alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-10-00600-CV

In re Jason Miears

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BEXAR COUNTY

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

The Court’s mandamus jurisdiction does not extend to the respondent Bexar County

district judge. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(b)(1) (West 2004). The petition for writ of

mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Henson

Filed: September 9, 2010
EXHIBIT 99.4
                                                                  ------------



        CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY RULE 13A-14(B) OR RULE 15D-14(B) AND
       SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE


Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of  section  1350,  chapter  63 of title  18,  United  States  Code),  the
undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Precision Drilling Corporation as agent
for and on behalf of  Precision  Drilling  Trust,  hereby  certifies,  to such
officer's knowledge, that:

The annual  report on March 31,  2006 for the year ended  December  31 of 2005
fully  complies  with  the  requirements  of  section  13(a)  or  15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The  information  contained  in this annual  report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of  operations  of
Precision Drilling Trust.



By: /s/ Doug Strong
------------------------
Doug Strong
Senior Vice-President & Chief Financial Officer
Precision Drilling Corporation, for and on behalf
of Precision Drilling Trust


March 31, 2006
# C_2005006EN.01003601.xml

| 8.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/36

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 14 October 2004

in Case T-3/03: Everlast World's Boxing Headquarters Corporation v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Partial refusal of registration - Withdrawal of the application - No need to adjudicate)

(2005/C 6/70)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-3/03: Everlast World's Boxing Headquarters Corporation, established in New York (United States), represented by A Renck, V. Bomhard, A. Pohlmann and C. Albrecht, lawyers, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: D. Schennen and G. Schneider) – action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 October 2002 (Case R 391/2001-1) relating to the application for registration of the word mark ‘Choice of Champions’ – the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and S. Papasavvas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 14 October 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1) | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application. |
| --- | --- |

1)

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application.

| 2) | Each party is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Each party is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6151

JOHN GRIMES WELLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HAROLD THOMAS, Sergeant, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-625-1) Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 26, 1998 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Grimes Wells, Appellant Pro Se. William Dennis Worley, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting themagistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Wells v. Thomas , No. CA-96-625-1 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 18, 1997). 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
*March 9, 1937.*

#### Estate of Brusse: Brusse, Appellant, vs. Brusse and another, Executors, Respondents.

For the appellant: *Oscar L. Wolters*and *Clayton A. Cramer,*both of Sheboygan.

For the respondents : *Buchen & Federer*of Sheboygan.

*By the Court*

Judgment affirmed.
## Massachusetts SIP Submittal Dated February 13, 2008;

Docket#516; Massachusetts Register Number: 1094; Date: 12/28/07

MA Rule Number MA Rule Name Code of Massachusetts Regulation Page Number Disposition Reason

Table of Contents 4.1

- 4.2 Withdraw Not p art of the SIP Table of Contents 35

- 38 Withdraw Not part of the SIP 7.00 Statutory Authority;

Legend; Preamble; Definitions 167

- 170 EPA will act on

.

7.02 U Plan Approval

and Emission Limitations List 205

- 206, Withdraw MassDEP will submit a complete a nd updated version of 310 CMR 7.02 for review and approval into SIP

. 7.02 U Plan Approval

and Emission Limitations List 213

- 216 Withdraw MassDEP will submit a complete and updated version of 310 CMR 7.02 for review and approval into SIP

. 7.03 U Plan Appr oval

Application Exemption Construction Requirements 223

- 228 Withdraw MassDEP will submit a complete and updated version of 310 CMR 7.02 for review and approval into SIP

.

7.04 U Fossil Fuel

Utilization Facilities 228

- 228.2 EPA will act on 310 CMR 7.04 (2) and (4)

. 7.11 U Transportation

Media 245 Withdraw Not intended to be part of SIP submittal

7.12 U Source

Registration 245

- 246 EPA will act on.

7.26 (28)

- (29) Industry

Performance Standards 250.72.18.5

-

250.72.18.6 Withdraw Not part of the SIP

7.26 (30)

- (37) Industry

Performance Standards 250.72.18.6

-

250.72.18.9 EPA will act on.MA Rule Number MA Rule Name Code of Massachusetts Regulation Page Number Disposition Reason

7.26 (40)

- (44) Industry

Performance Standards 250.72.18.9

-

250.72.18.15 Withdraw Not part of the SIP

7.27 NOx Allowance

Program 250.72.18.15

-

250.72.16 Withdraw Not intended to b e part of SIP submittal
# C_2004118EN.01003401.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/34

---

Action brought on 14 April 2004 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-176/04)

(2004/C 118/64)

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities by the Kingdom of Belgium, represented by A. Goldman, acting as Agent assisted by H. Gilliams, acting as avocat

The Kingdom of Belgium claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision 2004/1367EC of 4 February 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (1) in so far as it excludes from Community financing expenditure of EURO 9,322,809 for arable crops in respect of the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision 2004/1367EC of 4 February 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (1) in so far as it excludes from Community financing expenditure of EURO 9,322,809 for arable crops in respect of the applicant;

1

| — | in the alternative, on the basis of its comprehensive jurisdiction, reduce the correction of EUR 9,322,809 applied by the Commission to EUR 1,079,814. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, on the basis of its comprehensive jurisdiction, reduce the correction of EUR 9,322,809 applied by the Commission to EUR 1,079,814.

| — | The applicant also asks that the Commission be ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant also asks that the Commission be ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The two infringements alleged by the Commission to have been committed by Belgium, namely incomplete administrative checks and delay in the introduction of the graphic data for the crop years in question, are in reality based on a misapplication by the Commission of the Community provisions. The Commission is therefore wrong to impose a fixed correction on the applicant.

---

(1)  OJ L 40 of 10.2.2004, p. 31.

1

---
# C_2005045EN.01002002.xml

| 19.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/20

---

Removal from the register of Case C-106/04 (1)

1

(2005/C 45/42)

(Language of the case: French)

(Language of the case: French)

By order of 29 November 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-106/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.

---

(1)  OJ C 94 of 17.04.2004.

1

---
*February 4, 1941.*

#### Hiltgen, Appellant, vs. Pfeifer and others, Respondents.

For the appellant: *Evan C. Schwemer,*attorney, and *William E. Burke*of counsel, both of Milwaukee.

For the respondents: *Shaw, Muskat & Paulsen*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
COMMUNITY CENTRAL BANK CORPORATION
FORM 10-KSB (continued)


                                   EXHIBIT 11


                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                             Year Ended December 31,
                                               1998             1997
                                               -----            -----
                                         (in thousands, except per share data)
<S>                                            <C>              <C>     
BASIC

Net Income (Loss)                              $1,104           ($1,932)
/ Weighted Average Shares                       1,668             1,391 

---------------------------                    ------           -------
Basic Earnings (Loss)
   Per Share                                    $0.66            ($1.39)
===========================                    ======           =======


DILUTED

Net Income (Loss)                              $1,104           ($1,932)
/ Weighted Average Shares                       1,679             1,391

---------------------------                    ------           -------
Diluted Earnings (Loss)
   Per Share                                    $0.66            ($1.39)
===========================                    ======           =======
</TABLE>




Notes:

   - Weighted average shares outstanding have been adjusted to reflect the 10%
     stock dividends in 1998 and 1997.

   - Where applicable, diluted share computations include the effects of
     outstanding stock options.



                                       10
# C_2005026EN.01000101.xml

| 2.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/1

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

1

2,06 % on 1 February 2005

Euro exchange rates (2)

2

1 February 2005

(2005/C 26/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3027 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 135,16 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4404 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69255 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0945 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5516 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 80,47 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2945 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5832 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 30,028 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 245,25 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4313 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0501 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 37 512 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,75 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,14 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7342 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6896 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6153 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,161 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8347 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1366 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 339,05 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,8629 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3027

JPY

Japanese yen

135,16

DKK

Danish krone

7,4404

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69255

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0945

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5516

ISK

Iceland króna

80,47

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2945

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5832

CZK

Czech koruna

30,028

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

245,25

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4313

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0501

ROL

Romanian leu

37 512

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,75

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,14

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7342

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6896

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6153

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,161

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8347

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1366

KRW

South Korean won

1 339,05

ZAR

South African rand

7,8629

---

(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

1

(2)

2

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# C_2005045EN.01000503.xml

| 19.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 16 December 2004

in Case C-62/03: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (1)

Commission of the European Communities

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

1

(Waste - Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC - Transposition)

(2005/C 45/10)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-62/03, action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 14 February 2003, between the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: K. Manji and by D. Wyatt QC) – the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, J. P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 December 2004, in which it:

Commission of the European Communities

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to comply with the obligations under Articles 1(a), (e) and (f), 2(1)(b), 3, 4, 5, 7(1), 8, 12, 13 and 14 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 and, most recently, by Commission Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to comply with the obligations under Articles 1(a), (e) and (f), 2(1)(b), 3, 4, 5, 7(1), 8, 12, 13 and 14 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 and, most recently, by Commission Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.

1

---
Conservation Stewardship Program - Grassland Conservation Initiative Fiscal Year 2024 United States Department of Agriculture

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Code Practice Component Units Unit Cost

E300GCI Grassland Conservation Initiative Grassland Conservation Initiative Activity AC $18.00

CSP-Grassland Conservation Itiative Page 1 of 1 Alabama - Fiscal Year 2024
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I,
Michael Marchetti, Chief Financial Officer of JAMDAT Mobile Inc., certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004;

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:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 functions):



|Date: March 28, 2005 |  | By: | /s/MICHAEL MARCHETTIMichael Marchetti Chief Financial Officer
|-------------------- |  | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
# C_2005019EN.01000902.xml

| 22.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/9

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 14 October 2004

in Case C-288/03 P: Bernard Zaoui and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Non-contractual liability of the Community - Appeal in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible)

(2005/C 19/18)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-288/03 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 3 July 2003, Bernard Zaoui, residing at Combs-la-Ville (France), Lucien Zaoui, residing at Netanya (Israel), Déborah Stain, née Zaoui, residing at Ramat Gan (Israel) the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: P. Kuijper, F. Dintilhac and C. Tufvesson) – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur) President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, J. Makarczyk and J. Klučka, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 14 October 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Bernard Zaoui, Mr Lucien Zaoui and Mrs Déborah Stain, née Zaoui, shall bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Bernard Zaoui, Mr Lucien Zaoui and Mrs Déborah Stain, née Zaoui, shall bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171 of 19.7.2003.

1

---
# C_2004322EN.01000801.xml

| 29.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 322/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 322/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3583 — FLEXTRONICS/NORTEL)

(2004/C 322/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 28 October 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32004M3583. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32004M3583. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---