alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered August 1 6 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00247
- CR CARSTEN HEDEMANN, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Ju dicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F14
- 34917
- R



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s August 14, 2018 third motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief. We DENY appellant’s motion

. The Court ORDERS the trial cou rt to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indige nt, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. S tate , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court isORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which

may include appointment of new counsel.
W e ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.
/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
*Exhibit 32.2***CERTIFICATION**     In connection with the periodic report of Corel Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K forthe period ended November 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Report”), I, Douglas McCollam, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of thedate hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,that to the best of my knowledge:1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company at the dates and for the periodsindicated.     This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities andExchange Commission.Date:February 23, 2007         By:                    /s/ Douglas McCollam    Douglas McCollam              *Chief Financial Officer*
# C_2016205EN.01000201.xml

| 9.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8031 — 3i Group/Wood Creek/Wireless Infrastructure Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 205/03)

On 2 June 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | In the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website 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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8031. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

In electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8031. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00340-CV

Keiwuan Mitchell and Coquessa 

Mitchell

v.

Mary Louise Newton

§

§

§

§

From County Court at Law No. 1

of Tarrant County (2014-004310-1)

December 1, 2016

Opinion by Justice Meier

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellants Keiwuan Mitchell and Coquessa 

Mitchell shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bill Meier 

 Justice Bill Meier
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-16-00025-CR

Joseph Carl Hulsey

v.

The State of Texas

On appeal from the

18th District Court of Johnson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. F48926

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED AS 

MODIFIED by this Court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED 

AS MODIFIED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 1, 2016
Development of Chemical Precipitation Purchased Equipment Costs:

Sand Filters

Purchased Equipment Costs are the sum of the following cost elements:

(1) Pump Costs

(2) Tank Costs

(3) Chemical Feed System Costs

(4) Mixer Costs

(5) Clarifier Costs

(6) Filter Press Costs

(7) Sand Filter Costs

Each cost component includes the cost of freight and associated ancillary equipment such as piping, valves, and 

controllers.

This telephone contact report supports EPA’s development of cost element (7) by documenting EPA's 

communication with a vendor regarding purchase costs for continuous backwash gravity sand filters used in the 

Steam Electric cost model.
Project No.: 0172.08.029.044 DISTRIBUTION

Page _1_ of __1_

Project Name: Steam/Cost/Compliance Modeling

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

 Outgoing Call

Date: 03/18/2011 Time: 11:00 am EST

Company Name: Siemens

 

Contact Name: Miguel Gutierrez

Phone No : (229)-227-8778

Name: Rekha Hareendran ETI Professionals, Inc.

GENERAL SUBJECT: Vendor cost request for continuous backwash gravity sand filters for a chemical precipitation wastewater treatment 

system.

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

On Friday, March 18, 2011 at 11:00 am I contacted Mr. Miguel Gutierrez. I explained to Mr. Gutierrez that we 

are working on conceptual level costing of a chemical precipitation wastewater treatment system to treat FGD 

(flue gas desulfurization) wastewater from steam electric power plants, and as a part of this project we 

are trying to collect cost information on different components or units of a chemical precipitation system.

I told Mr. Gutierrez that we are interested in continuous backwash gravity sand filters for flows ranging from 

30,000 gpd to 1,000,000 gpd (20 to 700 gpm). I requested information such as purchase cost, cost for ancillary 

equipments and power consumption (if applicable). Mr. Gutierrez indicated that he would like to have 

information on the expected solids content with the flow rates provided by us.

Mr. Gutierrez agreed to send information on tank units as well as concrete basins, and he will also list the 

assumptions (for solids content) made for the cost estimate. Mr. Gutierrez indicated that it could take him a 

week to gather the requested information. I followed up with an email to Mr. Gutierrez with all the information 

provided during this call.
EXHIBIT 24.6

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Derek R. McClain, Arlin E. Gaffner and J. Christopher Kirk and each of them,
his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, to sign on his behalf, as a director or
officer, or both, as the case may be, of Trammell Crow Company, a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2001, and to sign any or all amendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact, and each of them with or without the others, full power and authority to do and perform each and every
act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of
said attorneys-in-fact or their substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

| |  | /s/ROBERT E. SULENTICRobert E. Sulentic
| |  | ---------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges McClanahan,

* Haley and Senior Judge Willis

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL LAM

MEMORANDUM OPINION**

v. Record No. 0655-11-4 PER CURIAM

AUGUST 16, 2011

TOWN OF LURARY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND 

 VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL GROUP SELF-INSURANCE ASSOCIATION

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

(Arthur L. Goff; Bushey, Cave & Goff, on brief), for appellant.

(William S. Sands, Jr.; Duncan & Hopkins, P.C., on brief), for 

appellees.

Christopher Michael Lam appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation 

Commission. He asserts the commission erred in (1) affirming the decision of the deputy 

commissioner that he abandoned his claim for a shoulder injury; (2) affirming the decision of the 

deputy commissioner that his claim was barred by the statute of limitations; (3) addressing the 

factual issue of causation because the decision that the claim had been time-barred was factual 

and dispositive, and the adjudication of the issue of causation was gratuitous and unnecessary; 

(4) addressing the factual issue of causation without providing notice to him; and (5) concluding 

there was no persuasive evidence he suffered a left shoulder injury in the accident. We have 

reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Lam v. 

