alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued April 1, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-12-01117-CR

———————————

LINDA DARNICE DORSEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1338492

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Linda Darnice Dorsey, pleaded guilty to the offense of murder. 

See TEX. PENAL CODE. ANN. § 19.02 (West 2011). After a hearing, the trial court 

found appellant guilty and sentenced her to life imprisonment. See TEX. PENAL 

CODE ANN. § 12.32(a) (West 2011). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
2

Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, 

along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal 

is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 

1396 (1967). 

Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional 

evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal 

authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 

573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has 

thoroughly reviewed the record and he is unable to advance any grounds of error 

that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. 

State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we 

conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds 

for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 

1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full 

examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 

300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine 

whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing 

court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We 
3

note that an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds 

for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to 

withdraw.* Attorney Kurt Wentz must immediately send appellant the required 

notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P.

6.5(c).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Huddle.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

 

* Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal 

and that she may, on her own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1997).
**EXHIBIT 12.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Michael Cookson, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Corgi International Limited;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the company and have:          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;          (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and     5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect thecompany’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 asignificant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.   /s/ Michael Cookson   Michael Cookson
2017-0233.

#### State v. Staats.

Stark App. No. 2014 CA 00197, 2016-Ohio-4650. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
#### Com. v. Levenberg 17

05/18/2016

658 EAL (2015)

17

. Justice DONOHUE did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 107
# EUR-Lex - 32010M5938 - EN

*|*

# 32010M5938

**Commission Decision of 18/08/2010 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No COMP/M.5938 - NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION / DIMENSION DATA HOLDINGS PLC) according to Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

(.PICT.) |EUROPEAN COMMISSION |

Brussels , 18/08/2010

SG-Greffe(2010) D/12734

C(2010) 5840

PUBLIC VERSION

MERGER PROCEDURE ARTICLE 6(1)(b) DECISION

SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE

To the notifying party:

Dear Madam(s) and/or Sir(s),

Subject: Case No COMP/M.5938 - NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION/ DIMENSION DATA HOLDINGS PLC Notification of 19.07.2010 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [1] Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 204, 28.07.2010, p.13

1. On 19.07.2010, the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which the undertaking Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (‘NTT’, Japan) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Dimension Data Holdings Plc (‘Dimension Data’, South Africa) by way of public bid announced on 15 July 2010.

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

- for NTT: IT services and global telecommunications services to customers outside Japan, and regional telecommunications services in Japan,

- for Dimension Data: IT services.

3. After examination of the notification, the European Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and of paragraph 5(c) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [2] .

4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

For the Commission, (Signed) Alexander ITALIANER Director General

[1]OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 ("the Merger Regulation"). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU") has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of "Community" by "Union" and "common market" by "internal market". The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.

[2] OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.
#### New York State United Teachers v State of New York

3d Dept: 140 AD3d 90

denied
# DLA Distribution San Diego conducts training on active shooter response

/ Published Feb. 2, 2021
SAN DIEGO, Calif., 
Defense Logistics Agency Distribution, San Diego, California hosted Naval Base San Diego Police Department officers Dec. 16, 2020 to participate in training to simulate an active shooter event.

The training was intended to provide DDDC employees as well as NBSD officers an opportunity to experience in person training regarding active shooter scenarios that would act as an enhancement to standard online training courses.

“To table top or listen to a PowerPoint about an active shooter is good, but actually going through one and seeing how law enforcement reacts is even better,” said Marcus Palamara, security officer, DDDC. “Plus, it opens everyone’s eyes and gets them thinking about what they need to do, their surrounding area and what to expect from law enforcement.”

                Defense Logistics Agency Distribution San Diego, California, hosted Naval Base San Diego Base Police Department for an active shooter drill Dec.16, 2020. Photo by Marcus Palamara.                            DLA Distribution San Diego conducts training on active shooter response                            Defense Logistics Agency Distribution San Diego, California, hosted Naval Base San Diego Base Police Department for an active shooter drill Dec.16, 2020. Photo by Marcus Palamara.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Marcus PalamaraVIRIN: 210128-D-D0441-0002
2016-1369.

#### State v. Amegatcher.

Delaware App. No. 15 CAC 10 0081, 2016-Ohio-5198. Reported at 148 Ohio St.3d 1443, 2017-Ohio-1427, 72 N.E.3d 657. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
#### Edward S. King, *Appellant,*vs. Bertha L. King, *Appellee.*

145 So. 186.

Special Division A.

Decision filed December 8, 1932.

Petition for rehearing denied January 9, 1933.

*L. D. Martin*for Appellant;

*Austin L. Richardson*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
# DLA Headquarters employees celebrate Army’s birthday

/ Published June 8, 2022
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
Employees celebrated the Army’s 247th birthday June 7 in the McNamara Headquarters Complex auditorium. Army Command Sgt. Maj. Tomeka O’Neal, Defense Logistics Agency senior enlisted leader, led the event.

It was the first in-person service birthday event held since the pandemic began.

On June 14, 1775, the Second Continental Congress authorized the formation of 10 companies from Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia to march to Boston to support the war against England for independence, making the Army one year older than the Declaration of Independence and 13 years older than the Constitution.

“Our Army has protected the American people fighting on domestic and foreign soil for nearly two-and-a-half centuries,” O’Neal said. “Its members, past and present, can be justifiably proud of the Army’s achievements.”

About 121,000 U.S. soldiers are currently deployed to 140 countries.

Colin Williams, DLA historian, gave an overview of Army history, focusing on George Washington. He said the then-commander-in-chief remained faithful to Congress over eight and a half years and relayed the story of how he quelled the March 1783 Newburgh Conspiracy.

“Washington’s actions established a tradition of subordination to political authority the soldiers, noncommissioned officers, warrant officers, commissioned officers and civilians of the army have followed to the current day,” he said.

