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

San Antonio, Texas

August 31, 2021

N o. 04

- 19

- 005 16

- C R

Ke dreen Mar que P UGH

, Appellant

v.

The S TATE of Texas

, Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 201 8CR6053 Honorable Stephanie R. Boyd , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Irene Rios , Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice 1

On July 13, 2021, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued the mandate in this appeal

in which it r eversed our decision and remanded the matter to this court. See Pugh v. State , 624 S.W.3d 565 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) . Specifically, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that our harm analysis related to the trial co urt ’ s denial of appellant ’ s motion t o suppress was unsound

and that our finding o f harm was in error. See id. at 570. The C ourt o f Criminal Appeals

re ma nded the case for us to consider appellant ’ s remaining issue that we did not reach

. See id. ; Pugh v. State , 04

- 19

- 00516

- CR, 2020 WL 1866 2 89 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Apr. 15, 2020),

rev ’ d , 624 S.W.3d 565 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021)

.

Accordingly, we ORDER that the parties may file supplemental briefs in this court in light of the decision by the Texas Court of Criminal Appe als. We ORDER appellant to file his supplemental brief, if any, in this court on or before October 1 , 20 21

. The State ’ s supplemental brief, if any, will be due in this court t hirt y days after the date appellant ’s supplemental brief is

1 This case was originally submitted on b riefs before a panel consisting of Chief Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Martinez, and Justice Rios

. Chief Justice Martinez h as no w assumed Chief Justice Mari on ’ s place and replaces her on remand in accordance with Rule 8(j)(iii) of our Internal Operating Procedures. Likewise, Justice

Valenzuela has now assumed Justice Martinez ’ s place and replaces her on remand in accordance w ith R u le 8( j)(iii)

.filed

. If either party chooses not to file a s upplemental brief, that party is ORDERED to notify

this court of such fact in writing on or before September 10 , 2021

. If appellant decides not to file a supplemental brief, appellee may still file a supplemental brief, and such brief will be due t hir t y days af ter the date appellant advises this court in writing that he does not intend to file a supplemental brief.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 31st day of August, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Scott Alan VICK, Appellant.

WD 78842

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Order filed: June 6, 2017

Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 29, 2017

Nathan J. Aquino, for Respondent.

Damien B. De Loyola, for Appellant.

Before Division One: Gary D. Witt, Presiding Judge, Alok Ahuja, Judge and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judge

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Scott A. Vick appeals’ his convictions following a bench trial for one count of second-degree statutory rape and one count of second-degree statutory sodomy. Vick received consecutive seven-year sentences for each offense. Finding no error, we affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum of law has been provided to the parties. Affirmed Missouri Supreme Court Rule 30.26(b).
---

WELLS
 FARGO
 
 Commercial Mortgage Servicing
 D1086-120, 12th Floor
 550 South Tryon Street
 Charlotte, NC 28202
 1-800-326-1334
 
 
 
 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Together We'll Go Far
 
 
 ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
 
 Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling  and  Servicing  Agreement  dated
 as  of  October  1,  2014,  by  and  among  CITIGROUP  COMMERCIAL  MORTGAGE  SECURITIES
 INC.,  as  Depositor,  WELLS  FARGO  BANK,  NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION,  as    Master  Servicer,
 MIDLAND  LOAN  SERVICES,  A  DIVISION  OF  PNC    BANK,  NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION,    as
 Special Servicer, PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor, and CITIBANK
 N.A.,  as  Certificate  Administrator  and  DEUTSCHE  BANK  TRUST  COMPANY  AMERICAS  as
 Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,  Series 2014-GC25 (the
 "Agreement").  Capitalized  terms  used  herein  not  otherwise  defined  shall  have  the  meanings
 assigned in the Agreement.
 
 Pursuant to Section 10.08 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of
 Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:
 
 1.
 
 A  review  of  the  activities  of  the  Master  Servicer  during  the  period  from  October  1,
 2014 through December 31, 2014 (the "Reporting Period"),  and of its performance
 per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and
 
 2.
 
 To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled
 all  of  its  obligations  under  the  Agreement  in  all  material  respects  throughout  the
 Reporting Period.
 
 
 
 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 6th day of
 
 
 March 2015.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 /s/ Daniel Bober
 Daniel Bober
 Executive Vice President
 
 
 Wells Fargo Bank
EXHIBIT
      32.2





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 Powerhouse Technologies Group, Inc.
      (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
      Liebman, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting 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 to my
      knowledge:





(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:
      May
      15,2006








/s/
      Richard
      Liebman


Richard
      Liebman


Chief
      Financial Officer


Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer




27
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**I, Charles D. Johnston, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of QualMark Corporation (the “smallbusiness issuer”);  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statements of materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained in SEC release34-47986.]c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; andd) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent function):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the smallbusiness issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 13, 2007                                                                   /s/ Charles D. Johnston  Charles D. Johnston  President & Chief Executive Officer
# EUR-Lex - 32001R0717 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001R0717

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 717/2001 of 10 April 2001 amending Regulation (EC) No 790/2000 laying down the marketing standard for tomatoes **

*
Official Journal L 100 , 11/04/2001 P. 0011 - 0011 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 717/2001

of 10 April 2001

amending Regulation (EC) No 790/2000 laying down the marketing standard for tomatoes

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000(2), and in particular Article 2(2) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) The Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 790/2000 of 14 April 2000 laying down the marketing standard for tomatoes(3) lays down provisions concerning the classification of tomatoes.