 * Justice McClanahan participated in the decision of this case prior to her investiture as a 

Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia

** Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
- 2 -

Town of Luray Law Enforcement, VWC File No. 234-59-44 (Mar. 2, 2011). We dispense with 

oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 07-7258

WESLEY CHASE, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Intervenor/Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden of the Powhatan Correctional 

Center, he is sued in his personal and official capacities; 

PARKER, Ms., Principal of the Powhatan Correctional Center, 

she is sued in her personal and official capacities; P. M. 

HENICK, Regional Ombudsman, Virginia Department of 

Corrections, he or she is sued within he or she personal and 

official capacities; S. TRIMMER, Ms., Special Education, 

director for the Virginia Department of Education, she is 

sued in her personal and official capacities, 

 Defendants – Appellants. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:04-cv-759-HEH) 

Submitted: November 25, 2008 Decided: December 31, 2008 

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 
Mark R. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, William Eugene Thro, 

Special Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellants. Wesley Chase, Appellee Pro Se. Sarah Elaine 

Harrington, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, 

D.C.; Robert P. McIntosh, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Richmond, Virginia, for the United States.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

2 
3 

PER CURIAM: 

Appellants appeal the district court’s order denying 

their motion to dismiss Appellee’s Rehabilitation Act claims on 

the basis of sovereign immunity. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Chase v. Baskerville, No. 

3:04-cv-759-HEH (E.D. Va. Aug. 2, 2007). 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
# C_2015145EN.01000201.xml

| 1.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

30 April 2015

(2015/C 145/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1215 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 133,26 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4631 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,72670 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3261 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0486 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,3845 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,430 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 302,81 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0250 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4183 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,9815 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4161 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3480 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6925 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,4727 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4815 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 202,48 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,2413 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,9568 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5715 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 547,71 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9895 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 50,088 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 57,6465 |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,976 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,3232 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,0894 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 71,2153 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1215

JPY

Japanese yen

133,26

DKK

Danish krone

7,4631

GBP

Pound sterling

0,72670

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3261

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0486

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,3845

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,430

HUF

Hungarian forint

302,81

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0250

RON

Romanian leu

4,4183

TRY

Turkish lira

2,9815

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4161

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3480

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6925

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,4727

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4815

KRW

South Korean won

1 202,48

ZAR

South African rand

13,2413

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,9568

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5715

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 547,71

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9895

PHP

Philippine peso

50,088

RUB

Russian rouble

57,6465

THB

Thai baht

36,976

BRL

Brazilian real

3,3232

MXN

Mexican peso

17,0894

INR

Indian rupee

71,2153

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2015253EN.01000701.xml

| 1.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/7

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

31 July 2015

(2015/C 253/06)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0967 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,34 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4615 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,70410 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4622 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0565 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,0015 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,031 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 308,30 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1435 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4048 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,0485 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5140 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4310 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5032 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6769 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5082 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 287,41 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,9210 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,8102 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5920 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 866,29 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2015 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 50,146 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 66,8596 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,571 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,6974 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,7473 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,3382 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0967

JPY

Japanese yen

136,34

DKK

Danish krone

7,4615

GBP

Pound sterling

0,70410

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4622

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0565

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,0015

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,031

HUF

Hungarian forint

308,30

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1435

RON

Romanian leu

4,4048

TRY

Turkish lira

3,0485

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5140

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4310

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5032

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6769

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5082

KRW

South Korean won

1 287,41

ZAR

South African rand

13,9210

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,8102

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5920

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 866,29

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2015

PHP

Philippine peso

50,146

RUB

Russian rouble

66,8596

THB

Thai baht

38,571

BRL

Brazilian real

3,6974

MXN

Mexican peso

17,7473

INR

Indian rupee

70,3382

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. TERRY ALLEN DREIBELBIS, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 216 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 30th day of July, 2014, the Petition for Allow ance of Appeal is DENIED
.
---

---

Exhibit 8

|                                             |                       
|-------------------------------------------- | ----------------------
|Name                                         | Jurisdiction          
|                                            
|Subsidiaries of Top image systems Ltd.      
|TIS America Inc.                             | USA - Delaware        
|Top Image Systems UK limited                 | United Kingdom        
|Top Image Systems Japan Ltd.                 | Japan                 
|Asiasoft Global Pte. Ltd.                    | Singapore             
|                                            
|Subsidiaries of Top Image Systems UK limited
|TIS Deutschland GMBH                         | Germany               
|Top Image Systems (2007) UK Ltd              | United Kingdom        
|                                            
|Subsidiaries of Asiasoft Global Pte. Ltd.   
|Asiasoft (S) Pte Ltd.                        | Singapore             
|ACME Solution Ltd.                           | Hong Kong             
|Asiasoft Systems China Ltd                   | British Virgin Islands
|Asiasoft Solution Hong Kong  Ltd.            | Hong Kong             
|Asiasoft Solution Guangzhou Ltd              | China                 
|                                            
|Subsidiaries of Asiasoft Systems China      
|                                            
|Asiasoft Shanghai Co. Ltd                    | China                 



---

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### February 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 

### 129302(6) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. 

### JEFFERY BURNETT, Stephen J. Markman, 

### Plaintiff, Justices


### v SC: 129302 AGC: 1035/05 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order of December 27, 2005 is considered , and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

p0221 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 27, 2006

Clerk
# C_2015297EN.01000101.xml

| 9.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7622 — Dufry/World Duty Free)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 297/01)

On 5 August 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website 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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7622. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7622. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---