alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### State Adjustment Co. v. Clarence E. Winslow, and if married, Mrs. Clarence E. Winslow, the City of St. Petersburg, a municipal corporation, *et al.*

154 So. 325.

Division B.

Opinion Filed April 26, 1934.

*610
      *C. I. Carey*and *C. F. Harrison,*for Appellant ;

*W. F. Way, Carroll R. Runyon*and *Lewis T. Wray,*for Appellees.

Whitfield, P. J.

— This appeal is from a decree, a portion of which adjudges certain liens for special assessments for local benefits to be of equal dignity with liens for State and county taxes.

It appears that a State and county tax sale certificate was by a private party purchased at the tax sale, September 3, 1928. On such certificate a tax deed was issued by the Clerk of the Circuit Court, December 1, 1931. The holder of the tax deed brought foreclosure proceedings on' the tax deed under Chapter 14572, Acts of 1929, in order to perfect title against possible outstanding liens on the land covered by the tax deed.

Among others, the City of St. Petersburg was made a party defendant and the City asserts special assessment liens which it claims were made of equal dignity with State and county taxes by Chapter 14396, Special Acts of 1929, which enacts: ,

> “That the lien imposed, or to be imposed, by the City of St. Petersburg by special assessments made, or to be made, and certificates of indebtedness issued, or to be issued, by said City be and the same are hereby declared to be of equal dignity with the tax liens of the State of Florida, and the County of Pinellas.”

When the tax certificate was purchased by the private party at the tax sale, liens for special assessments were not *611of equal dignity with liens for State and county taxes under the statute. City of Sanford v. Dial, 104 Fla. 1, 142 So. 233, text 238; City of Tampa v. Lee, 112 Flá. 668, 151 So. 316; City of Lake Worth v. McLeod, 112 Fla. 843, 151 So. 318.

Even if under the Florida Constitution a special or local law may make the liens of special assessments for local benefits of equal dignity with liens for State and county taxes, the special or local law here, Chapter 14396, Acts of 1929, was enacted after the State and county tax certificate had been purchased at the tax sale by the assignor of the holder of the tax deed here being foreclosed, and the statute cannot impair the contract rights of the tax .deed holder. While some of the special assessment liens matured for payment after the tax sale certificate was purchased and after the enactment of Chapter 14396, the liens of the special assessments relate to the date they were acquired prior to the purchase of the tax sale certificate in 1928; and the statute enacted in 1929, if otherwise valid, cannot make special assessment liens of equal dignity with the lien of a State and county tax sale certificate purchased at a tax sale prior to the enactment of the statute purporting to make the liens of equal dignity, since that would in effect impair,the contract rights of the purchaser of the tax sale certificate or its assignee.

Reversed for modification of decree.

Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.

Davis, C. J., and Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
# Official Journal C 172/18 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 172 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6118 May 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 172

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6118 May 2018

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2018/C 172/01 | Annual progress report on the implementation of the European Union strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (2017) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2018/C 172/01

Annual progress report on the implementation of the European Union strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (2017)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-36754, 33-52506, 33-62098, 33-58637, 333-88151, 333-88773, 333-61294 and
333-73348 of BJ Services Company on Form S-8 of our report dated January 21,
2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of OSCA, Inc. for
the year ended December 31, 2001 included in this Current Report on Form 8-K/A
of BJ Services Company.

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana
July 17, 2002
Exhibit 4.3







Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated March 20, 2014, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-193671) of Smart Trust, Enhanced
Value II Trust, Series 9.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


Grant
Thornton LLP


Chicago, Illinois


March 20, 2014
No. 11-9748.

#### Jones *v.*Igbinosa et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-16-00107-CR

NO. 03-16-00110-CR

NO. 03-16-00111-CR

NO. 03-16-00112-CR

Jeffrey Allen Culpepper, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOS. CR2015-082, CR2015-081, CR2015-158 & CR2014-478

HONORABLE R. BRUCE BOYER, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

On August 31, 2015, appellant was convicted offour different offenses and sentenced

to ten years in prison. He filed neither a motion for new trial nor an appeal from the judgments of

conviction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(2). On January 20, 2016, appellant filed a “Motion for

Shock Probation” in the trial court and on February 18, the trial court denied that motion. See Tex.

Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.12, § 6 (extending trial court’s jurisdiction 180 days to impose community

supervision under certain circumstances).

On February 22, appellant filed his notices of appeal, appealing from the trial court’s

denial of his motion for shock probation. The order from which these appeals were taken is not an

appealable order. “[A]n order entered pursuant to Article 42.12 § 6 is not appealable.” Dodson v.
State, 988 S.W.2d 833, 834 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.) (citing Basaldua v. State,

558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977)). Appellant did not appeal from the trial court’s final

judgments of conviction, and this Court does not have jurisdiction over these appeals. See Tex. R.

App. P. 26.2(a)(1). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Field

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: April 15, 2016

Do Not Publish

2
jQuery(document).ready(function($) {
  $( "#search-area #block-mt-navigation-search .form-search" ).focusin(function() {
    $("#search-area").addClass("opened");
  });
  $( "#search-area #block-mt-navigation-search .form-search" ).focusout(function() {
    $("#search-area").removeClass("opened");
  });
});
No. 11-9357.

