alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MOORE v. STATE.

No. 18795.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 17, 1937.

Appeal Reinstated March 10, 1937.

W. W. Ballard, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for robbery, punishment being ten years in the penitentiary.

The record before us contains no notice of appeal. Article 827, C.C.P., in part, provides that “An appeal is taken by giving notice thereof in open court at the term of court at which conviction is had, and having the same entered of record.”

Notice of appeal given and entered as required by the statute is essential to the jurisdiction of this court, and, unless such notice is shown, the appeal will be dismissed. For authorities see collation in note 2 under said article in Vernon’s C.C.P. of Texas, vol. 3, p. 197.

The appeal is dismissed.

On the Merits.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The record having been perfected, the appeal is reinstated and the case considered on its merits.

The proof on the part of the State was to the effect that on the 29th of March, 1936, appellant and Sonny Cardwell entered the place.of business of J. P. Morrison and robbed him. Included in the property taken from the possession of Mr. Morrison was a pistol. According to the testimony of the State, this pistol was found in appellant’s room at the time of his arrest. * *155Appellant did not take the stand, but introduced witnesses whose testimony raised the issue of alibi.

Bill of exception No. 2 relates to appellant’s objection to the introduction in evidence of the pistol that had been taken from the possession of the injured party. The opinion is expressed that the objection was properly overruled.

A careful examination of the charge, in the light of appellant’s exceptions thereto, leads us to the conclusion that reversible error is not presented.

The sentence is reformed in order that it may be shown that appellant is condemned to confinement in the penitentiary for not less than five nor more than ten years. As reformed, the judgment 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>

MAXCO, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
EXHIBIT 31.2 - CERTIFICATION

I, Vincent Shunsky, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Maxco, Inc.;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a)    designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

b)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)    presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: July 13, 2004

                                                       /s/ Vincent Shunsky
                                                       -------------------------
                                                       Vincent Shunsky
                                                       Chief Financial Officer
# CE2004065EN.01012601.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/126 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/126

---

(2004/C 65 E/140)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2283/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 July 2003)

Subject:   Development of cod nurseries

Subject:

Has the Commission considered the possible benefits of rearing cod, produced from the spawn of wild cod, in nurseries for release into the sea? What plans does the Commission have to promote research into the feasibility and the implications, both positive and negative, of such a practice?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2003)

(1 August 2003)

The rearing of cod in nurseries for release into the sea may have different objectives: sea ranching, i.e. releasing cod into the sea in areas where there are none or very small natural cod resources, stock enhancement, i.e. trying to improve existing cod populations, and stock recovery, i.e. helping depleted stocks to recover.

Historically, interest has focused on stock enhancement and a few attempts have been made, mainly in Norway. At the marine biological station near Arendal in southern Norway there is a 100 year long history of releasing reared cod. The experience from this was summed up in an international symposium in 1993 and it was concluded that there were no measurable benefits. A workshop organised by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) in 1994 (‘Workshop to evaluate the potential of stock enhancement as an approach to fisheries management’), partly funded by the Commission, concluded that stock enhancement of cod in general was unlikely to be successful. This workshop also evaluated a proposal from Canada to rear cod to restore the depleted Newfoundland stock, but the conclusions were negative also in this respect.

The reasons for the lack of success in cod enhancement are not fully understood, but a number of factors may be involved, e.g. problems of reared cod to adapt to natural conditions, competition with the natural populations and limits to the capacity of the ecosystem. It should also be noted that even if stock enhancement of cod should lead to some improvement, it would be virtually impossible to separate this effect from natural stock fluctuations. Furthermore, cod rearing is expensive and the cost benefits of an enhancement program are questionable even if it were successful.

Based on the available information on stock enhancement, as described above, the Commission has not considered it a priority to promote research in this area.

---
Exhibit 32.1






CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




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




In connection with the Quarterly Report of United Mines, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Glenn E. Martin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:






(1)           The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.











Registrant

Date: August 15, 2011

United Mines, Inc.

By: /s/ Glenn E. MartinGlenn E. MartinChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit
99.2








CERTIFICATE
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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-Q of Suraj
Ventures, Inc. (the “Company”) for the three months ended November 30, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Surjit
Singh Gill, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief:





1. The
Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15
(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2. The
information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.








Date:
January 12, 2009








Surjit
Singh Gill


Chief
Executive Officer,


President
and Director








-1-
# C_2023304EN.01002101.xml

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2023 — Innovaciones Cosmético Farmacéuticas v EUIPO — Benito Oliver (th pharma)

(Case T-27/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark TH PHARMA - Earlier national figurative mark TH - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2023/C 304/24)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Innovaciones Cosmético Farmacéuticas SL (Alhama de Murcia, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros and F. Ortega Sánchez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Miguel Ángel Benito Oliver (Pont D’Inca-Marratxi, Spain) (represented by: J. Mora Cortés, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 November 2021 (Case R 1605/2020-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Innovaciones Cosmético Farmacéuticas SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Innovaciones Cosmético Farmacéuticas SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 7.3.2022.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>       5
<MULTIPLIER>     1000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                          41
<SECURITIES>                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                 9150
<ALLOWANCES>                     0
<INVENTORY>                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              9191
<PP&E>                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                9191
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           23
<BONDS>                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>            0
<PREFERRED>                      0
<COMMON>                      9145
<OTHER-SE>                      23
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  9191
<SALES>                        915
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               915
<CGS>                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                83
<LOSS-PROVISION>                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            832
<DISCONTINUED>                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                  0
<CHANGES>                        0
<NET-INCOME>                   832
<EPS-PRIMARY>                  .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                  .55
        

</TABLE>
# L_2008302EN.01S00301.xml

| 13.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 302/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 302/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

4 April 2006

(2006/C 82/14)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
EXHIBIT 32.1






     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 Possis Medical, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert G. Dutcher,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
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.





