alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 95-5255

LARRY DEAN DUTTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.

Terrence W. Boyle, Graham C. Mullen, District Judges.

(CR-94-103-MU)

Submitted: December 26, 1995

Decided: August 5, 1996

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and LUTTIG and MICHAEL,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Randolph Marshall Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Gretchen C.F. Shappert,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Larry Dean Dutton appeals from a district court judgment and sentence on a guilty plea for his possession of a firearm as a convicted

felon. We affirm.

Dutton makes clear that he is not attacking the validity of the guilty

plea itself. Dutton complains that the district court erred in not either

granting his motion for a continuance of the sentencing hearing or

ordering an evidentiary hearing regarding his allegation that he was

promised a polygraph examination that was never completed and for

which counsel never received a transcript of the aborted examination.

Counsel wanted to use the transcript to rebut any attacks on Dutton's

credibility by the Government during sentencing.

We find the allegation of error meritless. First, the sentencing had

been continued once. Second, the motion for continuance contained

the information Dutton wanted to use to defend his character. We find

no "`unreasoning and arbitrary insistence on expeditiousness in the

face of a justifiable request for delay.'" United States v. Bakker, 925

F.2d 728, 735 (4th Cir. 1991) (quoting Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1,

11-12 (1983)). Further, three facts reveal that any error in denying the

motion and not ordering an evidentiary hearing was harmless. First,

Dutton referred to the polygraph evidence in support of his veracity,

and the Government did not refute his characterization of the polygraph examination. Second and third, the Government did not use the

information to attack Dutton's credibility, and the district court relied

only on Dutton's extensive criminal history in setting the sentence at

the top of the sentencing range. Thus, any error regarding the denial

of the continuance motion and failure to order a hearing was harmless

and provides no basis for vacatur of the judgment. Fed. R. Crim. P.

52(a).

 2
Therefore, we affirm the district court order. 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

 3
Exhibit
31.2





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





I, Peiyi
Tian, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this Form 10-Q of Worldwide Biotech & Pharmaceutical
Company;





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)) and internal control over financial
reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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.








Date: May
19, 2008





/s/
Peiyi Tian  Peiyi
Tian


Principal
Accounting Officer
#### FLOWERS v. STATE.

No. 22726.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 19, 1944.

Oscar Callaway, of Comanche, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

*68GRAVES, Judge.

Conviction is for driving an automobile upon a public highway while appellant was intoxicated. Punishment assessed is a fine of sixty dollars.

The' 'indictment properly charges the offfensé: The record contains neither statement of facts nor bills of exceptions. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
Documents in Support of a 

Significant New Use Rule for 

Premanufacture Notice (PMN) P-14-0476 

Docket ID Number 

EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0220 

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 28
 Table of Contents 

1. Sanitized SAT Report for P-14-0476 

2. Sanitized Engineering Report for P-14-0476 

3. Sanitized Exposure Report for P-14-0476 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 28
 

Sanitized SAT Report for P-14-0476 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 28
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 28
POTW removal (%) = 0 

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg ≥ mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = low

Volatilization half-life from a standard river = 21 hrs

Volatilization half-life from a standard lake = 14 da

Atmospheric Oxidation Half-life = 1.5 hr via OH radical

PBT Potential: P2B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = rapid

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is moderate through the skin, absorbed 

through the lung and GI tract (pchem). There is concern for irritation/corrosion to all tissues 

based on Uncertain concern for developmental and neurotoxicity based on the 

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 6.5

daphnid 48-h LC50 0.877

green algal 96-h EC50 0.561

fish _ chronic value 0.255

daphnid _ chronic 

value

0.082

algal _ chronic 

value

0.204

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for SAR 

chemical class = ; log Kow = 3.1 (EPI); solid with mp unknown (P); 

S = 1060 mg/L (P); effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean 

measured concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

20

SARs

SAR Class

Ecotox Category 

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 28
 

 SAT Chair: Viktor Morozov

EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 28
 

Sanitized Engineering Report for P-14-0476 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 28
EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 28
EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 28
EPA SANITIZED Page 10 of 28
EPA SANITIZED Page 11 of 28
EPA SANITIZED Page 12 of 28
EPA SANITIZED Page 13 of 28
EPA SANITIZED Page 14 of 28
EPA SANITIZED Page 15 of 28
EPA SANITIZED Page 16 of 28
EPA SANITIZED Page 17 of 28
EPA SANITIZED Page 18 of 28
 

