alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 24

- 00221

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 432nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1749454
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth 

### J OSEPH 

### D INGLER 

### , Appellant

V


### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Joseph Dingler attempts to appeal from an order finding him incompetent to stand trial

. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 46B.0 05( c ) ( authorizing incompetency determination without trial in certain circumstances ) , art. 46B.054 (providing for uncontested incompetency finding) . But such an order is not subject to interlocutory appeal. See id. art
. 46B.011 (prohibiting interlocutory appeal from “determination or ruling under Article 46B.005 ” ); MacWilliams v. State , No. 04

- 24

- 00060

- CR, 2024 WL 950606, at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Mar. 6, 2024, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (explaining that order finding defendant incompetent to stand trial is not subject to interlocutory appeal);
accord. Scott v. State , No. 03

- 24

- 00165

- CR, 2024 WL 2001609, at * 1 (Tex. App.

— Austin May 7, 2024, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Salas v. State , No.
02

- 22

- 00056

- CR, 2022 WL 2753448, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth July 14, 2022, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

. Because an appealable order or final judgment is necessary for this court to obtain jurisdiction, see Salas , 2022 WL 2753448, at *2 ; McKown v. State , 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (per curiam) , and because there is no record of either in this case, we warned Dingler that we would dismiss his appeal
unless he showed grounds for continuing it

. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. Dingler responded by summarizing the issues he intends to raise on appeal

— “two questions3

of firs t impression” and various constitutional challenges

— but he did not identif y any legal basis for our exercise of jurisdiction over those issues. 1 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 2 Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). /s/ Bonnie Sudderth
Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered : August 1, 2024

1 Dingler later filed a motion for emergency relief as well, complaining of “increased restraint of [his] liberty” at the jail. But, like his response to our letter warning of dismissal, Dingler’s motion did not identify a legal basis for our exercise of jurisdiction.

2 All motions pending in this appeal are denied.
Ex hibit 32.1




Certification




Pursuant 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 Sino Clean Energy Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)
the Report fully complies, in all material respects, 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.





/s/ Baowen RenName:
Baowen RenTitle:
Chief Executive OfficerApril 5, 2011/s/ Wen (Wendy) FuName:
Wen (Wendy) FuTitle:
Chief Financial OfficerApril 5, 2011




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request. This exhibit is not “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 but is instead furnished as provided by applicable rules of the SEC.
# Paperwork Reduction Act

Before USCIS can extend, revise, or create a new public use form or reporting requirement, we must first notify the public of our intent and allow the public to provide comments on the new or revised requirement. 
                - Please visit regulations.gov  to view current and past notices, along with supporting documents, regarding information collection actions.
                - Please visit reginfo.gov  and select the “Information Collection Review” tab for information on currently approved collections of information for USCIS and all federal agencies.
                - Please visit A Guide to the Paperwork Reduction Act  for information on the Paperwork Reduction Act including its effects on the public and how federal agencies must comply with it.

**Please note that the proposed new or revised forms are in draft form and cannot be used by the public until OMB approves the forms.**

04/01/2020

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2623 

To reduce prescription drug costs by allowing the importation and 

reimportation of certain drugs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 3, 2015 

Mr. ELLISON (for himself, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, and Mr. 

GRIJALVA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To reduce prescription drug costs by allowing the importation 

and reimportation of certain drugs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Personal Drug Impor5 tation Fairness Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REDUCING PRESCRIPTION DRUG COSTS BY ALLOW7 ING CERTAIN DRUGS TO BE IMPORTED OR 

8 REIMPORTED. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any provision of 

10 the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2623 IH

1 et seq.), a drug may be imported into the United States, 

2 and may be reimported into the United States by a person 

3 other than the drug’s manufacturer, if the drug— 

4 (1) has the same active ingredients, route of ad5 ministration, and strength as a prescription drug ap6 proved under chapter V of such Act (21 U.S.C. 351 

7 et seq.); 

8 (2) may be lawfully marketed in, and is im9 ported or reimported from, a qualified country; 

10 (3) is dispensed by a licensed pharmacist; 

11 (4) is shipped directly to, or is imported by, the 

12 ultimate consumer from the qualified country; 

13 (5) is shipped or imported in quantities that do 

14 not exceed a 90-day supply; and 

15 (6) is accompanied by a copy of a valid pre16 scription. 

