alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order filed November 29, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas 

___________

NO. 01-16-00435-CR

____________

JONATHAN RAWLINS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 184th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1471355

ORDER
This court has determined, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of State’s Exhibits 79 and 

80.

The exhibit clerk of the 184th District Court is directed to deliver to the 

Clerk of this court the original of State’s Exhibits 79 and 80, on or before 

December 6, 2016. The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and 

keep safe this original exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this court for their 

inspection; and, upon completion of inspection, to return the original of State’s 

Exhibits 79 and 80, to the clerk of the 184th District Court.

PER CURIAM
CERTIFICATIONS

      I, ANDREW MARTYN-SMITH, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Turbodyne Technologies,
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 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. During the relevant periods I was 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 officers 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);

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: July 6, 2006


/s/ Andrew Martyn-Smith
-------------------------
Andrew Martyn-Smith
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
and Chief Accounting Officer
      through August 2005
#### State ex. rel. White and another vs. Strahl.

The holder of a certificate of sale of land for taxes is not entitled to a deed at the expiration of the period allowed for redemption, without payment of such legal fees as have accrued since the issue of the certificate.

APPLICATION for a *Mandamus.*

The relators applied for a *mandamus*to compel the defendant, as clerk of the board of supervisors of Pierce county, to issue them a deed for certain land sold for unpaid taxes. It appears from the stipulated statement of facts, that the rela-tors held the certificate of - sale, and, after the expiration of the period allowed for redemption, applied for a deed, which was refused on the ground that they would not pay the clerk the printer’s fee for publishing the notice, required by the statute, of the expiration of the time for redemption. Laws of 1859, chap. 22, secs. 16, 18.

*White &*Jay, in person.

*A. H.*Young, *contra.*

*By the*Court,

Paine, J.

The only question presented on the facts stipulated on this application, is, whether a *mandamus*should issue to compel the clerk of .the board of supervisors to issue and deliver a tax deed to the holder of a certificate, without the payment by the latter of such legal fees as have accrued between the issuing of the certificate and the time when the holder is entitled to a deed. This question must be answered in the negative. It is plain from the whole scope *147and spirit of tbe provisions of chap. 22, Gen. Laws of 1859, that these fees were made a charge on the land. If it is redeemed, they must be paid by the person redeeming. If not redeemed, although the statute does not say expressly that they must be paid by the holder of the certificate before getting his deed, yet this must necessarily have been implied. For the law having made them a charge upon the land, it must have assumed that they were to be paid by the one finally taking the land, either by redemption or by a deed. The counsel for the relator admitted 'that these fees were a charge on the land; but he said that as the statute had not provided that the person holding a certificate must pay them before he could have a deed, the deed must be delivered, and the state must resort to some subsequent proceeding to get back these fees. Such a practice would have been very unnatural, and no legislature would ever have provided for it They much more wisely left it to the plain implication, that, whoever took the land must pay all legal charges upon it.

The writ is denied, with costs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2006

JANOT JASSIE,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

KEITH MARINER,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District 

Judge. (8:15-cv-01682-DKC)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Janot Jassie, Appellant Pro Se. Teresa D. Teare, Parker Engle 

Thoeni, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Janot Jassie seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying his motion for leave to amend his amended complaint, 

which Jassie filed after the district court granted Appellee’s 

motion to dismiss Jassie’s amended complaint. We dismiss the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was 

not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the 

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on 

June 10, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on September 2, 

2016. Because Jassie failed to file a timely notice of appeal 

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED HEREIN, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,473
<SECURITIES>                                   140,101
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                             298
<DEPRECIATION>                                      23
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 143,197
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           78,470
<BONDS>                                          3,044
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        71,359
<OTHER-SE>                                     (6,632)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   143,197
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,183
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (79,861)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 140
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 67,678
<INCOME-TAX>                                       416
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             67,262
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    67,262
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.97


</TABLE>
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-74,393-02

EX PARTE MICHAEL ROYCE SMITH, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 241-1010-12 IN THE 241 DISTRICT COURT ST

FROM SMITH COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of driving while

intoxicated and sentenced to thirty-five years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction.

