alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 12, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00805

- CV

IN THE INT OF MC, MC, MC, MC, AND MC, Children,

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2012

- PA

- 02868 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal of the trial court’s order terminating appellant ’ s parental rights. The clerk’s record has been filed . H owever, the reporter’s record , which was due
December 1 , 201 4

, has not yet been filed. Mr. David R. Zarate is the court reporter responsible for preparing, certifying, and filing the reporter’s record in this appeal. Attempts by the C lerk of
this C ourt to contact Mr. Zarate have been unsuccessful.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 35.1(b) requires a court reporter to file a reporter’s record in an accelerated appeal within ten days. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.1(b). Further

, with regard to parental termination accelerated appeals, Rule 28.4(b)(2) states that while we may grant the court reporter an extension of time, “the extension or extensions granted must not exceed 30 days cumulatively, absent extraordinary circumstances.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.4(b)(2).

Accordingly, Mr. Zarate is hereby ORDERED to file the reporter’s r ecord in this appeal
no later than December 29, 2014

.

We further ORDER the Clerk of this Court to serve a copy of this order on Mr. Zarate by first class United States mail and by certified mail, return receipt requested. We also ORDER the
Clerk of this Court to serve a copy of this order on the trial court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.4(b)(1); 35.3(c).

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 12th day of December, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle
Clerk of Court
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 02, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 02, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17I0079. CITY OF KINGSLAND, GEORGIA v. SHANNON RONCAGLIONE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

16V319
EX-4.13



 Exhibit 4.13 
 Commitment Letter 
 TO: Beijing aBitCool Network Technology Co., Ltd. 

In order for Beijing aBitCool Network Technology Co., Ltd. and any company whose financial statements are consolidated under U.S. GAAP to
operate in their normal course of business and speed up their business development, AsiaCloud Inc.*, 21Vianet Data Center Co., Ltd., Sheng Chen and Jun Zhang hereby jointly make the following commitments: 

For any losses incurred by Beijing aBitCool Network Technology Co., Ltd. and any company whose financial statements are consolidated
under U.S. GAAP prior to the issuance date of this commitment letter, 21Vianet Data Center Co., Ltd. should provide financial support free of charge to companies with losses as permitted under the PRC law. The amount of financial support shall not
be lower than the amount of losses, so that these company will not be negatively affected by the financial losses. The financial support provided by 21Vianet Data Center Co., Ltd. pursuant to this commitment letter is not required to be returned.

 Starting from the issuance date of this commitment letter, if Beijing aBitCool Network Technology Co., Ltd. or any company
whose financial statements are consolidated under U.S. GAAP incur losses in any year, AsiaCloud Inc. will provided financial support free of charge to companies with losses through its PRC subsidiary (i.e., 21Vianet Data Center Co., Ltd.) as
permitted under the PRC law. The amount of financial support shall not be lower than the amount of losses, so that these companies will not be negatively affected by the financial losses. The financial support provided by AsiaCloud Inc. pursuant to
this commitment letter is not required to be returned. 
  

	
	Undertaking Parties:
	
	/s/ AsiaCloud Inc.
	/s/ 21Vianet Data Center Co., Ltd. (company seal)
	/s/ Sheng Chen
	/s/ Jun Zhang
	
	September 30, 2010


  
  

	*	subsequently changed to 21Vianet Group, Inc.
# C_2016271EN.01000401.xml

| 26.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/4

---

Calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2017 under Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020)

(2016/C 271/04)

Notice is hereby given of the launch of calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2017 under Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020).

The Commission has adopted the ERC Work Programme 2017 (1) by Decision C(2016) 4616 of 25 July 2016.

1

Proposals are invited for these calls. The ERC Work Programme 2017, including deadlines and budgets, is available through the Participant Portal website along with information on the modalities of the calls and related activities and the information for applicants on how to submit proposals:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/home.html

---

(1)  http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2016_2017/erc/h2020-wp17-erc_en.pdf

1

---
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000177

08-DEC-2016

09:04 AM
#### Commonwealth v. Ross

*Donald Williams,*for Commonwealth.

*Norman Levine,*for defendant.

*148May 31, 1977

HENDERSON, P. *J.,*

James Ross filed a Post Conviction Hearing Act of January 25, 1966, P. L. (1965) 1580, 19 P. S. §1180, petition with this court asking for release from prison. On October 20, 1944, he had been sentenced to life imprisonment by Judge Lamoree of this court under the Habitual Criminal Act of June 24, 1939, P. L. 872, as amended, 18 P. S. §5108, since repealed, for being convicted of a fourth offense within five years. He has been paroled twice, but was recommitted both times for parole violations. Following the filing of this petition, the public defender was appointed to represent petitioner.

The petition alleged several grounds for granting the relief requested, but only one of those is supported by factual averments in the petition.

This is the claim that the repeal of the Habitual Criminal Act justifies his release. Since this issue is based solely on the legal effect of the repeal, we can dispose of it without an evidentiary hearing.

The Habitual Criminal Act was repealed along with the rest of the penal code when the new Crimes Code was enacted in 1972, but section 2 of the repealing Act of December 6, 1972, P. L. 1482, specifically provided that prosecutions for offenses committed prior to the effective date of the act (which was June 6, 1973) shall be governed by the prior law, which is continued in effect for that purpose as if the repealer were not in force. This savings clause would mean that even if his sentence was vacated now for some reason and a new sentence imposed, the new sentence could still be imposed under the Habitual Criminal Act as it existed in 1944. See State v. Little, 205 Oregon 659, 290 P.2d 802 (1955).

*149Petitioner misinterprets the intent and effect of the repeal. It shows a legislative determination that the protection of society no longer requires that criminals be given longer sentences because of prior convictions. If the legislature had felt it wise to release those previously incarcerated under such a statute, a statute providing for their release would have been enacted. The repeal has no effect upon the constitutionality of an habitual criminal statute, which has been repeatedly upheld. . . .

ORDER

Now, May 31, 1977, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that defendant’s petition under the Post Conviction Hearing Act is hereby refused without hearing.

However, defendant is granted an additional 20 days from the date hereof within which to amend his post conviction hearing act petition in order that he may specify in detail any other grounds supporting his petition (as more fully set forth in the opinion filed herewith).

In the event no such amended petition is filed within the required time, the prothonotary shall enter a final order dismissing the entire matter.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-10542

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:15-cr-00349-SDM-AEP-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUVENAL ABARCA-PARRA,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(December 2, 2016)

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Stephen Langs, appointed counsel for Juvenal Abarca-Parra in this direct 

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the 

Case: 16-10542 Date Filed: 12/02/2016 Page: 1 of 2 
2

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of 

the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the 

entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is 

GRANTED, and Abarca-Parra’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-10542 Date Filed: 12/02/2016 Page: 2 of 2
# C_2016273EN.01000701.xml

| 27.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8106 — Jones Lang Lasalle/Integral UK Holding)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 273/02)

On 19 July 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 32016M8106. 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 32016M8106. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
SUBRATA BOBBY NATH,

Appellant,

v.

IN RE: ESTATE OF ABHA

RANI NATH, DECEASED,

SUNITA N. SMITH AND LIPKA

NATH-BALDING FRITH,

ESTATE OF ABHA RANI

NATH, REPRESENTED BY

ROBERT M. ERVIN, JR., AS

SUBSTITUTE PERSONAL

REPRESENTATIVE,

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-3199

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 1, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Jackie L. Fulford, Judge.

Rafael A. Castro, III, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Robert M. Ervin, Jr., of Ervin, Kitchen & Ervin, Tallahassee, for Appellee Estate of

Abha Rani Nath; Dean R. LeBoeuf of Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster, &

Gwartney, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellees Sunita N. Smith and Lipika N. Frith.

PER CURIAM.
2

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, WINOKUR, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

I,Susan H. Reeves, Chief Financial Officer of Peoples First, Inc., certifythat:

 

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Peoples First, Inc.;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officersand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-(e)) forthe registrant and have:

 

(a)   Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision,  toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c)   Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

----

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officersand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)   All significant deficienciesin the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)   Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial report.

