alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00402-CR

NATALIE FAYE MULL APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Natalie Faye Mull pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain to 

possession of a controlled substance, namely methamphetamine, in an amount 

of more than one gram but less than four grams, and the trial court placed her on 

deferred adjudication community supervision for four years and ordered her to 

pay a $400 fine. Less than a year later, the State moved to proceed to 

adjudication, alleging several violations of the conditions of community 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

supervision. Appellant pled true to all allegations. After a hearing, the trial court 

adjudicated Appellant’s guilt and sentenced her to pay a $1,000 fine and to serve 

ten years’ confinement but probated the confinement portion of the sentence, 

retaining Appellant on community supervision for ten years and adding the 

completion of the SAFP program to her community supervision conditions.

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to 

withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel 

avers that, in his professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief 

and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California

2

by presenting a 

professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable 

grounds for relief.3This court afforded Appellant the opportunity to file a brief on 

her own behalf, but she did not do so.

Once an appellant’s court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on 

the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, we 

are obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to see if 

there is any arguable ground that may be raised on her behalf.4 Only then may 

we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.5

 

2

386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).

3See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510–11 & n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1991).

4See id. at 511.

5See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).
3

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree with 

counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in 

the record that might arguably support the appeal.6 Consequently, we grant the 

motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and WILLIAM BRIGHAM (Senior 

Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment).

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: June 9, 2011

 

6See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
#### Carmen LECHIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-20557 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 14, 2018

Iain Gordon Simpson, Simpson, P.C., Houston, TX, Robert Christopher Bell, Bell Rose, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant

*466Gabriel David Kaim, Norton Rose Fulbright US, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Carmen Lechin sued United Airlines for malicious prosecution and defamation after she was arrested following an incident aboard an international flight. In a comprehensive Memorandum Opinion and Order, the district court granted summary-judgment for United.

Lechin brings three issues on appeal. She complains that the district court denied leave to amend. The court pointed out, however, that the request was made “over seven months after the deadline provided in the court’s scheduling order” and that prejudice would result because “the discovery cutoff is now less than three weeks away” and the parties would have to “investigate at least four new claims.” The. court did not err in denying leave to amend.

Lechin attacks the summary judgment, claiming the district court failed to indulge inferences in her favor. The court announced the proper standard and pointed out that “[sjince Lechin was indicted by a grand jury, United cannot be liable for malicious prosecution unless it knowingly provided false information.” Lechin identified no such source but, as the district court explained, “rel[ies] on unwarranted inferences and conclusory allegations.” As for defamation, the court properly found that “there is no record evidence of any specific statement published by United that could serve as the basis for Lechin’s defamation claim.”

The appeal has no merit. The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons amply furnished by the district court.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cír. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under tlic limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
# C_2023223EN.01000401.xml

| 26.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 May 2023 — European Commission v Sopra Steria Benelux, Unisys Belgium

(Case C-101/22 P) (1)

(Appeal - Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 169 - Appeal against the operative part of the decision of the General Court - Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 - Article 170(3) - Paragraph 23 of Annex I - Unsuccessful tenderer bringing to the European Commission’s attention evidence of the abnormally low nature of the successful tender - Scope of the contracting authority’s obligation to state reasons)

(2023/C 223/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. André, M. Ilkova and O. Verheecke, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Sopra Steria Benelux, Unisys Belgium (represented by: L. Masson and G. Tilman, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 23.5.2022.

---
No. 11-10650.

#### Hester *v.*Officer O.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-rari denied.
exh1048.htm


EXHIBIT 10.48


 


 


SOW-002


 


Form of Statement of Work (SOW)


 


Consultant Name: Ashley Garnot


 


Agreement Name: Touchpoint Metrics, Inc. Independent Contractor Agreement (“Agreement”)


 


Agreement Date: August 1, 2013


 


Project Name: Investor Relations


 


SOW Date: February 2, 2014


 


This Statement of Work (“SOW”), is entered into by and between Touchpoint Metrics, Inc. and Ashley Garnot (“Consultant”) effective as of the date above February 2, 2014, and will serve as the Company’s approval for the Consultant to begin work on the project described in the following:


 



	
1.  

	
Description of Project and/or Services.







 


Consultant agrees to provide professional consulting services related to investor relations to the Company as requested.


 



	
2.  

	
Project Duration.







 


This SOW will commence on the effective date above, February 2, 2014 and remain in effect until terminated by Company or Consultant at any time upon written notice.


 



	
3.  

	
Compensation.







 


For Services rendered by Consultant under this Agreement, the Company shall compensate Consultant as follows: $2,500 USD per month over the duration of the SOW.


 



	
4.  

	
Expenses.







 


The Company shall be responsible for any and all expenses that Consultant reasonably incurs in performing the duties assigned hereunder. The Consultant shall be responsible to provide reasonable evidence to the Company of any such expenses, such as receipts for phone, courier or other reasonable expenses.


 






  





- 1 -











  








 


This Statement of Work is entered under and subject and pursuant to the Agreement between the Company and the Consultant. Any capitalized terms not defined in this Statement of Work shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. This Statement of Work supplements and incorporates by reference the relevant terms of the Agreement. The parties have executed this Statement of Work on the respective dates set forth below.


 



	
Touchpoint Metrics Inc.

	 	 	 
Ashley Garnot

	
 


	
 


By:   

	
 


 MICHAEL HINSHAW

	 	
 


 Signature: 

	
 


  ASHLEY GARNOT


	
 


Title:   

	
 


 President

	 	  
  


 Date:

	
 


  February 2, 2014


	
 


Name:  

	
 


 Michael Hinshaw

	 	 	  
	
 


Date:  

	
 


 February 2, 2014

	 	 	  





 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 




  





- 2 -
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8867 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8867

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the Secretary of 
 Veterans Affairs from conducting medical research causing significant 
                       pain or distress to cats.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 3, 2020

   Ms. Titus (for herself, Mr. Mast, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. 
   Suozzi, Mr. Ted Lieu of California, Mr. Cohen, Ms. Shalala, Mrs. 
 Dingell, Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Mr. Harder of California, Ms. 
 Lee of California, Ms. Norton, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Cicilline, 
 Mr. Levin of Michigan, Mr. Lowenthal, Ms. Jayapal, Ms. Eshoo, and Mr. 
Hurd of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the Secretary of 
 Veterans Affairs from conducting medical research causing significant 
                       pain or distress to cats.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Cat Abuse in Testing Stops Act of 
2020'' or the ``CATS Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL RESEARCH 
              CAUSING SIGNIFICANT PAIN OR DISTRESS TO CATS.

    (a) In General.--Section 7303 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(e)(1) In carrying out research, the Secretary may not purchase, 
breed, transport, house, feed, maintain, dispose of, or experiment on 
cats as part of the conduct of any study that causes significant pain 
or distress.
    ``(2) In this subsection, the term `study that causes significant 
pain or distress' includes any study classified to pain category D or E 
by the Department of Agriculture (or such successor categories 
developed pursuant to section 13 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 
2143)).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2023223EN.01002701.xml

| 26.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2023 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Biolark (BIOLARK)

(Case T-459/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark BIOLARK - Earlier national word mark BIOPLAK - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 223/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Klee and A. Ringelhann, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Biolark, Inc. (San Diego, California, United States)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 April 2022 (Case R 1234/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Refuses the application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate made by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Refuses the application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate made by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

| 2. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 5.9.2022.

---
<PAGE>
 

  [LETTERHEAD FOR CHAFFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. INVESTMENT BANKERS APPEARS HERE]

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

                     CONSENT OF CHAFFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.


        We hereby consent to the use of our opinion dated January 21, 1997, and 
to all references to our firm included in the Registration Statement of Form S-4
of Pontotoc BancShares Corp. In giving such consent, we do not thereby admit
that we come within the category of persons whose consent is required under
Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933 or the rules and regulations of the
Securities and Exchange Commission thereunder.



                                                CHAFFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.

                                        By:  /s/ SHERWOOD G. BRIGGS
                                            ------------------------------
                                            Sherwood G. Briggs
                                            Vice President
    
New Orleans, Louisiana
July 23, 1997
     

220 CAMP STREET . NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70130. (504)524-1801 . FAX (504) 
524-7194
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11221]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6061]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[ES-960-1910-00-4377] ES-48642, Group 176, Minnesota


Notice of Filing of Plat of Survey; Minnesota

    The plat of the dependent resurvey of a portion of the 
subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of fractional section 14, 
south of the Minnesota River, Township 115 North, Range 39 West, Fifth 
Principal Meridian, Minnesota, will be officially filed in Eastern 
States, Springfield, Virginia at 7:30 a.m., on April 17, 1997.
    The survey was requested by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
    All inquiries or protests concerning the technical aspects of the 
survey must be sent to the Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Eastern States, 
Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 
22153, prior to 7:30 a.m., April 17, 1997.
    Copies of the plat will be made available upon request and 
prepayment of the reproduction fee of $2.75 per copy.

    Dated: March 3, 1997.
Stephen G. Kopach,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor.
[FR Doc. 97-6061 Filed 3-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 46 (Monday, March 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10855]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5952]



[[Page 10855]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
    Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement, 62 FR 9430, 
Monday, March 3, 1997.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF MEETING: 2:00 p.m. (Eastern 
Time), Tuesday, March 11, 1997.

CHANGE IN THE MEETING:

Closed Session

    The closed session of the meeting has been canceled.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Frances M. Hart, Executive 
Officer, on (202) 663-4070.

    Dated: March, 5 1997.

    This Notice Issued March 5, 1997.
Frances M. Hart,
Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 97-5952 Filed 3-5-97; 4:59 pm]
BILLING CODE 6750-06-M
1 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont 

____________________ 

NO. 09-14-00144-CR 

NO. 09-14-00145-CR 

NO. 09-14-00146-CR 

NO. 09-14-00147-CR 

____________________ 

BLAZE DANIEL HICKS, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

_______________________________________________________ ______________ 

On Appeal from the County Court 

Hardin County, Texas 

Trial Cause Nos. 64136, 65507, 65508, and 65509 

________________________________________________________ _____________ 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Blaze Daniel Hicks has filed a motion to dismiss his appeals. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.2. A request to dismiss the appeal is signed by appellant personally and 

joined by counsel of record. No opinion has issued in these appeals. The motion is 

granted, and the appeals are therefore dismissed. 

APPEALS DISMISSED. 
2 

 

 

 ________________________________ 

 CHARLES KREGER 

 Justice 

 

Submitted on November 10, 2014 

Opinion Delivered November 12, 2014 

Do Not Publish 

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
#### IN RE: P.R.M., Appeal of: S.M.M., mother

533 WDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/29/2017

O.A. No. 52 of 2016

(Butler)

Affirmed
EX-10.28



 Exhibit 10.28 

[Letterhead] 
 December 7,
2012 
 Curtis S. Lane 
 623 Fifth Avenue, 15th Floor 
 New York, NY 10022 

Dear Curtis: 
 We would like to set forth the
terms of your compensation as a director on the board of directors (the “Board”) of Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“SCA”), and such other subsidiaries of SCA as the Managing
Member of ASC Acquisition LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Parent”), may reasonably request from time to time. The terms of this letter agreement (this “Agreement”) will be effective as of
July 1, 2012 (the “Effective Date”) and will supersede and replace any existing director compensation arrangements between the parties, including that certain letter agreement dated April 14, 2008, as of the Effective
Date. 
  

	 	I.	Annual Compensation. 

 You will receive (a) an annual cash retainer of
$50,000 (the “Retainer”), payable in equal quarterly installments of $12,500 in arrears within 30 days after the end of each quarter of service (if you serve part of a quarter, the payment will be prorated based on the number of
weeks in the quarter served and paid within 30 days of the termination of your service), and (b) $30,000 in the form of restricted stock units (the “RSUs”) of the Parent, pursuant to a Restricted Equity Unit Grant Agreement in
the form attached hereto. The initial RSU grant will occur as soon as practicable after the date hereof and will be effective for purposes of vesting as of July 1, 2012. Thereafter you shall receive $30,000 in the form of RSUs of the Parent on
or about each anniversary of July 1, subject to your continuing to serve on the Board on each such anniversary. The RSUs will vest ratably over a two-year period (i.e., 50% vested 12 months after the grant and 100% vested 24 months after the
grant), subject to your continuing to serve on the Board through such date. 
  

	 	II.	Attendance at Board Meetings; Per Meeting Fee 

 You will be expected to use your
reasonable best efforts to attend all Board meetings, and will be expected to attend a minimum of three quarterly Board meetings each year in person. Otherwise, you may attend such meeting by telephonic or other electronic means. Reasonable expenses
actually incurred by you in traveling to the Board Meetings shall be reimbursed by SCA upon presentation of such documentation as SCA may reasonably request. 








	 	III.	Reelection to the Board 

 Your continued service on the Board will be subject in
all respects to the provisions of the limited liability agreements of each of SCA and the Parent. 
  

					
	Sincerely,
	
	ASC ACQUISITION LLC, sole member of Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC
	By: TPG Partners V, L.P., its Managing Member
	By: TPG GenPar V, L.P., its general partner
	By: TPG Advisors V, Inc., its general partner
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Todd Sisitsky

		 	Name:	 	Todd Sisitsky
		 	Title:	 	Vice President


  

			
	ACCEPTED:
	
	 /s/ Curtis S. Lane

	Curtis S. Lane
		
	Date:	 	 1/2/13
<PAGE>


Exhibit 99.2

                   CERTIFICATE OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2002 (the "Periodic Report"), I, Charles L. Hall, Vice
President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of Equistar Chemicals, LP,
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 Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m or
     78o(d)); and

(2)  the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     Equistar Chemicals, LP.

Date: March 11, 2003       /s/ CHARLES L. HALL
                         -------------------------------------------------------
                         Charles L. Hall
                         Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer
                         (Principal Financial Officer)
# C_2022340EN.01002201.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/22

---

Appeal brought on 5 July 2022 by Leon Leonard Johan Veen against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2022 in Case T-436/21 Veen v Europol

(Case C-444/22 P)

(2022/C 340/29)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Appellant: Leon Leonard Johan Veen (represented by: M. Mandzák, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;

| — | Refer the case back to the General Court for further proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the case back to the General Court for further proceedings;

| — | Declare that the General Court must rule as to the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the General Court must rule as to the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal in its entirety is made up of four grounds of appeal. The General Court erred in its legal assessment of the case and misapplied substantive law, in particularly so far as concerns the defendant’s liability for harm and its obligation to process personal data in the context of cross-checks. The General Court also incorrectly found that there was a lack of a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the harmful event, and gave inadequate reasons for the judgment under appeal.

---
#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Jose ORTIZ, Petitioner

No. 407 EAL 2017

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

January 9, 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.
No. 11-10494.

#### DeSue *v.*Florida.

Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.