alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-18-00412-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 2

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1528626

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Meier and Birdwell, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell

MIGUEL ANGEL RODRIGUEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, the trial court convicted appellant Miguel 

Angel Rodriguez of possessing a controlled substance in cause number 1520391D. He 

appealed his conviction in that case along with his conviction arising from another 

case, and we dismissed both appeals because the trial court had certified that he had 

no right to appeal. See Rodriguez v. State, Nos. 02-18-00358-CR, 02-18-00359-CR, 2018 

WL 4925339, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 11, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication); see also Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). As part of his plea bargain 

in cause number 1520391D, the trial court dismissed this case, cause number 

1528626. From the trial court’s dismissal order, Rodriguez filed a notice of appeal.

We sent Rodriguez a letter expressing our concern that we lacked jurisdiction 

over his appeal. We informed him that unless he filed a response showing grounds for 

continuing this appeal, we could dismiss it. He has not responded.

In a criminal case, we generally have jurisdiction only when the trial court has 

signed a judgment of conviction. McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). We do not have jurisdiction from a trial court’s order 

dismissing a criminal case. See Munguia v. State, No. 11-18-00059-CR, 2018 WL 

1546233, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland Mar. 30, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication); McCray v. State, No. 01-12-00969-CR, 2013 WL 6047614, 

at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 14, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not 
3

designated for publication). Therefore, we dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 

43.2(f).

/s/ Wade Birdwell

Wade Birdwell

Justice

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: December 20, 2018
143 So. 831

#### MOORE et al. v. WELDEN.

8 Div. 432.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Oct. 13, 1932.

*459R. B. Patton, of Athens,- for appellants.

J. G. Rankin, of Athens, for appellee.

BROWN, J.

Action of trespass for an assault and battery alleged to have been committed by the defendants, Leonard Moore, Tom M. Moore, and John William Townley, on the plaintiff Welden. There was a verdict and judgment against all the defendants, from which they jointly appeal.

The case was submitted on a joint assignment of errors, without a severance, and only assignments relating to the rights of all the appellants will be considered. Stacey et al. v. Taliaferro et al., 224 Ala. 488, 140 So. 748.

Charge 4, the basis of assignment of error 4, was well refused. It pretermits the right and duty of the plaintiff as an officer armed with a warrant of arrest to make the arrest, Moore’s duty to peacefully submit to the arrest, and the defendants’ freedom from fault. King v. State, 89 Ala. 43, 8 So. 120, 18 Am. St. Rep. 89; 2 R. C. L. 465, § 23.

The plaintiff testified in part to what occurred between himself, Tom Moore, and Leonard Moore after he entered the house to serve the warrant, immediately preceding the scuffle between the witness and Leonard Moore, and it was the defendants’ right to show all that was said and done, as a part of that transaction. Williams v. State, 103 Ala. 33, 15 So. 662; Drake v. State, 110 Ala. 9, 20 So. 450; Gibson v. State, 91 Ala. 64, 9 So. 171; Dodson v. State, 86 Ala. 60, 5 So. 485.

The court therefore erred in sustaining the plaintiff’s objection to the question, “And Leonard Moore told you Dr. Bailes was attending him and had put him to bed?” This called for a statement made by the defendant constituting a part of the transaction proved by the plaintiff, and it was clearly within the res geste of the main fact.

The defendants were, however, allowed to prove by Leonard Moore and other witnesses that he made the statement to plaintiff that Dr. Bailes was his attending physician, and that Dr. Bailes told him to go to bed. The testimony was not disputed, and the error of the court in sustaining said objection was without injury.

The court overruled the objection to the question made the predicate for assignment of *460error 8, and the witness gave a negative answer to the question.

The statement of the plaintiff to the witness Mullins, fourteen or fifteen years pri- or to the occurrence under investigation, was too far removed from the question at issue to be of any probative force, and, moreover, the statement, if made, was too general in its scope to constitute a threat. The court did not err in sustaining the objection and excluding the evidence.

We find no reversible error in the record, and the judgment of the circuit court will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. X, and THOMAS and KNIGHT, JX, concur.
# C_2020027EN.01000701.xml

| 27.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 November 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Procureur-Generaal bij de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

(Case C-678/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Designs - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Article 90(1) - Provisional and protective measures - Jurisdiction of national courts of first instance - Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts designated in that provision)

(2020/C 27/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Procureur-Generaal bij de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Operative part of the judgment

Article 90(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that the courts and tribunals of the Member States with jurisdiction to order provisional measures, including protective measures, in respect of a national design also have jurisdiction to order such measures in respect of a Community design.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs November 16, 2001

MARTIN WALKER v. STATE OF TENNESSEE 

 Appeal from the Tennessee Claims Commission 

No. 20001703 Michael S. Lacy, Commissioner

FILED JANUARY 17, 2002

No. E2001-00629-COA-R3-CV

Martin Walker, an inmate in the Penal System of this State, filed two separate claims against the

State in the amount of $30,000 and $1,000,000, alleging his constitutional rights of equal protection

and due process were violated. The State’s response contends that the claims he makes are not

authorized against the State by T.C.A. 9-8-307(a), and also that both claims are barred by the oneyear Statute of Limitations. The Claims Commissioner dismissed his claims and we affirm.

Tenn.R.App.P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Claims Commissioner Affirmed;

Cause Remanded

HOUSTON M. GODDARD, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HERSCHEL P. FRANKS

and CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., JJ., joined.

Martin Walker, Mountain City, Tennessee, Appellant, Pro Se

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter, Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General, and

Stephanie R. Reevers, Associate Deputy Attorney General, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellee,

State of Tennessee

OPINION

Martin Walker appeals dismissal of two separate claims, the first in the amount of $30,000

and the second $1,000,000, against the State of Tennessee, wherein he alleges his constitutional

rights of equal protection and due process were violated.

The principal thrust of his argument was that the public defender representing him was

incompetent, resulting in his conviction and incarceration. 

The record discloses that Mr. Walker has filed six post-conviction petitions pursuant to Title

40, Chapter 30, all of which have been denied, the last one by order filed December 18, 1997, in

Davidson County. As to his last post-conviction appeal, which was found adversely to him by the
-2-

Court of Criminal Appeals, the Supreme Court, on June 8, 1998, denied his application for

permission to appeal.

The State defends his claims upon two grounds. First, because the action he alleges is not

one authorized against the State by T.C.A. 9-8-307(a) and that his cause of action is barred by the

one-year Statute of Limitations.

Although the Claims Commissioner did not specify the grounds relied upon in dismissing

Mr. Walker’s claims, we conclude his dismissal was appropriate on both grounds.

We find the Claims Commissioner acted properly in denying his claims and affirm his

decision. The cause is remanded for collection of costs below. Costs of appeal are adjudged against

Mr. Walker.

_________________________________________

HOUSTON M. GODDARD, PRESIDING JUDGE
# C_2020423EN.01000201.xml

| 7.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Brescia — Italy) — JH v KG

(Case C-681/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2008/104/EC - Temporary agency work - Article 5(5) - Equal treatment - Appropriate measures to prevent misuse of temporary agency work - Obligation for Member States to prevent successive assignments - No limits in national law - Requirement to interpret national law in conformity with EU law)

(2020/C 423/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Brescia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: JH

Defendant: KG

Operative part of the judgment

The first sentence of Article 5(5) of Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which does not limit the number of successive assignments that the same temporary agency worker may fulfil at the same user undertaking and does not make the lawfulness of the use of temporary agency work subject to the prerequisite that it must be justified by technical, production, organisation or replacement-related reasons. On the other hand, that provision must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from taking no measures at all to preserve the temporary nature of temporary agency work and as precluding national legislation which does not lay down any measure to prevent successive assignments of the same temporary agency worker to the same user undertaking in order to circumvent the provisions of Directive 2008/104 as a whole.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.

---
EX-32.2





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 ChineseWorldNet.com, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for
the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kelvin Fu
Szeto, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





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





2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.





Dated:    April 29,
2010




/s/
Kelvin Fu Szeto


KELVIN FU
SZETO


Chief Financial
Officer and Chief Operating Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 205 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 205

To amend the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 to permanently 
   extend the moratorium on leasing in certain areas of the Gulf of 
                                Mexico.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2019

     Mr. Rooney of Florida (for himself and Ms. Castor of Florida) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 to permanently 
   extend the moratorium on leasing in certain areas of the Gulf of 
                                Mexico.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting and Securing Florida's 
Coastline Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF MORATORIUM ON LEASING IN CERTAIN AREAS 
              OF THE GULF OF MEXICO.

    Section 104(a) of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 
(43 U.S.C. 1331 note) is amended by striking ``Effective during'' and 
all that follows through ``the Secretary'' and inserting ``The 
Secretary''.
                                 <all>
```
FOIA CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED

September 29, 2023

(Submitted electronically via the CFTC Portal) 

Assistant Secretary of the Commission 

FOIA, Privacy and Sunshine Acts Compliance 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre, 8th Floor

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 2058

Re: FOIA Confidential Treatment Request - Amendments to the ICE Clear U.S., Inc. Rules Related 

to Delisting Digital Currency (Bitcoin) Contracts - Submission Pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) 

of the Commodity Exchange Act and Commission Regulation 40.6(a)

Dear FOIA Compliance Staff:

In conjunction with the self-certification submitted today via the CFTC Portal by ICE Clear U.S., Inc. ("ICUS”), 

pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) and Commission Regulation 40.6(a), ICUS 

respectfully requests Confidential Treatment for all information attached to the submission until further notice, 

as more specifically described below.

***********************

Under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 USC Section 552, Section 809(g) of the Dodd-Frank Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and pursuant to Commission Regulation 145.9(d)(5) and any other 

applicable regulations under or implementing FOIA, ICUS hereby respectfully requests that confidential 

treatment be maintained for the document, bates stamped ICUS BC RMF 2023 - 000001 to 000004, until further 

notice. ICUS also requests that the Commission notify the undersigned immediately after receiving any FOIA 

request for such documents or any other court order, subpoena or summons for the same. Finally, ICUS 

requests that it be notified in the event the Commission intends to disclose such documents to Congress or to 

any other governmental agency or unit pursuant to Section 8 of the CEA or other applicable law. ICUS does not 

waive its notification rights under Section 8(f) of the CEA or other applicable law with respect to any subpoena 

or summons for such document(s).

The basis for the request is that disclosure of these document(s) would reveal confidential commercial and 

financial information of ICUS, the disclosure of which could have a material adverse effect on, and cause injury 

to, the operations and competitive position of ICUS. This request is not to be construed as a waiver of any other 

protection from disclosure or confidential treatment accorded by law, and ICUS will rely on and invoke any such 

confidentiality protection.

***********************
If you should have any questions or require further information, please contact me at (212) 748-3964 or 

Eamonn.Hahessy@ice.com.

Sincerely, 

Eamonn Hahessy

General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer

ICE Clear U.S., Inc.
ex10_1.htm


FOURTH AMENDMENT TO


 


SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT TO SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into as of the 30th day of September, 2010, by and between NTS MORTGAGE INCOME FUND, a Delaware corporation (“Fund”), and RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a Kentucky corporation (“Residential”).


 


R E C I T A L S


 


A.  Effective as of January 1, 2009, Fund and Residential entered into that certain Services and Development Agreement, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Services and Development Agreement dated as of December 31, 2009,  that Second Amendment to Services and Development Agreement dated as of March 31, 2010 and that Third Amendment to Services and Development Agreement dated as of June 30, 2010 (collectively, the “Agreement”), which provided that Residential would manage, develop and operate the Fund’s real properties as set forth in the Agreement;


 


B.  The Term of the Agreement was extended until September 30, 2010;


 


C.  Fund and Residential now desire to further extend the Term of the Agreement through December 31, 2010, and to modify Section 2.2 thereof.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual undertakings, IT IS AGREED by and between the parties hereto as follows:


 


1.           As of the date of this Fourth Amendment, the Term of the Agreement is hereby extended through December 31, 2010.


 


2.           Section 2.2 of the Agreement is hereby modified and amended to read as follows:


 


“Subject to Section 2.3 hereof, the term of this Agreement shall be for a period commencing on the effective date hereof and ending on December 31, 2010 (the “Term”).”


 


3.    Section 2.3 of the Agreement is hereby amended and modified to read as follows:


 


“This Agreement may be renewed only by written agreement of both parties on or before the expiration of the Term.”


 


4.           This Fourth Amendment may be signed in multiple counterparts, and, when counterparts are executed by all parties, such counterparts shall be deemed an original instrument.


 


5.           The parties agree that except as expressly amended or modified above, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


 






  





  





  








 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this Fourth Amendment to Services and Development Agreement as of the date first written above.


 







 



	 	
FUND:


	 	  
	 	
NTS MORTGAGE INCOME FUND, a Delaware


corporation


	 	  	  
	 	  	  
	 	
By:

	/s/ Brian F. Lavin           
	 	  	
Brian F. Lavin


	 	  	
President


	 	  
	 	  
	 	
RESIDENTIAL:


	 	  
	 	
RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a


Kentucky corporation


	 	  	  
	 	  	  
	 	
By:

	/s/ Gregory A. Wells       
	 	  	
Gregory A. Wells


	 	  	
Executive Vice President
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Xsovt Brands, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Stephen R. Brown, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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






Date: August 15, 2011
By:
/s/ Stephen R. BrownName: Stephen R. BrownTitle: Executive Vice President, Chief FinancialOfficer, Treasurer and Secretary(principal accounting officer)
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 28929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13225]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-38,768]


Loogootee Manufacturing, Loogootee, IN; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on March 5, 2001 in response to a petition filed on 
behalf of workers at Loogootee Manufacturing, Loogootee, Indiana.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC this 10th day of May, 2001.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-13225 Filed 5-24-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1988 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 143
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1988

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 10, 2019

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To clarify seasoning requirements for certain refinanced mortgage 
                     loans, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Affordable Mortgages for 
Veterans Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. SEASONING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN REFINANCED MORTGAGE LOANS.

    (a) Ginnie Mae.--Paragraph (1) of section 306(g) of the National 
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1721(g)(1)) is amended by striking the second 
sentence (as added by section 309(b) of Public Law 115-174).
    (b) Veterans Loans.--Section 3709 of title 38, United States Code, 
is amended by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
    ``(c) Loan Seasoning.--Except as provided in subsection (d) and 
notwithstanding section 3703 of this title or any other provision of 
law, a loan to a veteran for a purpose specified in section 3710 of 
this title that is a refinance may not be guaranteed or insured under 
this chapter until the date that is the later of--
            ``(1) the date on which the borrower has made at least six 
        consecutive monthly payments on the loan being refinanced; and
            ``(2) the date that is 210 days after the first payment due 
        date of the loan being refinanced.''.
    (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act may be construed to 
restrict or otherwise modify the authorities of the Government National 
Mortgage Association.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 9, 2019.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
                                                       Calendar No. 143

116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1988

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To clarify seasoning requirements for certain refinanced mortgage 
                     loans, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 10, 2019

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar
```