Sanitized Exposure Report for P-14-0476 

EPA SANITIZED Page 19 of 28
EPA SANITIZED Page 20 of 28
EPA SANITIZED Page 21 of 28
EPA SANITIZED Page 22 of 28
EPA SANITIZED Page 23 of 28
EPA SANITIZED Page 24 of 28
EPA SANITIZED Page 25 of 28
EPA SANITIZED Page 26 of 28
EPA SANITIZED Page 27 of 28
EPA SANITIZED Page 28 of 28
NUMBER 13-19-00102-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF J.P. AND B.P., CHILDREN

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras

Appellant Artemio Perez appealed an order signed on March 18, 2019 confirming 

support arrearage in cause number F-0339-17-6 in the County Court at Law No. 6 of 

Hidalgo County, Texas. We dismiss his appeal.

On March 21, 2019, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that his notice of 

appeal was defective because it failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

25.1(d). See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(d). The Clerk directed appellant to file an amended 
2

notice of appeal with the trial court within thirty days from the date of that notice. 

Appellant did not do so.

On April 24, 2019, the Clerk notified appellant that the defect in his notice of appeal 

had not been corrected and warned appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the 

defect was not cured within ten days. Appellant did not correct the defect in his notice 

of appeal or take any other action to prosecute this appeal. 

An appellate court may dismiss a civil appeal for want of prosecution or because 

the appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules, a court order, 

or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. 

See id. R. 42.3(b), (c). Here, appellant has failed to comply with the requirements of the 

appellate rules and notices from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a 

specified time. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See id. R. 37.3; id. R. 42.3(b), (c).

DORI CONTRERAS

Chief Justice

Delivered and filed the 

6th day of June, 2019.
4293708-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN DIVISION 

BRYNNE SOUKUP, ) Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-648-RP 

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) 

) 

FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC. and ) 

FLIGHT SERVICES & SYSTEMS, LLC ) 

Defendants. ) 

ORDER 

Considering the foregoing Joint Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit With Prejudice; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled case is dismissed, with prejudice, with 

each party to bear its own costs. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 41-1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,294
<SECURITIES>                                    16,148
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,066
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (53)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,335
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,659
<PP&E>                                           3,608
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,614)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,045
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,104
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,842
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,337
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,045
<SALES>                                          3,464
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                69,675
<CGS>                                           66,968
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   66,968
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     6
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 314
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (896)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (897)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (897)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.32)
        

</TABLE>
Group 1 – Google’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief 

(Civil Case Nos. 6:20-cv-00571-ADA, 6:20-cv-00578-ADA, 6:20-cv-00583-ADA, and 6:20-

cv-00584-ADA) 

EXHIBIT #3 

Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 38-3 Filed 02/12/21 Page 1 of 12
Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 38-3 Filed 02/12/21 Page 2 of 12
Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 38-3 Filed 02/12/21 Page 3 of 12
Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 38-3 Filed 02/12/21 Page 4 of 12
Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 38-3 Filed 02/12/21 Page 5 of 12
Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 38-3 Filed 02/12/21 Page 6 of 12
Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 38-3 Filed 02/12/21 Page 7 of 12
Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 38-3 Filed 02/12/21 Page 8 of 12
Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 38-3 Filed 02/12/21 Page 9 of 12
Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 38-3 Filed 02/12/21 Page 10 of 12
Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 38-3 Filed 02/12/21 Page 11 of 12
Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 38-3 Filed 02/12/21 Page 12 of 12
[LETTERHEAD
        OF STAF*TEK]
 
 
 **PROMISSORY
        NOTE**
 TO
 MRS.
        PHYLLIS L. BELL
 
 
 $45,000.00
              July
                  25, 2005
 
 
 For
        value
        received, STAF*TEK SERVICES, INC., of Tulsa, Oklahoma, (herein referred to
        as
‘maker’) promises to pay to the order of PHYLLIS L. BELL, (herein referred to as
        ‘payee’) on or before July 29, 2005 the principal sum of Forty Thousand and
        No/100 Dollars ($45,000.00), plus $300.00.
 
 Payment
        of this note shall be as follows: One lump sum payment of $45,000.00 plus
        $300.00 interest.
 
 Maker
        may
        prepay this note in whole or in part without penalty or surcharge at any
        time
        prior to the maturity date.
 
 The
        maker
        hereby severally waives presentment for payment, notice of nonpayment, protest
        and notice to protest, and aggress that extensions of the time for payment
        may
        be granted without notice. In case of legal proceedings to collect this note,
        maker agrees to pay all court costs including reasonable attorneys’ fees to
        payee as prevailing parties in the suit.
 
 IN
        WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement is signed the 25 th day of
        July, 2005.
 
