alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### NUMBER 13 - 1 9 - 00 421 - CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF G . A. L., A CHILD

____________________________________________________________ On a ppeal from the 148th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________ 

## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa Appellant, Gonzalo Conde Leal , appeal s the trial court’s order in a suit affecting the parent

- child relationship entered by the 148th District Court of Nueces County, Texas in cause number 2019

- FAM

- 3070

- A . On August 30, 2019 , the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the notice of appeal failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5( d ) , 9.5(e), 25.1(d),(e)

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 9. 5(e) , 25.1(d),(e). The Clerk directed appellant to file an amended notice of appeal with the district clerk's office within 30 days from the date of that notice. On October 2, 2019 , the Clerk notified appellant2 that the defect had not been corrected and warned appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect w as not cured within ten days. Appellant has not responded to the notice from the Clerk or corrected the defect. On September 16, 2019 , the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that he was delinquent in remitting a $ 205 .00 filing fee. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal if the filing fee was not paid within ten days from the date of receipt of this letter. See id. R. 42.3(b),(c). An appella te court may dismiss a civil appeal for want of prosecution or failure to comply with a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. See id

. R. 42.3(b),(c). Appellant has failed to respond to this Court ’ s notices and has failed to pay the filing fee. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a notice from the Court. See id.

LETICIA HINOJOSA Justice

D elivered and filed the 14th day of November, 2019.
No. 12-6036.

#### Owens *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
EXHIBIT
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Tank Sports, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-KSB for the period ended February 28, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jing Jing Long, in
      my
      capacity as Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that:





The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
      June 27, 2007




/s/
      Jing Jing Long


Jing
      Jing
      Long


Principal
      Accounting Officer
S95A0909.

#### BAKER v. THE STATE.

(458 SE2d 850)

Hunstein, Justice.

Eric Bernard Baker was found guilty of felony murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime.1 He appeals, and we affirm.

1. After reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the jury’s determination of guilt, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

2. Baker’s remaining enumerations of error are without merit.2

*573Decided July 14, 1995.

*Edith M. Edwards,*for appellant.

*H. Lamar Cole, District Attorney, Bradford M. Shealy, Assistant District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Susan V. Boleyn, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richard J. Warren, Assistant Attorney General,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Benham, C. J., Fletcher, P. J., Sears, Carley and Thompson, JJ., concur.*

1

 The crimes occurred on February 8, 1994. Baker was found guilty of felony murder (with aggravated assault as the underlying felony) and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime on January 4, 1995, and sentenced to life in prison on the felony murder conviction and five years to run consecutively on the possession of a firearm conviction. Baker’s motion for a new trial, filed on January 17, 1995, was denied on February 23, 1995. Baker filed his notice of appeal on March 2, 1995. The appeal was docketed on March 8, 1995, and submitted for decision on briefs on May 1, 1995.

2

 Baker also contended that the evidence was insufficient to convict because Count II of the indictment alleged aggravated assault with a “handgun” as the deadly weapon whereas the only evidence of the murder weapon adduced was of a rifle and that he was denied a fair trial because of this fatal variance; that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress two statements to the police; that the court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the hearings on his motions to set bond and for a new trial had not been recorded; that the court erred by denying his motion for a directed verdict; and that the *573court erred in its instructions to the jury.
Exhibit
31.2





CERTIFICATIONS





I, Raymond Kasel, certify that:





1.   I have reviewed the report being filed on Form 10-K by Recycle Tech, Inc.;





2.   Based on my knowledge, the 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 under which such statements  were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by the report;





3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in the report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of Recycle Tech, Inc. as of, and for, the periods presented in the report;





4.   I and the other certifying officer are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as such term is defined in Regulation 13a-14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) for Recycle Tech, Inc. and have:





i.   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to Recycle Tech, Inc. including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which the periodic reports are being prepared;





ii.  Evaluated the effectiveness of Recycle Tech, Inc..'s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days  prior to the filing date of the report ("Evaluation Date"); and





iii. Presented in the report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;





5.   I and the other certifying officer have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Recycle Tech, Inc. auditors and the audit committee of the board of directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent function):





i.   All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect Recycle Tech, Inc.'s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for Recycle Tech, Inc.'s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls;
and





ii.  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the issuer's internal controls; and





6.   I and the other certifying officer have indicated in the report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies
and material weaknesses.








Date:September 11, 2009


/s/
Raymond Kasel


Raymond Kasel,


Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 56 (Monday, March 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 13899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7333]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-213]


Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company; Haddam Neck Plant; 
Notice of Withdrawal of Application for Amendment to Facility Operating 
License

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted 
the request of the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, et al. (the 
licensee) to withdraw its April 22, 1996, application for a proposed 
amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-61 for the Haddam Neck 
Plant, located in Middlesex County, Connecticut.
    The proposed amendment would have revised the overload cutoff limit 
on the manipulator crane inside the containment.
    The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on June 19, 
1996 (61 FR 31175). However, by letter dated February 18, 1997, the 
licensee withdrew the proposed change.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the amendment 
application dated April 22, 1996, and the licensee's letter dated 
February 18, 1997, which withdrew the license amendment application. 
The above documents are available for public inspection at the 
Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, 
NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document room located at 
the Russell Library, 123 Broad Street, Middletown, Connecticut 06457.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of March 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stephen Dembek,
Project Manager, Special Projects Office--Licensing Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-7333 Filed 3-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
# mecs18
EXHIBIT 21   List of Subsidiaries1: State or Country of Organization:   CBS Personnel Holdings, Inc.2 DelawareVenturi Staffing Partners, Inc. DelawareVenturi Texas Staffing Partners, LP TexasKilgore Group, Inc. South CarolinaCompass CS (Southeast), Inc. South CarolinaCBS Acquisition I Corp. DelawareEmployee Management Services III, Inc. FloridaRobert Lee Brown, Inc. OhioEmployee Management Services II, Inc. OhioCBS Personnel Services, LLC3 OhioCBS Executive Search, LLC4 Ohio   Anodyne Medical Device5 DelawareAMF Support Services CaliforniaSenTech Medical Systems FloridaAnatomic Concepts Delaware   Silvue Technologies Group, Inc. 6 DelawareSDC Technologies, Inc. DelawareSDC Coatings, Inc. DelawareSDC Technologies DelawareApplied Hardcoatings Technologies, Inc. DelawareSDC Asia Tech, Ltd. United Kingdom   Compass AC Holdings7 DelawareAdvanced Circuits Colorado   Halo Lee Wayne LLC8 DelawareHalo Holding Corporation DelawareHalo Branded Solutions, Inc. Delaware   Aeroglide Holdings, Inc.9 DelawareAeroglide Corporation North CarolinaThe National Drying Machinery Company PennsylvaniaAeroglide International, LLC North CarolinaAeroglide Asia Pacific SDN. BHD. Malaysia **1** Except as noted above, the equity of each subsidiary entity and its subsidiaries iswholly-owned (100%) **2** 96.14% owned by Compass Group Diversified Holdings LLC **3** 99% owned by Robert Lee Brown, Inc. and 1% owned by Employee Management Services II, Inc. **4** 99% owned by Robert Lee Brown, Inc. and 1% owned by Employee Management Services II, Inc. **5** 47.3% owned by Compass Group Diversified Holdings LLC **6** 72.7% owned by Compass Group Diversified Holdings LLC **7** 70.2% owned by Compass Group Diversified Holdings LLC **8** 73.6% owned by Compass Group Diversified Holdings LLC **9** 89.1% owned by Compass Group Diversified Holdings LLC
No. 12-6103.

#### Valdez Valenzuela *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT (21)

                              THE ROWE COMPANIES
                         AND WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARIES

                             LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

The Company has eight wholly-owned subsidiaries:

   (1)  Rowe Furniture, Inc., a Virginia Corporation
   (2)  Rowe Properties, Inc., a California Corporation
   (3)  Home Elements,  Inc., a Virginia Corporation
   (4)  Rowe Worldwide, Inc., a US Virgin Islands Corporation
   (5)  The Wexford Collection, Inc., a California Corporation
   (6)  Rowe Diversified, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
   (7)  The Mitchell Gold Company, a North Carolina Corporation
   (8)  Storehouse, Inc., a Georgia Corporation
|                                                                                              
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                
|View History:                                                                                 
|                                                                                              
|Percent of Commercial Natural Gas Deliveries in California Represented by the Price  (Percent)
|                                                                                              
|                                                                                              
|Percent of Commercial Natural Gas Deliveries in California Represented by the Price  (Percent)
|                                                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 86.6   | 77.8   | 74.5   | 76.9   | 48.8   | 52.1   | 54.9   | 50.4   | 48.7   | 57.1  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 57.1   | 62.6   | 68.6   | 70.3   | 71.2   | 68.7   | 64.7   | 60.7   | 56.7   | 54.9  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 54.1   | 54.3   | 50.0   | 49.9   | 48.4   | 49.9   | 51.1   | 52.4   | 51.3   | 52.9  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 50.4   | 53.3   | 54.2   | NA     |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
EXHIBIT 10.8


