alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of
Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corp. on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 33-96604,
333-29643 and 333-29647) of our reports dated February 5, 1999 on our audits of
the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of
Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corp. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998
and 1997 and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1998,
which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




/s/ PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------

2400 Eleven Penn Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 26, 1999
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-2299

WAYNE BROWNING,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District

Judge. (CA-99-597-3)

Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: January 28, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne Browning, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Wayne Browning appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting

the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Browning v. West Virginia, No. CA-99-597-3 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 10,

1999). 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
### M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 285TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on July 15, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise

or reverse your judgment between

Art Reyna, Appellant

V.

Irene Baldridge and Kathy Hill, Appellee

No. 04

- 14

- 00740

- CV and Tr. Ct. No. 2014

- CI

- 03985

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order

is AFFIRMED. We tax costs of this appeal against Appellant Art Reyna.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on September 23, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853BILL OF COSTS



### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04

- 14

- 00740

- CV

Art Reyna

v.

Irene Baldridge and Kathy Hill

(NO. 2014

- CI

- 03985 IN 285TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

CLERK'S RECORD

FILING

INDIGENT

STATEWIDE EFILING FEE

SUPREME COURT CHAPTER 51

FEE $10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$191.00

$100.00

$25.00

$20.00

$50.00 E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID FLOYD CONTRERAS

EDWARD CANO

DARBY RILEY

FLOYD CONTRERAS

RONALD PRICE

FLOYD S CONTRERAS

FLOYD S CONTRERAS

FLOYD S CONTRERAS

FLOYD S CONTRERAS

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

**Court costs in**  **this cause shall**  **be paid as**  **per the**  **Judgment issued by**  **this Court.** 

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this September 23, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
# C_2009312EN.01002802.xml

| 19.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/28

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 November 2009 — Frag Comercio Internacional v OHIM — Tinkerbell Modas (GREEN by missako)

(Case T-162/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark GREEN by missako - Earlier national and Community figurative marks MI SA KO - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2009/C 312/46

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Frag Comercio Internacional, SL (Esparreguera, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: W. Verburg, Agent,)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Tinkerbell Modas LTDA (São Paulo, Brazil)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 February 2008 (Case R 1527/2006–2) relating to opposition proceedings between Tinkerbell Modas LTDA and Frag Comercio Internacional, SL

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Frag Comercio Internacional, SL, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Frag Comercio Internacional, SL, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.

1

---
**Exhibit 12** **Potash    Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.****Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges****(In millions of US dollars, except ratio amounts)****(unaudited)**                        **Year Ended December 31**   **2007**  **2006**  **2005**  **2004**  **2003**      **Canadian GAAP**                        Net income (loss)     $    1,103.6      $    631.8      $    542.9      $    298.6      $    (126.3    )    Income taxes      416.2       158.1       267.4       131.7       (20.6    )    Share of earnings of equity investees      (76.2    )      (54.4    )      (52.1    )      (30.9    )      (12.4    )    Fixed charges      187.5       183.5       149.1       132.4       117.8     Distributed income of equity investees      40.6       29.9       18.6       8.7       4.0     Interest capitalized      (21.8    )      (19.1    )      (5.7    )      (2.5    )      (1.5    )          Total Earnings Available for Fixed Charges     $    1,649.9      $    929.8      $    920.2      $    538.0      $    (39.0    )      Fixed Charges                        Interest expensed and capitalized     $    165.4      $    163.6      $    127.2      $    112.8      $    105.7     Amortization of debt issue costs      2.3       1.0       2.2       2.2       2.1     Estimated portion of rent expense representing interest      19.8       18.9       19.7       17.4       10.0           Total Fixed Charges     $    187.5      $    183.5      $    149.1      $    132.4      $    117.8           Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges      8.80       5.07       6.17       4.06       –           (1)     Earnings were inadequate to cover fixed charges by    $156.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2003.                      **US GAAP**                        Net income (loss)     $    1,061.5      $    625.8      $    532.7      $    290.5      $    (84.2    )    Income taxes      452.3       174.4       288.0       151.9       7.4     Share of earnings of equity investees      (74.3    )      (54.9    )      (55.8    )      (30.9    )      (12.4    )    Fixed charges      187.5       183.5       149.1       132.4       117.8     Distributed income of equity investees      40.6       29.9       18.6       8.7       4.0     Interest capitalized      (21.8    )      (19.1    )      (5.7    )      (2.5    )      (1.5    )          Total Earnings Available for Fixed Charges     $    1,645.8      $    939.6      $    926.9      $    550.1      $    31.1       Fixed Charges                        Interest expensed and capitalized     $    165.4      $    163.6      $    127.2      $    112.8      $    105.7     Amortization of debt issue costs      2.3       1.0       2.2       2.2       2.1     Estimated portion of rent expense representing interest      19.8       18.9       19.7       17.4       10.0           Total Fixed Charges     $    187.5      $    183.5      $    149.1      $    132.4      $    117.8           Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges      8.78       5.12       6.22       4.15       –           (2)     Earnings were inadequate to cover fixed charges by    $86.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2003.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4590 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4590

