alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001045260
<NAME>                        USWEBAUCTIONS, INC.

<S>                                    <C>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-mos                        6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000                  DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-1-2000                   JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-2000                  JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       30,959                       30,959
<SECURITIES>                                      0                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                               178,530                      178,530
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0                            0
<INVENTORY>                                       0                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             30,959                       30,959
<PP&E>                                            0                            0
<DEPRECIATION>                                    0                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              209,489                      209,489
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        41,737                       41,737
<BONDS>                                           0                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0                            0
<PREFERRED>                                       0                            0
<COMMON>                                      8,060                        8,060
<OTHER-SE>                                        0                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                209,489                      209,489
<SALES>                                           0                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  0                            0
<CGS>                                             0                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            (72,828)                    (97,828)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   0                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0                            0
<CHANGES>                                         0                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (72,248)                    (97,248)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.01)                      (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.01)                      (0.02)



</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-04508-AKH Document 25 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 1 of 5Case 1:07-cv-04508-AKH Document 25 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 2 of 5Case 1:07-cv-04508-AKH Document 25 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 3 of 5Case 1:07-cv-04508-AKH Document 25 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 4 of 5Case 1:07-cv-04508-AKH Document 25 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 5 of 5
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-19-00161-CR

Marilynn Meade MEDINA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR0548W

Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 12, 2019

DISMISSED

Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, appellant pleaded nolo contendere to possession of 

a controlled substance. The trial court deferred the adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on 

community supervision for a term of three years. On January 23, 2019, the trial court signed a 

certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the 

defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). 

“In a plea bargain case ... a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised 

by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to 
04-19-00161-CR

- 2 -

appeal.” Id. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record, which contains a written plea bargain, establishes the 

punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor 

and agreed to by the defendant. See id. The clerk’s record does not include a written motion filed 

and ruled upon before trial; nor does it indicate that the trial court gave its permission to appeal. 

See id. The trial court’s certification, therefore, appears to accurately reflect that this is a pleabargain case and that appellant does not have a right to appeal. We must dismiss an appeal “if a 

certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” 

Id. 25.2(d).

We, therefore, warned appellant that this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Texas 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), unless an amended trial court certification showing that she 

had the right to appeal was made part of the appellate record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; 

Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order). No such amended trial 

court certification has been filed. Rather, appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a response 

agreeing that appellant does not have the right to appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal 

pursuant to Rule 25.2(d).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
Richard S. Mills, Esq. (RM-0206)

John P. Cookson, Esq. (JPC-9391)

McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP

Wall Street Plaza

88 Pine Street, 24th Floor

New York, New York 10005

(212) 483-9490

Attorneys for Defendant

Ambient Group, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE: WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE 

LITIGATION

21 MC 102 (AKH)

TERESA ROBLES, 

 Plaintiff, -against- ALAN KASMAN DBA KASCO, ET. AL., 

 Defendants.

INDEX NO.: 07-CV-05312 (AKH)

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

COUNSELOR:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant, AMBIENT GROUP, INC., by its attorneys, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, hereby appears in the above-entitled action, and

that the undersigned have been retained as attorneys for said defendant and demand that copies of

all papers in this action be served upon the undersigned at the office and address stated below.

Dated: New York, New York

May 12, 2008

Yours etc., 

McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP

Case 1:07-cv-05312-AKH Document 34 Filed 05/23/2008 Page 1 of 3
2

Attorneys for Defendant

Ambient Group, Inc.

By:__ s/ John P. Cookson __________ Richard S. Mills (RM-0206)

John P. Cookson (JPC-9391)

Wall Street Plaza

88 Pine Street, 24th Floor

New York, New York 10005

(212) 483.9490

TO: Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern, LLP

115 Broadway, 12th Floor

New York, New York 10006

(212) 267.3700

Gregory J. Cannata, Esq.

Robert A. Grochow, Esq.

233 Broadway, 5th Floor

New York, New York 10279

(212) 553.9206

James E. Tyrrell, Jr., Esq.

Patton Boggs LLP

One Riverfront Plaza

Newark, New Jersey 07102

(973) 848.5600

Thomas A. Egan, Esq.

Fleming Zulack Williamson Zauderer, LLP

One Liberty Plaza

New York, New York 10006-1404

(212) 412.9500

Case 1:07-cv-05312-AKH Document 34 Filed 05/23/2008 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 12th day of May 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE BY DEFENDANT AMBIENT GROUP, INC., with the 

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System which sends notification to appearing parties.

McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter LLP

By: __s/ John P. Cookson ____ Richard S. Mills (RM-0206)

John P. Cookson (JPC-9391)

Attorneys for Defendant

Ambient Group, Inc. 

Wall Street Plaza

88 Pine Street, 24th Floor

New York, New York 10005

(212) 483-9490

Case 1:07-cv-05312-AKH Document 34 Filed 05/23/2008 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05364-AKH Document 12 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-05364-AKH Document 12 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Jeffrey L. Garon, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Tripath Technology, 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
officer 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 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) [omitted pursuant to SEC
Release No. 33-8238]



(c) Evaluated the
effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation; and



(d) Disclosed in this
report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying 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 functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant
role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: July 27, 2005



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|/s/    JEFFREY L.
GARON                 
|Jeffrey L. Garon Chief Financial Officer
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 6-5 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 6-5 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 2 of 2
(105 So. 715)

#### Ex parte Curtis ADAMS.

(4 Div. 230.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 27, 1925.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 22, 1925.)

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals.

E. C. Boswell, of Geneva, and Henry C. Meader, of Montgomery, for petitioner.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Petition of Curtis Adams for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in the case of Adams v. State, 105 So. 714.

Writ' denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE, GARDNER, and MILLER, JJ., concur.
#### FARMERS’ *&*MERCHANTS’ STATE BANK OF WACO, TEX., v. PARK.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

December 9, 1913.

Rehearing Denied January 27, 1914.)

No. 2,521.

Bankbuptcy (§ 154*)—Right op Set-Off-—Special Deposit in Bank.

A bank will not be allowed to set off a deposit made by a bankrupt shortly prior to the bankruptcy against a previous indebtedness of the bankrupt contrary to the agreement under which the deposit was made.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bankruptcy, Cent. Dig. §§ 451-455; Dec. Dig. § 154.*]

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas.

Suit in equity by M. C. H. Park, trustee in bankruptcy of the Slay-den-Kirksey Woolen Mill, against the Farmers’ & Merchants’ Bank of Waco, Tex. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Frank T. West and E. C. Street, both of- Waco, Tex., for appellant.

J. D. Williamson, of Waco, Tex., John Neethe, of Galveston, Tex., and Rhodes S. Baker, of Dallas, Tex., for appellee.

Before PARDEE and SHELBY, Circuit Judges, and CALL, District Judge.

*

For other oases see same topic *&*§ number in Deo. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date. & Rep’r Indexes

PER CURIAM.

Under the evidence in the case the deposit made by the Slayden-Kirksey Woolen Mill with the appellant bank shortly prior to the bankruptcy was a special deposit agreed not to be subject to general set-off. To allow a set-off of the same against the indebtedness previously due the bank would be to give the bank an advantage not enjoyed by other creditors.

Affirmed.
Clear All

        01 November 2022    

                    USS Rhode Island (SSBN 740) arrives in Gibraltar                 
                GIBRALTAR - The U.S. Navy Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine USS Rhode Island (SSBN 740) arrived in Gibraltar for a scheduled port visit, Nov. 1, 2022.            

        20 October 2022    

                    CENTCOM Commander embarks USS West Virginia Ballistic Missile Submarine                 
                OMAN - On October 19th, General Michael “Erik” Kurilla, commander of CENTCOM, conducted a visit aboard the USS West Virginia, a U.S. Navy Ohio-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine at an undisclosed location at sea in international waters in the Arabian Sea.            

        04 June 2022    

                    Keel Laying Ceremony Held for First Columbia-Class Ballistic Missile Submarine                 
                QUONSET POINT, R.I. – General Dynamics Electric Boat conducted a keel laying ceremony for the first Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine, USS District of Columbia (SSBN 826) at Quonset Point, Rhode Island, June 4.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
Case 1:07-cv-05312-AKH Document 22 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05312-AKH Document 22 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 2 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05312-AKH Document 22 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 3 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05312-AKH Document 22 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 4 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05312-AKH Document 22 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 5 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05312-AKH Document 22 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 6 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05312-AKH Document 22 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 7 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05312-AKH Document 22 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 8 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05312-AKH Document 22 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 9 of 9
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-17-00276-CR

Nathan Nieuwenhuyse

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§

§ From County Criminal Court No. 1

of Denton County

(CR-2016-09008-A)

November 2, 2017

Opinion by Justice Kerr

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

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

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By __/s/ Elizabeth Kerr_______

__________ Justice Elizabeth Kerr
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Johnny GARCIA-ESPARZA, also known as Gira, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-50496

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 21, 2011.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Johnny Garcia-Esparza, Bruceton Mills, WV, pro se.

Before JOLLY, GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Following the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction on charges related to his participation in a criminal organization, Johnny Garcia-Esparza, federal prisoner # 43813-080, moves this court for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The district court sentenced Garcia-Esparza to 660 months of imprisonment on one count, to run concurrently with 240 months of imprisonment on each of several other counts, and to run consecutively to a 60-month term of imprisonment on one final count.

Garcia-Esparza asserts that he is impoverished and reurges a number of arguments this court has previously considered and rejected. He additionally avers that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the trial court’s alleged non-adherence to its stated rule excluding witnesses from the court room except when testifying. Because Garcia-Esparza has raised no “legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous);” *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); he has failed *413to show that the district court erred in certifying that his appeal was not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

IT IS ORDERED that Garcia-Esparza’s IFP motion is DENIED. *See Howard,*707 F.2d at 219-20. His appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2; *Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 n. 24.

*

 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.
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 1 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 2 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 3 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 4 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 5 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 6 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 7 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 8 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 9 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 10 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 11 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 12 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 13 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 14 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 15 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 16 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 17 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 18 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 19 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 20 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 21 of 21
# C_2009139EN.01000501.xml

| 19.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/5

---

Commission communication pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 139/05

| Member State | France |
| --- | --- |
| Concerned route | Brive–Paris (Orly) |
| Period of validity of the contract | 5 January 2010-4 January 2014 |
| Deadline for submission of tenders | First step: 14 August 2009 (12.00, local time).
  Second step: 22 September 2009 (12.00, local time). |
| Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained | Syndicat mixte pour la création et l’aménagement de l’aérodrome de Brive-Souillac |
| Mairie de Brive-la-Gaillarde |
| B.P. 80433 |
| 19312 Brive-la-Gaillarde Cedex |
| FRANCE |
| Tél. +33 555923939 |
| Fax +33 555181699 |
| E-mail: aeroportbrivesouillac@orange.fr |

Member State

France

Concerned route

Brive–Paris (Orly)

Period of validity of the contract

5 January 2010-4 January 2014

Deadline for submission of tenders

First step: 14 August 2009 (12.00, local time).

Second step: 22 September 2009 (12.00, local time).

Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained

Syndicat mixte pour la création et l’aménagement de l’aérodrome de Brive-Souillac

Mairie de Brive-la-Gaillarde

B.P. 80433

19312 Brive-la-Gaillarde Cedex

FRANCE

Tél. +33 555923939

Fax +33 555181699

E-mail: aeroportbrivesouillac@orange.fr

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie James GRIFFIN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-13144

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 30, 2013.

Edwin F. Knight, Lennard B. Register, III, Robert G. Davies, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, Pamela C. Marsh, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Panama City, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Willie James Griffin, Jr., Yankton, SD, pro se.

Before MARCUS, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Willie Griffin appeals *pro se*the denial of his motion for a further reduction of his sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court ruled that Griffin was not entitled to a further reduction under Amendment 750 after having already received a reduction of his sentence to the statutory minimum penalty of 240 months of imprisonment under Amendment 706. We affirm.

Griffin challenges the denial of his motion for a further reduction of his sentence on two grounds. First, Griffin argues that the district court that failed to address his arguments about drug quantity and *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), but a district court may not revisit any “original sentencing determinations.” United States Sentencing Guidelines § lB1.10(b)(l); *Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2694, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). The district court found that Griffin was responsible for 4.065 kilograms of cocaine base after Griffin withdrew his objection to that fact in his presentence investigation report. *See United States v. Davis,*587 F.3d 1300, 1302-04 (11th Cir.2009). Griffin was ineligible for a further reduction of his sentence because was sentenced to a statutory minimum term of imprisonment. *See United States v. Mills,*613 F.3d 1070, 1074-79 (11th Cir.2010). Second, Griffin argues that he was entitled to a further reduction under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, but the Act “is not a guidelines amendment by the Sentencing Commission ... [that can] serve as a basis for a ... sentence reduction,” and does not apply to Griffin because he was sentenced before it became effective on August 3, 2010. *United States v. Berry,*701 F.3d 374, 376-78 (11th Cir.2012).

We AFFIRM the denial of Griffin’s motion for a further reduction of his sentence.