alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

v.

ROBERT GORDON SHAVER, JR.,

Appellant.

No. 69273-9-1

<S3 —J, c~

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FILED: April 13, 2015

CO

l_J

-::: -a i

PER CURIAM — Robert Shaver appeals his convictions for stalking, burglary,

unlawful imprisonment, assault, and violations of a court order. He contends his right

to a public trial was violated when the court took peremptory challenges in writing and

later filed the written challenges in the record. We stayed the appeal pending State

v. Slert. 181 Wn.2d 598, 334 P.3d 1088 (2014) (plurality opinion). We now lift the

stay and affirm based on our recent decision in State v. Filitaula, Wn. App. ,

339 P.3d 221, 222 (2014) (exercise of challenges for cause in writing did not

constitute a courtroom closure and did not implicate public trial right where form

containing written challenges was filed in court record); see also State v. Dunn, 180

Wn. App. 570, 575, 321 P.3d 1283 (2014), review denied, 181 Wn. 2d 1030, 340

P.3d 223 (2015); State v. Love, 176 Wn. App. 911, 920, 309 P.3d 1209 (2013),

review granted. 181 Wn.2d 1029, 340 P.3d 228 (2015).
No. 69283-9-1/2

We lift the stay and affirm.

FOR THE COURT:

041J

Meckel, f.

/Li*t^A,
S A N I T I Z E D EPICLON HP - 4700 BIO CONCENTR AT ION TEST
# C_2004094EN.01003902.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/39

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (SECOND CHAMBER)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (SECOND CHAMBER)

of 28 January 2004

in Case T-180/01: Euragri Srl v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(EAGGF - Withdrawal of financial assistance - Articles 24 and 25 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88)

(2004/C 94/113)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case T-180/01: Euragri Srl, established at Monte Vidon Combatte (Italy), represented by W. Massucci, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially L. Visaggio and M. Moretto and subsequently C. Cattabriga and M. Moretto) — application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2001) 1274 of 6 June 2001 withdrawing the assistance granted to Euragri Srl by Commission Decision C (92) 3214 of 3 December 1992 concerning grant of a contribution from the EAGGF, Guidance Section, pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards the EAGGF Guidance Section (OJ 1988 L 374, p.25), in connection with Project No 92.IT.06.069 entitled ‘Pilot demonstration project for the use of new “Endovena” (intravenous) technology on fruit trees’ – the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 January 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Dismissed the application. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismissed the application.

| 2. | Ordered the applicant to pay the costs, including those incurred in connection with the application for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ordered the applicant to pay the costs, including those incurred in connection with the application for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ No C 275 of 29.9.01

1

---
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-11241

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Macario Andrew Gomez, Jr., 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:20-CR-26-1

Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Macario Andrew Gomez, Jr., appeals his within-guidelines sentence 

of 97 months of imprisonment and four years of supervised release imposed 

following a guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute five 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 9, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-11241 Document: 00515893051 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2021
No. 20-11241

2

grams or more of methamphetamine (actual) in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(viii).

Gomez argues that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment 

rights on the basis that the drug quantity should have been found by a jury 

beyond a reasonable doubt because, even if it did not affect the maximum or 

minimum mandatory sentences set forth in § 841, it affected “the maximum 

and minimum reasonable sentence.” He concedes, however, that his claim 

is foreclosed by United States v. Tuma, 738 F.3d 681 (5th Cir. 2013), but 

wishes to preserve his claim for further review. The Government has moved, 

unopposed, for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time 

to file its brief. 

The judicial factfinding influenced only the advisory guidelines range 

and did not alter the mandatory minimum sentence. See Tuma, 738 F.3d at 

693; see also United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 411-13 (5th Cir. 2014). 

Consequently, as Gomez concedes and the Government asserts, his

argument is foreclosed, such that “there can be no substantial question as to 

the outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 

1162 (5th Cir. 1969), and summary affirmance is proper.

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The 

Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is 

DENIED.

