alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amir MANSOUR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4568

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

August 28, 2009

Mr. David L. Plaut

Hanna & Plaut, LLP

106 East 6th Street, Suite 600

Austin, TX 78701

Mr. Daniel F. Horne

Stone & Horne, L.L.P.

P. O. Box 3962

Corpus Christi, TX 78463-3962

Honorable Tom Greenwell

319th District Court

901 Leopard Street

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

RE:Case Number:  08-0742

Court of Appeals Number:  13-08-00129-CV

Trial Court Number:  06-01375-G

Style:IN RE  LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued a Per Curiam Opinion the above-referenced cause.  You may obtain a copy of the opinion at: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/recent.asp.  If you would like the opinion by email, please contact Claudia Jenks at claudia.jenks@courts.state.tx.us or call (512)463-1312 ext. 41367.

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Jessica Hamby, Deputy Clerk

**Case No. 08-0742Page 1**
NO. 07-02-0262-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

AUGUST 9, 2002

______________________________

JOSEPH LEE MAXWELL, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 31ST DISTRICT COURT OF LIPSCOMB COUNTY;

NO. TRN 004 078 9403; HONORABLE STEVEN R. EMMERT, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

Appellant Joseph Lee Maxwell appeals from his conviction for aggravated robbery.

We dismiss for want of jurisdiction. 

Appellant was indicted in Lipscomb County for aggravated robbery. On May 6,

2002, he was found guilty by a jury. The jury assessed punishment at confinement for five

years and a fine of $5000. Punishment was imposed on May 6, 2002. 
1Further reference to a rule of appellate procedure will be by reference to “TRAP

____.”

2

On June 12, 2002, appellant filed a notice of appeal. He did not file a motion for

new trial. 

On July 22, 2002, appellant filed a Motion to Suspend Operation of TEX. R. APP. P.

26.2(a)(1),1

 or alternatively to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal. 

In a criminal case, appeal is perfected by timely filing a notice of appeal. See TRAP

25.2(a). The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the day sentence is

imposed or after the day the trial court enters an appealable order, unless a timely motion

for new trial is filed. See TRAP 26.2(a). A motion for new trial may be filed by a criminal

defendant no later than 30 days after the date sentence is imposed in open court. See

TRAP 21.4(a). The time for filing a notice of appeal may be extended for 15 days under

certain circumstances. See TRAP 26.3. If the time for filing a notice of appeal is to be

extended, both a notice of appeal and a motion for extension of time which complies with

TRAP 10.5(b) must be filed within the 15 day period. See TRAP 26.3; Olivo v. State, 918

S.W.2d 519, 523-25 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). If either the notice of appeal or the motion for

extension of time is not filed within the 15 day period prescribed by TRAP 26.3, the

appellate court is without jurisdiction and can take no action other than to dismiss the

appeal for want of jurisdiction. See id. at 523.

Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed later than 30 days after sentence was

imposed, but within the 15 day period provided by TRAP 26.3. However, appellant’s
3

motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal was not filed within the 15 day period.

Accordingly, this court does not have jurisdiction over the appeal, does not have jurisdiction

to rule on appellant’s motion, and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. See

Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 523. 

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TRAP 39.8, 40.2, 43.2. 

Phil Johnson

 Justice

Do not publish.
HTML Editor


Exhibit 10.3


 


SCHEDULE OF PARTIES TO


 


MANAGEMENT AND EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


Parties to current form of amended and restated management agreement:


 


 


 


	 
	 	 	 
	
			Name

				 	
			Title

			
	
			David W. Huml

				 	
			President and Chief Executive Officer

			
	
			Carol E. McKnight

				 	
			Senior Vice President, Chief Administrative Officer

			
	
			Richard H. Zay

				 	
			Senior Vice President, Chief Commercial Officer
**Exhibit 23.9**

 

**CONSENT OF****EPOCH RESOURCES (PTY)****LTD****.******

 

