alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# FGIS-904

FORM APPROVED OMB NO. 0581-0309.   According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.  The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0581-0309.  The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 10 minutes per response and 3 seconds of recordkeeping, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Before proceeding with this test, review Chapter 2 of the Equipment Handbook.  Clean, level, and balance the scale, before starting.  Any test weights needed to determine accuracy must have a current Report of Test to Class F tolerances. 

# Form Example

# Instructions

# image1.png

# image2.png
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 10, 2015

No. 04-15-00054-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.H., A CHILD,

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-PA-00641

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The State’s brief in this accelerated appeal from an order terminating parental rights was 

due April 7, 2015. The State has filed a motion for a thirty-day extension of time to file the 

brief. We grant the motion in part, and order the State’s brief due April 27, 2015.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### Delores F. DORADOR a/k/a Delores DeBaca a/k/a Delores Jaramillo, Petitioner, v. Dan P. CRONIN, Ex-Officio Sheriff of the City and County of Denver, Respondent.

No. 79SA161.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Jan. 14, 1980.

*54Gerash & Springer, P.C., Walter L. Ger-ash, Denver, for petitioner.

J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., John Daniel Dailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent.

HODGES, Chief Justice.

The appellant is before this court seeking review of the trial court’s denial of her petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, section 16-19-111, C.R.S.1973 (now in 1978 Repl. Vol. 8). Two grounds for reversal of the trial court’s judgment are asserted. She alleges that dismissal in the federal court of an unlawful flight to avoid prosecution charge constituted" *res judicata*as to the present extradition proceedings. The appellant also alleges that the Governor’s warrant was insufficient in that there were improprieties in the affixing of the state seal.

The record reveals that neither of these arguments was ever presented in the trial court. It is fundamental that an appellate court will not pass upon issues which have not been presented for determination in the trial court except in the case of plain or fundamental error.

After a careful review of this record, we find no such error exists in this case. From this review, we comment also that the two grounds for reversal raised by the appellant are totally without merit.

Judgment affirmed.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A1020. DEMETRIUS DION NELSON v. KAREN E. BEYERS, JUDGE, et

al.

The trial court denied Demetrius Dion Nelson’s petition for mandamus relief,

and Nelson appealed to this Court. The Supreme Court, however, has exclusive

appellate jurisdiction over all cases involving extraordinary remedies, including

mandamus. See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (5); Ladzinske v. Allen,

280 Ga. 264 (626 SE2d 83) (2006). Accordingly, this case is hereby

TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

04/09/2015

April 09, 2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-30208

AKER KVAERNER/IHI, formerly known as Aker Xvaerner, Incorporated, 

formerly known as IHI, Incorporated,

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, 

PENNSYLVANIA; ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC & GAS INSURANCE 

SERVICES, LIMITED; ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS US INSURANCE 

COMPANY; COMMONWEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY; ARCH 

SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; NAVIGATORS MANAGEMENT 

COMPANY, INCORPORATED; MCLARENS YOUNG INTERNATIONAL, 

INCORPORATED; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON; 

MILLENIUM SYNDICATE AT LLOYDS 1221; LIBERTY SYNDICATE AT 

LLOYDS 4472, 

 Defendants - Appellees

************************************************************************

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH 

PENNSYLVANIA; ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC & GAS INSURANCE 

SERVICES, LIMITED; ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS US INSURANCE 

COMPANY; COMMONWEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY; NAVIGATORS 

MANAGEMENT COMPANY INCORPORATED; ARCH SPECIALTY 

INSURANCE COMPANY,

 Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 10, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-30208 Document: 00513000787 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/10/2015
No. 14-30208

AKER KVAERNER IHI, a General Partnership,

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC Nos. 2:10-CV-278 & 2:10-CV-1041

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Having considered the parties’ briefs and the supplemental letter briefs

filed pursuant to our directive, we DISMISS this case because the order

compelling arbitration is an interlocutory order over which we lack appellate 

jurisdiction under the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and 

Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 9 U.S.C. §§ 201–08, and the Federal 

Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16. See Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. Certain 

Underwriters at Lloyds of London, 772 F.3d 384 (5th Cir. 2014). The motion 

to amend appellate caption is DENIED as moot. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; CASE REMANDED (to district court); MOTION 

DENIED.

* 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.

2

 

 Case: 14-30208 Document: 00513000787 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/10/2015
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 19

- 00290

- CV

IN RE RADER WADE GILLELAND

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Rader Wade Gilleland has filed a motion to dismiss this original

proceeding. The motion is granted, and this original proceeding is dismissed. See T EX

.

