alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered June 12, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00115-CV

SHIHAB DIAIS AND ODESSA DENTAL SOLUTIONS, P.A., Appellants

V.

LAND ROVER DALLAS, L.P. AND SNELL MOTOR COMPANY OPERATIONS GP, 

LLC, GENERAL PARTNER, Appellees

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-01137

ORDER

We GRANT appellees’ June 10, 2015 second unopposed motion for extension of time to 

file brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than June 26, 2015.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
#### Jacob S. Grazi, Appellant, *v.*Douglaston Estates, Inc., Respondent. Julius Goldberg et al., Appellants, *v.*Douglaston Estates, Inc., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

November 24, 1958.

*Berman t0 Tomaselli (Charles Sutton of*counsel), for appellants.

*Holman<0 Holman {Paul C. Fusco of*counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

By proceeding to trial, plaintiffs waived their right to appeal from that part of the order which granted defendant’s motion to open its default and permitted it to inter*513pose an answer herein. No appeal lies from the order insofar as it denied plaintiffs’ cross-motion *“*to strike out the appearance of the attorneys purporting to act in the name of the defendant ” (Nassau County District Court Act, § 190; L. 1939, ch. 274).

The appeals from order should be dismissed, with $5 costs in each case.

Concur — Pette, Di Giovanna and Brown, JJ.

Appeals dismissed, etc.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0001133

21-APR-2015

09:37 AM
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7610

TRACEY TERRELL GRADY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WYATT MCPHERSON; CHRISTOPHER BECK; TERESA GORE,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

SERGEANT YEO; OFFICER BUCK; OFFICER LOCKLEAR; TINA BURKETT,

Defendants.

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

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:17-ct-03211-FL)

Submitted: March 18, 2021 Decided: March 23, 2021

Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tracey Terrell Grady, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tracey Terrell Grady appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants 

summary judgment in Grady’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. On appeal, we confine our review 

to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Grady’s informal 

brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited 

appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 

2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our 

review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s judgment. 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.

AFFIRMED
# EUR-Lex - 22003D0181 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 22003D0181

**Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 181/2003 of 5 December 2003 amending Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms **

*
Official Journal L 088 , 25/03/2004 P. 0063 - 0064 *

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee

No 181/2003

of 5 December 2003

amending Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement", and in particular Articles 86 and 98 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Protocol 31 to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 111/2003 of 12 July 2003(1).

(2) It is appropriate to extend the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the Agreement to include Council Decision 2000/750/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a Community action programme to combat discrimination (2001 to 2006)(2).

(3) Protocol 31 to the Agreement should therefore be amended in order to allow for this extended cooperation to take place from 1 January 2004,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Article 5 of Protocol 31 to the Agreement is amended as follows:

1. The text of paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:

"The EFTA States shall participate in the Community programmes and actions referred to in the first two indents of paragraph 8 as from 1 January 1996, in the programme referred to in the third indent as from 1 January 2000, in the programme referred to in the fourth indent from 1 January 2001, in the programmes referred to in the fifth and sixth indents as from 1 January 2002 and in the programme referred to in the seventh indent as from 1 January 2004."

2. The following indent is added in paragraph 8:

"- 32000 D 0750: Council Decision 2000/750/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a Community action programme to combat discrimination (2001 to 2006) (OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 23)."

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following the last notification to the EEA Joint Committee pursuant to Article 103(1) of the Agreement(3).

It shall apply from 1 January 2004.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 5 December 2003.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

HSH Prinz Nikolaus von Liechtenstein

(1) OJ L 298, 31.10.2003, p. 37.

(2) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 23.

(3) Constitutional requirements indicated.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 112 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 112

  To prohibit the Central Intelligence Agency from using an unmanned 
  aerial vehicle to carry out a weapons strike or other deliberately 
lethal action and to transfer the authority to conduct such strikes or 
              lethal action to the Department of Defense.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2019

 Mr. Burgess introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
  Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and in addition to the 
Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined 
 by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
        fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the Central Intelligence Agency from using an unmanned 
  aerial vehicle to carry out a weapons strike or other deliberately 
lethal action and to transfer the authority to conduct such strikes or 
              lethal action to the Department of Defense.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY OPERATION OF 
              UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE STRIKES AND TRANSFER OF AUTHORITY 
              TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

    (a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
officer or employee of, or contractor or detailee to, the Central 
Intelligence Agency shall use an unmanned aerial vehicle to carry out a 
weapons strike or other lethal action.
    (b) Transfer to Department of Defense.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, the President shall transfer to the Department of 
Defense all authority to use an unmanned aerial vehicle to carry out a 
weapons strike or other lethal action.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 3.4


                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                           CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATIONS
                           OF SERIES G PREFERRED STOCK
                                 OF ALTEON INC.


         Pursuant to Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware, Alteon Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Delaware, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

         1.       Section 5(h) of the Certificate of Designations of Series
G Preferred Stock of Alteon Inc. is amended by adding the following
sentence to the end thereof:

         "The Board of Directors of the Corporation or any officer designated by
         the Board of Directors of the Corporation may waive the provisions of
         this Section 5(h) for any one transaction or for any series of
         transactions."

         2.       The foregoing amendment has been duly adopted in
accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Certificate of Amendment is made this 8th day
of May, 1998.


                                                    ALTEON INC.



