alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 18, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00281-CR

MACEDONIO PEREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 300th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 69127

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of the offense of intoxication 

manslaughter and sentenced to six years’ confinement on February 21, 2014. No 

timely motion for new trial was filed. Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed 

until April 7, 2014.

A defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after sentence 

is imposed when the defendant has not filed a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. 
2

App. P. 26.2(a)(1). A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of Rule 

26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 981 

S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). If an appeal is not timely perfected, a 

court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal. 

Under those circumstances it can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. 

Id.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Busby.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2017 WY 37

 April Term, A.D. 2017

 April 5, 2017

THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE 

OF LAW COMMITTEE, WYOMING 

STATE BAR,

Petitioner,

v.

RAZOR CITY REALTY, a partnership 

of KEVIN L. BECK, Responsible 

Broker, Wyoming License No. 1065, and 

RICHARD K. KISTLER, Associate 

Broker, Wyoming License No. 5006,

Respondents.

D-17-0001

ORDER APPROVING CONSENT AGREEMENT

[¶1] This matter came before the Court upon a “Report and Recommendation for 

Approval of Consent Agreement,” filed herein March 2, 2017, by the Unauthorized 

Practice of Law Committee of the Wyoming State Bar (the Committee). After a careful 

review of the Committee’s Report and Recommendation, the attached “Consent 

Agreement,” the materials attached thereto, and the file, this Court finds that the Report 

and Recommendation should be approved, confirmed, and adopted by the Court, and that

the parties’ Consent Agreement should be approved, pursuant to Rule 7(e) of the Rules of 

Procedure Governing Unauthorized Practice of Law. It is, therefore,

[¶2] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that the Unauthorized Practice of Law 

Committee’s “Report and Recommendation for Approval of Consent Agreement,” which 

is attached hereto and incorporated herein, shall be, and the same hereby is, approved, 

confirmed, and adopted by this Court; and it is further
[¶3] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that the parties’ “Consent Agreement” be, and 

hereby is, accepted by this Court and the terms of the Consent Agreement are hereby 

adopted. 

[¶4] DATED this 4

th day of April, 2017.

BY THE COURT:

/s/

E. JAMES BURKE

Chief Justice
#### McCORD v. STATE.

No. 17684.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 13, 1935.

*260Rollie Fancher, of Seymour, Davenport & Loftin and Taylor, Muse & Taylor, all of Wichita Falls, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court of Baylor county, Tex., revoking the suspension of sentence theretofore granted to the appellant.

The record shows that on the 18th day of September, A. D. 1933, the appellant pleaded guilty to an indictment in the district court of Baylor' county charging him with the offense of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor. A jury found him guilty as charged and assessed his punishment at confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of five years, but recommended that sentence be suspended. A judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict of the jury and their recommendation. Thereafter, on the 21st day of November, 1934, appellant entered a plea of guilty in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas at Wichita Falls to an indictment charging him with unlawfully possessing and transporting untax paid whisky and concealing and removing untax paid whis-ky, a felony. Thereafter, on the 8th day of February, 1935, the district attorney of the district court in and for Baylor county, Tex., filed a motion in cause No. 1825, styled the State of Texas v. Roy McCord, asking that suspension of sentence be revoked in accordance with article 779, C.C.P. A ca-pias was issued for the appellant in said cause as provided by law. *On the*12th day of February, 1935, the motion for the revocation of the suspended sentence theretofore granted the appellent, Roy McCord, came on to be heard, and at the conclusion of the testimony the court granted the motion and revoked the suspension of sentence, and sentenced him to the state penitentiary for a term of not less than one nor more than five years, to all of which the appellant in due time excepted and gave notice of appeal to this court.

At a former day of this term of this court we affirmed the judgment of the trial court and thereafter overruled the appellant’s motion for rehearing. Since then appellant has filed an application for leave to file a second motion for rehearing which has caused us to examine further into the matter, at which time our attention was directed to the insufficiency of the indictment in charging an offense under the holding of this court in the case of Offield v. State, 75 S.W.(2d) 882.