#### Smith *v.*Missouri.

Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist. Certiorari denied.
#### Stacey Eugene JOHNSON *v.*STATE OF ARKANSAS

CR 98-743

990 S.W.2d 553

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered May 27, 1999

*610
      *David Lewis Clark,*for appellant.

No response.

Per Curiam.

Appellant Stacey Eugene Johnson, by and through his attorney, David Lewis Clark, has filed a motion for an extension of time to file Appellant’s brief. Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death by lethal injection in a judgment entered on November 24, 1997.

The transcript in this case was filed on June 19, 1998. On July 17, 1998, Appellant’s counsel filed a motion to settle the record and for an extension of time to file Appellant’s brief. We granted Appellant’s motion for writ of certiorari to settle the record on September 10, 1998. The writ was returned on October 12, 1998, and the supplemental record was filed at that time. Thereafter, on December 3, 1998, we granted Appellant’s motion for access to sealed psychotherapy records and directed the Clerk to set a new briefing schedule. *See Johnson v. State,*335 Ark. 333, 982 S.W.2d 669 (1998) *(per curiam).*Under the new briefing schedule, Appellant’s brief was due on January 12, 1999.

On January 11, 1999, Appellant’s counsel was granted a seven-day clerk’s extension, making Appellant’s brief due on January 19, 1999. Subsequently, counsel filed a motion for an extension of time to file Appellant’s brief, and the extension was granted until March 29, 1999. Counsel filed another motion for an extension of time to file Appellant’s brief, and a final extension was granted until April 28, 1999. On that date, and again on May 12, 1999, counsel filed motions for a further extension of time to file Appellant’s brief. As of this date, no brief has been filed.

In the pending motion, Mr. Clark accepts full responsibility for having failed to timely file Appellant’s brief. We find that such error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. *See Davis v. State,*335 Ark. 136, 983 S.W.2d 122 (1998) *(per curiam); Harkness v. State,*264 Ark. 561, 572 S.W.2d 835 (1978). A copy of this *per*
      *611
      *curiam*opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct. *See In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases,*265 Ark. 964 (1979) *(per curiam).*

Additionally, we order Mr. Clark to appear before this court at 9:00 a.m. on July 1, 1999, to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failing to timely file Appellant’s brief.

Motion granted.
#### COM. v. WILSON, T.

3079 EDA 2015

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

9/8/2017

CP-51-CR-0014996-2013

(Philadelphia)

Affirmed
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge ASCANIO-SANCHEZ, also known as Manuel Ascanio, also known as Pedro Contreras, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-50490 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 20, 2018

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jorge Ascanio-Sanchez, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge Ascanio-Sanchez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Asca-nio-Sanchez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We' concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47,5.4.
**Exhibit 31.2**
**Certifications**
Certification of Principal Financial Officer
I, Diane M. Barrett, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of NovenPharmaceuticals, Inc., certify that:
1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Noven Pharmaceuticals,Inc. for the period ended June 30, 2004;
2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
4) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
 b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
 c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.         /s/ Diane M. Barrett   Name:  Diane M. Barrett   Title:  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer   Date: August 3, 2004
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 on Form 10-QSB of Golden River Resources
Corporation (the "Company") for the three months ended March 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"),
the undersigned, Joseph Gutnick, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certifies 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 result of operations of the Company.


Date:     May 10, 2006

                                            /s/Joseph I. Gutnick
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Joseph I. Gutnick
                                            Chairman of the Board, President and
                                            Chief Executive Officer


                                                                              21
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6667

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ELLISON LAKELL COOPER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. 

Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:12-cr-00520-TLW-1; 4:16-cv-02418-TLW)

Submitted: September 16, 2020 Decided: September 22, 2020

Before AGEE, FLOYD, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ellison Lakell Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Everett E. McMillian, Assistant United States

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ellison Lakell Cooper seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Before addressing the merits of Cooper’s appeal, we must first 

be assured that we have jurisdiction. Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015). 

We may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain 

interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. 

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). “Ordinarily, a district court 

order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.” Porter, 803 F.3d at 696 

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate all of the 

claims Cooper raised. Specifically, the court failed to address an ineffective assistance of 

counsel claim, which Cooper raised in a supplemental filing that the district court entered 

on its docket as “additional attachments” to his § 2255 motion. We conclude that the order 

Cooper seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral 

order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district 

court for consideration of the unresolved claim. We express no opinion regarding the 

merits of that claim. 

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 AND REMANDED
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 02, 2017.

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, February 02, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17A0744. JAMES WADE v. CITY OF ROME PUBLIC UTILITIES, INC..

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
REGISTRANT'S  FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED march 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,744,916
<SECURITIES>                                   351,888
<RECEIVABLES>                                  954,285
<ALLOWANCES>                                    49,009
<INVENTORY>                                    949,765
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,994,209
<PP&E>                                       1,913,971
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,724,404
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,241,594
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          943,494
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       289,552
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,508,548
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,241,594
<SALES>                                      1,368,637
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,368,637
<CGS>                                          819,396
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  819,396
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               312,926
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   592
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              33,288
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (68,387)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (68,387)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (68,387)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1  RULE 13A-14(A)/15D-14(A) CERTIFICATION  I, J.E. Knight, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Caspian International Oil Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and the internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions after 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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a. All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.  May 21, 2007 /s/ J.E. Knight J.E. Knight Chief Executive Officer