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

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-13-00176-CR 

KERRIS TENNILE HARRIS, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 100th District Court 

Childress County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 5416, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding 

 

November 4, , 2013 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, J.J. 

Kerris Tennile Harris pled guilty to the offense of assault against a family member 

which was enhanced by a prior conviction. The trial court placed him on deferred 

adjudication for two years. Within less than a year, the State filed a motion to 

adjudicate appellant’s guilt alleging numerous violations of his terms of community 

supervision. Appellant pled true to the majority of the allegations, and the State waived 

the ones to which he did not plead true. The trial court then adjudicated appellant’s guilt 

and sentenced him to sixteen years confinement. 
2

Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders’

1

brief, wherein he certifies that, after diligently searching the record, he has concluded 

that appellant’s appeal is without merit. Along with his brief, he has filed a copy of a 

letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible 

error and of appellant’s right to appeal pro se. By letter, this court also notified appellant 

of his right to file his own brief or response. After several motions to extend the time to 

file, appellant was given until October 10, 2013 to file his response or brief. To date, no 

response or brief has been filed. 

In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel 

discussed potential areas for appeal which included the sufficiency of the evidence to 

support appellant’s guilt for the original crime, the effectiveness of counsel, and the 

severity of the punishment. However, counsel then explained why the issues lack merit. 

In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of 

appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to 

Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) and Stafford v. State, 813 

S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) and concluded the same. 

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed. 2

Brian Quinn 

Chief Justice

Do not publish. 

 

1

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 

2

Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal 

Appeals.
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 The
undersigned, Yisroel
Guttfreund, the President, Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer and
Director of Watchtower, Inc. (the “Company”), certifies, under the standards set
forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2008
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
  Date:
August 12,
2008
 By:
                  Name:
                  Title:
                /s/Yisroel
      Guttfreund
                  Yisroel Guttfreund
                  President, Chief Executive
  Officer,Treasurer and
      Director (Principal
                  Executive,
      Financial and Accounting
                  Officer)
  A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Abatement Order filed March 27 , 20 1 2

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 1 2

- 00 165

- CV

____________ HARDAM S. AZAD, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A 5 MILLION SQUARE FEET COMPANIES , Appellant

V.
MIRCO, INC. AND COMMERCIAL ROOF CONSULTANTS & CLAIMS

MANAGEMENT, L.L.C. , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 80th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2009

- 65685



### ABATEMENT OR DE R

We have determined that this case is appropriate for referral to mediation, an alternative dispute resolution process. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §
154.021

— .073

. Mediation is a forum in which an impartial person, the mediator, facilitates communication between parties to p romote reconciliation or settlement. Id. § 154.023(a). Any communication relating to the subject matter of the appeal made by a participant in the mediation proceeding is confidential

. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 154.053. After mediation, the parties sha ll advise the court whether the case settled, or whether any further negotiation efforts are planned.2

The court ORDERS the appeal ABATED for a period of sixty days and refers the underlying dispute to mediation. A ny party may file a written o bjection to this order with
the clerk of this court within 10 days of the date of this order

. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.
Code § 154.022. If this court finds that there is a reasonable basis for the objection, the objection shall be sustained and the appe al reinstated on this court’s active docket. See id.

T he court ORDERS that the mediation be held within 60 days of the date of this
order. The court ORDERS that all parties or their representatives with full settlement authority shall attend the mediation process, with their counsel of record. T he court
FURTHER ORDERS that within 48 hours of completion of the mediation, the parties
shall advise the court in writing whether the case settled.
If mediation fully resolves the issues in the case, the court ORDERS the parties to
file a motion to dismiss the appeal, other dispositive motion
, or a motion for additional time to file the dispositive motion, within 10 days of the conclusion of the mediation

.
T he court ORDERS the appellate timetable in this case suspended for 60 days from
the date of this order.
The appeal is ABATED , treated as a closed case, and removed from this court ' s active docket for a period of sixty days. The appeal will be reinstated on this court ' s active docket after sixty days. Any party may file a motion stating grounds for reinstating the appeal before the end of the sixty

- day period. Any party may also file a motion to dismiss the appe al or other dispositive motion at any time. Any party may file a motion to extend the abatement period for completion of mediation or to finalize a settlement.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown, and Christopher.
Christopher Bowen 

Managing Director and Chief Regulatory Counsel

Legal Department

December 14, 2020

VIA ELECTRONIC PORTAL

Assistant Secretary of the Commission for FOIA 

Privacy and Sunshine Acts Compliance

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 - 21st Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20581

 Re: FOIA Confidential Treatment Request: Appendices A through C 

 NEX SEF Submission No. 20-524S

To Whom It May Concern:

By electronic portal dated today, December 14, 2020, NEX SEF Limited (“NEX SEF”) submitted a 

supplemental rule certification filing (Submission No. 20-524S) to the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) pursuant to Commission Regulation 40.6 to certify 

amendments to NEX SEF’s Limited Form SEF to reflect changes to the composition of the NEX SEF’s 

Board of Directors. This supplemental filing includes Appendices A through C.

NEX SEF requests confidential treatment of Appendices A through C (the “Confidential Information”), 

on the grounds that Appendices A through C contain confidential commercial information of the 

submitter (NEX SEF). NEX SEF requests that confidential treatment be maintained for Appendices A 

through C until further notice from NEX SEF. NEX SEF also requests that the Commission notify the 

undersigned immediately after receiving any FOIA request for the Confidential Information or any 

other court order, subpoena, or summons for same. Finally, NEX SEF requests to be notified in the 

event the Commission intends to disclose the Confidential Information to Congress or to any other 

governmental agency or unit pursuant to Section 8 of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”). NEX 

SEF does not waive its notification rights under Section 8(f) of the CEA with respect to any subpoena 

or summons for Confidential Information.

Please contact the undersigned at (212) 299-2200 should you have any questions concerning this 

matter.

Sincerely,

/s/ Christopher Bowen

Managing Director and Chief Regulatory Officer

300 Vesey Street New York, NY 10282 T 212 299 2200 F 212 301 4645 christopher.bowen@cmegroup.com cmegroup.com
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

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Deafness and Other Communications Disorders Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         June 5, 2001.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 3 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         6120 Executive Blvd., Suite 400C, Rockville, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Stanley C. Oaks, Jr., Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, Executive Plaza South, Room 400C, 6120 Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892-7180, 301-496-8683.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.173, Biological Research Related to Deafness and Communicative Disorders, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: May 17, 2001.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 01-13111  Filed 5-23-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
# C_2018063EN.01001702.xml

| 19.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/17

---

Action brought on 22 December 2017 — H2O Plus v EUIPO (H 2 O+)

(Case T-824/17)

(2018/C 063/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: H2O Plus LLC (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: R. Niebel and F. Kerl, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘H 2 O+’ — International registration No W 1 313 244

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2017 in Case R 499/2017-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Erroneous application of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Erroneous application of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 2017/1001.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

September 24, 2012

s0917

Order 

September 24, 2012

145366

EDGAR W. PUGH, JR., Personal 

Representative of the Estate of SIDNEY J. SUO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145366

COA: 305315

Macomb CC: 2010-004496-AV

MICHELENE M. CROWLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 2, 2012 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# C_2018436EN.01004201.xml

| 3.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 436/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 436/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2018 — Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion v EUIPO — Pink Lady America (WILD PINK)

(Case T-164/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark WILD PINK - Earlier EU and national word marks PINK LADY - Earlier EU figurative marks Pink Lady - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 436/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Apple and Pear Australia Ltd (Victoria, Australia) and Star Fruits Diffusion (Le Pontet, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, P. Péters and H. Abraham, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Pink Lady America LLC (Yakima, Washington, United States) (represented initially by: R. Manno and S. Travaglio, and subsequently by R. Manno, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 January 2017 (Case R 87/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion, on the one hand, and Pink Lady America, on the other.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 January 2017 (Case R 87/2015-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 January 2017 (Case R 87/2015-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay half the costs incurred by Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and Star Fruits Diffusion, including half the costs necessarily incurred by them for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay half the costs incurred by Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and Star Fruits Diffusion, including half the costs necessarily incurred by them for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

| 3. | Orders Pink Lady America LLC to bear its own costs and to pay half the costs incurred by Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and Star Fruits Diffusion, including half the costs necessarily incurred by them for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Pink Lady America LLC to bear its own costs and to pay half the costs incurred by Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and Star Fruits Diffusion, including half the costs necessarily incurred by them for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

---

(1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                            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 Peoples Ohio Financial
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Ronald B. Scott, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Rich J.
Dutton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 conditions and results of operations
         of the Company.

                                             /s/      Ronald B. Scott
                                             -----------------------------------
                                               Ronald B. Scott
                                               Chief Executive Officer

                                             September 26, 2003

                                             /s/      Rich J. Dutton
                                             -----------------------------------
                                               Rich J. Dutton
                                               Chief Financial Officer

                                             September 26, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 28555]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13000]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[NAFTA-4336]


Philips Electronics North America Corp., Philips Display 
Components Co., Ottawa, Ohio; Dismissal of Application for 
Reconsideration

    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) and application for administrative 
reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance for workers at Philips Electronics North America 
Corporation, Philips Display Components Company, Ottawa, Ohio, The 
application contained no new substantial information which would bear 
importantly on the Department's determination. Therefore, dismissal of 
the application was issued.

NAFTA-4336; Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Philips 
Display Components Company, Ottawa, Ohio (May 2, 2001)

    Signed at Washington, DC this 3rd day of May, 2001.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-13000 Filed 5-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
# C_2019305EN.01001201.xml

| 9.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht — Germany) — Federal Express Corporation Deutsche Niederlassung v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main

(Case C-26/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Articles 202 and 203 - Customs duties on imports - Incurrence of a customs debt due to failure to comply with customs rules - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(d) and Article 30 - Import VAT - Taxable event - Definition of ‘importation’ of goods - Requirement of entry of the goods into the economic network of the European Union - Transportation of those goods into a Member State other than the Member State in which the customs debt arose)

(2019/C 305/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hessisches Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Federal Express Corporation Deutsche Niederlassung

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(d) and Article 30 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, when goods are introduced into the territory of the European Union, it is not sufficient that those goods were the subject of a failure to comply with customs rules in a given Member State, which in that Member State gave rise to a customs debt on importation, in order to find that those goods entered into the economic network of the European Union in that Member State, where is it is established that those goods were transported into another Member State, their final destination, where they were consumed, the import VAT relating to those goods then arising only in that other Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.

---