alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion filed August 9 , 201 8



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _ _____ 

### No. 11

- 1 8

- 00 0 87

- CR

____ _ ______ 

### ZACHARY AARON NOEL , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 2 9 th District Court Palo Pinto County, Texas Trial Court Cause No

. 16199

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Based upon an open plea of guilty, the trial court convicted Appellant, Zachary Aaron Noel
, of the offense of escape while under arrest for a felony

. The
trial court held a punishment hearing and assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement for eight years and a fine of $1,500

. We dismiss the appeal. Appe llant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously2

examines the record and applicable law and conclude s that the appeal is frivolous
and without merit . Counsel has provided A ppellant wit h a copy of the brief , the motion to withdraw, and a copy of the appellate record. Counsel advised A ppellant
of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. A ppellant has not filed a response

. 1 Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 48.4 , 68

. Court

- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California
, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v.
State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause
to the trial court so that n ew counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman
, 252 S.W.3d at 409 ; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and
should be dismissed. See Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409. Based upon a review of the record, we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 2

1 T his c ourt granted Appellant more than thirty days in which to exercise h is right to file a response to counsel’s brief.

2 We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3

T he motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

August 9 , 201 8 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Willson, J., Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J

. 3
Willson, J., not participating.

3 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.
**EXHIBIT
        32.1**
  Written
        Statement of Principal Executive Officer Furnished Pursuant to
 18
        U.S.C.
        Section 1350,
 as
        Adopted by
 Section
        906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 
 In
          connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of HouseRaising, Inc.
          (the
          "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
          and
          Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gregory J. Wessling,
          Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to
          18
          U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
          of
          2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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)
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition as of December 31, 2004 and results of operations
        for
        the year ended December 31, 2004 of the Company and its
        subsidiaries.
  Date: April
                    5,
                    2006
                  By:
                  /s/ Gregory
                    J.
                    WesslingName:
                    Gregory J. WesslingTitle:  Chairman
                    of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
                    (Principal Executive Officer)
 
 This
        certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
        the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
        Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
        amended.
COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE S AM G LASS C OCK III

V ICE C HANCELLOR STATE OF DELAWARE C OURT OF C HANCERY C OURTHOUSE 34 T HE C IRCLE G EORGETOWN , D ELAWARE 19947
August 20, 2020

A. Thomspon Bayliss, Esq. E liezer Y

. Feinstein, Esq. ABRA MS & BAYLISS LLP 20 Montchanin Road , Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19807 David S. Eagle, Esq. Sean M

. Brennecke, Esq. K LEHR HARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG LLP 919 N orth Market Street , Suite 1000 Wilmington, DE 19801
RE: Anne W. Deane v. Saint Gervais LLC C.A. 2020

- 0520

- SG Dear Counsel: I have Mr. Feinstein’s letter of August 17, 2020 seeking clarification of what appears to be an error in my bench ruling of July 27, 2020, together with Mr. Eagle’s contrary response. I have never been accused of eloquence or fluidity of speech. In the many bench rulings I have given ov er the past two decades, I have undoubtedly made dozens of inadvertent misstatements. Such verbal errors are among the reasons I persist in the traditional rule that oral rulings of this Court have no precedential value. 1 The transcript of my ruling reso lving the July 27, 2020 “Telephonic

1 See Day v. Diligence, Inc. , 2020 WL 2214377, at *1 (Del. Ch. May 7, 2020).2 Scheduled Argument on Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Proceedings” contains one such error. I made the statement, fatuous on its face, that the “proper way to go forward” in this books

- and

- records action was (among oth er things) “to grant the motion to dismiss, which is granted as a matter of course in statutory actions of this type; and to get a schedule in place.” While no doubt granting motions to dismiss as a matter of course would save judicial resources, it is ob vious to me that I misspoke, and meant to refer to the motion before me, Plaintiff’s contested Motion to Expedite. A motion to expedite is required in cases filed under Section 220 and its alternative

- entity analogues, t o signal to the Court that the p lai ntiff has filed a summary action that should receive consideration with alacrity. I do grant such motions as a matter of course. I apologize for any confusion my misspeaking has caused to the parties. This confusion is entirely my fault. Having said th at, I am a little surprised that the Defendant LLC has opposed the Plaintiff’s request to clarify the record, calling my bench ruling an “unambiguous ruling” granting its Motion to Dismiss, which has since been mooted by the Plaintiff’s filing of an amende d complaint. The LLC must have the impression it has fallen into a defendant’s version of hog heaven, where motions to dismiss are granted without argument “as a matter of course.” 2 Untrue, alas.

2 A kind of demurring party’s analog to The Big Rock Candy Mountain.3 Insofar as the transcript of July 27, 2020 indicates that I orally granted a motion to dismiss, that statement is in error. For clarification, I did not grant a motion to dismiss; I did grant the Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite. The Judicial Action Form is hereby amended to reflect this clarification. To the e xtent the foregoing requires an order to take effect, IT IS SO
ORDERED.
Sincerely, /s/ Sam Glasscock III Sam Glasscock III

cc: All counsel of record ( by File & ServeXpress )
EXHIBIT 2.(a) SPECIMEN COMMON SHARE CERTIFICATE



VOID VOID VOID



NOBLE HOUSE ENTERTAINMENT INC.

INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO

NUMBER GS92

SHARES*1********

CUSIP:  655046100

ISIN:  CA6550461009



THIS CERTIFIES THAT

**SPECIMEN**

is the registered holder of

**one**

FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES WITHOUT PAR VALUE IN THE CAPITAL OF NOBLE HOUSE ENTERTAINMENT INC.

transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by Attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed.



This certificate is not valid until countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agents and Registrars of the Corporation.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers.



/s/Kamlesh Shah

Kamlesh Shah

Chief Financial Officer



DATED:  2004/04/12

COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED By Equity Transfer Services Inc. Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Transfer Agent and Registrar



By:  /s/Authorized Officer

AUTHORIZED OFFICER



The Shares represented by this Certificate are transferable at the offices of Equity Transfer Services Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada



SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE

VOIR LES INSTRUCTIONS DE SECURITE AU VERSO



Test111-375910-19816659549 341445

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto



PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBER OF TRANSFEREE



(Name and address of transferee)



________shares registered in the name of the undersigned on the books of the Corporation named on the face of this certificate and represented hereby, and irrevocably constitutes and appoints

________the attorney of the undersigned to transfer the said shares on the register of transfers and books of the corporation with full power of substitution hereunder.



Dated:

Signature:

Guaranteed by:



NOTICE:  THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNEMENT MUST CORRESPOND IN EVERY PARTICULAR WITH THE SURNAME AND FIRST NAMES(S) OR INITIALS SHOWN ON THE FACE OF THIS CERTIFICATE AND MUST BE GUARANTEED BY A BANK, TRUST COMPANY OR A MEMBER OF A RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE



RESTRICTIONS

[BLANK]



SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS  INSTRUCTIONS DE SECURITE



THIS IS WATERMARKED PAPER, DO NOT ACCEPT WITHOUT NOTING WATERMARK.  HOLD TO LIGHT TO VERIFY WATERMARK.

PAPIER FILIGRANE, NE PAS ACCEPTER SANS VERIFIER LA PRESENCE DU FILIGRANE.  POUR CE FAIRE, PLACER A LA LUMIERE.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 60 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 60

To provide relief to the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada for settlement of 
               certain claims against the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 25 (legislative day, January 5), 2011

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide relief to the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada for settlement of 
               certain claims against the United States.

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

SECTION 1. SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN CLAIMS.

    (a) Authorization for Payment.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
of law, subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
pay to the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada $1,830,000 from amounts 
appropriated under section 1304 of title 31, United States Code.
    (b) Payment in Accordance With Stipulation for Recommendation of 
Settlement.--The payment under subsection (a) shall--
            (1) be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of 
        the Stipulation for Recommendation of Settlement dated May 22, 
        2000, entered into between the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada and 
        the United States (referred to in this section as the 
        ``Stipulation for Recommendation of Settlement''); and
            (2) be included in the report of the Chief Judge of the 
        United States Court of Federal Claims regarding Congressional 
        Reference No. 94-1037X, submitted to the Senate on January 4, 
        2001, in accordance with sections 1492 and 2509 of title 28, 
        United States Code.
    (c) Full Satisfaction of Claims.--The payment under subsection (a) 
shall be in full satisfaction of all claims of the Pottawatomi Nation 
in Canada against the United States that are referred to or described 
in the Stipulation for Recommendation of Settlement.
    (d) Nonapplicability.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act (25 U.S.C. 
1401 et seq.) does not apply to the payment under subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
#### In re AVRUTIS.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 22, 1912.)

In the matter of Aaron Avrutis. No opinion. Stay granted, as stated in memorandum per curiam. Settle order on notice. See, also, 131 N. Y. Supp. 1102.
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of New Jersey Mining
Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Fred W. Brackebusch, President, Treasurer and Director of New
Jersey Mining 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.

|Date: August 14, 2008                               
|----------------------------------------------------
|                                                    
|By:  /s/ FRED W. BRACKEBUSCH                        
|Fred W. Brackebusch, President, Treasurer & Director

15

---
# C_2019372EN.01000902.xml

| 4.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/9

---

Appeal brought on 29 May 2019 by Primed Halberstadt Medizintechnik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 March 2019 in Case T-138/17: Prim v EUIPO - Primed Halberstadt Medizintechnik

(Case C-421/19 P)

(2019/C 372/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Primed Halberstadt Medizintechnik GmbH (represented by: R. Ingerl, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Prim, SA (represented by: L. Broschat García, abogada), European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 16 September 2019 the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal is not allowed to proceed and that Primed Halberstadt Medizintechnik GmbH shall bear its own costs.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7775

JAMES CLAUDE GREER, II,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR, VADOC,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District 

Judge. (7:15-cv-00432-GEC-RSB)

Submitted: October 31, 2016 Decided: November 2, 2016

Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Claude Greer, II, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Claude Greer, II, seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief 

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating 

that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate 

both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that 

the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Greer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A No. 1 of Americare
Health Scan, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Dr. Joseph P. D'Angelo, President and Chief Executive 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 to the best of my knowledge:

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

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

Date: October 10, 2008       /s/  Dr. Joseph P. D'Angelo
      ----------------      ---------------------------
                            Dr. Joseph P. D'Angelo, President, Chief
                            Executive Officer

      October 10, 2008       /s/  Robert Cano
      ----------------      --------------------
                            Robert Cano, Chief Financial Officer
iii i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00415-CR

Linda Faye GRIFFIN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-CR-7490

Honorable Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 9, 2008

DISMISSED

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that the case is a “plea-bargain case, and

the defendant has NO right of appeal.” Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

provides, “[t]he appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of

appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). 

Appellant’s counsel has filed written notice with this court that counsel has reviewed the
04-08-00415-CR

-2-

record and “can find no right of appeal for Appellant.” We construe this notice as an indication that

appellant will not seek to file an amended trial court certification showing that he has the right of

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174, 177 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). In light of the record presented, we agree with appellant’s

counsel that Rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is

dismissed.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
Term sheet



 Exhibit 4.32 
 

 
 September 3, 2009 
 Gold Fields Australasia (BVI) Limited 
 Falcon Cliff 
 Palace Road 
 Douglas 
 Isle of Man IM2 4LB 
 Copy to: Mr J Pauley

 Schipholweg 66A 
 Leiden 

2316XE 
 Attention: Mr. Colin Bird,

 We understand that you hold 27,824,654 common shares of Eldorado Gold Corporation. We are pleased to submit this offer to purchase these
shares subject to the terms and conditions set out in the attached term sheet. If you accept these terms please sign the letter where indicated below and return a copy thereof to Mr. Craig King (via email at craig.king@nbfinancial.com at
416-869-1010) whereupon this letter shall become binding agreement between us. 
  

			
	Yours sincerely,
	
	NATIONAL BANK FINANCIAL Inc.
		
	By:	 	 



	
	Mr. Craig King
	Director, Equity Capital Markets

 We agree with the foregoing and accept your offer this 3rd day of September, 2009. 
  

			
	GOLD FIELDS AUSTRALASIA (BVI) LIMITED
		
	By:	 	 



	
	Mr Colin Bird

 Private and Confidential 







 ELDORADO GOLD CORPORATION 
 Block Trade of Common Shares 
 Term Sheet

  

			
	Issuer:	  	Eldorado Gold Corporation (“Eldorado” or the “Company”).
		
	Selling
 Shareholder:
	  	Gold Fields Australasia (BVI) Limited (“Gold Fields”).
		
	Offer:	  	Offer to acquire 27,824,654 common shares (the “Shares”) of Eldorado being sold by Gold Fields.
		
	Price:	  	C$11.61 per Share.
		
	Amount:	  	$323,044,232.94.
		
	Listing:	  	The Shares are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX: ELD) and the NYSE-Amex Exchange (NYSE-A: EGO).
		
	Offer Basis:	  	This offer is open for acceptance until 9:15 am (EST) or 3:15 pm (Johannesburg time).
		
	Representation:	  	Gold Fields represents and warrants to National Bank Financial Inc. that it is the legal and beneficial owner of the Shares and the Shares will be sold free and clear of all liens,
encumbrances, security interests and escrow requirements and are not subject to any hold period under Canadian securities laws or stock exchange rules.
		
	Trade Date:	  	September 3, 2009.
		
	Settlement:	  	Gold Fields will deliver to National Bank Financial Inc. the shares in physical form by the Settlement Date against payment by National Bank Financial Inc. of the Amount. If
necessary Gold Fields will open an account with National Bank Financial Inc. to facilitate settlement of the offering
		
	Settlement Date:	  	September 9, 2009.
ex10a.htm


    


    


    Exhibit
10(a)

    


    


    


    Consent of Ernst
& Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    


    


    We consent to the
reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm” and to the
use of our reports dated (a) March 18, 2009, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company
and (b) March 20, 2009, with respect to the financial statements of
Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account E, in Post-Effective Amendment No. 39
to the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 033-26032) pertaining to
Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account E, which is incorporated by reference
into Post-Effective Amendment No. 42.

    


                                         /s/ Ernst & Young
LLP

     

    Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania

    December 2,
2009