                                        /s/  Robert G. Dutcher
                                      ------------------------------------
                                       Robert G. Dutcher
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       October 12, 2004


                                       65
Motions Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

October 19, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00390-CV

LESLIE BEAN AND TOM KARTSOTIS, Appellants

V.

AMY BEAN & SUE BEAN, Appellee

On Appeal from the Probate Court No 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 467,316-401

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants separately filed notices of appeal from an order signed July 8, 

2021. On October 1, 2021, appellant, Leslie Bean, filed a motion to dismiss her 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. On October 5, 2021, appellant, Tom Kartsotis, 

filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. See id. The motions are granted. 

We dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Hassan and Poissant.
6/26/2015 

OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS 

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 

BUSH, CASEY Tr. C~Np. 

On this day, the application for~11~ 

and presented to the Court. -~ 

'f0
[LETTERHEAD OF SOMEKH CHAIKIN]

Tel Aviv, March 8, 1998

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS TO THE
SHAREHOLDERS OF DEP TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS LTD.

We have audited the balance sheets of DEP Technology Holdings Limited and the
consolidated balance sheets of the Company and its subsidiaries as of December
31, 1997 and 1996, the related statements of income and shareholders' equity and
cash flows for each of the years then ended, expressed in New Israel Shekels.
These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based
on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, including those prescribed under the Auditors Regulations (Auditor's
Mode of Performance), 1973 and, accordingly we have performed such auditing
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. For purposes of
these financial statements there is no material difference between generally
accepted Israeli auditing standards and auditing standards generally accepted in
the U.S. These standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentations.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

The above statements have been prepared on the basis of historical cost as
adjusted for the changes in the general purchasing power of the Israeli currency
in accordance with opinions issued by the Institute of Certified Public
Accountants in Israel. Condensed statements in historical values which formed
the basis of the adjusted statements appear in Note 23 to the financial
statements.

In our opinion, based on our audit, the above mentioned financial statements
present fairly the financial position of the Company and the consolidated
balance sheets of the Company and its subsidiaries as at December 31, 1997 and
1996, the results of its operations, the changes in shareholder's equity and
cash flows for each of the years then ended, in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in Israel, consistently applied.
<PAGE>

Accounting principles generally accepted in Israel differ in certain respects
from accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The
application of the latter would have affected the determination of
nominal/historical net profit (loss) and shareholders' equity to the extent
summarized in Note 23(4) to the financial statements.

/s/ Somekh Chaikin

Somekh Chaikin
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS (ISR)
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF THE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, J.
Wade Mezey,Chief Executive Officer of Mezey Howarth Racing Stables, Inc. (the
"Company"), do hereby certify to the best of my knowledge and belief
that:





(1) The
Company’s 10-Q  (the “Report”) 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: May
21, 2008








By: /s/
Wade Mezey


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


J. Wade
Mezey, CEO
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 18

- 00306

- CV IN THE INTEREST OF S.R. , L.R., and C.J., Children From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017PA01218 Honorable Richard Garcia, Associate Judge Presiding Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 26, 2018 MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED; AFFIRMED The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed this suit, seeking to terminate the rights of the parents of the children S.R., L.R., and C.J. 1 The record reflects the father of S.R. and L.R. was determined to be deceased. After a trial to t he bench, the court designated A.L., the paternal g randfather of S.R. and L.R., to be their permanent managing conservator; named C.J. ’s father , C.J. , his p ermanent managing conservator; designated the children’s mother, E.R., a possessory conservator of a ll three children ; and dismissed the Dep artment from the case. E.R. timely appealed the trial court’s order.

1 To protect the identity of the minor child ren , we refer to the parties by their initials. See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 109.002(d) (West Supp. 2017 ); T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.8.04

- 18

- 00306

- CV

- 2

- Appellant’s court

- appointed appellate attorney filed a brief in which he conclude d there

are no non - frivolous issues to be raised on appeal

. Coun sel certified that he sent E.R. a copy of the brief and a letter advising her of his conclusion and of her rights to review the record and to file a pro se brief. Counsel’s letter also provided E.R. a form to use to request access to the record and enclosed a copy of counsel’s motion to withdraw, which counsel stated he had filed. Counsel subsequently filed a motion to withdraw in this court

. The brief minimally meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re P.M. , 5 20 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (stating that Anders procedures protect indigent parents’ statutory right to counsel on appeal in parental rights termination cases and apply in those cases). Appellant did not request access to the appellate record, and this court then set a deadline for appellant to file a pro se brief. Appellant did not file a pro se brief

. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the attorney’s Anders brief, and we agree with counsel that the appeal is without merit. See Interest of K.S.L. , 538 S.W.3d 107, 112 (Tex. 2017). We therefore affirm the trial court’s order

. However, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw because the motion does not assert any ground for withdrawal apart from counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolo us. See In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d at 27; In re A.M. , 495 S.W.3d 573, 583 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied). Counsel’s duty to his client extends through the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals, including the filing of a petition for review i n the Texas Supreme Court. See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 107.016(2) (West 2014); In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d at 27

. Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice