alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 15 - 00157 - CR NO. 02 - 15 - 00158 - CR

TIFFNEY LYNNE MCADOO APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 372ND DISTR ICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO S . 1247940R, 1 247941R

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appellant Tiffney Lynne McAdoo committed two offenses of theft of $1,500 to $20,000 from an elderly person for which she was sentenced in each case to five years’ confinement, probated for five years. She attempts to appeal from the judgments revoking her community supervision , sentencing her to thirty months’
confinement in each case, and ordering the sentences to run concurrently

. In

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

each case, McAdoo signed a waiver of her right to appeal the revocatio n of her community supervision. The trial court’s certifications of her right to appeal state that each case “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” and that “the defendant has waived the right of appeal. ” See Tex. R. App. P. 2 5.2(a)(2). On May 18, 2015, we notified McAdoo that these appeals may be dismissed based on the trial court’s certifications unless she or any party desiring to continue the appeals filed a response on or before May 28, 2015, showing grounds for continuin g the appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 44.3. McAdoo filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeals. 2 In accordance with the trial court’s certifications, we therefore dismiss these appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 4 3.2(f).
/s/ Sue Walker SUE WALKER JUSTICE
PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: June 18, 2015

2 McAdoo complains of the restitution that she was ordered to pay and argues that the trial co urt “went on record stating [i]t would not see k restitution in these cases.” McAdoo’s waivers, however, state that she waived her right to have a court reporter make a record of t he revocation proceedings.
EXHIBIT 32.2



INTERVIDEO, INC.



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Randall Bambrough, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the Annual Report of InterVideo, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of InterVideo, Inc.



Date: May 2, 2005



|                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Randall Bambrough                                                                 
|Randall Bambrough Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Curthan SMITH a/k/a Curthan G. Smith a/k/a George Smith, Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and Lakeside at Tamarac Condominium Association, Inc., Appellees.

No. 4D18-2539

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 17, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATE 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 WGNB Corp. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, L. Leighton Alston,
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director 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. Date: November 12, 2004 /s/ L. Leighton AlstonL. Leighton AlstonPresident, Chief Executive Officer andDirector (Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit
31.1
 
 Chief
Executive Officer Certification (Section 302)
 
 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 Pursuant
to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 I,
Patrick Herda, certify that:
 
 (1)           I have reviewed this quarterly report
on Form 10-Q of Nuclear Solutions, Inc., (Registrant).
 
 (2)           Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 this quarterly
report;
 
 (3)           Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
 
 (4) The
registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 
 (a)  designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
 
 (b)  evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and
 
 (c)
disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an quarterly
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;
and
 
 (5)           The
registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 (a)  all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants 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 a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  Date: May
20, 2009
 
 
 By: /s/Patrick
Herda
 Patrick
Herda
 Chief
Executive Officer
# C_2022244EN.01000701.xml

| 27.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de La Coruña — Spain) — Banco Santander, SA v J.A.C., M.C.P.R

(Case C-410/20) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2014/59/EU - Resolution of credit institutions and investment firms - General principles - Article 34(1) - Bail-in - Effects - Article 53(1) and (3) - Write-down of capital instruments - Article 60(2), first subparagraph, (b) and (c) - Articles 73 to 75 - Protection of shareholders’ and creditors’ rights - Directive 2003/71/EC - Prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading - Article 6 - Incorrect information in the prospectus - Action for damages brought after a resolution decision - Action for a declaration of nullity of a share purchase contract brought against the universal successor of the credit institution subject to the resolution decision)

(2022/C 244/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de La Coruña

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banco Santander, SA

Defendants: J.A.C., M.C.P.R

Operative part of the judgment

The combined provisions of Article 34(1)(a), Article 53(1) and (3), and Article 60(2), first subparagraph, (b) and (c) of Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council, must be interpreted as precluding, following a total write-down of shares in the capital stock of a credit institution or investment firm subject to a resolution procedure, persons having acquired shares, in the context of a public offer to subscribe issued by that institution or firm, before the opening of such a resolution procedure, from bringing, against that institution or firm or its successor entity, an action for damages on the basis of the information provided in the prospectus, as provided for in Article 6 of Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading, and amending Directive 2001/34/EC, as amended by Directive 2008/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008, or an action for a declaration of nullity of the purchase contract for such shares, which, given its retroactive effect, results in the restitution of the value of said shares, plus interest from the date of conclusion of the contract.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.

---
Enrique PAJARO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2630

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 14, 2019

Enrique Pajaro, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Rowe, Ray, and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.
IN RE: Bernadette Lockett THOMAS

NO. 2019-OB-0002

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 16, 2019

ORDER

Considering the Petition for Transfer to Disability Inactive Status filed by respondent, and the response thereto filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel,

IT IS ORDERED that Bernadette Lockett Thomas, Louisiana Bar Roll number 2145, be and she hereby is transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 22(B). Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 26(E), this order shall be effective immediately.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to seal filed by respondent be denied as moot. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 16(C), "[p]roceedings for transfer to or from disability inactive status are confidential."
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Avaya Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donald K. Peterson, Chairmanand 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, tomy knowledge, that:

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

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 
| /s/ DONALD K.  PETERSON                |     |
|----------------------------------------|----------|
| Donald K. Peterson                     |     |
| *Chairman and Chief Executive Officer* | * * |
| May 10, 2005                      |

 

 

----
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - products_publications(7)
              - multimedia_image(25)
              - multimedia_image-141771(22)
              - multimedia_image-141775(3)
              - multimedia_video(43)
              - multimedia_video-149194(15)
              - multimedia_video-149195(5)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149197(1)
              - multimedia_video-149198(22)

## By Location

              - arizona(3)
              - california(3)
              - colorado(2)
              - (-)hawaii(1)
              - idaho(2)
              - maine(1)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - montana(2)
              - nevada(2)
              - new mexico(2)
              - north dakota(2)
              - oregon(2)
              - south dakota(3)
              - texas(2)
              - utah(2)
              - washington(2)
              - wyoming(2)

## By Year

How to's and trainings        November 30, 2023        PubTalk-11/2023: Six Eruptions at Two Volcanoes Over the Past Three Years
J

- A18017

- 17

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v. JAHAUN MAURICE JONES Appellant No. 1685 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered October 6 , 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 25

- CR

- 0001499

- 2016

BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and OTT, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JULY 07, 2017 Jahaun Maurice Jones appeals from the trial court’s order denying his writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, Jones contends that his due process rights were violated where the Commonwealth w as permitted to use only hearsay evidence to establish a prima facie case regarding the identity of the criminal suspect at his preliminary hearing. We affirm. Initially, we note that “it is firmly established that the denial of a habeas corpus claim, based upon the insufficiency of the evidence presented to the issuing authority, without a showing of exceptional circumstances[,] will not provide a basis for immediate appellate review.” Commonwealth
v. Hess , 414 A.2d 1043, 1048 (Pa. 1980). Such interl ocutory orders, generally, are not appealable. Id.J

- A18017

- 17

- 2

-

Here, Jones avers that exceptional circumstances exist because a challenge to the procedure allowing hearsay evidence alone to establish a prima facie case would be capable of repetition and likely to ev ade review if this Court were to await a final order. See Commonwealth v. Ricker , 120 A.3d 349, 354 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“Not only is Appellant’s claim capable of evading review, it presents an important constitutional question regarding whether a powerful state governmental entity violates federal and state constitutional principles in allowing a defendant to be restrained of his liberty and bound over for trial based solely on hearsay evidence.”). This exact issue, however, has b een squarely addressed and rejected in Commonwealth v. McClelland , 2017 Pa Super 163 (filed May 26, 2017) (where use of hearsay testimony was sole basis upon which Commonwealth established prima facie case at preliminary hearing, defendant’s inability to “subject the primary accuse r to adversarial examination [did not] violate[] due process”). Accord Commonwealth v. Dolan , 2509 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. filed July

-- , 2017). See also Ricker , supra (confrontation clause did not prohibit Commonwealth from establishing prima facie case solely through the use of hearsay). Instantly, the purported error raised is no longer capable of being repeated and evading review, as definitive review has been achieved by this Court. Furthermore, Ricker , Dolan , and McClelland constitute bind ing precedent on the issues presented, which prevents a finding of exceptionalJ

- A18017

- 17

- 3

-

circumstances such as to warrant immediate review of the instant order. Hence, we quash this appeal. Appeal quashed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 7/7/2017
# C_2020045EN.01009201.xml

| 10.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/92 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/92

---

Action brought on 10 December 2019 – Koopman International v EUIPO – Tinnus Enterprises and Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipement)

(Case T-842/19)

(2020/C 45/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: B. van Werven, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) and Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Tinnus Enterprises

Design at issue: European Union design No 1431 829-0007

Contested decision: Interim Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 September 2019 in Case R 1010/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision to suspend the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal and decide that said proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall continue; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision to suspend the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal and decide that said proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall continue;

| — | to join the current case before the General Court with the cases before the General Court in cases R 1006/2018-3, R 1008/2018-3, R 1005/2018-3 and R 1009/2018-3 lodged by Koopman International simultaneous with this action; |
| --- | --- |

—

to join the current case before the General Court with the cases before the General Court in cases R 1006/2018-3, R 1008/2018-3, R 1005/2018-3 and R 1009/2018-3 lodged by Koopman International simultaneous with this action;

| — | order Tinnus Enterprises to pay Koopman International’s costs and fees. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Tinnus Enterprises to pay Koopman International’s costs and fees.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘legal certainty’; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘legal certainty’;

| — | The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘economy of proceedings’; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘economy of proceedings’;

| — | The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘sound administration’; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘sound administration’;

| — | The Board of Appeal did not correctly balance the interests of all parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal did not correctly balance the interests of all parties.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.3

    STATEMENT UNDER OATH OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER REGARDING FACTS AND
                 CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING TO EXCHANGE ACT FILINGS

         In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2002 of Grupo Financiero Galicia S.A. (the "COMPANY") as
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "COMMISSION") on
July 14, 2003 and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Pedro A. Richards, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, that:

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

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

                                                /s/ Pedro A. Richards
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Name: Pedro A. Richards
                                                Title: Managing Director
                                                       (Chief Financial Officer)
Date: July 14, 2003
Michael P. DROUILLARD, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4674

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 05, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Pursuant to the notice of voluntary dismissal filed herein, this appeal is dismissed.
NO. 06-14-00216-CR TRIAL NO. 43975-B PHYLLIS GWEN PRUITT § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS VS. § 6TH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF TEXAS § STATE OF TEXAS


### APPELLANT'S MOTIONFOREXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT Now comes Kyle Dansby, attorney for Appellant Phyllis Gwen Pruitt and files this Motion for Extension ofTime to File Briefofthis cause in the filing ofthe appeal due February 23,2-15 and shows the following: I. This motion is filed in accordance with the Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure. 2. Attorney Kyle Dansby files this motion for request ofa one day extension to file Appellant's brief. 3. Major inclement weather all overthe Northeast Texas area forced the closing of Appellant's attorney's office early. At the time ofthe closing ofthe office attorney was in the process ofcompleting theAnders brieffor Appellant, along with the requisite Motion to Withdraw as Appellate Counsel and letter to Appellant, along with copies ofthe entire appellate record. Attorney attempted to file the brieffrom home before 5PM yesterday, but attorney does not have conversion software on his home computer, and could not efile a Word document. 4. Attorney requests a one-time one day extension so that attorney'sAnders brief will be properly filed, and that Appellant is not harmed due to major inclement weather. S. This is attorney's first, and only, request for an extension. 6. This motion is not made for purposes ofdelay but so thatjustice may be done.
WHEREFOREpremises considered,the Defendantrespectfullyrequeststhatthis,theMotion for Extension ofTime to File Brief, be granted. Respectfully Submitted ACCEPTED 06-14-00216-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 2/24/2015 2:51:42 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERKBY:**~~~~~~~~~~-** Kyle D sby Attorney at Law P.O. Box 1914 Marshall, TX 75671 (903) 738-6162 (888) 410-1583 (fax) kdansbylaw@gmail.com SBN: 24059180

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, onthis day personally appeared Kyle Dansby, who, being duly sworn, upon his oath stated thathe is the person who subscribed his name to the above and foregoing instrument, and that the matters stated herein are, to the best ofhis information and belief, true and correct.

2014. SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME on this

# the~ day

# Of'1-doYU¥J

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kyle Dansby, attorney for Appellant, hereby certifythat a true and correct copy ofthis motion was delivered to the Gregg County Criminal District Attorney's Office, via email to Zan Brown, appellate counsel for Appellee.
Kyl ansby Attorney for Appell
STATE of Louisiana v. Douglas AUGUSTUS

NO. 2017-KP-1746

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 28, 2019

Denied.