The undersigned hereby consents to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-132294, No. 333-147214, No. 333-164982, No. 333-173881, No. 333-179827, No. 333-186917, No. 333-193061 and 333-201793) of NextSource Materials Inc., of references to the undersigned’s name and Epoch Resources (Pty) Ltd.’s name and to the use of the scientific and technical information, including any reserve or resource estimates, from the technical report titled “Molo Feasibility Study - National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report on the Molo Graphite Project located near the Village of Fotadrevo in the Province of Toliara, Madagascar” dated effective July 13, 2017 (the “Technical Information”), including extracts from or summaries of the Technical Information that are contained in the annual report on Form 10-K of NextSource Materials Inc.

 

 

October 20, 2017

 

Epoch Resources (Pty) Ltd.

 

 

| /S/ G. Pappagiorgio                    |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                   |   |
| Name: G. Pappagiorgio

Title: Director |   |
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of Winland Electronics, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Lorin E. Krueger,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Dated: May 13, 2003

| |  |                                         
| |  | ----------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Lorin E. Krueger                    
| |  |                                         
| |  | Lorin E. Krueger
Chief Executive Officer

19
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 5 (Thursday, January 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-86]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Tehama County Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Tehama County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet 
in Red Bluff, California. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) 
Introductions, (2) Report from Designated Federal Official, (3) Public 
Comment, (4) 2009 Meeting Schedule, (5) Report on Media Releases, (6) 
General Discussion, (7) Next Agenda.

DATES: The meeting will be held on February 12, 2009 from 9 a.m. and 
end at approximately 12 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Lincoln Street School, Pine 
Room, 1135 Lincoln Street, Red Bluff, CA. Individuals wishing to speak 
or propose agenda items must send their names and proposals to Eduardo 
Olmedo, DFO, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95988.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eduardo Olmedo, Committee Coordinator, 
USDA, Mendocino National Forest, Grindstone Ranger District, 825 N. 
Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95988. (530) 934-3316; E-Mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#75101a191810111a3513065b1310115b0006"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="87e2e8ebeae2e3e8c7e1f4a9e1e2e3a9f2f4">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Committee 
discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. 
However, persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of the 
Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before 
or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and 
individuals who made written requests by February 9, 2009 will have the 
opportunity to address the Committee at those sessions.

    Dated: December 23, 2008.
Eduardo Olmedo,
Designated Federal Official.
 [FR Doc. E9-86 Filed 1-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         3,075,827
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,579,518
<ALLOWANCES>                                     157,187
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,509,328
<PP&E>                                        69,350,073
<DEPRECIATION>                                31,084,653
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                43,821,702
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,797,667
<BONDS>                                       13,100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                       97,450
<COMMON>                                         203,319
<OTHER-SE>                                    27,623,266
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  43,821,702
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              10,133,872
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  6,193,322
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  82,087
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               935,242
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,586,819
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,586,819
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,123,932
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .105
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       .103



</TABLE>
A00A1549.

#### McLEOD v. THE STATE.

(538 SE2d 759)

Miller, Judge.

Wanda Braswell McLeod was tried before a jury and found guilty of aggravated assault, felony obstruction of a law enforcement officer, and misdemeanor disorderly conduct. On appeal, she contends the evidence is insufficient to sustain her felony convictions. We affirm.

1. On appeal from a criminal conviction, the evidence must be construed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict of guilt, and the presumption of innocence no longer applies.1 An appellate court does not weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses but only determines whether the evidence is sufficient under the standard of *Jackson v. Virginia.**2***“The testimony of a single witness is generally sufficient to establish a fact.”3 Conflicts in the testimony of *669the witnesses, including the State’s witnesses, are a matter of credibility for the jury to resolve. So long as there is some competent evidence, even though contradicted, to support each element of the State’s case, the jury’s verdict will be upheld.4

Decided August 24, 2000.

*Straughan & Straughan, Mark W. Straughan,*for appellant.

*Timothy G. Vaughn, District Attorney, Russell P. Spivey, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

2. A person commits felony obstruction when he knowingly and wilfully resists, obstructs, or opposes any law enforcement officer in the lawful discharge of his duties “by offering or doing violence to the person of such officer. . . .”5 The testimony of Dodge County Deputy Sheriff Ed White that McLeod resisted his initial attempt to arrest her for disorderly conduct by cursing and kicking him in the groin area is sufficient under the standard of *Jackson v.*Virginia6 that McLeod is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of felony obstruction of a law enforcement officer as alleged in Count 2 of the indictment.7

3. A person commits aggravated assault by committing an assault “[w]ith a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to . . . result in serious bodily injury.”8 An axe or a hatchet, when used offensively, is capable of serious bodily injury.9 Deputy White’s testimony that McLeod chased after her fleeing husband with an axe raised over her head is sufficient to authorize the jury’s verdict that she is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the aggravated assault alleged in Count 1 of the indictment.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pope, P. J., and Mikell, J., concur.*

1

*Bohannon v. State,*208 Ga. App. 576 (1) (431 SE2d 149) (1993).

2

443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

3

 OCGA § 24-4-8.

4

*Ringo v. State,*236 Ga. App. 38, 39 (510 SE2d 893) (1999).

5

 OCGA § 16-10-24 (b).

6

 Supra.

7

*Jones v. State,*242 Ga. App. 357, 358-359 (1) (529 SE2d 644) (2000). Accord *Duitsman v. State,*212 Ga. App. 348 (1) (441 SE2d 888) (1994) (scuffling with and kicking arresting officers is sufficient).

8

 OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (2).

9

 See, e.g., *Nixon v. State,*101 Ga. 574, 577 (28 SE 971) (1897); *James v. State,*68 Ga. App. 765, 767 (1) (b) (24 SE2d 149) (1943).
Kenneth BALDWIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2427

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 6, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2568 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2568

   To suspend temporarily the duty on certain mechanics' work gloves.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 7, 2012

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on certain mechanics' work gloves.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN MECHANICS' WORK GLOVES.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended--
            (1) by striking heading 9902.14.05; and
            (2) by inserting in numerical sequence the following new 
        heading:

``     9902.14.05        Mechanics' work     Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          gloves, valued                                                    12/31/2015
                          over $7.22 per
                          pair (provided
                          for in subheading
                          6216.00.58)......

    (b) Amendment to U.S. Note.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended 
by striking the first U.S. Note 18 to such subchapter and inserting 
after U.S. Note 19 the following new U.S. Note:
    ``20. For purposes of heading 9902.14.05, the term `mechanics' work 
gloves' means gloves having the following characteristics: imitation 
leather palms and fingers with fourchettes; backs comprising either one 
layer of synthetic knitted fabric or three layers with the outer layer 
of synthetic knitted fabric, the center layer of foam and the inner 
layer of tricot fabric.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section apply to 
goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 
the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
The Attorney General of Texas 

December 22, 1982 SC6 LQ-Q4-5% 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General 

Supreme Court Building 

P. 0. BOX 12548 

Austin. TX. 70711. 2546 

5121475-2501 

T&Y 9101674.1367 

Telecopier 5121475-0266 

1607 Main St., Suite 1400 

Dallas. TX. 75201-4709 

2141742.6944 

4624 Alberta Ave.. Suite 160 

El Paso, TX. 79905.2793 

9151533-3464 

1220 Dallas Ave., Suite 202 

Houston, TX. 77002.6966 

7131650.0666 

Mr. Steve Haley 

General Counsel 

Texas Department of Agriculture 

P. 0. Box 12847 

Austin, Texas 78711 

Opinion No. m-528 

Re: Applicability of Hotel 

Occupancy Tax imposed by 

chapter 156 of the Tax Code 

to state employees traveling 

on state business 

Dear Mr. Haley: 

You have requested our opinion on the following question relating 

to the Hotel Occupancy Tax: 

Is a state official or state employee traveling at 

state expense on the official business of a state 

agency exempt from the payment of the Hotel 

Occupancy Tax imposed by chapter 156 of the Texas 

Tax Code? 

606 Broadway, Suite 312 

Lubbock, TX. 79401-3479 

6061747.5236 

Our answer is that no such exemption exists. In Attorney General 

Opinion WW-738 (1959) this office held that the Hotel Occupancy Tax 

applies to officers and employees of the Federal Reserve Bank while 

traveling on official business of the bank. 

4309 N. Tenth. Suite 6 

McAllen, TX. 76501.1665 

5121662.4547 

200 Main Plaza. Suite 400 

San Antonio. TX. 76205.2797 

5121225-4191 

A” Equal Opportunityi 

Affirmative Action Employer 

The tax is imposed upon the person who contracts for the space to 

be used. Tax Code 5156.051. The exceptions to the tax apply only to 

permanent residents and religious, charitable, or educational 

organizations. Tax Code §§156.101-.102. Under these code provisions 

neither a state agency nor an employee of a state agency is exempt. 

There is no constitutional prohibition against the legislature levying 

an excise tax to be paid by the state and its agencies. Attorney 

General Opinion WW-1502 (1962) determined that motor fuel purchased by 

the state for use of the Texas National Guard while on active state 

duty under command of the governor of Texas would be subject to the 

motor fuel excise tax imposed by chapter 9 of Title 122A, TaxationGeneral. 

We therefore conclude that there is no exemption from the Hotel 

Occupancy Tax accorded to an official of a state agency or employee of 

a state agency contracting for space. 

p. 1913 
Mr. Steve Haley - Page 2 (MN-528) 

sunnARY 

The Hotel Occupancy Tax applies to a state 

official or state employee traveling at state 

expense on the official business of a state 

agency. 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General of Texas 

JOHN W. FAINTER, JR. 

First Assistant Attorney General 

RICHARD E. GRAY III 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

Prepared by Bill Kimbrough 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Susan L. Garrison, Chairman 

Jon Bible 

Rick Gilpin 

Patricia Hinojosa 

Bill Kimbrough 

Jim Moellinger 

Bruce Youngblood 

p, 1914
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Connected Media Technologies, Inc., a
      Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
      31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),
      Jeffrey W. Sass, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Mark
      Mayo, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby
      certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350),
      that to his knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





/s/
                Jeffrey W. SassJeffrey
                W. Sass
              President
                and Chief Executive Officer
              April
                13, 2007





/s/ Mark
                MayoMark
                Mayo
              Chief
                Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer
              April
                13, 2007





[A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Connected Media Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Connected Media
      Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or
      its staff upon request.]
Benjamin K. BISHOP, DOC #C10150, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D15-4380

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2008171EN.01003801.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/38

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 11 April 2008 — Cyprus v Commission

(Joined Cases T-54/08 R, T-87/08 R, T-88/08 R, T-91/08 R, T-92/08 R and T-93/08 R)

(Applications for interim relief - Procurement notices for contracts to encourage economic development in the northern part of Cyprus - Applications for suspension of operation of the notices - No urgency)

(2008/C 171/71)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: P. Kliridis, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. van Nuffel and I. Zervas, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Applications for suspension of the operation of a number of procurement notices issued by the Commission for the encouragement of economic development in the northern part of Cyprus, in the fields of energy, the environment, agriculture, telecommunications, education and crop management and irrigation.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Cases T-54/08 R, T-87/08 R, T-88/08 R, T-91/08 R, T-92/08 R and T 93/08 R are joined for the purposes of this order. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Cases T-54/08 R, T-87/08 R, T-88/08 R, T-91/08 R, T-92/08 R and T 93/08 R are joined for the purposes of this order.

| 2. | The applications for interim relief are dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applications for interim relief are dismissed.

| 3. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Costs are reserved.

---
Lisa Louise WILLIAMS v. Mark Alan WILLIAMS

2150788

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.