alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 12-12-00421-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE: §

ROBERT JAMES FOX, § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

RELATOR §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

In this original proceeding, Relator Robert James Fox seeks a writ of habeas corpus 

alleging that he is illegally confined and restrained in the Cherokee County jail by the Honorable 

Dwight Phifer, Judge of the 2nd Judicial District Court, Cherokee County, Texas. He contends 

that he has been held for 1,420 days in retaliation for exercising his “First Amendment right to 

redress of grievance.” He further asserts that he is being confined pursuant to a “preposterous 

felony charge” of tampering with a governmental record.

The original jurisdiction of this court to issue a writ of habeas corpus is limited to those 

cases in which a person’s liberty is restrained because the person has violated an order, 

judgment, or decree entered in a civil case. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d) (Vernon 

2004). Consequently, this court does not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal 

matters. Dodson v. State, 988 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.); Ex 

parte Hawkins, 885 S.W.2d 586, 588 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994, no pet.). Relator’s complaint 

in this proceeding arises out of a felony criminal charge, which is a criminal matter. Therefore, 

we lack jurisdiction to address the merits of Relator’s petition. Accordingly, we dismiss 

Relator’s habeas petition for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered December 20, 2012.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

DECEMBER 20, 2012

NO. 12-12-00421-CR

ROBERT JAMES FOX,

Relator

v.

HON. DWIGHT L. PHIFER,

Respondent

 

 

 ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of habeas corpus 

filed by ROBERT JAMES FOX, who is the relator in Cause No. 17387, pending on the docket 

of the 2nd Judicial District Court of Cherokee County, Texas. Said petition for writ of habeas 

corpus having been filed herein on December 12, 2012, and the same having been duly 

considered, because it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction in this 

proceeding, and that the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed, it is therefore 

CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of habeas corpus be, 

and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
# C_2022359EN.01004201.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/42

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 21 June 2022 — DocLX Travel Events GmbH v Verein für Konsumenteninformation

(Case C-414/22)

(2022/C 359/48)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: DocLX Travel Events GmbH

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 12(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the traveller — irrespective of the time of his or her declaration of termination — is in any event entitled to terminate a package free of charge if the unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances significantly affecting the package did in fact occur at the time of the (scheduled) start of the package? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 12(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the traveller — irrespective of the time of his or her declaration of termination — is in any event entitled to terminate a package free of charge if the unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances significantly affecting the package did in fact occur at the time of the (scheduled) start of the package?

| 2. | Must Article 12(2) of Directive 2015/2302 be interpreted as meaning that the traveller is already entitled to terminate a package free of charge if the occurrence of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances was to be expected at the time of the declaration of termination? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 12(2) of Directive 2015/2302 be interpreted as meaning that the traveller is already entitled to terminate a package free of charge if the occurrence of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances was to be expected at the time of the declaration of termination?

---

(1)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC (OJ 2015 L 326, p. 1).

---
# C_2021148EN.01002401.xml

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/24

---

Action brought on 27 February 2021 — Banco de Investimento Global v EUIPO — Banco BIC Português (EUROBIC)

(Case T-125/21)

(2021/C 148/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Banco de Investimento Global SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: N. Lucas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Banco BIC Português SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark EUROBIC — Application for registration No 16 775 199

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 November 2020 in case R 607/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, in accordance with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, there is a likelihood of confusion between Banco de Investimento Global SA’s earlier trade marks and the contested trade mark and, consequently, annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, in accordance with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, there is a likelihood of confusion between Banco de Investimento Global SA’s earlier trade marks and the contested trade mark and, consequently, annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of infringement of Article 95 (1) and (2) and Article 97(1)(c) and (f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of infringement of Article 95 (1) and (2) and Article 97(1)(c) and (f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
ex107.htm




Ex. 10.7


 







 


Bedrick Employment Understanding


 







 


(i)       Salary. Executive shall receive a base monthly salary Compensation in the amount of $10,000 ("Base Salary").


 


(ii)      Payment. The Base Salary Compensation shall be payable in accordance with the customary payroll practices of the Company, but in no event less frequently than monthly.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

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 Form 10-Q of Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Noven)
for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert C. Strauss,
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Noven, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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, as amended; and

2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Noven.

/s/ Robert C. Strauss

Name: Robert C. Strauss
Title:   President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
Date:   November 4, 2002
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. RHONDA L. KNOUSE, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 167 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 26th day of August, 2014, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is DENIED
.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                        <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1999             DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1998             DEC-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1999             JUN-28-1998
<CASH>                                           8,825                   4,913
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      579                  23,968
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                   3,140
<INVENTORY>                                        200                  36,087
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,604                  66,682
<PP&E>                                           1,600                  69,080
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                  38,676
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,204                 180,710
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           76,204                 133,168
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                     471
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                  48,195
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    76,204                 189,710
<SALES>                                              0                  79,366
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                  79,366
<CGS>                                                0                  69,806
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                  69,806
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                  39,541
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                   2,306
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                (32,287)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                      65
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                (32,352)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0                (32,352)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0                   (.69)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
#### COM. v. ADAMS, T.

1221 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/28/2017

CP-67-CR-0006271-2010 (York)

Affirmed — Application to Withdraw as Counsel Granted
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 19-0172
CITY OF COLUMBIA FALLS,

Plaintiffand Appellee, v. BONME L. CHAPMAN,

Defendant and Appellant. 

# FILED APR 29 2020 Bowen Greenwtiod clerk of Suprerne Court Sthte of Montana ORDER

The parties,by and through their counsel ofrecord,stipulate and move for an order remanding Flathead County CauseNo. DC-18-416(D)

to the ColumbiaFalls City Courtwith instructions to strike the $335 fine from the November 1, 2018 Sentencing Order. Defendant Bonnie L.Chapman appealed the fine to the Eleventh JudicialDistrictCourt,and the District Court affirmed the fine. Without agreeing with all the arguments advanced by Chaprnan, the Attorney General's Office concedes that the City Court's imposition ofthe $335 fine was illegal. Ms.Chapman's sole source ofincome is social security payments of$1,300.00 per month. Under United States and Montana law, a court cannot order a defendant to pay a court fine from social security benefits. State v. Eaton, 2004 MT 283, 323 Mont. 287, 99 P.3d 661. On this ground, the parties request this Court to remand the case for compliance with 42 U.

S.C. § 407(a)and United States Supreme Court caselaw. Having reviewed,

theparties' stipulation and motion to dismiss appealwithprejudice, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Cause No. DC-18-416(D) is remanded to the Columbia Falls City Court with instructions to strike the $335 fine from the November 1, 2018 Sentencing Order. 04/29/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0172There being no other issues remaining for consideration,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Chapman's appeal is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record and tothe Honorable Dan Wilson,presiding District Court Judge. Dated thisZ 9 day ofApril, 2020.

2 ChiefJustice
DTRA NE Advisory & Assistance Services Follow-On Contract Industry Day

20-Jan-22

Attendees Total: 62

Attendee Name Attendee Email Given Company

Jason Capelle jcapelle@chimera-enterprises.com Chimera Enterprises International

Alexandra G McCargo amccargo@arslimited.com ARServices

Kevin Donovan kevin.donovan@anser.org Analytic Services Inc. (ANSER)

Eugene Goldlust eugene.goldlust@itility.com ITility, LLC

Brian Groft bgroft@spa.com SPA

Jeffrey Jones jjones@georgestreetservices.com George Street Services

Joseph Conti joseph.a.conti@saic.com SAIC

Patrick Sharon pjsharon@erpdefconsulting.com ERP Defense Consulting LLC

John Robinson jrobinson@sara.com SCIENTIFIC APPLICATIONS & RESEARCH ASSOCIATES INC / SARA INC

Robert Bridges todd.bridges@baesystems.com BAE Systems

Rich Jackson rjackson@sawdeysolutionservices.com Sawdey Solution Services

Anne Hillegas anne.hillegas@helmss.com HELM System Solutions

Joshua Larson joshua.larson@meleassociates.com Mele Associates

Danielle Williams-Wilburn danielle.wilburn@noblis.org Noblis

Keri Robinson keri.robinson@noblis.org Noblis, Inc.

