alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DeOrchis €$ Partners, I.LP 

875 I \Y' Rroward Hlvd.. SL~. 203 

Ft. I.auder<I.11e, FI, 33324 

1454) 052.0 100 

61 roadway, 26"' Floor 

(473) -$Oi -4740 New York, New York 10006+ZXLL--- --.-----.-,.-.------.-- ,: .--,-.- *.-. - .,.."--..I ----- a" ----.--.-, 1 

..*,, ,. ':." *. r- 7 .\lussurLusotts 0144 

Telcpb~~~~e: (2 1 2) 344-47$/, i > 5' ,.,?.-(,.:> ' !~,. ,- a .L 11 .>35- \ .3~,*&~~ - Facsimile: (212) 422-5249 2 ,i!<,:: i;,S,' \: ~1~.T4j,,a~a~;;hu~$

BY HAND DELIVERY 

The Honorable Richard M. Berman rii\i 3@2008 ,. 1 :i,jtr,,i <,i.tF.. ;,,. .-, ...L. lLbo Districr Court 

Southern District of New York I' 4 

P . ./.1 1 

40 Centre Street, Room 650 ..-.-. . . . .-.- 

New York, NY 10007 

Re: Zim Integrated Shipping Services, Ltd. v. Belco Resources, Inc. et al 

Southern District of New York. 07 Civ. 5861 (RMB)(GWG) 

Dear Judge Bennan: 

We represent plaintiff Zim Integrated Shipping Services, Ltd., in the above captioned matter. 

We respectfully request the authorization to file a two (2) page reply brief to address Defendant 

Sinochem Jiangsu Corporation's opposition to Zim's motion for reconsideration of the Decision & 

Order entered on May 5, 2008. 

More precisely, in opposition to point I11 of Zim's motion brief, Defendant Sinochem Jiangsu 

Corporation intentionally modifies the question of law raised by Zim ("sanction for failure to give notice 

of intent to raise foreign law", See Br. page 11) into a distinct and irrelevant question ("sanction for 

failure to state claims under foreign law", See Opp. Br. page 8). We request the authorization to rebut 

Defendant Sinochem Jiangsu Corporation's attempt to mislead the Court. 

Respectfully submitted, 

~hvid~. DuPont 

Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 64 Filed 06/03/2008 Page 1 of 2
Letter to Judge Berman 

hIu~ 29, 2008 

Page 3 of 2 

CC : Via e-mail 

I,ovells, LLP, Attorne~s for Sinochenz Jlangsu Corporation. 

Bennett, Giuliano, McDonnell & Perrone, LLP, Attorneys for Relco Resources, Inc. 

Tisdale Law Offices, LLC, Attorneys for Nanjing Huabin Foreign Trrrcle & Economics Co., Ltd. 

\i I?\(, (,XI? Cuncs L el Judge Belmdn OT2908 doc 

Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 64 Filed 06/03/2008 Page 2 of 2
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 1604

_____________________________
D OUGLAS M ANNING , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. W. Joel Boles , Judge

. February 12, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , O STERHAUS , and J AY , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 18

- 0067 8

- CR Kile Ryan ADAMS , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 187th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017CR11315 Honorable Joey Contreras , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 5, 2018
DISMISSED The clerk’s record has been filed in this case. The clerk’s record contains the trial court’s Rule 25.2 certification, which does not show appellant has the right of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2. We issued an order notifying appellant that this appeal would be dismissed within 30 days of the order if two conditions were met: (1) a certification or amended certification showing appellant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record; and (2) the trial court’s certification is not defective

. See id. R. 25.2(d) (requiring us to dismiss a criminal appeal if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record ).04

- 18

- 00678

- CR

- 2

- Because no amended certification showing appellant has the right of appeal has been m ade part of the appellate record, the only issue is whether the trial court’s certification is defective in the notification of the defendant’s appellate rights. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding court of appeals must deter mine whether the certification is defective )

. The trial court’s certification states this is a plea bargain case and the defendant has no right of appeal. See R. 25.2(a); see also T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC

. A NN . art. 44.02. The clerk’s record establishes the punishment assessed b y the trial court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant in the plea bargain agreement. See R. 25.2(a). The clerk’s record also does not show the trial court granted appellant permis sion to appeal or contain any matters that were raised by written motion and ruled on before trial. See id. Appellant’s counsel has not represented to this court that the trial court’s certification is defective in the notification of the defendant’s appel late rights. We conclude the trial court’s certification is not defective in its notification of the defendant’s appellate rights. Accordingly, we must dismiss this appeal. See id. R. 25.2(d).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23






                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT





We consent to the  incorporation  by reference  in  Registration  Statement  No.
33-53562  and No.  333-50124  of Comdial  Corporation  on Form S-8 of our report
dated April 10, 2001, which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes
an  explanatory  paragraph  related  to the  restatement  described  in Note 18,
appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Comdial  Corporation for the year
ended December 31, 2000.









/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Richmond, Virginia
April 20, 2001
1 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-2171

___________ Thomas E. Yoakum, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. Brian Lynn, Siloam Springs Police * Officer, in his official and individual * [UNPUBLISHED] capacities, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: April 22, 2005 Filed: May 6, 2005

___________ Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Thomas Yoakum appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his civil rights suit against a Siloam Springs police officer. After careful de novo review, we affirm. See Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. Edwards , 243 F.3d 457, 461 (8th Cir. 2001) (per curiam); Dulany v. Carnahan , 132 F.3d 1234, 1237 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review).-2- We agree with the district court that the undisputed facts establish defendant did not violate Yoakum’s constitutional rights, because the officer had probable cause to arrest Yoakum for obstructing governmental operations during an incident in the police station lobby. SeeArk Code. Ann. § 5-54-102(a)(1) (Michie Supp. 2003) (elements of obstructing governmental operations); Garionis v. Newton , 827 F.2d 306, 309 (8th Cir. 1987) (probable cause to arrest suspect exists where reasonable officer would believe, based on available facts and circumstances, that suspect was committing or had committed offense); Kelley v. Arkansas , 55 S.W.3d 309, 311-12 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001) (defendant obstructed governmental operations under Arkansas law where officer was conducting field sobriety test of motorist in defendant’s driveway, and defendant exited his house, yelled profanities, and refused to take field sobriety test, after which motorist stopped cooperating with officer). Although some facts are in dispute, they are not material. We also reject, as unsupported and contrary to the district court’s opinion, Yoakum’s arguments that the court made credibility findings, and that the court made its probable-cause determination based on the conduct of Yoakum’s family members. We do not address arguments Yoakum raises for the first time on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
Case 1:07-cv-04465-AKH Document 12 Filed 09/18/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-04465-AKH Document 12 Filed 09/18/2007 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

          - 10 CFR Part 1044 
          - RIN 1992-AA26 

# AGENCY:

Department of Energy (DOE). 

# ACTION:

Interim final rule; completion of regulatory review. 

# SUMMARY:

                        In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2001, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Review Plan,” published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on January 24, 2001 (66 FR 7702), DOE temporarily delayed for 60 days (66 FR 8747, February 2, 2001) the effective date of the interim final rule entitled “Security Requirements for Protected Disclosures Under Section 3164 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000” published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on January 18, 2001 (66 FR 4639). DOE has now completed its review of that regulation, and does not intend to initiate any further rulemaking action to modify its provisions. However, based on a written comment received on the interim final rule, DOE may make minor, non-substantive changes to the rule. DOE will announce any such changes in the notice of final rulemaking that will be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# DATES:

The effective date of the interim final rule amending 10 CFR part 1044 published at 66 FR 4639, January 18, 2001, and delayed at 66 FR 8747, February 2, 2001, is confirmed as April 23, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Geralyn Praskievcz, Office of Security and Emergency Operations, (202) 586-4451,                         *geralyn.praskievcz@hq.doe.gov.*

Issued in Washington, DC on May 3, 2001. 

Spencer Abraham, 

Secretary of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 01-11809 Filed 5-9-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Case 1:05-cv-10798-VM     Document 6      Filed 04/26/2006     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:05-cv-10798-VM     Document 6      Filed 04/26/2006     Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 97 (Friday, May 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27701-27702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12594]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Biological Sciences; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Biological Sciences (1754).
    Date/Time: June 13, 14, 15, 2001.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 
Stafford II--Room 525, 545, 565 and 575, Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.

[[Page 27702]]

    Contact Person: Dr. Matthew Kane, Division of Environmental 
Biology, Room 635, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-8480.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Biocomplexity and the 
Environment: Genome-Enabled Environmental Sciences and Engineering 
proposals as part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: May 15, 2001.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-12594 Filed 5-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 25-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 25-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 2 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 25-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 3 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 25-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 4 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 25-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 5 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 25-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 6 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 25-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 7 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 25-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 8 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 25-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 9 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 25-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 10 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 25-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 11 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 25-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 12 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 25-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 13 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 25-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 14 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 25-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 15 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 25-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 16 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 25-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 17 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 25-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 18 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 25-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 19 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 25-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 20 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 25-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 21 of 21
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-18-00678-CR

Kile Ryan ADAMS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR11315

Honorable Joey Contreras, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 5, 2018

DISMISSED

The clerk’s record has been filed in this case. The clerk’s record contains the trial court’s 

Rule 25.2 certification, which does not show appellant has the right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

25.2. We issued an order notifying appellant that this appeal would be dismissed within 30 days 

of the order if two conditions were met: (1) a certification or amended certification showing 

appellant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record; and (2) the trial court’s 

certification is not defective. See id. R. 25.2(d) (requiring us to dismiss a criminal appeal if a 

certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record). 
04-18-00678-CR

- 2 -

Because no amended certification showing appellant has the right of appeal has been made part of 

the appellate record, the only issue is whether the trial court’s certification is defective in the 

notification of the defendant’s appellate rights. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005) (holding court of appeals must determine whether the certification is defective). 

The trial court’s certification states this is a plea bargain case and the defendant has no 

right of appeal. See R. 25.2(a); see also TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02. The clerk’s record 

establishes the punishment assessed by the trial court does not exceed the punishment 

recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant in the plea bargain agreement. See 

R. 25.2(a). The clerk’s record also does not show the trial court granted appellant permission to 

appeal or contain any matters that were raised by written motion and ruled on before trial. See id.

Appellant’s counsel has not represented to this court that the trial court’s certification is defective 

in the notification of the defendant’s appellate rights. We conclude the trial court’s certification is 

not defective in its notification of the defendant’s appellate rights. Accordingly, we must dismiss 

this appeal. See id. R. 25.2(d). 

PER CURIAM 

DO NOT PUBLISH
Hennessy Advisors, Inc.

Exhibit 23.3



                Consent of Independent Registered Accounting Firm





The Board of Directors
Hennessy Advisors, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation of our report dated November 4, 2004, regarding the
balance sheet of Hennessy Advisors, Inc. as of September 30, 2004 and 2003, and
the related statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash
flows for the years then ended, into the annual report of Hennessy Advisors,
Inc., being filed on Form 10-KSB.




Pisenti & Brinker LLP
Petaluma, California
November 4, 2004





                                       71
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 1 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 2 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 3 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 4 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 5 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 6 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 7 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 8 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 9 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 10 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 11 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 12 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 13 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 14 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 15 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 16 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 17 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 18 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 19 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 20 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 21 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 22 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 23 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 24 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 25 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 26 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 27 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 28 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 29 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 30 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 31 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 32 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 33 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 34 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 35 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 36 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 37 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 38 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 39 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 12-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 40 of 40
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Board of Governors of the Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center, June 1, 2001, 9 a.m. to June 1, 2001, 1:30 PM, National Institutes of Health, Clinical Center Medical Board Room, 2C116, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on April 19, 2001, 66 FR 20157.                

This meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended from 12:30 p.m. to 1 p.m. The meeting is partially Closed to the public.

Dated: May 10, 2001.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 01-12459 Filed 5-16-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M