alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

January 23, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00710

- CV

IN THE INT EREST OF T.M.P. , A Child,

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013

- PA

- 00126 H onorable Richa r d Garcia, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

This is an appeal from a judgment terminating appellant fath er’s parental rights. Appellant ’ s court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant
to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. See In re RR , No. 04

- 03

- 00096

- CV, 2003 WL 21157944 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio May 21, 2003, order) (holding that Anders procedures apply to appeals from orders
term inating parental rights), disp. on merits , 2003 WL 22080522 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Sept. 10, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.). Counsel has informed a ppellant of h er right to obtain and review the record and file h er own brief. See id. ; Nichols v. State , 954 S.W .2d 83, 85

- 86 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio July 23, 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Counsel provided appellant with a form for requesting the record and instruction on filing same

. See Kelly v. Sta te , No. PD

- 0702

- 13, 2014 WL 2865901 (Tex. Crim. App. June 25, 2014). Appellant did not file the form with this court or otherwise request the record.

If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we order that s he do so on or before February 23, 2015

. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, appellee may file a responsive brief no later than twenty days after appellant ’ s pro se brief is filed in this court. We further order the motion to withdraw filed by appellant ’ s counsel held in abeyance pending further order of the court.

We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appellant and all counsel.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereun to set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 23rd day of January, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7287

HARRIS EMANUEL FORD,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

PATSY CHAVIS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

Chief District Judge. (5:13-hc-02268-D)

Submitted: November 6, 2014 Decided: November 13, 2014

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harris Emanuel Ford, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Harris Emanuel Ford seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as 

successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Ford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Mark Lana, of HS3 Technologies, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of HS3
Technologies, Inc.;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and
I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls
and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small
business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change
in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the
small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and
I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small
business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and

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

Dated: February 23, 2009

*/s/ Mark Lana*Mark Lana Chief Executive
Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial
Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

---
##### 



RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT
       FIRST
  1




---



##### 



SECOND
   THIRD
  2




---



##### 



FOURTH
   3




---



##### 



4




---



##### 



FIFTH
  5




---



##### 



SIXTH
 SEVENTH
 EIGHTH
 NINTH
  6




---



##### 



TENTH THE COMPANY AND THE
RECIPIENT EACH HEREBY WAIVE THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL IN ANY ACTION ARISING OUT OF THE
STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN, THE RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD OR THIS AGREEMENT.
 ELEVENTH
  SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS ALLIANCE, INC.By:  [Name of Recipient]
  7
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Dean L. Cash, ChiefExecutive Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, Managing Member of ATELCapital Equipment Fund XI, LLC (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section906 of  the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of  2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

1.                                  The QuarterlyReport on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

2.                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date:             August 15, 2005

 

 
| /s/ Dean L. Cash               |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| Dean L. Cash                   |   |
| President and Chief  Executive |   |
| Officer of Managing Member     |   |
|                           |   |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
**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, 2006, 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/
                Michael M.
                SchurerMichael
              M. Schurer
              Chief
                Financial Officer and Treasurer
              (Principal
                Financial and Accounting Officer)
              August
                14, 2006
The Honorable Andrew W. Bogue, United S tates District Judge for the District * of South Dakota, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-4160MN

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District v. * of Minnesota. * Juan Michael Ontiveros, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: May 15, 1998

Filed: May 21, 1998

_____________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE, Distric t * Judge.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Juan Michael Ontiveros pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute marijuana. On ap peal, Ontiveros contends the district court improperly rejected his request t o withdraw his guilty plea. We disagree. After considering the record and the parties' submissions, we conclude Ontiveros failed to carry his burden to establish a fair and just reason to withdraw his plea and the district court's ruling was not an abuse of-2-

discretion. We thus af

firm Ontiveros's conviction without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. ER12-91-000, ER12-91-002, ER12-92-002]

Take notice that on April 5, 2012, Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. and Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc., tendered for filing a Settlement Agreement on behalf of themselves and the Indiana Municipal Power Agency, pursuant to 18 CFR 385.602, in the above-docketed proceeding. Pursuant to 18 CFR 385.602(f)(2) initial comments on the settlement agreement should be filed on or before April 18, 2012. Reply comments are due on or before April 20, 2012.

Dated: April 12, 2012.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2012-9370 Filed 4-18-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
FILED IN COURT OF APPEALS

12th Court of Appeals District

CATHY S. LUSK, C

OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

A,>

3

Tr. Ct. No. 30979

The Appellant's motion for extension of time to file the appellant's motion for

rehearing is granted. The said time to file the motion for rehearing has been

extended to Friday, April 24, 2015.