                                                    By: /s/ James J. Mauzey
                                                        -----------------------
                                                        James J. Mauzey
                                                        Chairman and
                                                        Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6312

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LUIS RAUL DIAZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-00-113) Submitted: September 19, 2002 Decided: September 27, 2002 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luis Raul Diaz, Appellant Pro Se. Sonya LeGene Sacks, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Luis Raul Diaz appeals from the district court’s orders denying his motion for an evidentiary hearing, on the grounds that the Government should have filed a motion for the reduction of his sentence under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b), and denying his motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Diaz , No. CR-00-113 (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 7, 2002 & entered Dec. 10, 2001; filed Dec. 20, 2000 & entered Dec. 21, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2016202EN.01014201.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/142 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/142

---

Article 210

(ex Article 180 TEC)

(ex Article 180 TEC)

1.   In order to promote the complementarity and efficiency of their action, the Union and the Member States shall coordinate their policies on development cooperation and shall consult each other on their aid programmes, including in international organisations and during international conferences. They may undertake joint action. Member States shall contribute if necessary to the implementation of Union aid programmes.

2.   The Commission may take any useful initiative to promote the coordination referred to in paragraph 1.

---
##### 



Exhibit 31.3
  RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
    CERTIFICATION
    OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY
    (required by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
    Form 10-K
      Rules 13a-15(e) 15d-15(e)) Rules 13a-15(f) 15d-15(f))
  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
    registrant, 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)
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or
    caused such internal control over financial reporting to be
    designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
    regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
    preparation of financial statements for external purposes in
    accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; c)
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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 d)
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
    internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
    the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
    registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
    report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
    materially affect, the registrants internal control over
    financial reporting; and    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
    registrant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
    registrants internal control over financial reporting.  Date:
    February 29, 2008
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 H. Goldberg

Michael H. GoldbergPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 12, 2010/s/ Scott F. Stephens

Scott F. StephensVice President and Chief Financial OfficerMarch 12, 2010
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7288 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL VERTOIN SAUNDERS,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

MICHAEL VERTOIN SAUNDERS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STEPHEN DEWALT, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CR96-204-DKC; CA-05-1366-DKC; CA-05-1558-DKC)

Submitted: October 20, 2005 Decided: October 31, 2005

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
- 2 -

Michael Vertoin Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael Vertoin Saunders, a federal prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order construing his petition filed

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), as a successive motion under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or

wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district

court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Saunders has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

                          WIRELESS TELECOM GROUP, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                                   (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                        MARCH 31, 1999  MARCH 31, 1998
                                                        --------------  --------------
<S>                                                       <C>           <C>        
Income from continuing operations                         $   543,277   $   490,973
     Income from discontinued operations and
       Gain on sale of test equipment business              3,560,852       709,574
                                                          -----------   -----------
Net Income                                                $ 4,104,129   $ 1,200,547
                                                          ===========   ===========
BASIC EARNINGS:

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding       17,557,298    17,484,259
                                                          ===========   ===========


Basic earnings per common share:
               Continuing operations                            $0.03         $0.03
               Discontinued operations                           0.20          0.04
                                                          -----------   -----------
                                                                $0.23         $0.07
                                                          ===========   ===========
DILUTED EARNINGS:

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding       17,557,298    17,484,259
Stock Options                                                      --       171,059
                                                          -----------   -----------
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding, as  
   adjusted                                                17,557,298    17,655,318
                                                          ===========   ===========

Diluted earnings per common share:
               Continuing operations                            $0.03         $0.03
               Discontinued operations                           0.20          0.04
                                                          -----------   -----------
                                                                $0.23         $0.07
                                                          ===========   ===========

</TABLE>


                                      13


<PAGE>
1

Filed 4/20/15 P. v. Potter CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Butte)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LARRY DEAN POTTER,

Defendant and Appellant.

C076558

(Super. Ct. Nos. CM037998, 

SCR89226)

In case No. CM037998, defendant Larry Dean Potter entered a no contest plea to 

the infliction of corporal injury upon a cohabitant in exchange for dismissal of the 

remaining count. The trial court imposed the upper term of four years, suspended 

execution, and granted probation subject to certain terms and conditions, including 

various fees and fines.

About two months later, defendant violated probation by being under the influence 

of cocaine and alcohol. The trial court lifted the stay on execution of the previously 

imposed sentence, awarded custody credit, and imposed the previously imposed fees and 

fines as well as a parole revocation restitution fine.
2

Defendant appeals. He contends that the trial court imposed certain dual fees and 

fines in case No. CM037998 that must be stricken.1 The People respond that defendant is 

correct if the court imposed dual fees and fines. We reject defendant’s contention.

When the court imposed sentence, suspended execution, and granted probation, 

the court imposed a $280 restitution fine, a $40 court security fee, and a $30 conviction 

assessment. After defendant violated probation, the stay was lifted on his sentence. In 

imposing fees and fines, the court expressly referred to the supplemental probation report 

for the list of the fees and fines. The supplemental probation report indicated which fees 

and fines had been “previously ordered,” including the now-challenged $280 restitution 

fine, the $40 court security fee, and the $30 conviction assessment. Defense counsel,

who had reviewed the supplemental probation report, had no objection.

In raising the issue of dual fees and fines, defendant has misread the record or 

failed to read the supplemental probation report, which reflects that the now-challenged 

fees and fines were “previously ordered.” The trial court did not impose a second round 

of fees and fines. The trial court simply ordered defendant to pay the “previously 

ordered” fees and fines defendant now challenges on appeal. The abstract of judgment 

reflects just one set. Defendant’s contention is frivolous and we reject it.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 RAYE , P. J.

We concur:

 BLEASE , J.

 ROBIE , J.

 

1

 Defendant does not raise any issues with respect to case No. SCR89226, a 

misdemeanor violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (a), for which

the trial court imposed a concurrent six-month term.