R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

Relator’s Motion for Submission to the Court for Ruling, filed on March 23, 2020,

is dismissed as moot

.

REX D. DAVIS

JusticeIn re Gilleland Page 2 Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

Petition d ismissed

Opinion delivered and filed October 7, 2020

[ OT 06 ]
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Wise Metals Group LLC (the Company) for the quarter ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Kenneth Stastny, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company.

Date: August 14, 2008



By:

/s/ Kenneth StastnyKenneth StastnyChief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### Timothy McKenna, Appellant, v Marilyn McKenna, Respondent.

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: The motion to disqualify plaintiffs attorney in this divorce action should have been denied. Defendant has failed to show that she had a *1053client-attorney relationship sufficient to warrant the disqualification. The attorney was hired by plaintiff, who owned 97 shares in a corporation, to perform legal work for the corporation. There is no indication that in performing this legal work the attorney had any contact with defendant. The fact that defendant owned three shares of the corporation for which the attorney performed the services did not make her a client of the attorney. The fact that the attorney, at the request of plaintiff, performed legal services in connection with the purchase of real property, title to which was taken in the names of both plaintiff and defendant, is not sufficient to require disqualification. There is no showing that defendant hired the attorney in connection with the purchase or that she had any contact with him in connection with its purchase. Thus, there is no showing of a reasonable probability that plaintiff’s attorney will reveal any confidential information learned from defendant; the nature of the situation itself does not give rise to such an inference *(Greene v Greene,*47 NY2d 447, 453; *Forbush v Forbush,*107 AD2d 375, 379). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J.— Disqualify Attorney.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Exhibit 32.3 Certificate: 

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT OF GRAY PEAKS, INC.**

I, the undersigned, being the ChiefFinancial Officer, of Gray Peaks, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to the best of his information, knowledge and belief, that (1) the Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30,2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)) and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date: November 19, 2007 

/s/ Bernard Asher             

Title: 

President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-18-00408-CR

__________________

ISAAC HUDSON JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 260th District Court

Orange County, Texas

Trial Cause No. D180282-R

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found Isaac Hudson Jr. guilty of felony assault, a third-degree felony, 

and the trial court assessed punishment at ten years of confinement and assessed a 

$1,000 fine. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01 (West 2019).1 Hudson’s appellate 

counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record, 

 1 We cite to the current version of the statute as amendments subsequent to 

Hudson’s offense do not affect our disposition.
2

and he concludes the appeal is frivolous and without merit and that there are no 

arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High 

v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We notified Hudson of his right 

to file a pro se brief, but we have not received a response from Hudson. 

Upon receiving an Anders brief, a court must conduct a full examination of 

the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 

U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have independently 

examined the entire appellate record in this matter. We conclude that no reversible 

error exists, no arguable issues support an appeal, and this appeal is wholly frivolous. 

See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the 

nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues 

raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the 

court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”). 

Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief 

the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.2

 2 Hudson may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for 

discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3

AFFIRMED.

_________________________

LEANNE JOHNSON

Justice

Submitted on April 23, 2019

Opinion Delivered May 8, 2019

Do Not Publish

Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.
Order entered April 10, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00054-CV

FATIMA DOLORES RODAS, Appellant

V.

LA MADELEINE OF TEXAS, INC. AND LUIS BLAS, Appellees

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10-04672

ORDER

We DENY appellant’s motion for sanctions filed on March 31, 2014.

We DENY appellant’s amended motion for sanctions filed on March 31, 2014.

We DENY AS MOOT appellant’s amended emergency motion for rehearing filed on 

April 2, 2014.

We OVERRULE AS MOOT appellees’ objection to appellant’s request for a free 

supplemental reporter’s record filed on April 15, 2014.

We OVERRULE appellant’s objection to order denying appellant’s assertion of 

inaccuracies filed on April 28, 2014.
We DENY AS MOOT appellant’s amended second motion for extension of time to file 

brief filed on April 28, 2014.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
# C_2004106EN.01000302.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/3

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

18 March 2004

In Case C-314/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt): Siemens AG Österreich, ARGE Telekom & Partner v Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger (1)

1

(Public contracts - Directive 89/665/EEC - Review procedures concerning the award of public contracts - Effects of a decision by the body responsible for review procedures annulling the decision by the contracting authority not to revoke the procedure by which a contract was awarded - Restriction on the use of subcontracting)

(2004/C 106/04)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-314/01: References to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Siemens AG Österreich, ARGE Telekom & Partner and Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger; Joined party: Bietergemeinschaft EDS/ORGA, on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 March 2004, in which it has ruled:

Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, and in particular Articles 1(1) and 2(7) thereof, must be construed as meaning that, in the case where a clause in an invitation to tender is incompatible with Community rules on public contracts, the national legal systems of the Member States must provide for the possibility of relying on that incompatibility in the review procedures referred to in Directive 89/665.

