alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-08-0224-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	NOVEMBER 24, 2008

	______________________________

	SHELDON KEITH CRAIN, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 54,073-A; HONORABLE HAL MINER, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

	ABATEMENT AND REMAND

	Pursuant to a guilty plea, Appellant, Sheldon Keith Crain, was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, enhanced, and sentenced to six years confinement.  Appellant filed a notice of appeal challenging his conviction.  The clerk’s record was filed on October 29, 2008.  Upon reviewing the record, it came to this Court’s attention that the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal does not comply with Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.1  As of September 1, 2007, a defendant must not only sign and receive a copy of the certification, he must also receive certain admonishments included in the form which were not previously required.   

	Consequently, we abate this appeal and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings.  Upon remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to secure a proper Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal in compliance with Rule 25.2(d).  Once properly completed and executed, the certification shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s record.  See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c)(2).  The trial court shall cause this supplemental clerk's record to be filed with the Clerk of this Court by December 22, 2008.  This order constitutes notice to all parties, pursuant to Rule 37.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, of the defective certification.  If a supplemental clerk’s record containing a proper certification is not filed in accordance with this order, this matter will be referred to the Court for dismissal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). 

	It is so ordered.

							Per Curiam

Do not publish.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 16

- 00523

- CV

T. C. and D. D., Appellant s

v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, NO. D

- 1

- FM

- 14

- 004687 , THE HONORABLE KARIN CRUMP, JUDGE P RESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant T. C. and D. D. filed their notice s of appeal on August 5, 2016 . The
appellate record was complete August 31, 2016 , making appellant s ’ brief s due September 20,

2016

. On September 22, 2016
, thi s Court ordered Rob ert Galvin and Alexandra Prentice Saenz
to file appellants’ briefs no later than October 7, 2016. Subsequently, we were advised that John
M. Sigman had been substituted in place of Ms. Saenz for this appeal. 1 In addition, o n October

7, 2016, Mr. Galvin filed a motion for extension of time to file T. C.’s appellant’s brief.

Amendments to the rules of judicial administration a ccelerate the final disposition
of appeals from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a)
(providing 180 days fo r court’s final disposition). The accelerated schedule constrains this

1 Mr. Sigman filed a motion for extension of time to file D. D.’s brief, which we dismissed as moot because we had already extended the fi ling deadline to October 7, the date requested in the motion. As of today, however, Mr. Sigman has not filed D. D.’s brief.Court’s leeway in granting extensions. Although we have already issued one order in this case,

due to the recent update informing the Court that Mr. Sigm an is D. D.’s appellate attorney, we
will grant T. C.’s motion and order Mr. Galvin and Mr. Sigman to file appellant s ’ brief s no later

than October 17, 2016

. If the brief s are not filed by that date, counsel will be required to show

cause why they should not be held in contempt of court.

It is ordered on October 11, 2016

.

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Field
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 118 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1437-E1438]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

            THE FEDERAL RESERVE TRANSPARENCY ACT (H.R. 459)

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 2, 2012

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Reserve is by charter and 
design an independent central bank. At the same time, because ours is a 
system of checks and balances, the Federal Reserve's operations are 
governed by congressional mandate and subject to strict accountability 
and oversight.
  Specifically, the Federal Reserve has for many years been audited by 
the Government Accountability Office (GAO), as well as independent, 
third-party firms. Additionally, pursuant to the Humphrey-Hawkins Act, 
the Chairman of the Federal Reserve testifies before both chambers of 
Congress twice a year. Minutes of the Federal Reserve's Open Market 
Committee are made public 6 weeks after its meetings occur, and the Fed 
publishes updated balance sheets on its website weekly.

[[Page E1438]]

Moreover, the recently enacted Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform law 
further enhanced the Federal Reserve's transparency by expanding the 
types of audits GAO must conduct and by mandating disclosure of 
transactions at the Federal Reserve's discount window.
  In light of these facts, the issue in H.R. 459 is not whether the Fed 
should be audited. It already is. Instead, what is at issue in this 
legislation is whether the Fed's internal deliberations concerning the 
formation of monetary policy should be made public. This is the 
equivalent of asking whether Supreme Court justices' pre-decisional 
debate should be made public--and it is a bad idea for the same reason. 
It would have a predictably counterproductive and chilling effect on 
that debate and ultimately undermine the Fed's independence. Time and 
time again, history has shown that central banks whose decision-making 
falls under the influence of short-term political considerations 
quickly lose all credibility with the public and with the credit 
markets. This cannot be allowed to happen.
  It's ironic that most, if not all, of the information proponents of 
this legislation cite to justify its enactment is in the public domain 
because of the transparency measures that are already in place. Indeed, 
many advocates of H.R. 459 are avowedly less interested in striking the 
right balance between independence and accountability at the Federal 
Reserve than they are in abolishing the Federal Reserve altogether--or 
in ending the Federal Reserve's dual mandate to achieve both stable 
prices and maximum employment.
  I am in neither camp. I support an independent Federal Reserve 
pursuing its congressionally directed dual mandate, subject to strict 
oversight and accountability--and that is why I oppose this bill.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2008327EN.01002803.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/28

