alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### NUMBER 13 - 11 - 00 551 - CR 

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

JUAN ANTONIO CASTILLO , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 105 th District Court of Kleberg County, Texas.



## ORDER
Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza , and Perkes

Order Per Curiam On December 3, 2013, this Court granted appellant's fourth motion to supplement
the record and granted appellant’s extension to file the brief until January 2, 2014. On January 13 , 201 4 , the Clerk of the Court notified appellant ’ s counsel that the brief had not been filed and requested a response concerning the failure to file the brief within ten days.2

Counsel has nevertheless failed to file either a response or an a ppellate brief in this

matter. Accordingly, we now ABATE this appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial court for further proceedings pursuant to Rule 38.8(b)(2) and (3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Upon remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to make appropriate findings and recommendations concerning the following: (1) whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal; (2) why appellant's counsel has failed to file a brief and whether counsel has effectively abandoned the appeal; (3) whether appellant has been denied effective assistance of counsel; (4) whether appellant's counsel should be removed; and (5) whether appellant is indigent and entitled

to court

- appointed counsel. If the trial court determines that appella nt does want to continue the appeal, that present counsel should be removed, and that appellant is indigent and entitled to

court

- appointed counsel, the trial court shall appoint new counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. If new counsel is appoint ed, the name, address, telephone number, and state bar number of said counsel shall be included in an order appointing counsel. The trial court shall cause its finding s and recommendations, together with any orders it may enter regarding the aforementioned issues, to be included in a supplemental clerk's record. Furthermore, the trial court shall cause a supplemental reporter's record of any proceedings to be prepared. The supplemental clerk's record and supplemental reporter's record, if any, shall be fi led with the Clerk of this Court on or before the expiration of thirty days from the date of this order.3

It is so ORDERED. PER CURIAM

Do not publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b) Delivered and filed the 31st day of January , 201 4

.
JOSEPH KEEGAN, LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability Company, Appellant, v. Leon Dale JONES, Individually, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1744

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 7, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 15 Filed 05/02/03 Page 1 of 1 PageID 90
# C_2019065EN.01000801.xml

| 18.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt B v A- Brauerei

(Case C-374/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Real property transfer tax - Exemption - Transfers in ownership of a property occurring as a result of restructuring procedures carried out within certain groups of companies - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Condition relating to selectivity - Justification))

(2019/C 65/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt B

Defendant: A-Brauerei

Intervener: Bundesministerium der Finanzen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a tax advantage, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which consists in exempting from real property transfer tax the transfer of ownership of a property which occurred because of a restructuring procedure involving only companies of the same group, linked by a shareholding of at least 95 % during a minimum, uninterrupted period of five years prior to that procedure and of five years thereafter, does not fulfil the condition relating to the selectivity of the advantage concerned, laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU.

---

(1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.

---
Case 3:03-cv-02671-H Document 36 Filed 09/23/04 Page 1 of 1 PageID 195
----

EXHIBIT 32.1 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

In connection with the quarterly report of AlphaRx, Inc. onForm 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof, Michael Lee, as chief executive officerof AlphaRx, Inc., does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to thebest of his knowledge: 

1.

This 10-QSB report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; and 

2.

The information contained in this 10-QSBreport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of AlphaRx, Inc. 

 

/s/ Michael Lee                Michael Lee Chief Executive Officer August 14, 2007 

----
**Exhibit 23.1**

| **H**

**B**

**M**

 

 

 

HANSEN, BARNETT & MAXWELL, P.C.

Certified Public Accountants

March 30, 2011

To the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors

International Isotopes, Inc.

We consent to the use of our report dated March 30, 2011 with respect to the financial statements of International Isotopes, Inc. included in this annual report on Form 10-K filed on March 31, 2011 with the Securities Exchange Commission, and incorporated by reference in the Registration statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-121335, No. 333-108776, and 333-158575), and Form S-3 (No. 333-106215 and No. 333-142674). 

Sincerely,

**HANSEN, BARNETT & MAXWELL, P.C.**

Salt Lake City, Utah

March 30, 2011

Registered with the Public Company

Accounting Oversight Board

5 Triad Center, Suite 750, Salt Lake City, Utah 84180-1128

Tel   801-532-2200     FAX   801-532-7944     www.hbmcpas.com

 

 

 

 

 

                             ADDING VALUE

NOT COMPLEXITY |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41181 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus WARREN D. FRIDAY, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-94-CR-118-1

- - - - - - - - - - June 16, 1998 Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Warren D. Friday, prisoner # 769616, appeals the revocation of his supervised-release term, which was part of his sentence for his conviction for possession of marihuana. The Government’s motion to supplement the record on appeal is DENIED. Friday argues for the first time on appeal that his release date was incorrectly calculated, and the violations of supervised release to which he pleaded true occurred after his term of supervised release had expired. He contends that the district courtNo. 97-41181 -2- therefore lacked jurisdiction to impose on him a ten-month sentence for the alleged violations of the terms of his release. Questions of fact that could have been resolved by the district court can never be plain error. United States v. Vital , 68 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir. 1995). The determination of release dates involves factual, not legal, questions. United States v. Marshall , 910 F.2d 1241, 1245 (5th Cir. 1990). This court need not address Friday’s claim. Id
. This appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is hereby DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD ON APPEAL DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.
## **EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Metals USA,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Annual Report”), I, C. Lourenço Gonçalves, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.               The Annual Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The informationcontained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company.

 
| Dated: April 28, 2005 | /S/ C. LOURENCO GONCALVES        |   |
|-----------------------|----------------------------------|--------|
|                  | C. Lourenço  Gonçalves |
|                  | Chief Executive Officer          |

 

The foregoing Certification is being furnished solelypursuant to Section 906 of the Act and is not being filed as part of the Reportor as a separate disclosure statement.

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

----
STATE of Louisiana v. Lorenzo CONNER

No. 2018-KK-2003

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 6, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS**

Writ denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant and assigns reasons.

Hughes, J., would grant the writ.

Respectfully, the investigating officer received an *email* from another detective stating, "Gun on victim had five murders connected to it. Bystanders attempted to remove weapon but police arrived too soon. Victim killed someone near University Hospital last week."

This email should have been immediately provided to the defense.
Freddy Dwane WADDELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3373

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed March 15, 2019

Freddy Dwane Waddell, Crawfordville, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lori N. Hagan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Freddy Dwane Waddell appeals the summary denial of his amended motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, wherein he alleged his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to disqualify the trial court on the basis that the trial court had prejudged his case. Specifically, Waddell claimed that the trial court informed him at a pretrial hearing, during which he rejected the State's plea deal, that if he proceeded to trial and lost, he would receive the maximum sentence. According to Waddell, those words proved prophetic. In denying the Motion, the trial court stated, "[a] review of the records shows no such statements made by the Court." The trial court, however, declined to share those records with us. Accordingly, because the record does not conclusively refute Waddell's claim, we reverse the summary denial and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting his claim or for an evidentiary hearing. *See**Freeman v. State*, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000) ("[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular *268claim is legally insufficient." (citing *Maharaj v. State*, 684 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1996) ) ).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

COHEN, BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
NO. 07-03-0223-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

AUGUST 12, 2003

______________________________

ED CAIN, HARDIN COUNTY SHERIFF AND

DAVID A. SHEFFIELD, COUNTY ATTORNEY, APPELLANTS

V.

KEVIN WILSON, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 356TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARDIN COUNTY;

NO. 42,906; HONORABLE BRITT PLUNK, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ed Cain and David Sheffield, appellants, appeal the trial court’s order denying their

plea to its jurisdiction. We must dismiss the appeal. 

Appellants’ brief was due June 30, 2003. By letter dated July 9, 2003, we notified

appellants that the due date for the brief had passed, and that we had received neither

their brief nor a motion for extension of time to file it. Citing Tex. R. App. Proc. 38.8, the
2

letter also notified appellants that the appeal would be subject to dismissal unless a

response reasonably explaining their failure to file a brief, together with a showing that the

appellee has not been significantly injured by the failure, was submitted by July 22, 2003.

Appellants have not filed such a response, nor have they since submitted a brief or a

motion for extension of time. 

Accordingly, having given all parties more than the required ten days’ notice, we

dismiss the appeal. TEX. R. APP. PROC. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b).

James T. Campbell

 Justice
EXHIBIT
31.2







I,
Charles Josenhans, certify that:




1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PetroHunter Energy
Corporation;




2. Based
on my knowledge, this 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 report;




3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this 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 report;




4. The
registrant’s 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a—15(f) and 15d—15(f)) 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 report is being prepared;




(b)




(c)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s 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




(d)
Disclosed in this report any change 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 annual 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 internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the 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 registrant’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 a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.









Date:
      August 13, 2008
            /s/ Charles
      Josenhans


Charles Josenhans


Interim Chief Financial
Officer


(Principal Financial
Officer)
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION



OF



IMPERIAL CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL





KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:



That we the undersigned, have this day voluntarily associated ourselves together for the purpose of forming a corporation under the laws of the State of Nevada and do hereby certify:



ONE



The name of this corporation is IMPERIAL CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL.



TWO



The resident agent of said corporation shall be Pacific Corporate Services Company, 7631 Bermuda Road, Las Vegas, NV., 89123 and such other offices as may be determined by the By-Laws in and outside the State of Nevada.



THREE



The objects to be transacted, business and pursuit and nature of the business, promoted or earned on by this corporation are and shall continue to be engaged in any lawful activity.



FOUR



The members of the governing board shall be styled Directors and the first Board of Directors shall consist of one (1).  The number of stockholders of said corporation shall consist of one (1).  The number of directors and shareholders of this corporation may, from time to time, be increased or decreased by an amendment to the By-Laws of this corporation in that regard, and without the necessity of amending these Articles of Incorporation.  The name and address of the first Board of Directors and of the Incorporator signing these Articles as follows:



DOUGLAS J. MCCLEAN
1915 LILAC DRIVE
SURREY, B.C.
CANADA
V4A 6C7

---

FIVE



The Corporation is to have perpetual existence.



SIX



The total authorized capitalization of this Corporation shall be and is the sum of 5,000,000 shares of Common Stock at $0.00 1 par value, said stock to carry full voting power and the said shares shall be issued fully paid at such time as the Board of Directors may designate in exchange for cash, property, or services, the stock of other corporations or other values, rights, or things, and the judgement of the Board of Directors as to the value thereof shall be conclusive.



SEVEN



The capital stock shall be and remain non-assessable.  The private property of the stockholders shall not be liable for the debts or liabilities of the Corporation.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand this 10th, February, 2000.





/s/ Douglas J. McClean

Douglas J. McClean

Province of British Columbia)
Canada)



On this 10th day of February, 2000 before me, a Notary Public in and for said, Province of British Columbia, Canada.  Personally appeared, Douglas J. McClean known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and he duly acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purpose therein mentioned.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and offered by official seal in, The City of Vancouver, Province of British Columbia, Canada, the day and year in this Certificate first above wntten.



/s/ Gordon A. NeathNotary Public

Gordon A. Neath
Barrister & Solicitor
106  19665 Willowbrook Drive
Langley, B.C., V2Y 1A5
Case 3:04-cv-02169-R Document 1 Filed 10/06/04 Page 1 of 21 PageID 1
Case 3:04-cv-02169-R Document 1 Filed 10/06/04 Page 2 of 21 PageID 2
Case 3:04-cv-02169-R Document 1 Filed 10/06/04 Page 3 of 21 PageID 3
Case 3:04-cv-02169-R Document 1 Filed 10/06/04 Page 4 of 21 PageID 4
Case 3:04-cv-02169-R Document 1 Filed 10/06/04 Page 5 of 21 PageID 5
Case 3:04-cv-02169-R Document 1 Filed 10/06/04 Page 6 of 21 PageID 6
Case 3:04-cv-02169-R Document 1 Filed 10/06/04 Page 7 of 21 PageID 7
Case 3:04-cv-02169-R Document 1 Filed 10/06/04 Page 8 of 21 PageID 8
Case 3:04-cv-02169-R Document 1 Filed 10/06/04 Page 9 of 21 PageID 9
Case 3:04-cv-02169-R Document 1 Filed 10/06/04 Page 10 of 21 PageID 10
Case 3:04-cv-02169-R Document 1 Filed 10/06/04 Page 11 of 21 PageID 11
Case 3:04-cv-02169-R Document 1 Filed 10/06/04 Page 12 of 21 PageID 12
Case 3:04-cv-02169-R Document 1 Filed 10/06/04 Page 13 of 21 PageID 13
Case 3:04-cv-02169-R Document 1 Filed 10/06/04 Page 14 of 21 PageID 14
Case 3:04-cv-02169-R Document 1 Filed 10/06/04 Page 15 of 21 PageID 15
Case 3:04-cv-02169-R Document 1 Filed 10/06/04 Page 16 of 21 PageID 16
Case 3:04-cv-02169-R Document 1 Filed 10/06/04 Page 17 of 21 PageID 17
Case 3:04-cv-02169-R Document 1 Filed 10/06/04 Page 18 of 21 PageID 18
Case 3:04-cv-02169-R Document 1 Filed 10/06/04 Page 19 of 21 PageID 19
Case 3:04-cv-02169-R Document 1 Filed 10/06/04 Page 20 of 21 PageID 20
Case 3:04-cv-02169-R Document 1 Filed 10/06/04 Page 21 of 21 PageID 21