     To provide an exception to certain mandatory minimum sentence 
   requirements for a person employed outside the United States by a 
Federal agency, who uses, carries, or possesses the firearm during and 
   in relation to a crime of violence committed while on-duty with a 
             firearm required to be carried while on-duty.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 7, 2017

    Mr. Burgess (for himself, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Cole, and Mr. 
  Wenstrup) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To provide an exception to certain mandatory minimum sentence 
   requirements for a person employed outside the United States by a 
Federal agency, who uses, carries, or possesses the firearm during and 
   in relation to a crime of violence committed while on-duty with a 
             firearm required to be carried while on-duty.

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

SECTION 1. EXCEPTION TO CERTAIN MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCING 
              REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSON EMPLOYED OUTSIDE THE UNITED 
              STATES BY A FEDERAL AGENCY, WHO USES, CARRIES, OR 
              POSSESSES A FIREARM DURING AND IN RELATION TO A CRIME OF 
              VIOLENCE COMMITTED WHILE ON-DUTY WITH A FIREARM REQUIRED 
              TO BE CARRIED WHILE ON-DUTY.

    Section 3261 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(e) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, if the 
offense is a violation of section 924(c)(1) of this title, the minimum 
sentencing requirements of section 924(c)(1)(A) of this title shall not 
apply if--
            ``(1) the person committed a crime of violence during and 
        in relation to the offense;
            ``(2) an agency of the United States required the person to 
        carry a firearm while on-duty; and
            ``(3) at the time the person used, carried, or possessed 
        the firearm, the person was employed outside the United States 
        by the agency, and was on-duty.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.2


                            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  Annual  Report  of  Sweetheart  Holdings, Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending  September 29, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Hans H. Heinsen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with  the  requirements  of  section
                  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/ Hans H. Heinsen
-------------------
Hans H. Heinsen
Chief Financial Officer
December 9, 2002
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 17

- 00445

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017

- 006011

- 1

Before Pittman, J. ; Sudderth, C.J.; and Birdwell, J. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### R

ALANDA 

### W ANDA 

### K AY 

### R ICHARD 

### , Appellant

V



### . FW H UNTER 

### P LAZA 

### , L.P. , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Ralanda Wanda Kay Richard ’s brief was originally due on June 13, 2018. On June 14, 2018, we granted her first requested extens ion of time in part and ordered the brief due no later than July 13, 2018. On July 26, we granted her second requested extension of her briefing deadline and ordered her brief due on August 20, 2018. On August 21, 2018, we granted A ppellant’s third reque sted extension of her briefing deadline and ordered her to file the brief no later than September 24, 2018. We stated, “ NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED. ” Nevertheless, o n September 27, 2018, we granted A ppellant’s request for leave to file
her brie f late, and ordered her tendered brief filed that date.
Also o n that date , however, we notified A ppellant that her brief is deficient, specifically listing the ways in which the brief does not comply with the rules of appellate procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.1, 9.4(i), 38. 1 (a)

– (d), (f)

– (k), 2nd Tex. App. (Fort Worth) Loc. R. 1.A . We directed A ppellant to f ile an amended brief which complies with the appellate rules by October 8, 2018. See Tex. R. App. P. 9, 38, and 2nd Tex. App. (Fort Worth) Loc. R. 1. We stated that her f ailure to do so could result
in our striking the noncompliant brief and dismissing the appeal or a waiver of noncompl iant point s . See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3. On October 8, 2018, A ppellant did not file an amended brief . She instead filed
a “ motion requesting extension of time to mail the documents into the courts and ask3 permission to send evidence of recordings onto a thumb drive by October 31, 2018 .”
The motion is DENIED , as are all other pending motions.
Because A p pellant has failed to file a compliant , amended brief even after we
afforded her an opportunity to correct her brief, we strike Appellant’s brief and
dismiss th is appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Per Curia m Delivered: October 18, 2018
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-16-00523-CV

T. C. and D. D., Appellants

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 PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant T. C. and D. D. filed their notices of appeal on August 5, 2016. The 

appellate record was complete August 31, 2016, making appellants’ briefs due September 20, 

2016. On September 22, 2016, this Court ordered Robert 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, on 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 accelerate the final disposition 

of appeals from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) 

(providing 180 days for 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 filing 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. Sigman is D. D.’s appellate attorney, we 

will grant T. C.’s motion and order Mr. Galvin and Mr. Sigman to file appellants’ briefs no later 

than October 17, 2016. If the briefs 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
# C_2013156EN.01002802.xml

| 1.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Artisjus v Commission

(Case T-411/08) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)

2013/C 156/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Artisjus Magyar Szerzői Jogvédő Iroda Egyesület (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Z. Hegymegi-Barakonyi, P. Vörös and M. Horányi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Artisjus Magyar Szerzői Jogvédő Iroda Egyesület; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Artisjus Magyar Szerzői Jogvédő Iroda Egyesület;

| 2. | Annuls Article 4(2) and (3) of that decision, to the extent that they refer to Article 3 of that decision, in so far as they concern Artisjus; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Article 4(2) and (3) of that decision, to the extent that they refer to Article 3 of that decision, in so far as they concern Artisjus;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to the main proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to the main proceedings;

| 4. | Orders Artisjus and the Commission to each bear their own costs relating to the interim relief proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Artisjus and the Commission to each bear their own costs relating to the interim relief proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.

1

---
# CHRISTmA n SINC E 189 4 

# '^TMENTO F 

# " iMfdlOl l

'I *; T I r \••

.



### ' 1 !-^ 

### [ • l.f 9 Februar y9 . 201 2 Docke t Managemen t Facilit y U.S . Departmen t o fTransportation , 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenu e SE. , Wes t Buildin g Groun d Floor . Roo m W12-140 , 

### Washington , D C 20590 . Re ; Su n Countr ySlo t Exemptio n - Docke t Numbe rFAA-2012-008 9 Ladie s an d Gentlemen : Su n Countr yAirline s ha s requeste d a n exemptio n fro m th e slo t limi t fo rRonal d Reaga n Washingto n Nationa l Airpor t (DCA ) se t fort h i n § 93.123(a) , t o permi t th e FA At o creat e ai rcarrie rslot s durin g certai n limite d hour s fo rSu n Country' s use . Th e propose d ai rcarrie rslot s woul d replac e tw o slo t exemption s unde rDO TOrde r2010-12-1 6 awarde d t o Su n Country . O n January6 , 2012 , th e Unite d State s Cour t o fAppeal s fo rth e Distric t o fColumbi a Circui t vacate d th e DO TOrder , an d Su n Countr y wil l los e it s existin g servic e betwee n DC Aan d Lansing' s Capita l Regio n Internationa l Airpor t Specifically , Su n Countr ydesire s on e dail yslo t durin g eac h o fth e 100 0 an d 110 0 hours . Th e propose d exemptio n woul d permi t Su n Countr yt o continu e operatin g it s existin g service s an d avoi d a n inequitabl e resul t o fth e Court' s order . Th e Su n Countr yDC Aservic e i s essentia l t o th e economi cgrowt h o fth e Greate rLansin g Region . Th e dail yservic e i s th e onl ylarg e aircraf t (737-800 ) servic e t o Washingto n Reaga n Airport , i n th e stat e o f Michiga n outsid e o fDetroit . Prio rt o Su n Country , th e regiona l communit yha d requeste d th e introductio n o fthi s servic e fro m numerou s othe rairlin e operator s withou t success . Accordingly , i t i s critica l tha t th e FA Atak e th e necessar ystep s t o ensur e th e continuatio n o fth e Su n Countr yslot s a t th e establishe d fligh t time s i n suppor t o fGreate rLansing' s busines s an d economi cgrowth . You rimmediat e approva l o fthi s exemption , s o tha t Su n Countr yca n begi n t o ente rflight s schedule s fo r sal e fo rth e balanc e o f2012 , wil l b e greatl yappreciated . Sincerely , T h e Christma n

Steve n J . Frederick s Presiden t an d Chie fOperatin g Office r

Th e Chnstma n Compan yTh e Christma n Buildin g 20 8 N . Capito l Avenu e Lansing , Michiga n 48933-135 7
#### Town of Niagara, Appellant, v City of Niagara Falls et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) City of Niagara Falls, Respondent, v CECOS International, Inc., et al., Respondents, and Town of Niagara, Appellant. (Action No. 2.)

(Appeal No. 2.)

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion characterized by plaintiff as seeking “leave to reargue *572and/or renew”. We conclude that plaintiff’s motion is one to renew, and not one to reargue, because it was made on the ground of additional material facts not previously considered. The renewal of a motion should be denied where, as here, the movant "failed to provide a valid excuse for not submitting the additional evidence in the original application” *(Monroe Dewey Partners v MDR Dev.,*159 AD2d 949; *see also, Foley v Roche,*68 AD2d 558, 568). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Mintz, J. — Renewal.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Lawton, Lowery and Davis, JJ.