Case: 20-11241 Document: 00515893051 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2021
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE                                     NO 2177 OF 2001

CHANCERY DIVISION

LEEDS DISTRICT REGISTRY

BEFORE HIS HONOUR JUDGE MCGONIGAL SITTING AS A HIGH COURT JUDGE IN LEEDS ON
12TH OCTOBER 2001

IN THE MATTER OF HUGO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT 1986

                                      ORDER

UPON HEARING Counsel for the Petitioner

AND UPON reading the evidence

AND UPON the Company undertaking:

(a)   to file evidence as to notification of the Petition on the Certificated
      Bailiffs for the company's landlords

(b)   to inform the Inland Revenue of the Petition and this Order and in
      particular Paragraph 4 of this Order

IT IS ORDERED that:

1.    An Administration order be made in relation to the Company for the
      following purposes:



                                       1
<PAGE>
      (i)   the survival of the Company and the whole or some part of Ks
            undertaking as a going concern

      (II)  a more advantageous realisation of the Company's assets than would
            be effected on a winding up

      (iii) the approval of a voluntary arrangement under Part 1 of the Act

2.    Messrs David Frederick Wilson and Julian Nigel Richard Pitts be appointed
      as Administrators of the Company

3.    During the period for which the Order is in force any act required or
      authorised under any enactment to be done by an Administrator may be done
      by all or any of the persons for the time being holding such office

4.    Liberty to the Inland Revenue to apply in relation to this Order

5.    the costs of and incidental to the petition and the preparation of the
      independent report including the legal costs thereof and the costs of the
      winding up petition presented by APD Communications Limited be paid as an
      expense of the Administration



                                       2
4/6/2015 TDCJ Offender Details

• tJJllMJJJfeiJMJftAIJ^IMUHWIbUWI

Offender Information Details

Return to Search list

SID Number: 07479383

TDCJ Number: 01349622

Name: RIVERA.JOSE

Race: H

Gender: M

DOB: 1988-09-25

Maximum Sentence Date: 2050-03-16

Current Facility: TELFORD

Projected Release Date: 2050-03-16

Parole Eligibility Date: 2027-09-15

Offender Visitation Eligible: YES

TDCJ Home New ntler Search

Information provided is updated once daily during weekdays and multiple times per day

on visitation days. Because this information is subject to change, family members and

friends are encouraged to call the unit prior to traveling for a visit.

SPECIAL INFORMATION FOR SCHEDULED RELEASE:

Scheduled Release Date:

Scheduled Release Type:

Scheduled Release Location:

Parole Review Information

Offender is not scheduled for release at this time.

Will be determined when release date is scheduled.

Will be determined when release date is scheduled.

Offense History:

Offense Date Offense Sentence Date County Case Wo. Sentence (YY-MM-DD)

2005-01-30 MURDER 2005-09-15 DALLAS F-0519397-UH 45-00-00

2005-01-30 AGG ASLT 2005-09-15 DALLAS F-0519398-UH 8-00-00

http://offender.tdcj .state.tx.us/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail.action?sid=07479383 1/2
4/6/2015 TDCJ Offender Details

Return to Search list

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice updates this information regularly to ensure that it is

complete and accurate, however this information can change quickly. Therefore, the information on

this site may not reflect the true current location, status, scheduled termination date, or other

information regarding an offender.

For questions and comments, you may contact the Texas Department of CriminalJustice, at (936)

295-6371 or webadmin&tdci.texas.aov. This information is made available to the public and law

enforcement in the interest ofpublic safety. Any unauthorized use of this information is forbidden and

subject to criminal prosecution.

New Offender Search TDCJ Home Page

http://offender.tdcj.state.tx.us/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail.action?sid=07479383 2/2
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 Aurelio Resource Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen B. Doppler, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my 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 results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |  |  |                                           
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 18, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Stephen B. Doppler                    
|                         |  |  |  | Stephen B. Doppler Chief Executive
Officer

A signed original of this written statement is required by Section 906 has been provided to Aurelio Resource
Corporation and will be retained by Aurelio Resource Corporation and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 2601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-887]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Surrender of License of Small Business Investment Company

    Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small 
Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 
1958, under Section 309 of the Act and Section 107.1900 of the Small 
Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.1900) to 
function as a small business investment company under the Small 
business Investment Company License No. 09/79-0419 issued to Red Rock 
Ventures II, L.P., and said license is hereby declared null and void.

United States Small Business Administration.
     Dated: September 19, 2011.
Sean J. Greene,
 Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 2012-887 Filed 1-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8024-01-P
**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**




Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lightstone Value Plus Real Estate Investment
      Trust, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certifies
      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/
      Jenniffer
      Collins


Jenniffer
      Collins


Interim
      Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer


(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)


August
      14, 2008
----

Action brought on 4 February 2004 by Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd., against the office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-38/04)

(2004/C 94/132)

Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure language in which the case was submitted: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 February 2004 by Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd., Hsin-Chu, Taiwan, represented by Dr H. Eichmann, Mr G. Barth, Dr U. Blumenröder, Ms C. Niklas-Falter, Dr M. Kinkeldey, Dr K. Brandt, Ms A. Franke, Ms U. Stephani, Dr B. Allekotte, Dr E.Pfrang, Ms K. Lochner, Ms B. Ertle, Ms Christine Neuhierl and Ms Sabine Prückner, lawyers.