---

Appeal brought on 10 September 2008 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 8 July 2008 in Case F-76/07 Birkhoff v Commission

(Case T-377/08 P)

(2008/C 327/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by J. Currall and B. Eggers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Gerhard Birkhoff (Weitnau, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 8 July 2008 in Case F-76/07 Birkhoff v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 8 July 2008 in Case F-76/07 Birkhoff v Commission;

Birkhoff

Commission

| — | order Mr Birkhoff to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Mr Birkhoff to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is directed against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 8 July 2008 in Case F-76/07 annulling the decision of the Settlements Office, in the form of a decision on a complaint, not to reimburse the costs of acquiring a new wheelchair two years after the last acquisition, on the grounds of lack of necessity.

The appellant submits in support of its appeal that, first, contrary to the applicable provisions of Community law, the judgment redefines the margin of discretion of the Medical Officer and of the Medical Council in that, according to the judgment, only independent medical bodies may have such a margin of discretion.

Second, the judgment disavows any significance in the opinions of the Medical Council — which, in practice, are important in the examination of the necessity of costs — by stating that it is merely an advisory body whose opinions are not published. This is contrary to settled case-law on the Joint Rules on sickness insurance for officials of the European Communities, as applicable on 22 March 2004. Furthermore, those opinions have the status of a rebuttable presumption in relation to the necessity of costs.

In addition, the appellant alleges a distortion of the facts or errors in the legal characterisation of the facts and of the subject-matter of the dispute, and an infringement of the obligation to state the reasons for the judgment, since an essential part of the decision on the complaint was declared to be non-existent.

---
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 – ERNI Electronics v OHIM (MaxiBridge)**

**(Case T-132/08)**

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark MaxiBridge – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptiveness of the function of the goods indicated in the trade mark application – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation
No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 34, 47-50)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2008 (Case R 1530/2006-4) regarding the registration of the word sign MaxiBridge as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | ERNI Electronics GmbH |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark ‘MaxiBridge’ for goods and services in Classes 9 and 17 – Application No 4899647 |
| Decision of the Examiner: | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders ERNI Electronics GmbH to pay the costs. |
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 122 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1491]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       IN HONOR OF YVONNE CONWELL

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 12, 2012

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Yvonne Conwell, a 
member of the Cuyahoga County Council serving the Seventh District.
  Upon graduating from Cleveland State University, Councilwoman Conwell 
has spent her time serving others, especially families and children. 
She has served at Parmadale, an organization that provides support to 
at-risk children, including those that may be severely emotionally 
disturbed and with Jewish Family Services assisting those with 
diagnosed developmental disabilities. Professionally, Conwell has 
worked for Cleveland Healthcare for the Homeless (now known as Care 
Alliance), at Bridgeway, Inc. providing case management to fifty 
individuals facing mental and physical challenges, and at Oriana House 
helping coordinate services for individuals re-entering the community 
after incarceration. Councilwoman Conwell also served five years as the 
Director of Outreach for the Cuyahoga County Recorder's office.
  Together with her husband, Councilwoman Conwell donates much of her 
time to helping support local food drives and festivals whose 
admissions are food items for the needy, activities known as ``Harvest 
for Hunger.'' The Conwells have also established a charity of their 
own, ``Operation Helping Hands of Greater Cleveland''--an organization 
with the mission of providing needy families with infant items, 
clothing, and financial support.
  Now as a representative of the Seventh District of the Cuyahoga 
County Council, Councilwoman Conwell serves as the Chair of the Human 
Resources, Procurement, Appointments, and Equity Committee.
  Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring Yvonne 
Conwell, a dedicated member of the Cuyahoga County Council.