As tradition dictates, the oldest and youngest soldiers present – Army Lt. Col. Alan M. Irizarry, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall garrison chaplain, and Army Sgt. Capri A. Brown from DLA Protocol – cut the birthday cake.  

O’Neal concluded with a message to the HQC workforce.

“The support of the Department of Defense civilian workforce for the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Guardians and Coast Guardsmen is crucial,” she said. “You have a proud legacy of participation in our nation’s collective effort to give our military services the tools they need to provide for our nation’s defense. Your commitment to excellence and steadfast support to our servicemembers and their families is vital for their operation and success.”

The 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment Army Color Guard presented the colors while the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment Fife and Drum Corps performed the National Anthem.

After the ceremony, the U.S. Army Drill Team demonstrated their skills in the cafeteria.
#### Carlos Medina, Respondent, v Biro Manufacturing Company et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[57 NYS3d 35]

*536Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered on or about October 17, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant Biro Manufacturing Company’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the strict products liability claim as against it, and denied defendant Bi-County Scale & Equipment Co., LLC’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the negligence claim as against it, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant Biro’s motion except to the extent it is predicated on a design defect theory, and to grant Bi-County’s motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint as against Bi-County.

Plaintiff was injured when the blade of a meat-cutting bandsaw he was operating at his place of employment allegedly dislodged and fell on his left hand. Plaintiff testified that the blade faced the right and that he was pushing the meat from right to left through the blade and grabbing it with his left hand from the left (non-cutting) side of the blade.

Defendant Biro, the manufacturer of the saw, failed to establish prima facie that the bandsaw was so designed as to contain adequate safeguards for protecting an operator’s left hand from the blade. Biro merely contended that the warnings on the bandsaw, including to keep hands away from the blade, were sufficient. However, “even with adequate warnings, a product may be so dangerous, and its misuse may be so foreseeable, that a factfinder employing the required risk-utility analysis . . . could reasonably conclude that the utility of the product did not outweigh the risk inherent in marketing it” *(Yun Tung Chow v Reckitt & Colman, Inc.,*17 NY3d 29, 34 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

The record demonstrates as a matter of law that any inadequacy of the warnings provided was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s accident, since plaintiff acknowledged that he did not pay attention to the warnings *(see Sosna v American Home Prods.,*298 AD2d 158 [1st Dept 2002]).

Defendant Bi-County, the servicer of the saw, cannot be held liable to plaintiff for negligent performance of its service contract *(see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs.,*98 NY2d 136 [2002]). There is no evidence pf a negligent act or omission on its part or of any connection between any service it provided and plaintiff’s accident.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31480]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15244]



[[Page 31480]]

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

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION


Office of Governmentwide Policy, Travel and Transportation Policy 
Division; Establishment of New Standard Forms

AGENCY: General Services Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Governmentwide Policy, Travel and Transportation 
Division is establishing two new forms, Standard Form 326, Semiannual 
Report Of Payments Accepted From A Non-Federal Source, and Standard 
Form 326A, Semiannual Report Of Payments Accepted From A Non-Federal 
Source--Continuation. Section 302 of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 
(Pub. L. 101-194, November 30, 1989), amended title 31, United States 
Code, requires the collection of this information.
    Since these new forms are authorized for local reproduction, you 
can obtain the camera copy for each in three ways:

From the U.S. Government Policy CD-ROM;
On the Internet. Address: http://www.gsa.gov/forms, or;
From CARM, Attn.: Barbara Williams, (202) 501-0581.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jane Groat, Travel and 
Transportation Policy Division (202) 501-4318. This contact is for 
information on completing the forms and interpreting the Act only.

DATES: Effective upon publication in the Federal Register. (June 9, 
1998).
    Dated: June 2, 1998.
Barbara M. Williams,
Deputy Standard and Optional Forms Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-15244 Filed 6-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-34-M
# Disaster response exercise held at DSCR

/ Published June 17, 2019
RICHMOND, VA, 
As part of the approved Fiscal 2019 Installation Exercise Schedule, Defense Logistics Agency Installation Management Richmond on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, conducted a table top exercise, June 13 in the DLA Aviation Operations Center. The exercise focused on response and recovery operations in the event an earthquake strikes DSCR and the surrounding areas. 

Representatives from DLA Installation Management Richmond, including police and fire, DLA Aviation’s Command Support Directorate and tenant organizations on center took part in the close to two-hour evolution. 

Bill Bullock, Installation emergency manager, Security and Emergency Services, DLA Installation Management Richmond, said the objectives of the table top exercise were to focus on validating tactics, evaluating and refining current installation-level procedures and techniques already in place in case of such an event.
#### Cigna Corp. v. Executive Risk Indem., Inc.

10/13/2015

111 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 111 A.3d 204
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 114 (Monday, June 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 32661]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15836]


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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1218-DR]


South Dakota; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of South Dakota, (FEMA-1218-DR), dated June 1, 1998, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 3, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madge Dale, Response and Recovery 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-3260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster for the State 
of South Dakota, is hereby amended to include the following areas among 
those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of June 1, 1998:

    The counties of Clark, Marshall, and Spink for Public 
Assistance.
    The county of Hanson for Individual Assistance and Categories A 
and B under the Public Assistance program.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community 
Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis 
Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression 
Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 
83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 
83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program)
Lacy E. Suiter,
Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 98-15836 Filed 6-12-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
2017-0319.

#### State v. Pleatman.

Hamilton App. No. C-160234, 2016-Ohio-7659. Appellant’s motion to consolidate denied.

Fischer and DeWine, JJ., not participating.
#### People v Cole

2d Dept: 144 AD3d 699 (Orange)

denied 3/3/17 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)