Abel Acosta, Clerk

FILE COPY

4/13/2015

STAPLES, CHESTER ALAN

COA No. 12-13-00126-CR

PD-1354-14

12TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK

CATHY LUSK

1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354

TYLER, TX 75701

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
**
**Exhibit 15.3**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the use in this Prospectus constituting a part of this Shell Company Report on Form 20-F of ourreport dated March 28, 2023, (which includes an explanatory paragraph relating to Jaguar Global Growth Corporation I’s ability to continue as a going concern) relating to the financial statements of Jaguar Global Growth Corporation I,which is incorporated by reference. We also consent to the reference to us under the caption “Experts” in the Shell Company Report. 

/s/WithumSmith+Brown, PC

New York, New York

November 21,2023 
**
Agricultural Quality Assessment Division

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258

G-38 Specification 

March 16, 2021

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 1 of 2 

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

FM Meat Products Angus Beef Program

G-38 Specification

1 REQUIREMENTS

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

a. Phenotypic requirements of the American Angus Association’s (AAA) Live Animal

Specification;

b. Classed as Steer and Heifer, carcasses only;

c. U.S. Prime, Choice, Select, and Standard with the following marbling scores1:

i. FM Meat Products Angus Beef, Prime - Marbling score of Slightly Abundant 00 or

Higher

ii. FM Meat Products Angus Beef, Choice - Marbling score of Small 00 to Moderate 99,

iii. FM Meat Products Angus Beef, Select - Marbling score of Slight 00 to Slight 99

iv. FM Meat Products Angus Beef, Standard - Marbling score of Traces 00 to Traces 99

d. 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;

e. No hump exceeding 2 inches in height2

;

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

and

g. 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.

1 Determined in accordance with the “Official United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef.” 2 Measured from a line formed by the extension of the top line (including the fat) and measuring the lean muscle (excluding the fat) 

perpendicular to that line in the center of the hump. 
Agricultural Quality Assessment Division

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258

G-38 Specification 

March 16, 2021

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 2 of 2 

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

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
[DESCRIPTION] SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

                                        
                     EXHIBIT 21 - SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
                                        
                                        
         Betz Canada Inc., a Canadian corporation.

         Betz PaperChem, Inc., a Florida corporation.

         Betz Process Chemicals, Inc., a Texas corporation.

*        Betz International, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, holds
         substantially all of the stock of:

         Betz de Venezuela,C.A., a Venezuelan subsidiary;

         Betz Pte., Ltd., a Singapore subsidiary;

         Betz Pty, Ltd., an Australian subsidiary;

         Betz Korea, Ltd., a Korean subsidiary;

         Betz Chemicals India, PVT., Ltd.;

         Betz Taiwan, Ltd., a Taiwanese subsidiary;

         Betz (Malaysia) Sdn. BHD, a Malaysian subsidiary; and

         Betz International (Thailand) Co., Ltd., a Thai subsidiary.

*        Betz Europe, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
         holds directly or indirectly all of the stock of:

         Betz Limited, a United Kingdom subsidiary;

         Betz G.m.b.H., a German subsidiary;

         Betz N.V., a Belgium subsidiary;

         Betz Sud S.p.A., an Italian subsidiary;

         Betz Ges.m.b.h., an Austrian subsidiary;

         Betz Industries S.A., a French subsidiary;

         Finn Betz OY, a Finnish subsidiary;

         Betz Kemi AB, a Swedish subsidiary;

         Misan Chimica S.P.A., an Italian subsidiary;

         Misan Iberica, S.A., a Spanish subsidiary; and

         Misan Portuguese, L.D.A.; a Portuguese subsidiary.

*        None of the foreign subsidiaries listed above constitutes a
"significant subsidiary" as defined in Rule 1-02(v) (17 CFR 210.1-02(v) 
of Regulation S-X); however, Betz International, Inc. and Betz Europe, 
Inc., the holders of nearly all of the stock of such foreign subsidiaries, 
do constitute "significant subsidiaries" of the Registrant.
-82 -80 -78 -76

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/18

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL
<TABLE>
                                                             Exhibit 12.2



                             Boston Edison Company
               Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                   and Preferred Stock Dividend Requirements
                         Year ended December 31, 1997
                                (in thousands)


<S>                                                    <C>
Net income from continuing operations                  $144,642

Income taxes                                             82,455

Fixed charges                                           116,258
                                                       --------

     Total                                             $343,355
                                                       ========

Interest expense                                       $106,899
Interest component of rentals                             9,359
                                                       --------

     Subtotal                                          $116,258
                                                       --------

Preferred stock dividend requirements                    20,642
                                                       --------

     Total                                             $136,900
                                                       ========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and
preferred stock dividend requirements                      2.51
                                                           ====
</TABLE>