Sean Remley sremley@toeroek.com Toeroek Associates

Justin Burney jburney@spa.com SPA

Sam Stolzoff sam.stozoff@ecstech.com ECS Federal

Kyle Hardy kyle.hardy@lucidjigsaw.com Troika Solutions

Mariano Wecer mwecer@troikasol.com Troika Solutions

Julie Clark julie.clark@epeerless.com Peerless Technologies Corp

Charlie Anderson canderson@sara.com SCIENTIFIC APPLICATIONS & RESEARCH ASSOCIATES INC / SARA INC

Bill McCuen bmccuen@sawdeysolutionservices.com Sawdey Solution Servicews

John McLain Dynamis, Inc

Jerry Miranda SPA

Konstantine Stratidis kstratidis@chimera-enterprises.com Chimera Enterprises International

Jennifer Sammons jsammons@alphainjenuity.com Alpha InJenuity, LLC

Henri Chase hchase@icess.us ICESS

Mario Buda mbuda@garrettgp.com THMG, Inc dba The Garrett Group

Jerry Tritle jerry.tritle@epeerless.com Peerless Technologies Corp

Geoff Hill geoff.hill@culmen.com HTGS-Culmen JV, LLC

Brad Alden brad.alden@culmen.com Culmen International

Susan Freund susan.freund@anser.org Analytic Services Inc, (ANSER)

Michelle Tavares michelle.m.tavares@saic.com Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)

Cynthia Gagnon cynthia.gagnon@saic.com Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)

Mike DeBarto micheal.d.debarto@saic.com Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)

Paul Schiele paul.schiele@brycetech.com Bryce Space and Technologies

Andrew Davis andrew.davis@davisdsi.com Davis Strategic Innovations (DSI)
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.4

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                     OF THE
                     RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                             SEQUOIA SYSTEMS, INC.


       Sequoia Systems, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the
   laws of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"), hereby certifies that:

       1. At a special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation (the
"Board") held on January 20, 1997, the Board adopted resolutions approving,
proposing and declaring advisable the amendment of Article I of the Restated
Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation to read in its entirety as
follows:


                                   ARTICLE I

       The name of this Corporation is,    Texas Micro Inc.

       2. At the annual meeting of the stockholders of the Corporation held on
April 16, 1997, a majority of the stockholders of the Corporation voted in favor
of such amendment in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "DGCL").

       3. Such amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the applicable
provisions of Section 242 of the DGCL.

       In Witnesss Whereof, the Corporation has caused this certificate to be
   signed this 16th  day of April, 1997.



                                           SEQUOIA SYSTEMS, INC.             
                                                                             
                                           By:   /s/ J. Michael Stewart      
                                                 ----------------------      
                                           Printed Name: J. Michael Stewart  
                                                         ------------------  
                                           Title: President and CEO_______   
                                                  ------------------------
No. 11-10463.

#### Van Buren *v.*California.

Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
# C_2022359EN.01004302.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/43

---

Appeal brought on 27 June 2022 by the European Economic and Social Committee against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2022 in Case T-750/20 Correia v EESC

(Case C-423/22 P)

(2022/C 359/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, A. Carvajal García-Valdecasas, L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Paula Correia

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 in so far as it declares admissible the request for career reconstitution, and reject the form of order sought by the applicant at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 in so far as it declares admissible the request for career reconstitution, and reject the form of order sought by the applicant at first instance;

| 2. | Order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs before the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In its appeal, the EESC argues that the concept of a reasonable period for submitting a request for career reconstitution, and the case-law on the factors to be taken into account in determining whether the period is reasonable, have been misinterpreted.

The first ground of appeal alleges an incorrect legal characterisation of the facts. It is argued that the General Court misrepresented part of the content of the defence and rejoinder and failed to undertake a complete characterisation of the points of fact and of law.

The second ground of appeal alleges infringement of the principle of legal certainty.

---
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0590 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-112-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):

Indicates related information in AD Manual, FAA-IR-M-8040.1C. DOUBLE CLICK to follow the link

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: