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

No. 3D19-79

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 27, 2019

**FLORIDA DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Dennis G. Dracup, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Language Line Holdings, Inc.;

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)) for the registrant and we 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) 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

c) 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 officer 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 function):

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: November 9, 2007
|                       | 
|By:                    |  | /s/ Dennis G. Dracup                
|                       |  | Dennis G. Dracup                    
|                       |  | Chief Executive Officer and Director
Quintin ALLEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-2938

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 7, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 23 Filed 06/06/03 Page 1 of 1 PageID 154
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ALHE, INC., D/B/A CLUB BABALU, §

et al., §

 §

Plaintiffs, §

 § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-2019-D

VS. §

 §

CITY OF DALLAS, §

 §

Defendant. §

ORDER

Plaintiffs having filed a notice of dismissal, the court dismisses this action without prejudice,

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), and the clerk of court shall consider this action to be closed.

SO ORDERED.

November 21, 2005.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02019-D Document 13 Filed 11/21/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 82
# C_2017144EN.01003301.xml

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/33

---

Action brought on 10 March 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-130/17)

(2017/C 144/43)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wils and I. Zalogin)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations concerning the establishment of a single point of contact for the exchange of electronic certificates for access to biometric data in identity documents in accordance with Commission Decision С(2009) 7476 of 5 October 2009 amending Commission Decision C(2008) 8657 laying down a certificate policy as required in the technical specifications on the standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States and Commission Decision С(2011) 5478 of 4 August 2011 amending Commission Decision C(2002) 3069 laying down the technical specifications for the uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations concerning the establishment of a single point of contact for the exchange of electronic certificates for access to biometric data in identity documents in accordance with Commission Decision С(2009) 7476 of 5 October 2009 amending Commission Decision C(2008) 8657 laying down a certificate policy as required in the technical specifications on the standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States and Commission Decision С(2011) 5478 of 4 August 2011 amending Commission Decision C(2002) 3069 laying down the technical specifications for the uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals;

| — | order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Republic of Bulgaria has failed to establish a single point of contact for the exchange of electronic certificates for access to biometric information in identity documents and has accordingly failed to fulfil its obligations under the abovementioned Commission decisions.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

TELISA DE'ANN BLACKMAN §

§

Petitioner, §

§

VS. §

§ NO. 3-05-CV-1874-P 

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director §

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, §

Correctional Institutions Division §

§

Respondent. §

ORDER

After conducting a review of the pleadings, files and records in this case, and the Findings

and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), I am of the opinion that the Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are

correct and they are hereby accepted as the Findings of the Court. 

SO ORDERED this 23 day of January 2006. rd

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01874-P Document 15 Filed 01/24/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 129
C.C. and K.E.C. v. Chilton County DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160991

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 6, 2017

Transferred to Chilton Cir. Ct. for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 28(D), Ala.R.Juv.P.
<PAGE>   1


Exhibit 21                        List of Subsidiaries
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name of Subsidiary                                        Place of Organization
------------------                                        ---------------------
<S>                                                       <C>
Burlington Resins, Inc.                                   Delaware
Natvar Holdings, Inc.                                     Delaware
Plastic Specialties & Technologies, Inc.                  Delaware
PureTec Corporation                                       Delaware
Tri-Seal Holdings, Inc.                                   Delaware
PurePlast, Inc.                                           Ontario
Colorite Europe, Ltd.                                     No. Ireland
Tekni-Plex Europe, N.V.                                   Belgium
Action Technology Italia, SpA                             Italy
Tekni-Plex Argentina, SA                                  Argentina
Colorite Plastics Canada, Ltd.                            Ontario
</TABLE>
|Exhibit 32.2
|------------

Certification Pursuant to18 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 Sound Revolution Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended November 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Penny Green, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| 



|Dated: January 21, 2008
|-----------------------

|By: |  | /s/ Penny Green                             
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------
|    |  | Penny Green                                 
|    |  | Director, President, Chief Executive Officer

---
Exhibit 99.1





Press Release

Day, May 14, 2008

For further information, contact

Judy Naus at 651-286-8623

orinfo@biotelinc.com



Biotel Announces Profitable Third Quarter ended March 31, 2008



Minneapolis, May 14, 2008 -- Biotel Inc. (Bulletin Board: BTEL.OB) announced results for its third quarter ended March 31, 2008 with net earnings of $99,000, or $0.03 per diluted share, on revenues of $2,699,000. This compares to net earnings of $190,000, or $0.07 per diluted share, on revenues of $2,990,000 for the third quarter of last year. For the nine months ended March 31, 2008, Biotel had net earnings of $475,000, or $0.17 per diluted share, on revenues of $8,309,000. This compares to net earnings of $299,000, or $0.11 per share, on revenues of $8,119,000 for the first nine months last year.



Highlights for the third quarter are as follows:


        Sixth consecutive profitable quarter



        Gross margin of 45.8%, up from 43.0% a year ago



        Strong balance sheet with no long-term debt



        Stockholders equity of $4,445,000, up 13.0% year over year




Biotel made good progress building for the future in the third quarter, and the quarters decrease in revenues
had been preceded by some very strong quarters, Biotel President and CEO Steve Springrose said. Sales of Holter
devices, event recorders, liposuction and other medical devices remain solid. The third quarter was diminished as some of our
customers deferred purchases in anticipation of important new products. We launched a new Holter platform in March and are
preparing to launch our ER900 Wireless Event Recorder in our current quarter. The growth trend for our Agility 24/7 cardiac
monitoring services continued to rise in the third quarter, contributing significantly to gross margin improvement. R&D
expenses were up significantly in the quarter as we invested in new products and prototype parts. These expenses are essential to
future product competitiveness. In keeping with our long-term strategy, Biotel serves as a development partner to medical
corporations seeking new devices and clinical research services.





3 months endedMarch 31, 2008
        
        3 months endedMarch 31, 2007
        
        %ChangeRevenues
        
        $
        2,699,000
        
        $
        2,990,000
        
        (9.7%
        )Net Income
        
        $
        99,000
        
        $
        190,000
        
        (47.9%
        )Earnings Per Share, Basic
        
        $
        .04
        
        $
        0.07Earnings Per Share, Diluted
        
        $
        .03
        
        $
        0.079 months endedMarch 31, 2008
        
        9 months endedMarch 31, 2007
        
        %ChangeRevenues
        
        $
        8,309,000
        
        $
        8,119,000
        
        2.3%Net Income
        
        $
        475,000
        
        $
        299,000
        
        58.9%Earnings Per Share, Basic
        
        $
        .18
        
        $
        0.11Earnings Per Share, Diluted
        
        $
        .17
        
        $
        0.11






-End-



---
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 18, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-22-00048-CV

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF L.M., AN INCAPACITATED PERSON

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-20-02447-1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Carlyle, and Goldstein

Opinion by Justice Myers

Appellant Karla Murillo appeals from the trial court’s December 22, 2021 

order appointing appellee VetGuard USA as permanent guardian of the person over 

L.M. On March 4, 2022, the probate court vacated the December 22 order and 

replaced VetGuard USA with Christian F. Clausen as guardian. In light of the March 

4 order, we questioned whether the appeal was moot and directed the parties to file 

letter briefs. The parties complied.

A case becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between the parties at 

any stage of the legal proceedings. See In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 

S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005). Appellate courts lack jurisdiction over moot 
–2–

controversies. See Olley v. HCM, LLC, 449 S.W.3d 572, 575 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied).

In her letter brief, Murillo asserts the probate court lacked jurisdiction to 

render the March 4 order because its plenary power expired thirty days after the 

December 22 order was signed. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(d). In a probate matter, 

however, the trial court retains authority to remove a guardian and appoint a 

successor guardian. See TEX. EST. CODE §§ 1203.051 (removal without notice), 

1203.052 (removal with notice), § 1203.102 (appointment of successor guardian). 

Murillo also asserts the trial court erred in rendering the March 4 order. Because 

Murillo did not appeal this order and the time to do so has passed, we do not address 

this merits-based argument.

Because the probate court had the authority to vacate the appealed order 

appointing VetGuard USA as guardian and did so, this appeal is now moot. We 

dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

220048f.p05

/Lana Myers//

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF L.M., 

AN INCAPACITATED PERSON

No. 05-22-00048-CV 

On Appeal from the Probate Court 

No. 1, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-20-02447-

1.

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. 

Justices Carlyle and Goldstein 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee VetGuard USA recover its costs of this appeal 

from appellant Karla Murillo.

Judgment entered this 18th day of August, 2022.
Michael A. HAYES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3591

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 10, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 3.02  CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT  OF  AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION  OF  MAC-GRAY CORPORATION  MAC-GRAY CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the Corporation), does hereby certify as follows:  FIRST:That the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is hereby amended by deleting Section 3 of Article VI thereof, and inserting, in lieu thereof, the following:  Section 3.Terms of Directors.  The number of Directors of the Corporation shall be fixed by resolution duly adopted from time to time by the Board of Directors. The Directors, other than those who may be elected by the holders of any series of Preferred Stock of the Corporation, shall be classified, with respect to the term for which they severally hold office, into three classes, as nearly equal in number as possible. The initial Class I Directors shall serve for a term expiring at the annual meeting of stockholders to be held in 1998, the initial Class II Directors shall serve for a term expiring at the annual meeting of stockholders to be held in 1999, and the initial Class III Directors shall serve for a term expiring at the annual meeting of stockholders to be held in 2000. At each annual meeting of stockholders, the successor or successors of the class of Directors whose term expires at that meeting shall be elected for a term expiring at the annual meeting of stockholders held in the third year following the year of their election. The Directors elected to each class shall hold office until their successors are duly elected and qualified or until their earlier resignation or removal.  SECOND:That the foregoing amendment as certified herein has been duly adopted by vote of the stockholders of the Corporation in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.  [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Certificate of Amendment of Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation has been executed by a duly authorized officer of the Corporation on this 1st day of November, 2010.   MAC-GRAY   CORPORATIONBy:
/s/   Stewart G. MacDonald, Jr.Stewart   G. MacDonald, Jr.Chief   Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10617

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

GUADALUPE MACEDO,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-129-3

Before DAVIS, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Guadalupe Macedo, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence for conspiracy to possess 

with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Macedo sought a modification of 

his sentence based on Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines. For the 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 29, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-10617 Document: 00514741686 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2018
No. 18-10617

2

first time on appeal, Macedo argues that he is eligible for relief because he was 

sentenced after Amendment 794 became effective.1

This court reviews de novo a district court’s authority to reduce a 

sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), United States v. Jones, 596 F.3d 273, 276 

(5th Cir. 2010), as well as its denial of a motion to reconsider its authority,

United States v. Rabhan, 540 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 2008).

Section 3582(c)(2) permits the discretionary modification of a defendant’s 

sentence if he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing 

range that was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. United 

States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir. 2009). Macedo is correct that he 

was sentenced after the effective date of Amendment 794. He is therefore 

ineligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), and the district court did 

not err in denying his motion. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, and

Macedo’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

 

1 Macedo also argues that the district court erred in denying his motion because 

Amendment 794, though not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, is a clarifying amendment and 

therefore can be applied retroactively. A clarifying amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines 

can be applied retroactively on direct appeal, but it cannot be applied retroactively in a 

§ 3582(c)(2) proceeding unless it is expressly listed in § 1B1.10(d). United States v. Drath, 89 

F.3d 216, 217-18 (5th Cir. 1996). 

 Case: 18-10617 Document: 00514741686 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/29/2018
# C_2018328EN.01001501.xml

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — QuaMa Quality Management GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Microchip Technology, Inc.

(Case C-139/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Opposition proceedings - Application for the word mark medialbo - Earlier mark MediaLB - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Notice of opposition filed by a person who is not the proprietor of the earlier mark - No formal application for registration of the transfer of the earlier mark within the opposition period - Inadmissibility))

(2018/C 328/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: QuaMa Quality Management GmbH (represented by: C. Russ, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Botis and M. Fischer, acting as Agents), Microchip Technology, Inc. (represented by: C. Bergmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders QuaMa Quality Management GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders QuaMa Quality Management GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.

---
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00233

- CV

Joseph Van Velzor

v.

Henry Bradley §

§

§

§ From the 352nd District Court

o f Tarrant County (352

- 236210

- 09 )

May 22 , 2014

Opinion by Justice Meier



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

S ECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bill Meier

Justice Bill Meier
Benny HERNANDEZ v. ASAP EMPLOYMENT SERVICE, INC., Louisiana Construction & Industry, CF Industries, and Excel Fab

NO. 2018-C-1881

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 28, 2019

Denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.

HUGHE'S, J., would grant.
Order of Dismissal - Solo Page

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MIKE ZOLTON, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-1354-L

§

FEDEX KINKO’S, §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Plaintiff’s Stipulated Notice of Dismissal, filed July 18, 2007, this action is

hereby dismissed with prejudice. The parties shall bear their own costs and attorney’s fees.

It is so ordered this 19th day of July, 2007.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01354-L Document 62 Filed 07/19/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID 613