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

Supreme Court Cause No. DA 19-0606

__________________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF:

Z.L.

a Youth.

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION

__________________________________________________________________

Before the Court is the Unopposed Motion of Appellant, Z.L., for an 

extension of time, until May 28, 2020, to file and serve his Opening Brief.

Upon review of Appellant’s Unopposed Motion, the Court hereby grants 

Appellee’s Motion for an Extension of time. The Appellee’s Answer Brief shall be 

filed and served on or before May 28, 2020.

Dated this the __ day of April, 2020.

By: ____________________

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 29 2020

04/29/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0606
AURORA LOAN SERVICES
A Lehman Brothers Company

Via UPS

February 23, 2006
Karen Schluter
Citibank, NA
11l Wall Street, l4th Floor/Zone 3
New York, NY 10005

RE:SASCO 2005 - 2XS
Annual Officer's Certificate as to Compliance

Dear Ms. Schluter:

The undersigned Officer certifies the following for the period ending on
December 31, 2005:

1.     I have reviewed the activities and performance of the Master Servicer
during the preceding calendar year under the terms of the Trust Agreements
and to the best of this Officer's knowledge, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all of its duties, responsibilities or obligations under the
Agreements;

2.     Based on said review and to the best of this Officer's knowledge, the
Master Servicer is not in default of its obligations under the terms of the
Trust Agreements in any material respect, or, if there is a default in the
fulfillment of its obligations, a description of each default or failure and
the nature and status thereof has been reported to this Officer;

3.     To the best of this Officer's knowledge, nothing has arose to lead
this Officer to believe that its Servicer has failed to perform any of its
duties, responsibilities and obligations under its Servicing Agreement during
the preceding calendar year;

4.     To the best of this Officer's knowledge, the Servicer is not in
default of its obligations under the terms of its Servicing Agreement in any
material respect, or, if there is a default in the fulfillment of
its obligations, a description of each default or failure and the nature and
status thereof has been reported to this Officer;

5.     The Master Servicer has received from its Servicer such Servicer's
annual certificate of compliance and a copy of such Servicer's annual audit
report, in each case to the extent required under the applicable Servicing
Agreement, or, if any such certificate or report has not been received by the
Master Servicer, the Master Servicer is using its best reasonable efforts to
obtain such certificate or report.


Certified By:

/s/ R. Peter Karr
------------------
R. Peter Karr
Senior Vice President
Master Servicing Division
NUMBER 13-20-00552-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

 

ARACELI CASTILLO, Appellant,

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL 

TRUST COMPANY, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 165th District Court 

of Harris County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Silva

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

Appellant Araceli Castillo appealed a judgment rendered against her and in favor 

of appellee, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, in a matter involving the 
2

enforcement of a foreign judgment.1 See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 35.001–

.008 (codifying the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act). The parties to this 

appeal have now filed an agreed motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that they have 

settled and compromised their differences in this matter. 

The parties’ agreed motion to dismiss requests relief that is allowed by the 

appellate rules. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1) (allowing the court to “dismiss the appeal 

or affirm the appealed judgment or order unless such disposition would prevent a party 

from seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled”). Accordingly, we grant the 

agreed motion to dismiss, and we dismiss the appeal. Costs will be taxed against the 

appellant. See id. R. 42.1(d) (“Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs 

against the appellant.”). Having dismissed the appeal at the parties’ request, no motion 

for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

CLARISSA SILVA

Justice

Delivered and filed on the

1st day of April, 2021.

1 The appeal was transferred to this Court from the First Court of Appeals in Houston pursuant to 

a docket equalization order issued by the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. §§ 73.001, 

22.220(a).
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                  5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BEL
     FUSE INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND
     THE TWELVE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
     TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>      1

       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                           DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                  14,923,685
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           17,389,537
<ALLOWANCES>                                               317,000
<INVENTORY>                                             21,847,563
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        54,481,654
<PP&E>                                                  62,659,162
<DEPRECIATION>                                          27,187,664
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         103,624,628
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   13,672,469
<BONDS>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                   520,662
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                              88,285,497
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           103,624,628
<SALES>                                                 90,754,195
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        90,754,195
<CGS>                                                   58,654,040
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           75,302,165
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         17,030,820
<INCOME-TAX>                                             1,813,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     15,217,820
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                            15,217,820
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 2.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 2.89

        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM











Anthera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


Hayward, California





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S­-3 (No. 333-175095, No. 333-179043, No. 333-187771, No. 333-187780 and No. 333-188679) and Form S-8 (No. 333-165714, No. 333-168970, 333-172100, No. 333-180144 and No. 333-186679) of Anthera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our reports dated March 14, 2016, relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of Anthera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s internal controls over financial reporting, which appear in this Form 10-K.











/s/ BDO USA, LLP


San Jose, California


March 14, 2016
AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed July 29, 2015.

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01487-CR

CHARDONDRA DEVEUN JONES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F14-51320-L

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Brown and Stoddart

Opinion by Justice Stoddart

Chardondra Deveun Jones waived a jury and pleaded guilty to assault involving family 

violence and having a prior conviction for assault involving family violence. See TEX. PENAL 

CODE ANN. § 22.01(a)(1), (b)(2) (West 2011); TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 71.0021, 71.005 (West 

2008 & Supp. 2014). The trial court assessed punishment at eight years’ imprisonment. On 

appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous 

and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there 

are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–12 (Tex. Crim. 
-2-

App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised 

appellant of her right to file a pro se response, but she did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. 

State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts 

and counsel in Anders cases).

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree 

the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably 

support the appeal.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/ Craig Stoddart/

CRAIG STODDART

JUSTICE

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

141487F.U05
-3-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

CHARDONDRA DEVEUN JONES, 

Appellant 

No. 05-14-01487-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the Criminal District Court

No. 5 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 

F14-51320-L).

Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart, 

Chief Justice Wright and Justice Brown 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 29th day of July, 2015.
EXHIBIT 22.1

Subsidiaries of the Registrant
------------------------------

                                                       Jurisdiction of
Name                                                    Incorporation
----                                                    -------------

Bel Fuse California Inc.                                  California

Bel Fuse America Inc.                                     Delaware

Bel Fuse Delaware Inc.                                    Delaware

Bel Ventures Inc.                                         Delaware

Bel Power Products Inc.                                   Delaware

Bel Transformer Inc.                                      Delaware

Bel Connector Inc.                                        Delaware

Signal Dominicana, S.A.                                   Dominican Republic

Stewart Connector Systems de
    Mexico, S.A. de C.V.                                  Mexico

Bel Stewart Gmbh                                          Germany

Bel Fuse Europe Ltd.                                      United Kingdom

Bel Fuse Limited                                          Hong Kong

Bel Power (Hangzhou) Co. Ltd.                             China

Bel Components Ltd.                                       Hong Kong

Top East Corporation Limited                              Hong Kong

Bel Stewart Limited                                       Hong Kong

Bel Fuse Macau LDA                                        Macau
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Michael Charles Hill, Appellant

No. 06-12-00094-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 196th District Court of 

Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 26,410). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Morriss, Justice Carter and Justice 

Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Michael Charles Hill, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JANUARY 8, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of IHS Inc. (the Company), that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended November 30, 2009
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company. This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to such report. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date: January 15, 2010



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Jerre L. Stead                               
|Jerre L. Stead                                      
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                
|                                                    
|/s/    Michael J. Sullivan                          
|Michael J. Sullivan                                 
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.2

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)

I, Michael T. Everett, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of WebEx Communications, 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant'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 registrant 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 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) 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 

(c) 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 

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

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:  November 8, 2004

 

 

/s/   MICHAEL T. EVERETT
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



I, R. B. Harris,  Acting Financial Officer of Royal Holiday Mobile Estates ( the
"Company"),  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the Quarter ended
September  30,2002  (the " Report")  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 ( 15 U.S.C. 78m
or 78o (d); 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:    September 22, 2003





                         /s/ R. B. Harris
                         -----------------------
                         R. B. Harris, Acting Financial Officer/
                         Director
#### John CLARK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27497.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 30, 1955.

No attorney on appeal.

Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for cutting merchantable timber upon the land of another without' the consent of the owner, with punishment assessed at three- years in - the penitentiary.

The record affirmatively . reflects .that, during the trial of the case and during the introduction of testimony, it was made known to'the trial court that the wife of one of the jurors in the case was seriously ill. The trial court-communicated-to and discussed such fact with both -counsel for the state and for the. appellant and, as. a result, all parties, including the appellant in person,' agreed to excuse the juror in order that he might be with his sick wife. It was also ' agreed that the trial might proceed to final determination before the remaining .eleven jurors.

The; Constitution provides that a jury in the district court shall be composed of twelve jurors, Art. 5, Sec. 13, Vernon’s *820Ann.St, and that the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, Art. 1, Sec. IS.

Art. 11, Vernon’s C.C.P.,t provides that the right of trial by jury cannot be waived in a felony case when there is a plea of not guilty.

Art. 687, Vernon’s C.C.P., provides that "Not less than twelve jurors can render and return a verdict in a felony case.” An essential element, then, of the right of trial by jury, in a felony case, is that the jury must be composed of twelve jurors. Randel v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 282, 219 S.W.2d 689.

In an unbroken line of cases this court has consistently held that the defendant cannot waive' the right of trial by jury in a felony case when he pleads not guilty. Dunn v. State, 88 Tex.Cr.R. 21, 224 S.W. 893, and authorities there listed: Jones v. State, 52 Tex.Cr.R. 303, 106 S.W. 345; Stell v. State, 14 Tex.App. 59; Lott v. State, 18 Tex.App. 627; Jester v. State, 26 Tex.App. 369, 9 S.W. 616; McCampbell v. State, 37 Tex.Cr.R. 607, 40 S.W. 496; Ex parte Reynolds, 35 Tex.Cr.R. 437, 34 S.W. 120; Ex parte Ogle, Tex.Cr.App., 61 S.W. 122.

A judgment in a felony case where there is a plea of not guilty, based upon a verdict of only eleven jurors, is absolutely void. Dunn v. State, 92 Tex.Cr.R. 126, 242 S.W. 1049.

There is no escape from the conclusion that the judgment in this case is void, because the trial was by a jury composed of only eleven jurors who returned the verdict therein.

If appellant could not waive the constitutional right to be tried by a jury of twelve jurors, then any agreement that he may have made consenting thereto would be ineffective.

The judgment in this case being void, we must, in order to protect our judgments and decrees, withhold approval thereof.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Eachof the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that thisAnnual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

This27th day of March, 2007.
| /s/ Thaddeus M. Williams           |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|
| Chief Executive Officer            |
| FirstBank Financial Services, Inc. |

 
| /s/ Lisa J. Maxwell                |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|
| Chief Financial Officer            |
| FirstBank Financial Services, Inc. |

 

----