                          ____________________
```
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of Directors of ONEOK Partners GP, L.L.C. asGeneral Partner of ONEOK Partners, L.P.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (Nos. 333-66949 and 333-72696) on FormS-8 and (Nos. 333-137419) on Form S-3 of ONEOK Partners, L.P. (the Partnership) of our report dated February 28, 2007 except for Note J as to which the date is February 27, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of thePartnership, as of December 31, 2006 and the related consolidated statements of income, cash flows, and changes in partners’ equity and comprehensive income for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2006, whichreport appears in the December 31, 2007, annual report on Form 10-K of the Partnership. 

**/s/ KPMG LLP**

February 27, 2008 

Tulsa, OK
(August 29, 1991)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Ingram, Appellant.

— Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (Hanofee, J.), rendered February 11, 1988, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of two counts of the crime of robbery in the first degree.

On this appeal, the only issue raised by defendant is whether the concurrent prison sentences he received of 4 to 12 years upon his plea of guilty were harsh and excessive. In rejecting his claim, we note that at the time of his plea no promises were made other than that the senteiices imposed would be made to run concurrently. The sentences were well within the statutory guidelines and the plea was in full satisfaction of a five-count indictment. Under these circumstances, and given the nature of the crime involved, we find no abuse of discretion by County Court in the sentences it imposed *(see, People v Honsinger,*162 AD2d 877, *lv denied*76 NY2d 894; *People v Dean,*155 AD2d 774, *lv denied*75 NY2d 812).

Casey, J. P., Weiss, Yesawich Jr., Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
# C_2010011EN.01002701.xml

| 16.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/27

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 November 2009 — Tiralongo v Commission

(Case T-180/08 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Staff cases - Temporary staff - Non-extension of a fixed-term contract - Action for damages - Cause of the damage - Obligation to state reasons on the part of the Civil Service Tribunal)

2010/C 11/53

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Giuseppe Tiralongo (Ladispoli, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone and S. Frazzani, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents, assisted by S. Corongiu, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 6 March 2008 in Case F-55/07 Tiralongo v Commission (not yet published in the ECR), seeking the annulment of that order

Tiralongo

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Giuseppe Tiralongo to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Giuseppe Tiralongo to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.

1

---
#### Edward W. Hartford, Jr., et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Seneca Meadows, Inc., et al., Appellants, and Weldtec Scales, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

— Appeals unanimously dismissed without costs *(see, Loafin’ Tree Rest, v Pardi*[appeal No. 1.], 162 AD2d 985). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Wayne County, Parenti, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
Exhibit 10(g)(iii)


 


 


November 11, 2004


 


 


American Medical Alert Corp.


3265 Lawson Blvd.


Oceanside, NY 11572


 


	
  Re:

  	
   

  	
  Add-On-Properties
  LLC with American Medical Alert Corp.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Lease on
  premises 3255 Lawson Blvd., Oceanside, New York

  



 


To Whom It May Concern:


 


The
undersigned, Add-On-Properties LLC, Landlord of the above-stated premises
pursuant to Lease dated September 30, 1997, hereby acknowledges that American
Medical Alert Corp. has vacated and surrendered possession of the premises as
of November 1, 2004, and the undersigned has agreed to terminate the Lease
effective as of said date. American Medical Alert Corp. acknowledges that it
has vacated and surrendered possession of the premises and has no claim with
reference thereto pursuant to the terms and provisions of the aforementioned
Lease.


 


The
undersigned further agrees to waive and release American Medical Alert Corp.
from any further obligations it may have pursuant to the terms and the
provisions of the aforementioned Lease which would have continued until
September 30, 2007.


 


The Lease is
considered null and void with no further obligation on the part of American
Medical Alert Corp. to Add-On-Properties LLC.


 


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Add-On-Properties
  LLC

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  By: 

  	
  /s/ Howard Siegel

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Howard M. Siegel

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  American
  Medical Alert Corp.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  By: 

  	
  /s/ Richard Rallo
**EXHIBIT 23.1**
**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**
     We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statements (No. 333-64268, 333-39276,333-62601, 333-24407, 333-09157, 333-10115) of NetManage, Inc.on Form S-8 of our report dated February 14, 2003(which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatoryparagraphs relating to the adoption of Statement of FinancialAccounting Standards No. 142, “Goodwill and OtherIntangible Assets” and the restatement of the consolidatedfinancial statements of NetManage, Inc. as of December 31,2001 and for the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000)appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of NetManage,Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002.
/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
San Jose, CaliforniaFebruary 26, 2003
Exhibit 21.1



Subsidiaries of the Registrant

Entities owned at December 31, 2005



|                                                  |  |                         
|------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|Entity                                            |  | Country of Incorporation
|NetManage, Inc.                                   |  | US                      
|Network Software Associates, Inc.                 |  | US                      
|NetSoft, Inc.                                     |  | US                      
|NetSoft Benelux BVBA                              |  | Belgium                 
|NetManage Veenendaal HFL (Branch)                 |  | Netherlands             
|NetManage UK Limited                              |  | UK                      
|FTP Software, Inc.                                |  | US                      
|FTP Software Worldwide, Inc. - Branch             |  | France                  
|Wall Data International, Inc.                     |  | US                      
|Wall Data Holding GmbH                            |  | Germany                 
|NetManage Software GmbH                           |  | Germany                 
|Wall Data, Ltd.                                   |  | Ireland                 
|NetManage Canada Inc.                             |  | Canada                  
|N.Y. NetManage (Yerushalayim) Ltd.                |  | Israel                  
|NetManage, Ltd.                                   |  | Israel                  
|NetManage Italia SRL (1% owned by NetManage SARL) |  | Italy                   
|NetManage Japan K.K.                              |  | Japan                   
|NetManage Iberia, S.L.                            |  | Spain                   
|NetManage SARL                                    |  | France