(2) In order to ensure transparency on the world market, those provisions should be amended. The standard for tomatoes recommended by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe has recently been amended in order to lay down that cherry tomatoes may not have healed cracks, even in Class II.

(3) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The third indent of point (iii) (Class II) of Part B (Classification) of title II (Provisions concerning quality) of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 790/2000 is replaced by the following text: "- healed cracks not more than 3 cm in length for round, ribbed or oblong tomatoes."

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply from the first day of the second month following its entry into force.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 April 2001.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 328, 23.12.2000, p. 2.

(3) OJ L 95, 15.4.2000, p. 24.
----

            COMMISSION DECISION         

of 19 January 2005         

relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement

(Case COMP/C.2/37.214 — Joint selling of the media rights to the German Bundesliga)

(notified under document number C(2005) 78)

(Only the German text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2005/396/EC)

The decision concerns the Liga-Fußballverbands e.V. (League Association) in Germany. The subject matter of the procedure is the central marketing of the media exploitation rights in respect of matches in the first and second national football divisions for men (Bundesliga and 2. Bundesliga). In a preliminary assessment, the Commission noted that the exclusive selling of the commercial broadcasting rights by the League Association could restrict competition between the clubs and companies in the first and second divisions within the meaning of Article 81 of the EC Treaty.

Without having conducted a full investigation of the case, it is considered that the League Association’s commitments seem to introduce competition in the marketing of Bundesliga and 2. Bundesliga rights between the league and the clubs and allow for new, in particular club branded products. The commitments reduce the scope and duration of future marketing deals and provide a transparent and non-discriminatory marketing procedure. They improve the accessibility of content for TV, radio and new media operators, make sure that more rights are being made available to the market and thereby contribute to innovation and dampen the concentration tendencies in the media markets.

The proposed decision now concludes that, in view of the commitments given by the League Association following the preliminary assessment and the observations submitted by interested third parties, there are no grounds for it to take action within the meaning of Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1). The commitments shall be binding on the League Association until 30 June 2009.

The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on 6 December 2004.

----

(1)OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 411/2004 (OJ L 68, 6.3.2004, p. 1).

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 12      

                       LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS LTD.
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                         (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT RATIOS)
                                  (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   SIX MONTHS
                                                     ENDED
                                                 JUNE 30, 1997
                                                 -------------
<S>                                              <C>
Earnings:
        Income before income taxes, minority
          interest and equity in net loss of
          affiliates...........................   $22,596
        Plus fixed charges.....................    27,371
        Less capitalized interest..............     9,023
                                                 --------
Earnings available to cover fixed charges......   $40,944
                                                 ========
Fixed charges..................................   $27,371
                                                 ========
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges.............      1.5x
                                                 ========
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001007020
<NAME> INTEGRATED SYSTEMS
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           5,110
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,978
<ALLOWANCES>                                       677
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,868
<PP&E>                                           7,131
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,378
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  27,241
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,478
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            46
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,717
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    27,241
<SALES>                                         29,673
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,673
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,081
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,753
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,547
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,206
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,206
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7199
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEVIN RODELL JOHNSON, a/k/a Chucky, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at A lexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-319-A) Submitted: December 11, 1997 Decided: December 31, 1997 Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Rodell Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Bonner McClendon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, 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 his motion for a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Johnson , No. CR-95-319-A (E.D. Va. July 23, 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
No. 11-1289.

#### Daewoo Electronics America, Inc. *v.*T. C. L. Industries (H. K.) Holdings Ltd. et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 29, 2015

No. 04-15-00621-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.C., a child,

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015EM503338

Honorable Nick Catoe Jr., Judge Presiding

ORDER

On August 31, 2015, the trial court signed an order establishing the parent-child 

relationship and determining conservatorship and visitation. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.

§ 160.601 (West 2014). A notice of appeal was due on September 30, 2015, and a motion for 

extension of time to file a notice of appeal was due on October 15, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P.

26.1, 26.3. 

On October 1, 2015, after the deadline to file the notice of appeal, the child’s father filed 

a notice of appeal. See generally Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (“[A] 

motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant acting in good faith files a 

[notice of appeal] beyond the time allowed by Rule [26.1], but within the fifteen-day period in 

which the appellant would be entitled to move to extend the filing deadline under Rule [26.3].” 

(emphasis added)). 

We ORDER Appellant to SHOW CAUSE in writing within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date 

of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 10.5(b) (requirements for a motion for extension of time); id. R. 42.3(a) (dismissal for want of 

jurisdiction). If Appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be 

dismissed. See id. R. 42.3(c) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 

All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of October, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
uestionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 09498

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

09498_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

x 09498_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

09498_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

09498_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 09498_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 09498_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 09498_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 09498_ Aerial Map 1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x x 09498_Aerial Map 2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 09498_Aerial Map 3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 09498_Water Balance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### Damian E. GRIFFIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David LONG, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-16295

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 25, 2018

Damian E. Griffin, Pro Se

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Damian E. Griffin, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations related to deductions from his inmate trust account. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the magistrate judge validly entered judgment on behalf of the district court. *Allen v. Meyer,*755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand.

Griffin consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. *See*28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Griffin’s action before the named defendants had been-served. *See*28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(a), 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Be*325cause all parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to proceed before the magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest, *Williams v. King,*875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the magistrate judge’s order and remand for further proceedings.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.