 
 /s/
                  Shelia Hobens
              
              /s/
                  John H. SimmonsShelia
                  Hobens
              
              John
                  H. Simmons, President, C.E.O.Staf*Tek
                  Services, Inc.4870
                  S. Lewis St., Ste. 250Tulsa,
                  Oklahoma 74105
#### Ex parte JACKSON et al.

No. 22406.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 2, 1942.

John J. Sargent, of Houston, for appellants.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the Honorable Frank Williford, Jr., Judge of the Criminal District Court in and for Harris County, refusing to grant relators bail upon a hearing of their application for a writ of habeas corpus.

Appellants were charged by indictment with the offense of murder. On the day following the return of the indictment they applied to the court for a writ of habeas corpus and prayed that upon a hearing ■thereof they be granted bail. The writ was granted as prayed for and upon a hearing thereof the court remanded them *137to the custody of the sheriff without the benefit of bail. Hence this appeal.

We do not deem it necessary, or even proper, at this time, to set out in detail the testimony adduced upon the hearing or to enter upon a discussion thereof. After a most careful examination and consideration of all the testimony introduced, we reached the conclusion that the order remanding them to the custody of the sheriff under the facts appearing in the record was proper. See Ex parte Goode, 123 Tex.Cr.R. 492, 59 S.W.2d 841.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned President and Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certifies that, to
his knowledge:

     1) the Company's Form 10-QSB for the six month period ended March 27, 2004
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     2) the information contained in the Company's Form 10-QSB for the six month
period ended March 27, 2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/ Carl H. Guild, Jr.                    /s/ Michael P. Malone
-----------------------------------       --------------------------------------
Carl H. Guild, Jr.                        Michael P. Malone
President & Chief Executive Officer       Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 10, 2004                        Date: May 10, 2004
KPMG LLP
Telephone
(416) 777-8500Chartered Accountants
Fax
(416) 777-8818Bay Adelaide Centre
Internet
www.kpmg.ca333 Bay Street Suite 4600Toronto ON M5H 2S5





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





To the Board of Directorsof YM BioSciences Inc.





We consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of:





–
our Independent Auditors’ Report dated September 22, 2011 on the consolidated balance sheets of YM BioSciences Inc. (the “Company”) as at June 30, 2011 and 2010 and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss and deficit, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended June 30, 2011; and





–
our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated September 22, 2011 on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of June 30, 2011





each of which is contained in this annual report filed on Form 40-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011. We also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of the above mentioned reports in the Registration Statements on Form F-10 (Registration No. 333-175381 and Registration No. 333-107872) and the Registration Statement on Form S-8(Registration No. 333-134410) of the Company.










Chartered Accountants, Licensed Public Accountants





Toronto, Canada


September 22, 2011





KPMG LLP is a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG


network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative


(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity.


KPMG Canada provides services to KPMG LLP.
#### DEMONS v. STATE.

No. 26224.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 28, 1953.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor in a dry area; the punishment, 120 days in jail and a fine of $1,000.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

All the proceedings appear regular; and nothing being presented for our review, the judgment is affirmed.
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-30565 

26-APR-2012 

10:48 AM 

NO. SCWC-30565
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I 

CAROL A. BROWN, M.D. and CAROL A. BROWN, M.D., INC.,


Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants,
 

vs.
 

HAWAII MEDICAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION, a mutual


benefit society; and ALAN VAN ETTEN, Arbitrator,


Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.
 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
 

(ICA NO. 30565; CIV. NO. 08-1-0288)
 

ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
 

(By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., and McKenna, J.,


Circuit Judge Ayabe, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused,


Circuit Judge Chang, in place of Acoba, J., recused,


and Circuit Judge Pollack, in place of Duffy, J., recused)
 

It appearing that the judgment on appeal in the abovereferenced matter has not been entered by the Intermediate Court 

of Appeals, see Hawai'i Revised Statutes § 602-59(a) (Supp. 

2008); see also Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 

36(b)(1) (2008), 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioners/Plaintiffs-


Appellants’ application for writ of certiorari filed on April 23,
 

2012, is dismissed without prejudice to re-filing the application
 

pursuant to HRAP Rule 40.1(a) (“Within thirty days after the
 
filing of the intermediate court of appeals’ judgment on appeal
 

or dismissal order, unless the time for filing the application is
 

extended in accordance with this rule.”).
 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, April 26, 2012. 

R. Steven Geshell for 

petitioners/plaintiffsappellants on the application 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama


/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 


/s/ Bert I. Ayabe
 

/s/ Gary W. B. Chang
 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack
 

2