---

(1)  OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.

1

---
COURT OF APPEALS

SANDEE BRYAN 

MARION

 CHIEF JUSTICE

KAREN ANGELINI

MARIALYN BARNARD

REBECA C. MARTINEZ

PATRICIA O. ALVAREZ

LUZ ELENA D. CHAPA

JASON PULLIAM

 JUSTICES

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

CADENA-REEVES JUSTICE CENTER 

300 DOLOROSA, SUITE 3200

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205-3037

WWW.TXCOURTS.GOV/4THCOA.ASPX

KEITH E. HOTTLE 

CLERK OF COURT

TELEPHONE

(210) 335-2635

FACSIMILE NO.

(210) 335-2762

Monday, April 6, 2015

Fred Hernandez

Val Verde County Assistant District 

Attorney

P.O. Box 1405

Del Rio, TX 78841

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Stephen Foster

310 S. St. Mary's

Suite 2400

San Antonio, TX 78205

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 04-14-00671-CR

Trial Court Case Number: 11297CR

Style: The State of Texas

v.

Raul Becerra Castorena

Enclosed please find the order which the Honorable Court of Appeals has 

issued in reference to the above styled and numbered cause.

If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Very truly yours,

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

_______________________

Carmen De Leon

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53262

cc: John Price (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

The Honorable Enrique Fernandez

Gene Steele (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
Raul Becerra 

CastorenaAppellee

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

Monday, April 6, 2015

No. 04-14-00671-CR

The STATE of Texas,

Appellant

v.

Raul Becerra CASTORENA,

Appellee

From the 63rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11297CR

The Honorable Enrique Fernandez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

John Price has filed a request for a sixty day extension of time to file the reporter’s 

record. We grant the motion in part and deny it in part. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c) (extension of 

time to file record in ordinary appeal must not exceed 30 days).

We order Price to file the record by April 30, 2015. Because of the extraordinary delay 

in completing the record in this case, Price is advised that no further extensions of time will be 

granted and we order Price to give priority to completing the record in this appeal. If Price is 

unable to perform all his duties and complete the record in a timely manner, he must take 

whatever steps are necessary, including requesting a substitute reporter or hiring competent 

assistance, to file the record by the date ordered. 

Price is ordered to obtain from the attorney for the State the agreed replacement copy of 

State’s Exhibit 2 and include it in the record. Price is ordered to file the record with a 

placeholder for Defendant’s exhibit 3, indicating the exhibit is missing.
We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on the trial court. See 

TEX .R. APP. P. 35.3(c).

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 6th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 76 (Thursday, April 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23538-23539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9451]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7851]
RIN 1400-AC95


Announcement of Entry Into Force of the Defense Trade Cooperation 
Treaty Between the United States and the United Kingdom

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On April 13, 2012, the United States and the United Kingdom 
exchanged diplomatic notes bringing the Treaty between the Government 
of the United States of America and the Government of the United 
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Concerning Defense Trade 
Cooperation (Treaty Doc. 110-7) into force. This Notice announces the 
entry into force of the Treaty. This Notice also announces April 13, 
2012 as the effective date of the rule published on March 21, 2012 (77 
FR 16592) implementing the Treaty and making other updates to the 
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).

[[Page 23539]]


DATES: This notice is effective April 19, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah J. Heidema, Office of Defense 
Trade Controls Policy, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of 
Political-Military Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 
20522-0112, telephone (202) 663-2809, email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c5ada0aca1a0a8a4b6af85b6b1a4b1a0eba2aab3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="acc4c9c5c8c9c1cddfc6ecdfd8cdd8c982cbc3da">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 21, 2012, the Department of State 
published a rule (77 FR 16592) amending the ITAR to implement the 
Treaty, and identify via a supplement the defense articles and defense 
services that may not be exported pursuant to the Treaty. The rule also 
amended the ITAR section pertaining to the Canadian exemption and added 
Israel to the list of countries and entities that have a shorter 
Congressional notification certification time period and a higher 
dollar value reporting threshold. This rule indicated it would become 
effective upon the entry into force of the Treaty and that the 
Department of State would publish a rule document in the Federal 
Register announcing the effective date of this rule. This notice is 
being published to make such announcement.

    Dated: April 13, 2012.
Beth M. McCormick,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Defense Trade and Regional Security, Bureau 
of Political-Military Affairs, U.S. Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-9451 Filed 4-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-25-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>