alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 29, 2021

No. 04

- 19

- 00575

- CV

IN THE ESTATE OF CARLOS AGUILAR, DECEASED,

From the County Court at Law No 2

, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012

- PB4

- 000048

- L2

H onorable Victor Villarreal , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, C hief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

On March 26, 2021, the parties filed a “Joint Motion Pursuant to Settlement” in which

they assert they settled the dispute that is the subject of this appeal and they filed an Agreed

Order with the probate court. The parties ask this court to abate the ap peal, remand the cause to

the trial court to effectuate the agreement, and order each party to bear their own costs of appeal.

The motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART

.

This cause is REMANDED to the trial court to allow the court to effectuate th e parties’

agreement as reflected in their executed Agree Order. This appeal is ABATED pending further

order of this court. The parties are ordered to file, no later than April 28, 202 1 , (1) a motion to

dismiss this appeal in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1 or (2) a letter

informing this court of the status of the case before the trial court.

The parties’ request to order costs assessed against the party that incurred them is

DENIED without prejudice to the parties requesting t he same relief upon dismissal of this

appeal

.

It is so ORDE RED March 2 9

, 202 1

.PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

______ ____________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, CLERK OF COURT
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Andrique Baron, Appellant, v New York State Department of Corrections et al., Respondents.

[942 NYS2d 392]

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Jefferson County (Hugh A. Gilbert, J.), entered October 19, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Inasmuch as he has been released to parole supervision, this appeal by petitioner from the judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been rendered moot *(see People ex rel. Graham v Fischer,*70 AD3d 1381, 1381-1382 [2010]; *People ex rel. Mitchell v Unger,*63 AD3d 1591 [2009]; *People ex rel. Hampton v Dennison,*59 AD3d 951 [2009] , *lv denied*12 NY3d 711 [2009]), and the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply herein *(see Graham,*70 AD3d at 1381-1382; *Hampton,*59 AD3d at 951; *see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,*50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). Present— Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Fahey and Peradotto, JJ.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

823 

KA 10-00381 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND GREEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

DAVID SANCHEZ, ALSO KNOWN AS DAVID CANFIELD, 

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

JOHN E. TYO, SHORTSVILLE, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA, FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Craig J.

Doran, J.), rendered January 15, 2010. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sexual act in the

first degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Entered: July 1, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to the Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB, as amended by Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-KSB/A, for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed by Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc. with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (collectively the
Report), that:



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



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



/s/ Paul KatzeffChief Executive OfficerOctober 8, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 164 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 164

 Recognizing the teachers of the United States for their contributions 
             to the development and progress of our Nation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 4, 2011

     Mr. Lautenberg (for himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. 
Gillibrand, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Coons, Mr. 
 Sanders, Mr. Begich, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
   Kohl, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, and Mr. Cardin) submitted the 
        following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Recognizing the teachers of the United States for their contributions 
             to the development and progress of our Nation.

Whereas education is the foundation of the current and future strength of the 
        United States;
Whereas teachers and other education staff have earned and deserve the respect 
        of students and communities for selfless dedication to our Nation's 
        children;
Whereas the purpose of ``National Teacher Appreciation Week'', which is May 2, 
        2011, through May 6, 2011, is to raise public awareness of the important 
        contributions of teachers and to promote greater respect and 
        understanding for the teaching profession;
Whereas the teachers of the United States play an important role in preparing 
        children to be positive and contributing members of society; and
Whereas students, schools, communities, and a number of organizations are 
        hosting teacher appreciation events in recognition of ``National Teacher 
        Appreciation Week'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) thanks teachers for their service;
            (2) promotes the profession of teaching; and
            (3) encourages students, parents, school administrators, 
        and public officials to participate in teacher appreciation 
        events during ``National Teacher Appreciation Week''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2019072EN.01004501.xml

| 25.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/45

---

Action brought on 7 January 2019 — Nowhere v EUIPO — Junguo Ye (APE TEES)

(Case T-12/19)

(2019/C 72/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nowhere Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japon) (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Junguo Ye (Elche, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark APE TEES — Application for registration No 14 319 578

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2018 in Case R 2474/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject the contested mark in respect of all of the contested goods; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the contested mark in respect of all of the contested goods;

| — | alternatively, remit the matter to the EUIPO for re-consideration; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, remit the matter to the EUIPO for re-consideration;

| — | order the payment of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with the appeal and opposition proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the payment of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with the appeal and opposition proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article (8)(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article (8)(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### Richard Brown, Appellant-Respondent, v Susan Berman, Respondent-Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 870]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Garvey, J.), dated February 16, 2011, as, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendant and against him, in effect, dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged breach of contract and conversion of certain personal property, and the defendant cross-appeals, as limited by her notice of appeal and brief, from so much of the same judgment as is in favor of the plaintiff and against her dismissing her counterclaim to recover damages for structural damage to her home.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In reviewing a trial court’s findings of fact after a nonjury trial, this Court’s authority is as broad as that of the Supreme Court and “includes the power to render the judgment [we] find[ ] warranted by the facts” *(McGuire v McGuire,*93 AD3d 701, 703 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]). In reviewing the evidence, however, we must give “appropriate regard” to the decision of the trial judge, who was in a position to assess the credibility of the witnesses firsthand *(Bubba’s Bagels of Wesley Hills, Inc. v Bergstol,*18 AD3d 411, 412 [2005]; *see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford,*60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; *McGuire v McGuire,*93 AD3d at 703).

Here, based largely on its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, the Supreme Court found that the parties did not have an oral contract entitling the plaintiff to repayment for the cost of a renovation project on the defendant’s home. The Supreme Court also found, however, that the defendant was not entitled to recover on her counterclaim. The Supreme Court’s *895determinations are supported by the record, and we find no basis to disturb them *(see Clinton Ave. Owners Corp. v Celestial Church of Christ, Ileri Oluwa Parish,*94 AD3d 1033, 1034 [2012]; *Marjam Supply Co., Inc. v All Craft Fabricators, Inc.,*94 AD3d 954 [2012]; *Hamilton v Blackwood,*85 AD3d 1116 [2011]).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Balkin, J.P., Eng, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.
#### Shwikar Ali ABDELKADER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SEARS ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 11-1142.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 1, 2011.

Shwikar Ali Abdelkader, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Ross Niccolini, Ogletree, Dea-kins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*147PER CURIAM:

Shwikar Ali Abdelkader appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s summary judgment motion on her religious discrimination and retaliation claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2003 & Supp.2011). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. *See Abdelkader v. Sears Roebuck & Co.,*No. 1:10-cv-00511-BEL (D. Md. filed Jan. 20, 2011; entered Jan. 21, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mark Anthony HOUGH, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-7522.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 18, 2009.

Decided: Jan. 15, 2009.

Mark Anthony Hough, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Mark Anthony Hough appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for reduction of his sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Hough,*No. 4:02-cr-00471-TLW-3 (D.S.C. filed July 21, 2008; entered July 22, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
DALE McINTYRE, DOC #060221, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-3225 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed November 1, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; J. Kevin Abdoney, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Julius J. Aulisio, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lara E. Breslow, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa; and Linsey Sims-Bohnenstiehl, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa (substituted as counsel of record), for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
EXHIBIT 12.1

Computation of Ratio of Debt to Equity



|                     |  |                         |         |  |      |   |         |      |  |   |         |  |  |      |         |  |  |   |         | 
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------- | ------- |  | ---- | - | ------- | ---- |  | - | ------- |  |  | ---- | ------- |  |  | - | ------- | 
|                     |  | Year ended December 31, |        
|Dollars in thousands |  | 2013                    |         |  | 2012 |   |         | 2011 |  |   | 2010    |  |  | 2009 |        
|Debt                 |  | $                       | 314,958 |  |      | $ | 322,770 |      |  | $ | 357,779 |  |  | $    | 380,532 |  |  | $ | 382,522 | 
|Equity               |  |                         | 273,495 |  |      |   | 216,318 |      |  |   | 171,504 |  |  |      | 162,765 |  |  |   | 162,977 | 
|Debt to equity       |  |                         | 1.15    |  |      |   | 1.49    |      |  |   | 2.09    |  |  |      | 2.34    |  |  |   | 2.35    | 
|                     |  |                         |         |  |      |   |         |      |  |   |         |  |  |      |         |  |  |   |         | 



67
# C_2019139EN.01009701.xml

| 15.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/97 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/97

---

Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Amisi Kumba v Council

(Case T-118/19)

(2019/C 139/98)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gabriel Amisi Kumba (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois, and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 2 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 2 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 2 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 2 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/19, Mende Omalanga v Council.

---
# C_2019295EN.01006701.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/67

---

Action brought on 3 July 2019 — Dell’Alba v Parliament

(Case T-449/19)

(2019/C 295/87)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Gianfranco Dell’Alba (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION:

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


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



Certification of CEO

In  connection  with  the Quarterly Report of Sentry Technology Corporation (the
"Company")  on  Form  10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the Report"), I,
Peter  L.  Murdoch, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002,  that,  to  my  knowledge:

     (1)   The  Report  fully  complies  with the requirements of Section 13(a)
           and 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.



                         /s/ PETER L. MURDOCH
                          -------------------------------------------------
                          Peter L. Murdoch
                          President and Chief Executive Officer

                          November 14, 2008


A  signed  original  of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears  in  typed  form  within  the  electronic  version  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.

This  certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906
of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by  such  Act,  be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  amended  (the  "Exchange  Act").  Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the
extent  that  the  Company  specifically  incorporates  it  by  reference.
# Official Journal L 13/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2010.013.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 13 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5319 January 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2010.013.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 13

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5319 January 2010

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) No 36/2010 of 3 December 2009 on Community models for train driving licences, complementary certificates, certified copies of complementary certificates and application forms for train driving licences, under Directive 2007/59/EC of the European Parliament and the Council (1) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) No 36/2010 of 3 December 2009 on Community models for train driving licences, complementary certificates, certified copies of complementary certificates and application forms for train driving licences, under Directive 2007/59/EC of the European Parliament and the Council (1)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.