Sun Microsystems, Inc., was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

----

(1)   Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case R 642/2000-4 of 7 October 2003

(2)   Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1)

----
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 12
 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 12
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 12
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 12
 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 12
 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 12
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 12
 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 12
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 12
 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 10 of 12
 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 11 of 12
EPA SANITIZED Page 12 of 12
STATE BAR OF TEXAS

Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel

P.O. BOX 12487, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2487, 512.427.1350; FAX: 512.427.4167

April 9, 2015 BY ELECTRONIC FILING 

Mr. Christopher A. Prine, Clerk 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

301 Fannin Street, Suite 245 

Houston, Texas 77002-2066 

Re: No. 14-13-00872-CV; Joseph R. Willie, II v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Dear Mr. Prine: 

At this time, the Commission will not file a response to the Motion for Rehearing that 

Appellant filed in the cause referenced above. It is my understanding that, pursuant to Rule 

49.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Court will not grant the motion without 

requesting a response. 

Thank you for your assistance. If you have questions, please feel free to call me at (713) 

655-8400. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ David Anderson /s/ Cynthia Canfield Hamilton 

David Anderson Cynthia Canfield Hamilton 

Anderson & Cunningham Senior Appellate Counsel 

Email: david@andersonlawfirm.com Email: chamilton@texasbar.com

c: Ms. Christine Sampson Willie (via this Court’s electronic service provider) 

 Ms. Shalanda D. Moore (via this Court’s electronic service provider) 

ACCEPTED

14-13-00872-CV

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

4/9/2015 1:00:50 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/9/2015 1:00:50 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 28, 2011 

t1219 

Order 

 

December 28, 2011 

143852 

GARY F. LALONDE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 143852 

 COA: 295238 

St Clair CC: 09-002373 

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A., BRANDT, 

FISHER, ALWARD & ROY, P.C., DONALD 

A. BRANDT, JOSEPH C. FISHER, THOMAS 

R. ALWARD, EDGAR ROY, III, GARY D. 

POPOVITS, BUTLER, BUTLER & ROWSEOBERLE, P.L.L.C., KENNETH C. BUTLER, II 

and JOHN W. BUTLER, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 14, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 27, 2015.

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.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, March 27, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15I0146. ERIN PURDY v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

14CR004320
Agricultural Quality Assessment Division G-5 Specification

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 June 28, 2019

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 1 of 1 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Swift Chef’s Exclusive EU Beef Program

G-5 Specification

1 REQUIREMENTS

Beef carcasses certified under this specification shall meet the following requirements: 

a. Classed as Steer or Heifer carcasses only1;

b. U.S. Prime, Choice, or Select and have a minimum marbling score of Slight 01; 

c. Less than 30 months of age with lean color, texture, and firmness, meeting the requirements for

A maturity in the U.S. grade it qualifies for1;

d. Practically free (not detracting from visual quality) of capillary rupture in the ribeye muscle;

and

e. Free of “dark cutting” characteristics.

2 CERTIFICATION

Carcasses to be examined for compliance with this specification shall be clearly identified and 

presented to an AMS grader for certification. Certification procedures for identification, the removal 

of preliminary identification marks (or other methods of control) from non-qualifying carcasses, and 

control of certified carcasses shall be in accordance with established Quality Assessment Division 

(QAD) procedures. 

3 LABELING

Labeling of products derived from certified carcasses must follow Food Safety and Inspection Service 

regulations and policy guidelines and QAD procedures. 

4 FEES

The costs of all grading and certification services performed by an AMS grader involving 

examinations, supervision, official documentation, and related services shall be borne by the person, 

group, or plant requesting the service. 

___________________________________

Chad Nelson, National Meat Supervisor

Quality Assessment Division

Livestock & Poultry Program

1 Determined in accordance with the “Official United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef.”
## **Exhibit 31.1**

**Section302 Certification**

I, John Pasqualoni, certify that:

1.    Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Seneca Gaming Corporation;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

4.    The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

(a)          Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

(c)          Discussed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

5.    The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

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

(b)         Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  August 11, 2006 |   | /s/ John  Pasqualoni                   |
|-----------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                        |   | John Pasqualoni                        |
|                        |   | President and  Chief Executive Officer |
|                        |   | (Principal  Executive Officer)         |

 

----