alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2020 WY 112

 April Term, A.D. 2020

August 26, 2020

DEWAYNE RAY FARTHING,

Appellant

(Defendant),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee

(Plaintiff).

S-20-0101

ORDER AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT’S 

“ORDER TO REVOKE PROBATION”

[¶ 1] This matter came before the Court upon its own motion following notification that 

Appellant has not filed a pro se brief in the time allotted. Appellant took this appeal to 

challenge the district court’s March 12, 2020, “Order to Revoke Probation.” Appellant 

admitted he violated his probation. The district court revoked probation and imposed a 

sentence of 18 to 36 months on Appellant’s burglary conviction. Appellant entered an 

unconditional guilty plea to that charge.

[¶ 2] On June 25, 2020, Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a “Motion to 

Withdraw as Counsel,” pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 

1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). This Court subsequently entered an “Order Granting Motion 

for Extension of Time to File Pro Se Brief,” which provided that Appellant “may file with 

this Court a pro se brief specifying the issues he would like the Court to consider in this 

appeal.” This Court also provided notice that, after the time for filing a pro se brief expired, 

this Court would “make its ruling on counsel’s motion to withdraw and, if appropriate, 

make a final decision” on this appeal. Appellant’s pro se brief was due for filing on or 

before August 10, 2020. Appellant did not file a pro se brief or other pleading in the time 

allotted. 
[¶ 3] Now, following a careful review of the record and the “Anders brief” submitted by 

appellate counsel this Court finds that appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw should be 

granted and the district court’s “Order to Revoke Probation” should be affirmed. It is, 

therefore, 

[¶ 4] ORDERED that the Wyoming Public Defender’s Office, court-appointed counsel 

for Appellant Dewayne Ray Farthing, is hereby permitted to withdraw as counsel of record 

for Appellant; and it is further

[¶ 5] ORDERED that the Natrona County District Court’s March 12, 2020, “Order to

Revoke Probation,” be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

[¶ 6] DATED this 26th day of August, 2020.

BY THE COURT:

/s/

MICHAEL K. DAVIS

Chief Justice
# C_2021297EN.01004101.xml

| 26.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 –Riviera-Airport v EUIPO — Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur (RIVIERA AIRPORTS)

(Case T-396/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark RIVIERA AIRPORTS - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 297/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aeroporto di Villanova d’Albenga SpA (Riviera-Airport) (Villanova d’Albenga, Italy) (represented by: G. Casucci, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Capostagno, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur (Nice, France) (represented by: Y. Bizollon, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2020 (Case R 2172/2019 4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Riviera-Airport and Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Aeroporto di Villanova d’Albenga SpA (Riviera-Airport) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Aeroporto di Villanova d’Albenga SpA (Riviera-Airport) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.

---
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 321 

Expressing the sense of the Senate relating to nuclear power and the commitment of the Senate to embracing and promoting nuclear power as a 

clean baseload energy source necessary to achieve a reliable, secure, 

and diversified electric grid. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 27, 2023 

Mr. BUDD (for himself, Mr. COONS, Mr. MANCHIN, Mr. BROWN, Mr. CRAMER, 

Ms. SINEMA, Mr. RICKETTS, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. KELLY, Mr. BOOKER, Mr. 

WICKER, Mr. RISCH, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. WARNER, Mr. GRAHAM, and Mr. 

WHITEHOUSE) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Senate relating to nuclear power 

and the commitment of the Senate to embracing and 

promoting nuclear power as a clean baseload energy 

source necessary to achieve a reliable, secure, and diversified electric grid. 

1 Resolved, That— 

2 (1) in order to maintain geopolitical energy 

3 leadership, reduce carbon emissions, and enhance 

4 the energy security of the United States, the Senate 

5 is committed to embracing and promoting nuclear 

6 power as a clean baseload energy source necessary to 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SRES 321 IS 

1 achieve a reliable, secure, and diversified electric 

2 grid; and 

3 (2) it is the sense of the Senate that— 

4 (A) among allies and partners of the 

5 United States, nuclear energy presents an ad6 vantageous export opportunity for United 

7 States advanced manufacturing and technical 

8 expertise; and 

9 (B) to realize the benefits of next-genera10 tion nuclear deployment— 

11 (i) a robust domestic production base 

12 of low-enriched uranium and high-assay, 

13 low-enriched uranium needs to be estab14 lished; 

15 (ii) the domestic nuclear supply chain 

16 and the associated workforce needs to be 

17 further established, and a highly trained 

18 and capable workforce of scientists, engi19 neers, operators, regulators, and trades 

20 workers needs to be cultivated; and 

21 (iii) robust public-private financing 

22 mechanisms should be pursued. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Susan ROMANOK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2717

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 27, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 2:03-cv-00112-J-BB Document 1 Filed 04/30/03 Page 1 of 4 PageID 1
Case 2:03-cv-00112-J-BB Document 1 Filed 04/30/03 Page 2 of 4 PageID 2
Case 2:03-cv-00112-J-BB Document 1 Filed 04/30/03 Page 3 of 4 PageID 3
Case 2:03-cv-00112-J-BB Document 1 Filed 04/30/03 Page 4 of 4 PageID 4
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: GIS

Filters

              - science_education(6)
              - science_faqs(12)
              - science_science(170)
              - products_data(188)
              - products_maps(78)
              - products_publications(635)
              - products_software(12)
              - products_web_tools(18)
              - multimedia_audio(23)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(23)
              - multimedia_before_after(1)
              - multimedia_image(63)
              - multimedia_image-141770(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(17)
              - multimedia_image-141772(2)
              - multimedia_image-141775(17)
              - multimedia_image-141776(24)
              - multimedia_image-204460(1)
              - multimedia_slideshow(3)
              - multimedia_video(160)
              - multimedia_video-149194(67)
              - multimedia_video-149195(13)
              - multimedia_video-149196(3)
              - multimedia_video-149197(52)
              - documents_file(17)
              - documents_file-149208(1)
              - documents_file-149210(2)
              - documents_file-149214(2)
              - documents_file-149215(2)
              - documents_file-149216(5)
              - documents_file-149220(5)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149246(1)
              - news_news-149249(9)
              - (-)news_news-149250(3)
              - news_other_news(21)
              - connect_staff_profiles(234)
              - other_basic-42(36)

## By Location

              - california(1)

## By Year

Featured Story        July 12, 2021        USGS Geospatial Information Response Team (GIRT) earns 2021 Esri SAG Award

Featured Story        July 14, 2020        TRAILS Project Earns the 2020 Esri SAG Award

Featured Story        January 26, 2018        USGS Geologists Join Efforts in Montecito to Assess Debris-Flow Aftermath
# C_2021452EN.01002801.xml

| 8.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 452/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 452/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 –Mutondo v Council

(Case T-103/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territory of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures - Right to private and family life - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality - Plea of illegality)

(2021/C 452/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kalev Mutondo (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile and M.-C. Cadilhac, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2019 L 318, p. 134), and, second, Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2019 L 318, p. 1) in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Kalev Mutondo to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Kalev Mutondo to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.

---
Exhibit 4.3


 


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated September 7, 2016, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-212520) of Smart Trust 264,
comprising Smart Trust, New Jersey Municipal Portfolio of Closed-End Funds Trust, Series 9.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


September 7, 2016
EX PARTE Clyde H. FRIEND

CR-16-0659

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
STIPULATION REGARDING RESPONSE DEADLINES Page 1 

David B. Miller

Texas Bar No. 00788057 

david@schneidlaw.com

SCHNEIDER MILLER REYNOLDS, P.C.

300 N. Coit Road, Suite 1125 

Richardson, Texas 75080 

Telephone: (972) 479-1112 

Facsimile: (972) 479-1113 

T. Micah Dortch

Texas Bar No. 24044981 

micah@dll-law.com

Dortch Lindstrom Livingston Law Group 

2613 Dallas Parkway, Suite 220 

Plano, Texas 75093 

Telephone: 214-252-8258 

Facsimile: 888-653-3299 

Special Counsel for the Trustee Areya Holder Aurzada

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

IN RE: § CASE NO. 22-30500-swe7

DENNIS JAMES ROGERS II, § 

 Debtor. § CHAPTER 7 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

AREYA HOLDER AURZADA, § 

CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE FOR THE § 

BANKRUPTCY ESTATE OF § 

DENNIS JAMES ROGERS II § 

 Plaintiff, § 

 § 

v. § Adversary No. 24-03028 

 § 

FUNDERZ.NET, LLC, § 

 Defendant. § 

STIPULATION REGARDING RESPONSE DEADLINES 

Areya Holder Aurzada, in her capacity as Chapter 7 Trustee of the Estate of Dennis Rogers, 

(the “Trustee”) and Defendant Funderz.net, LLC (the “Defendant”) hereby stipulate to extend 

responsive deadlines relating to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) [Dkt. No. 23] 

Case 24-03028-swe Doc 29 Filed 08/30/24 Entered 08/30/24 11:19:07 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 3
STIPULATION REGARDING RESPONSE DEADLINES Page 2 

such that any response from Plaintiff is due on or before September 16, 2024 and any reply from 

Defendant is due on or before October 21, 2024. 

Dated: August 30, 2024 

Respectfully submitted,

 By: /s/ David B. Miller 

David B. Miller

Texas Bar No. 00788057 

david@schneidlaw.com

SCHNEIDER MILLER REYNOLDS, P.C.

300 N. Coit Road, Suite 1125 

Richardson, Texas 75080 

Telephone:(972) 479-1112 

Facsimile: (972) 479-1113 

-andT. Micah Dortch

Texas Bar No. 24044981 

micah@dll-law.com

Dortch Lindstrom Livingston Law Group 

2613 Dallas Parkway, Suite 220 

Plano, Texas 75093 

Telephone: 214-252-8258 

Facsimile: 888-653-3299 

Special Counsel for the Trustee 

Stipulated by the above-named Counsel to the Trustee and by: 

/s/Micheal W. Bishop (w/permission) 

Micheal W. Bishop

GRAY REED

Micheal W. Bishop (TX Bar No. 02354860) 

Amber M. Carson (TX Bar No. 24075610) 

1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

(214) 954-4135 

mbishop@grayreed.com

acarson@grayreed.com

-andCase 24-03028-swe Doc 29 Filed 08/30/24 Entered 08/30/24 11:19:07 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 3
STIPULATION REGARDING RESPONSE DEADLINES Page 3 

Carmen Contreras-Martinez (pro hac vice) 

SAUL EWING LLP

701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1700 

Miami, FL 33131 

(305) 428-4500 

carmen.contreras-martinez@saul.com

-andTurner N. Falk (pro hac vice) 

Centre Square West

1500 Market Street, 38th Floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19102-2186 

(215) 972-8415 

turner.falk@saul.com

Counsel to Funderz.Net, LLC

Case 24-03028-swe Doc 29 Filed 08/30/24 Entered 08/30/24 11:19:07 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 3
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.3
   









FERRARA EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT - AMENDMENT #1


Cartesian, Inc. (the “Company”) and John Ferrara (“You”) entered into an Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) effective September 28, 2015.  The parties wish to amend the Agreement effective September 28, 2016 by replacing the clause 5(c) Stock Option Award in the Agreement with the following:


5(c)  Stock Option Award.  You will be granted 50,000 non-qualified stock options with vesting as follows:


		
	•
	16,666 vest when the market closing price of the stock is at $4 or greater for 30 consecutive days


		
	•
	16,666 vest when the market closing price of the stock is at $5 or greater for 30 consecutive days


		
	•
	16,667 vest when the market closing price of the stock is at $6 or greater for 30 consecutive days




This grant is subject to approval by the Company’s Compensation Committee, which the Company will seek as soon as possible after execution of this Amendment.  The exercise price of the options will be the greater of (1) $1.25 or (2) the market closing price on the date of grant by the Compensation Committee.  The grant details will be provided in a separate Grant Agreement once the options have been granted, and will include accelerating vesting in the event of a “Change of Control,” notwithstanding the stock price vesting levels set forth above.


All other existing clauses in the Agreement remain as originally agreed.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the date first set forth above.




THE COMPANY:                    EMPLOYEE:


CARTESIAN, INC.
A Delaware corporation






By:  /s/ Peter Woodward                    /s/ John Ferrara
 PETER WOODWARD                JOHN FERRARA
CEO
Exhibit 13.2  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 MAX Resource Corp. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark Gelmon, Chief Financial 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:  (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Mark Gelmon __________________________________ Mark Gelmon Chief Financial Officer Principal Accounting and Financial Officer April 28, 2014   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Jeffrey CASTLEBERRY, DOC# 475665, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4652

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

XAVIER CALDWELL, ID # 1011382, )

Petitioner, )

vs. ) No. 3:04-CV-0154-D

 )

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director, )

Texas Department of Criminal )

Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, )

Respondent. )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and petitioner’s objections, in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the

Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings

and Conclusions of the Court.

SIGNED November 3, 2006.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cv-00154-D Document 18 Filed 11/03/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 78
Denied and Opinion Filed July 20, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-21-00570-CV

IN RE ERIC DRAKE, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-13508

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Reichek

Opinion by Justice Molberg

In his July 14, 2021 petition for writ of mandamus, writ of prohibition, and 

emergency relief, relator is a vexatious litigant challenging various issues related to 

the local administrative judge’s denial of his request for permission to file litigation. 

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court clearly 

abused its discretion and that he lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential 

Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Further, a writ of 

prohibition is a limited purpose remedy used to enable an appellate court to protect 

and enforce its jurisdiction and judgments. Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 767 

S.W.2d 680, 683 (Tex. 1989) (orig. proceeding); In re Herrera, No. 05-14-00394-
–2–

CV, 2014 WL 1477922, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas April 14, 2014, orig. proceeding) 

(mem. op.).

Based on our review of the petition and record, we conclude that relator has

failed to show his entitlement to the relief requested. We also conclude that this case 

does not fall within this Court’s limited jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition.

Accordingly, we deny the petition to the extent it seeks a writ of mandamus, and we 

dismiss the petition to the extent it seeks a writ of prohibition. Having denied the 

petition, we also deny the request for emergency relief as moot.

210570f.p05

/Ken Molberg//

KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 828 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that every person has the basic right 

to emergency health care, including abortion care. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2024 

Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Ms. ROSEN, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. 

SCHUMER, Mr. BENNET, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. BOOKER, Ms. BUTLER, 

Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. CARPER, Mr. CASEY, Mr. COONS, Ms. 

CORTEZ MASTO, Ms. DUCKWORTH, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. FETTERMAN, Mrs. 

GILLIBRAND, Ms. HASSAN, Mr. HEINRICH, Mr. HELMY, Ms. HIRONO, 

Mr. KING, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. PADILLA, Mr. REED, 

Mr. SANDERS, Mr. SCHATZ, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Ms. SMITH, Ms. STABENOW, 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. WARNOCK, Ms. WARREN, Mr. WELCH, Mr. 

WHITEHOUSE, Mr. KAINE, Mr. WARNER, and Mr. PETERS) submitted 

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, 

Education, Labor, and Pensions 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that every person has 

the basic right to emergency health care, including abortion care. 

Whereas bans and restrictions on reproductive health care, 

including abortion care, put the health and lives of 

women at risk; 

Whereas State laws that purport to ban and restrict abortion 

in emergency circumstances force medical providers to 

decide between withholding necessary, stabilizing medical 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 828 IS 

care from a patient experiencing a medical emergency or 

facing criminal prosecution, and put the lives, health, and 

futures of patients at risk; 

Whereas the harms of criminalizing medical providers providing emergency health care or women receiving emergency health care are far-reaching, and providers and patients who are Black, Indigenous, people of color, immigrants, people with low incomes, and LGBTQI+ individuals are more likely to be put under the scrutiny of the 

legal system; 

Whereas the harms associated with abortion bans and other 

restrictions on reproductive health care have a disproportionate impact on women of color, specifically Black and 

Indigenous pregnant patients, who are more likely to experience life-threatening pregnancy complications; and 

Whereas the chaos and confusion caused by abortion bans 

and restrictions can dissuade providers from providing 

appropriate medical care to patients, including in emergency care situations such as heart failure or high blood 

pressure, premature rupture of membranes, severe obstetric hemorrhage or infection, sepsis, placenta previa 

(where the placenta attaches to the cervix), and in some 

cases missed miscarriages, among many other emergency 

medical conditions: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that every 

2 person has the basic right to emergency health care, in3 cluding abortion care. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS