                          17,774
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,327
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,367
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,492
<BONDS>                                         14,585
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                      (4,360)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,367
<SALES>                                        156,966
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               156,966
<CGS>                                          158,514
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  158,514
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,372
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,649
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (10,569)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (387)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (10,182)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (10,182)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.03)
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEVE SEDGWICK,

Appellant,

v.

LEONARD M. SHULMAN; et al.,

Appellees. No. 18

- 56021

D.C. No. 8:17

- cv

- 02189

- AG

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2019 **

Before: FARRIS

, TROTT , and SILVERMAN , Circuit Judges.

Steve Sedgwick appeals pro se the district court’s o rder affirming the

bankruptcy court’s order denying him relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) and

reclosing his Chapter 11 case . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. On

appeal from the district court, we independently review the bankruptcy court’ s

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 19 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

decision. In re Gilman , 887 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2018). The bankruptcy court’s

ruling on a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from an order or judgment is reviewed for

an abuse of discretion. Id . We affirm the district court’s order.

The bankruptcy cour t properly exercised its discretion in concluding, based

on its independent review of the record, the report of the Chapter 11 Trustee, and

the report of the United States Trustee, that the record did not establish fraud or

fraud on the court by Sedgwick’s former bankruptcy counsel. See Latshaw v.

Trainer Wortham & Co. , 452 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2006) (party seeking relief

under Rule 60(b)(6) must show fraud involving an unconscionable plan or scheme

designed to improperly influence the court)

.

The bankruptcy court properly exercised its discretion in declining to expand

the scope of its inquiry beyond the specific fraudulent scheme alleged by

Sedgwick. See In re Gilman , 887 F.3d at 963.

Sedgwick waived his constitutional arguments by failing to raise them

before the bankruptcy court. See In re EPD Inv. Co. , 821 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th

Cir. 2016) ( issue not presented to bankruptcy court was waived). In addition, he

has made no showing of a denial of due process because the bankruptcy court

affor ded him generous opportunities to present his claims of fraud and fraud on the

court. See In re Rains , 428 F.3d 893, 903 (9th Cir. 2005) (due process requires an

opportunity to be heard).

AFFIRMED

.
<PAGE>

                                                            Exhibit 23.2




                           CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this registration statement on Form S-3 of our report dated
October 21, 1999 (except with respect to the matter discussed in Note 12, as
to which the date is December 13, 1999) included in Webhire, Inc.'s (f/k/a
Restrac, Inc.) Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 1999.


                                                        ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
October 4, 2000
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. John FULFORD v. Michael BEAUBOUEF.

No. 61866.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 7, 1978.

In re: John Fulford applying for writs of certiorari and mandamus. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Writ refused.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

OP 20-0587

_________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

MONTANA EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL 

DISTRICT COURT, HONORABLE JOHN C. 

BROWN, Presiding,

 Respondent.

O R D E R

_________________

The State of Montana seeks a writ of supervisory control over the Eighteenth Judicial 

District Court, Gallatin County, to vacate that court’s September 15, 2020 orderin Cause No. 

DC-18-448C granting Defendant Jordan Miller’s motion to disqualify the prosecutor from 

representing the State and permitting Miller to subpoena the prosecutor to testify at trial. 

Having reviewed the State’s motion and appendices, the Court deems it appropriate to invite 

a response.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, the

Defendant in Gallatin County Cause No. DC-18-448C, or both, are granted thirty (30) days 

from the date of this Order within which to file a response to the Petition in accordance with

M. R. App. P. 14(7)(a). 

The Clerk is directed to provide notice of this Order to all counsel of record in the 

Eighteenth Judicial District Court’s Gallatin County Cause No. DC-18-448C and to the 

Honorable John Brown, presiding District Court Judge.

Electronically signed by:

Beth Baker

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 9 2020

12/09/2020

Case Number: OP 20-0587