Therefore we are impelled to set aside the affirmance of the judgment, withdraw the original opinion as well as the opinion on the motion for rehearing, reverse the judgment of the trial court, and order the prosecution dismissed.

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.
Exhibit 32



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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Boston Communications Group, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended
March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, E.Y. Snowden, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Karen A. Walker, Vice President, Finance and Administration
and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                  |  |                                           
|----------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date May 9, 2005  |  | /s/ E. Y. Snowden                         
|                  |  | E.Y. Snowden                              
|                  |  | President & Chief Executive Officer       
|                  | 
|Date: May 9, 2005 |  | /s/ Karen A. Walker                       
|                  |  | Karen A. Walker                           
|                  |  | Vice President, Finance and Administration
|                  |  | and Chief Financial Officer               



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Boston Communications Group, Inc., and will be retained by Boston Communications Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 76890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21381]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: September 19, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 12, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 347 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-674, CP2024-683.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-21381 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF TV FILME, INC. AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1997,
AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          92,136
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,881
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,744
<INVENTORY>                                      5,074
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               126,780
<PP&E>                                          76,546
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,371
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 202,571
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,027
<BONDS>                                        140,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           108
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,741
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   202,571
<SALES>                                         37,108
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,108
<CGS>                                           12,921
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,275
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,417
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,413
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (14,446)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,662)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,662)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,662)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.06)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2022027EN.01001701.xml

| 19.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/17

---

Special report No 2/2022

Energy efficiency in enterprises: Some energy savings but weaknesses in planning and project selection

(2022/C 27/07)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that special report No 2/2022 ‘Energy efficiency in enterprises: Some energy savings but weaknesses in planning and project selection’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ Internet: http://eca.europa.eu.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0604

______________________________________________________________________________

TURNER, BRYSON,

 

 Petitioner and Appellant

 v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

 

 Respondent and Appellee.

______________________________________________________________________________

Order for Additional Time for Filing Opening Brief

______________________________________________________________________________

Upon reviewing the Petitioner/Appellant’s first First Unopposed Motion to 

Extension of Deadline for Filing Appellant’s Opening Brief, good cause exists to 

grant the motion. Pursuant to the authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), 

the Appellant is given an extension of time until January 27, 2023, to file and serve 

the opening brief. 

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

December 29 2022

12/29/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0604
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73486-73487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20305]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 12516]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Being 
Imported for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Tacita Dean: Blind Folly'' 
Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad 
pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for 
temporary display in the exhibition ``Tacita Dean: Blind Folly'' at The 
Menil Collection, Houston, Texas, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural 
significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display 
within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. 
I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published 
in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#afdccaccdbc6c0c19d9b9a96efdcdbcedbca81c8c0d9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c7b4a2a4b3aea8a9f5f3f2fe87b4b3a6b3a2e9a0a8b1">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

[[Page 73487]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 
2021.

Scott D. Weinhold,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. 2024-20305 Filed 9-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION*
     /s/ Igor Gonda
    
    /s/ Nancy E. PecotaPresident and Chief Executive Officer
    
    Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial OfficerDated: May 11, 2009
    
    Dated: May 11, 2009
 
 *
    
    This certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not
deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference
into any filing of Aradigm Corporation under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
~BEING 

JUN 2 5 Z015 

RA-15-02567 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

John A. Hamilton 

Lead Administrator 

Regulatory Admn'IIStrat•..;n 

Commercial Alrplanll5 

Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor 

Washington DC 20590-0001 

The Boeing Company 

P.O. Box 3707 MC 03·56 

Seattle, WA 98124·2207 

Subject: Petition for Exemption from Title 14 Code of Federal 

Regulations Section 25.841 (a)(2) and (a)(3), at 

Amendment 25-87, Pressurized CabinsUncontained Engine Failure 

Model: 

This letter is to submit: 

(X) Petition for Exemption 

787-10 

The Boeing Company respectfully submits this petition for exemption from the 

requirements of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations section 25.841 (a)(2) and (a)(3), at 

amendment 25-87 with respect to uncontained engine failure, for the Boeing model 787-

1 0. The enclosure to this letter provides the details of the petition in accordance with the 

Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 11.81, and does not include 

proprietary information. Boeing has submitted supplemental, proprietary information in 

support of this petition for exemption directly to the Transport Aircraft Directorate. 