Applicant contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he failed to

challenge the blood draw and did not inform him of any other options besides pleading guilty. 

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In these

circumstances, additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294
2

(Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court

shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The

trial court may use any means set out in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d).

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the

performance of Applicant’s trial counsel was deficient and, if so, whether counsel’s deficient

performance prejudiced Applicant. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and

conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for

habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must

be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: November 23, 2016

Do not publish
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 30, 2016

t1121

Order 

Clerk

November 30, 2016

152526 (22)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 152526

COA: 328106

Wayne CC: 88-011919-FC

CHARLES EDWARD GOODMAN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 

27, 2016 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was entered erroneously.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage *de novo,* or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 4, 2015.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

1. *First Business Financial Services, Inc.,* Madison, Wisconsin; to engage *de novo* in certain community development activities by making a qualifying community welfare investment in a fund of funds, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(12)(i).

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 25, 2015.

Michael J. Lewandowski,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2015-07158 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6913

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ERIC MICHAEL TURNER, a/k/a Boo,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,

District Judge. (CR-97-20, CA-01-4-3)

Submitted: September 6, 2001 Decided: September 14, 2001

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Michael Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Eric M. Turner seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000).

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Appellant’s

notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded sixty days if the United States is a

party after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order

to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district

court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or

reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This

appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United

States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

February 21, 2001. Turner’s notice of appeal was filed on May 29,

2001. Because Appellant failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6482

EDWARD LEE DAVIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director; W. PIXLEY, Warden, St. Brides 

Correctional Center,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:13-cv-00119-REP)

Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: June 30, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Lee Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Edward Lee Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
March 30, 2015

Mr. Paul Gretch

Director

Office of International Aviation

United States Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: American Airlines, Inc. – TAM-Linhas Aereas, S.A. Codesharing

(Docket DOT-OST-2012-0209)

Dear Mr. Gretch:

Pursuant to conditions set forth in the Notice of Action Taken, January 25, 2013, DOTOST-2012-0209, American Airlines Inc. (American Airlines) hereby provides notice that

American Airlines will introduce additional codeshare services with TAM-Linhas Aereas, S.A. 

(TAM). American Airlines will display the JJ* code on American Airlines-operated flights from 

Miami/New York/Orlando/Dallas-Fort Worth/Boston/Charlotte/Chicago/ Los 

Angeles/Philadelphia/Phoenix to Cleveland, Ohio (CLE); Cincinnati, Ohio (CVG); and 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (PIT).

American Airlines and TAM desire to promptly market these new codeshare services. 

Accordingly, American Airlines requests that the Department waive the standard 30-day notice 

period.

Respectfully submitted,

Abigail Donovan 

Director, Congressional and Federal Affairs

1101 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 326-5154 Fax (202) 898-4810
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that, on March 30, 2015, I caused to be served a copy of the foregoing Letter by 

email upon those addressees listed below:

englets@state.gov (Department of State)

cristinasa@state.gov (Department of State)

brian.hedberg@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

todd.homan@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

peter.irvine@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

laura.remo@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

brett.kruger@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

john.s.duncan@faa.gov (Federal Aviation Administration)

dan.weiss@united.com (United)

steve.morrissey@united.com (United)

gmurphy@crowell.com (Counsel for United)

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com (Delta)

chris.walker@delta.com (Delta)

_________________________

Abigail Donovan
EXHIBIT 13.2

  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350,
            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SS. 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2003 of Orckit Communications Ltd. (the "Company") as filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") on the date
hereof (the "Report") and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Aviv Boim, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:

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

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

Date:  April 21, 2004

By: /s/ Aviv Boim

Name:   Aviv Boim
Title:  Chief Financial Officer
        (Principal Financial Officer)