 

 

Date:  May 11, 2004

 

 
|   | /s/ Susan H.  Reeves     |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Susan H.  Reeves         |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00195-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.M., N.M., F.M. AND T.T., CHILDREN

From the County Court at Law

Bosque County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV15096

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant A.L. challenges the trial court’s order of termination of her parental 

rights to D.M., N.M., F.M., and T.T.

“Appeals in parental termination and child protection cases are governed by the 

rules of appellate procedure for accelerated appeals.” TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4(a)(1). “[I]n an 

accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal must be filed within 20 days after the judgment 

or order is signed.” TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b).

The trial court signed the order of termination from which A.L. appeals on March 

31, 2016. A.L.’s notice of appeal was filed with the trial court clerk on June 9, 2016. A.L. 

filed a motion for new trial on April 29, 2016; however, filing a motion for new trial does 
In the Interest of D.M. Page 2

not extend the deadline for filing a notice of appeal in an accelerated case. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 26.1(a), (b); In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 928 (Tex. 2005). A.L.’s notice of appeal 

was therefore untimely because it was filed more than twenty days after the order of 

termination was signed.

The Clerk of the Court notified A.L. that, unless she showed grounds for 

continuing this appeal, it was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction. A.L. has not 

done so.

We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and 

Justice Scoggins

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed December 6, 2016

[CV06]
---

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 of Online Innovation,
  Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004
  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Chad
  D. Lee, Principal 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.

|Date:                                                               | November
      12, 2004 | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------- | 
|                                                                    |                         | 
|/s/
      Chad D. Lee                                               |                        
|Chad D. Lee, President, Director,
      Principal Executive Officer |                        

---
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: December 8, 2016 522845 

________________________________

In the Matter of JEROME 

ANDERSON, 

Petitioner, 

v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

DONALD VENETTOZZI, as Acting 

Director of Special Housing

and Inmate Disciplinary 

Programs, 

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: October 25, 2016

Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Lynch, Devine and Aarons, JJ.

__________

Jerome Anderson, Comstock, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J.

Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this

Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to

review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and

Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating

certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to

challenge a tier III determination finding him guilty of

violating certain prison disciplinary rules. The Attorney

General has advised this Court that the determination has been

administratively reversed, all references thereto have been

expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the mandatory

$5 surcharge has been refunded to petitioner's inmate account. 
-2- 522845 

We note that the loss of good time incurred by petitioner as a

result of the disciplinary determination also should be restored

(see Matter of Lawrence v Annucci, 141 AD3d 1063, 1063 [2016]). 

In view of this, and given that petitioner has been granted all

the relief to which he is entitled, the petition must be

dismissed as moot (see Matter of Rodriquez v Prack, 142 AD3d 1235

[2016]). Petitioner requests that his $15 reduced filing fee be

refunded, and the record establishes that he paid that amount

(see Matter of Warmus v Kaplan, 133 AD3d 1026 [2015]).

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Lynch, Devine and Aarons, JJ.,

concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without

costs, but with disbursements in the amount of $15. 

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.3
 
                               POWER OF ATTORNEY
 
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and
appoints George L. Lippe, Robert E. Sulentic and William P. Leiser the true and
lawful attorney-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, 1998, 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 attorney or attorneys-in-fact, 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 said attorney or attorneys-in-fact or any of them or their
substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.
 
                                       /s/ James D. Carreker
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                           James D. Carreker
Exhibit 10(a)



 EXHIBIT 10(a) 
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 







 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in the Statement of
Additional Information and to the use of our reports: (1) dated April 3, 2013, with respect to the statutory-basis financial statements and schedules of Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Company, and (2) dated April 22, 2013,
with respect to the financial statements of the subaccounts of the TFLIC Separate Account VNY, included in Post-Effective Amendment No. 12 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4, No. 333-122235) under the Securities Act of 1933 and
related Prospectus of The Advisor’s Edge® NY Variable Annuity. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Des Moines, Iowa 
 April 22, 2013
**Docket Number FAA -**  **2013 -**  **0674**