Please contact this office or the following individuals if you have further 

questions: 

Project Administrator (PA): 

Certification Specialist: 

Sincerely, 4 /~a~ Douglas M. Lane 

ODA Deputy Lead Administrator 

(425) 237-1383, MC 03-52 

FAX: (425) 294-9340 

Gary E. Nagai 

Mark W. Cauble 

425-266-2189 

425-717-5153 
Page 2 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

RA-15-02567 

Enclosure: Petition for Exemption from 14 CFR 25.841(a)(2) and 25.841(a)(3) 

Amendment 25-87 for Uncontained Engine Failure. 

cc 

Name 

Jeffrey E. Duven 

Jim Voytilla 

Angelos Xidias 

Shannon Lennon 

Jeff Palmer 

Meghan Gordon 

Letter 

SP 

SP 

SP 

SP 

SP 

SP 

Enclosures 

SP 

SP 

SP 

SP 

SP 

SP 

Comments 

ANM-100 

ANM-1008 

ANM-1008 

ANM-1008 

ANM-1068 

ANM-113
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2022462EN.01002401.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/24 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10880 – DUFRY / AUTOGRILL)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 462/08)

1.

On 25 November 2022, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2022462EN.01002401-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Dufry AG (‘Dufry’, Switzerland), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Autogrill S.p.A. (‘Autogrill’, Italy). |

Dufry will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Autogrill.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Dufry is a global travel retail business that operates retail outlets in airports and other transport hubs, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Autogrill: is a global provider of food and beverage services to travellers, which operates at airports, motorways and other transport hubs. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2022462EN.01002401-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10880 – DUFRY / AUTOGRILL

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2022462EN.01002401-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2022462EN.01002401-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
[Cite as State ex rel. Swain v. Bartleson, 123 Ohio St.3d 125, 2009-Ohio-4690.]

THE STATE EX REL. SWAIN, APPELLANT, v. BARTLESON, APPELLEE. 

[Cite as State ex rel. Swain v. Bartleson, 123 Ohio St.3d 125, 2009-Ohio-4690.]

Civil actions by prison inmates — Affidavit requirement of R.C. Chapter 2969.

(No. 2009-0804 ─ Submitted September 2, 2009 ─ Decided September 15, 2009.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-09-1047. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment dismissing the petition of appellant, 

inmate Sean Swain, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, the inspector of 

institutional services at Toledo Correctional Institution, to answer his grievances. 

“The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to comply with 

them subjects an inmate’s action to dismissal.” State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 

Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5; State ex rel. Manns v. 

Henson, 119 Ohio St.3d 348, 2008-Ohio-4478, 894 N.E.2d 47, ¶ 4. R.C. 

2969.25(C)(1) required Swain, who filed a declaration of indigency in which he 

claimed an inability to pay the costs and fees associated with his mandamus case, 

to file a statement setting forth his inmate account “for each of the preceding six 

months, as certified by the institutional cashier.” He did not do so, and his claims 

on appeal concerning the inapplicability of R.C. 2969.25(A) are insufficient to 

justify reversal of a judgment that was properly premised in part on R.C. 

2969.25(C)(1). We will not reverse a correct judgment simply because some or 

all of a lower court’s reasons are erroneous. State ex rel. Deiter v. McGuire, 119 

Ohio St.3d 384, 2008-Ohio-4536, 894 N.E.2d 680, ¶ 21. 

Judgment affirmed. 

 MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

__________________ 

 Sean Swain, pro se. 

 Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Melissa Montgomery, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee. 

__________________