                               CORPORATE ROAD SHOW

                                    AGREEMENT

           AGREEMENT made this ___11th__day of___February___2003, by and between
Corporate Roadshow.com, Inc. A New York corporation (hereinafter referred to as
"CRS") and Dynamic Distribution Corp. 1412 Coney Island Av. Brooklyn, N.Y. 11230
(hereinafter referred to as "DDC").


                                   WITNESSTH:


WHEREAS, CRS is desirous of having DDC help in its June 1, 2002 Private
Placement and WHEREAS DDC agrees to advise, consult and introduce strategic
alliances to CRS to help close the placement.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants herein set
forth it is agreed as follows:

1.         CRS will pay DDC a ten percent fee in connection with clients DDC
           introduces directly to CRS that result in monies raised for the June
           1, 2002 offering.
2.         DDC agrees to introduce corporate clients to CRS for the production
           of the CRS pilot show as well as consult and advise on certain
           business matters, for these services CRS will pay DDC a five percent
           finder fee when companies sign on with CRS.
3.         CRS and DDC agree that DDC would return any fee CRS paid if CRS had
           to return any fee to Investors introduced by DDC. 4. This Agreement
           shall be in effect for one year. 5. This Agreement shall be construed
           according to the laws of the State of New York.




      Mitchell  Markowitz                                Frank Ferraro
Dynamic Distribution Corp. President           Corporate Roadshow Inc. President



           80 Orville Drive Suite 100 Bohemia, N.Y. 11716 631-244-1555







<PAGE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24
- 6179

MICHAEL ANDREW PETERSON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. CHADWICK DOTSON , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Arenda L. Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 2:23

- cv - 00346

- AWA

- RJK )

Submitted : August 22, 2024 Decided: August 26, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Michael Andrew Peterson , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6179 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Michael Andrew Peterson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Peterson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012) (explaining that § 2254 petition s are subject to one

- year statute of limitations, running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When , as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez , 565 U.S. at 140

- 41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Peterson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argumen t would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 24-6179 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
# Table 2.3

# RSE 2.3

# Microsoft_Word_Document1.docx

# image1.emf

# Microsoft_Word_Document2.docx

# image2.emf
Order entered October

## /8, 2012

In The 

### QI:ourt of**appeal~** 

## jfiftb**1Jli~trirt** 

### of**~exa~** 

## at**11Balla~** No. 05-12-01245-CR EDWARD CHIARINI, Appellant 

## v. THE STATE OFTEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Criminal CourtNo. 1 Dallas County,Texas Trial Court Cause No. Mll-51889 

### ORDER The Court GRANTS court reporter Vicki L. Tuck's October 15, 2012 motion for extension oftime to file the reporter's record. We ORDERMs. Tuck to file the reporter's record within THIRTY DAYS from the date ofthis order. We ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file the clerk's record within FIFIEEN DAYS from the date ofthis order.

We ORDER the Honorable Dan Patterson, presidingjudge ofCounty Criminal court No. 1, to file a 25.2(d) certification of appellant's right to appeal that is complete within FIFTEEN DAYS from the date ofthis order.We ORDER the Clerk of the Court to send a copy ofthis order to Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk, the trial court, and counsel for all parties.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2019050EN.01001101.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 8.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 50/11 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9264 — The Carlyle Group/StandardAero)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 50/08)

1.

On 31 January 2019, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2019050EN.01001101-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | The Carlyle Group L.P. (US), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | StandardAero Holding Corp. (US, ‘StandardAero’), currently controlled by Veritas Capital (US). |

The Carlyle Group acquires – indirectly through its wholly-owned subsidiary Dynasty Acquisition Co., Inc. – within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of StandardAero.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   for The Carlyle Group L.P.: a global alternative asset manager,

—   for StandardAero: an independent provider of maintenance, repair and overhaul (‘MRO’) services to engine original equipment manufacturers (‘OEMs’), and to business aviation, commercial aviation, military and industrial power owners and operators.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2019050EN.01001101-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9264 — The Carlyle Group/StandardAero

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| |
| --- |
| Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| Fax +32 22964301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2019050EN.01001101-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2019050EN.01001101-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---