17 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act: 

18 (1) The term ‘‘drug’’ has the meaning given to 

19 such term in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, 

20 and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321), except that such 

21 term excludes any controlled substance (as defined 

22 in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 

23 U.S.C. 802)). 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2623 IH

1 (2) The term ‘‘prescription drug’’ means a drug 

2 subject to section 503(b)(1) of the Federal Food, 

3 Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 353(b)(1)). 

4 (3) The term ‘‘qualified country’’ means a 

5 country that— 

6 (A) is Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, 

7 New Zealand, Switzerland, South Africa, a 

8 member-state of the European Union, or a 

9 country in the European Economic Area; and 

10 (B) is determined by the Commissioner of 

11 Food and Drugs to have standards for ensuring 

12 the safety and effectiveness of drugs that are at 

13 least as protective as such standards in the 

14 United States. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Edward Henry LOMBANA-CANO, Petitioner, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

No. 10-14873

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 10, 2011.

Arturo Aponte-Pares, Aponte & Associates, Orlando, FL, for Petitioner.

David Bernal, Krystal Samuels, Walter Bocchini, U.S. Department of Justice— Office of Immigration Litigation, Eric Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Michelle Ressler, District Counsel’s Office Usice, Miami, FL, for Respondent.

Before PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Edward Henry Lombana-Cano, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions this Court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that denied Lom*900bana-Cano’s motion to reconsider. We deny the petition.

Lombana-Cano failed to specify in his motion to reconsider any errors of fact and law in the decision of the Board. In his motion, Lombana-Cano repeated the arguments from his appeal that he had suffered past persecution and feared future persecution on account of a political opinion that the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia attributed to him as a dentist working for the Colombian government. *Lombana-Cano v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,*360 Fed.Appx. 70, 70-71 (11th Cir.2010). By “merely reiterating arguments previously presented to the [Board],” Lombana-Cano failed to “ ‘specify! ] ... errors of fact or law’ as required for a successful motion to reconsider.” *Calle v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,*504 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir.2007) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1)). The Board did not abuse its discretion by denying Lombana-Cano’s motion to reconsider.

Lombana-Cano’s petition for review is DENIED.
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

      In connection with the Annual Report of Cyber Defense  Systems,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending  December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
William C. Robinson,  CEO, CFO, Chairman and Principal Executive,  Financial and
Accounting Officer,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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.

                                             CYBER DEFENSE SYSTEMS, INC.

                                             By: /s/ William C. Robinson
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 William C. Robinson
                                                 CEO, CFO, Chairman and
                                                 Principal Executive, Financial
                                                 and Accounting Officer

                                                        April 15, 2005
EXHIBIT 31.2
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, James M. Thomas, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Georgia-CarolinaBancshares, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financialreporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for theregistrant and we have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]
c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.
Date: August 13, 2004
   /s/ James M. ThomasJames M. Thomas
Exhibit 4(A)(24)

Date: May 5, 2006

This letter sets forth the mutual agreement between ViryaNet Limited (Company) and
LibertyView Special Opportunities Fund, LP (LibertyView) in connection with the partial conversion of an Amended and Restated 71/2% Convertible Note in the amount of US$2,500,000 (the Note Amount) dated August 5, 2005 (the Note).

In connection with such Note, the parties agree than an amount of $2,000,000 out of the Note Amount shall be converted into Preferred A Shares of the Company (each, a Preferred Share), at a conversion
price equal to $1.53 per each Preferred Share. The Preferred Shares shall have all rights and privileges as the Companys Ordinary Shares (including voting rights, rights to participate in divided distribution (if any) and all other rights
which may be attached to the Ordinary Shares), provided that the Preferred Shares shall have preference to the Ordinary Shares in any distribution upon the liquidation or deemed liquidation of the Company. The Preferred Shares may be converted at
any time, at the discretion of LibertyView, into Ordinary Shares on 1 to 1 ratio. Upon the consummation of an M&A or similar transaction involving the Company, the Preferred Shares shall be entitled to the same benefits provided to the Ordinary
Shares.

Upon the above partial conversion of the Note, the Note Amount shall be decreased to $980,000 (the Remaining Loan) and all terms and
condition of the Note in connection with the Remaining Loan shall continue to be in full force and effect.

The Company shall file with the SEC a
registration statement covering the Ordinary Shares which may be issued upon conversion of the Preferred Shares by no later than 60 days from the date hereof.

As this transaction requires the consent of the Companys shareholders, the Company shall file as soon as possible a proxy statement and request that its shareholders approve such conversion and the required changes to the
Companys Articles of Association. The Company shall use reasonable efforts to file such proxy statement, together with the new Articles of Association, within 10 days from the date hereof. If the shareholders do not approve the conversion
contemplated hereunder within 45 days from the date hereof, this transaction shall be canceled. Otherwise, this transaction shall be binding on the Company and LibertyView.

In witness hereof, the parties have duly signed this letter as of the date mentioned above:



|                          |  |                                           
|------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|ViryaNet Limited          |  | LibertyView Special Opportunities Fund, LP
|By: ____________________  |  | By: ____________________                  
|Its:_____________________ |  | Its:_____________________
Exhibit 4(b)(5)

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
following Registration Statements of ViryaNet Ltd. (the Company):



| | 1) | Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File Number 333-65904), of the Company,
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2) | Registration Statement on Forms F-3/A (File Number 333-114504) of the Company, and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3) | Registration Statement on Form F-3/A (File Number 333-130632) of the Company;
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our report dated August 29, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of the Company included in its Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006.



|                 |  |                                 
|---------------- |  | --------------------------------
|Tel-Aviv, Israel |  | KOST, FORER GABBAY and KASIERER 
|August 29, 2007  |  | A Member of Ernst & Young Global
<PAGE>

Union Planters Bank
Managements Assertion Concerning Compliance
with USAP Minimum Servicing Standards

Ladies and Gentlemen:


As of and for the year ended December 31, 2000, Union Planters Bank,
National Association (the Company), has complied in all material
respects with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the
Mortgage Bankers Association of Americas Uniform Single Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers (USAP).

As of and for this same period, the Company had in effect a fidelity
bond and errors and omissions policy in the amounts of $25,000,000
and $25,000,000 respectively.


/s/ Dough Miller
-----------------
Dough Miller
Executive Vice President

/s/ Mark Mosteller
------------------
Mark Mosteller
Executive Vice President

/s/ Cynthia J. Britton
-----------------------
Cynthia J. Britton
Vice President

Union Planters Bank
P.O. Box 387
Memphis, TN 38147
#### Maria Leonor PAREDES-ORTEGA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-72923.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 5, 2011.*

Filed April 26, 2011.

Ramin Ghashghaei, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Janice Kay Red-fern, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office Of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Maria Leonor Paredes-Ortega, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Paredes-Ortega’s motion to reopen. Contrary to Paredes-Ortega’s contention, she received proper notice of her deportation hearing. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2) (repealed 1996); *see also Garcia v. INS,*222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (notice to counsel sufficient). The motion was therefore untimely because Paredes-Ortega filed it more than 12 years after the May 16,1996, deportation order, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(3) (repealed 1996), and Paredes-Ortega failed to demonstrate that she acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, *see Iturribarria,*321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling available “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# All News

This page lists all USCIS news releases and alerts, searchable by topic and date. For material older than three years or that is no longer current, see ourArchive News section.

Subscribe to get updates:

Get Updates by Email
e.g. name@email.com

H-1B Form I-129 Filing Location Change and FY 2025 H-1B Cap Season Updates and Reminders

March 26, 2024

USCIS Reopens Field Office in Tegucigalpa, Honduras

March 22, 2024

Secretary Mayorkas Announces Extension and Redesignation of Burma (Myanmar) for Temporary Protected Status

March 22, 2024

USCIS Extends Initial Registration Period for FY 2025 H-1B Cap

March 21, 2024

USCIS Updates Policy Guidance Clarifying Expedite Requests

March 21, 2024

USCIS Clarifies Anti-Discrimination Policy

March 15, 2024

USCIS Streamlines Process for Refugee Employment Authorization Documents

March 12, 2024

USCIS Reaches H-2B Cap for Second Half of FY 2024 and Announces Filing Dates for the Second Half of FY 2024 Supplemental Visas

March 08, 2024

Reminder: Certain Updated Forms Take Effect on April 1 with No Grace Period

March 01, 2024

FY 2025 H-1B Registration Period and myUSCIS Organizational Account Reminders

February 28, 2024

11 - 20 total rows

- **Back
- Next**

    RSS Feed  

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.