alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CHRISTOPHER M. OLSEN AND

CATHY A. OLSEN,

 Appellants,

v.

CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS

REALTY CORPORATION,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-14-00195-CV

Appeal from

126th District Court

of Travis County, Texas

(TC # D-1-GN-13-003043)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is a motion filed by Appellee, Citigroup Global Markets Realty 

Corporation (Citigroup), to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction because the order being 

appealed is not a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order. We grant the motion and 

dismiss the appeal.

Appellants filed notice of appeal from an order entered by the trial court on May 13, 2014 

granting summary judgment in favor of Citigroup. The Third Court of Appeals transferred the 

appeal to this Court on July 9, 2014 pursuant to a docket equalization order. On September 4, 

2014, Citigroup filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

It is well settled that appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments, and such

interlocutory orders as the Legislature deems appealable by statute. Lehmann v. Har-Con 
- 2 -

Corporation, 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Ruiz v. Ruiz, 946 S.W.2d 123, 124 (Tex.App.--

El Paso 1997, no pet.); TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2014)

(authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders). The order is not final because LPP

Mortgage’s counterclaim remains pending against Appellants. Further, there is no statutory 

provision authorizing an appeal from this interlocutory order. Accordingly, we grant the motion 

and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.3(a).

September 18, 2014

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, J., and Barajas, C.J., (Senior Judge)

(Barajas, C.J., Senior Judge, sitting by assignment, not participating)
S06Y1058.

#### IN THE MATTER OF H. OWEN MADDUX.

(642 SE2d 317)

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Review Panel of the State Disciplinary Board, recommending that respondent H. Owen Maddux receive a 30-day suspension as reciprocal discipline pursuant to Rule 9.4 (b) (3) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. The Report also recommends that the suspension be effective as of the date of this opinion and not run concurrently with the period of suspension in Tennessee, which has already expired.

The record shows that Maddux was disciplined in Tennessee for converting over $92,000 in funds from his law partnership over a three-year period from December 1994 through November 1997. Maddux’s actions arose out of a partnership dispute and the funds converted were partnership funds, not client funds. Maddux’s partners obtained a civil judgment against him and no criminal charges were brought. After a hearing panel of the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility found Maddux to have violated Disciplinary Rules 1-102 (A) (1), (3), (4), (5), and (6),1 Tennessee imposed a 30-day suspension and a one-year probationary period. This Court *608rejected the Review Panel’s initial recommendation because it included a probationary period, a form of discipline not available under the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct and the Review Panel had not made any determination as to the effect of such a sanction on the propriety of the identical discipline as imposed by Tennessee. *In the Matter of Maddux,*S05Y1096 (10/11/05).

Decided February 5, 2007.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Gene Chapman, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

After a review of the record, the Court accepts the current Report and Recommendation from the Review Panel for the imposition of reciprocal punishment. Accordingly, Maddux’s license to practice law in this State is suspended for 30 days effective as of the date of this opinion.

*Thirty-day suspension.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 DR 1-102 states:

> (A) A lawyer shall not: (1) Violate a Disciplinary Rule ... (3) Engage in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude. (4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. (5) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. (6) Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.
BELINDA HILL

FIRST ASSISTANT

CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER

1201 FRANKLIN, SUITE 600

HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-1901

DEVON ANDERSON

DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

September 8, 2015 

Mr. Abel Acosta, Clerk

Court of Criminal Appeals

P.O. Box 12308 – Capitol Station

Austin, TX 78711

RE: JUAN BALDERAS A/K/A APACHE v. THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Case No.: AP-77,036 

Trial Court No.: 1412826 

Dear Mr. Acosta:

I plan to present oral argument in the above case in Austin on Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 

9:00 AM. I will be arguing the points related to the trial court's decision to let Wendy Bardeles 

testify through a translator. 

A copy of this notice is being sent to the attorney of record. 

 

 Sincerely,

 /s/ Clint Morgan

 CLINT MORGAN 

 Assistant District Attorney

 Harris County, Texas 

 (713) 755-5826 

/vl 

cc: Scott Shearer

Attorney at Law

929 Preston, Suite 200 

Houston, TX 77002 

AP-77,036

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 9/8/2015 8:16:34 AM

Accepted 9/8/2015 8:32:11 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
EXHIBIT
32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certifications






In
connection with the Annual Report of China Huaren Organic Products, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Fang Jinzhong, hereby 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, based upon a review of the Report:





(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 operation of the Company.







Date:
      May 18,  2009
                  /s/ Yushu
      CaoYushu
      Cao, Chief Executive Officer and
      Chief Financial
Officer
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 6, 2011

p0829 

# Order

September 6, 2011

143081

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143081 COA: 303148 Wayne CC: 08-011603-FH INDIA NICOLE TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 22, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1226

IsoButane Option - Mt. Belvieu Iso-Butane (non-LDH) - OPIS

DESCRIPTION

Monthly cash settled put and call options published by OPIS for the location specified in Floating Price A. 

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month is equal to the arithmetic average of the OPIS Mt. Belvieu Iso-Butane (nonLDH) price for each business day that it is determined during the contract month.

OPTION CHARACTERISTICS

TRADING UNIT

On expiration of a Call Option, the value will be the difference between the average daily settlement price 

during the calendar month of the first nearby OPIS Mt. Belvieu Iso-Butane (non-LDH) (as described in 

Floating Price A) and the strike price, or zero whichever is greater. On expiration of a Put Option, the value 

will be the difference between the strike price and the average daily settlement price during the calendar 

month of the first nearby OPIS Mt. Belvieu Iso-Butane (non-LDH) (as described in Floating Price A), or zero 

whichever is greater.

TYPE OPTION

Cash-settled European-Style Average Price option which cannot be exercised prior to expiration.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract quantity shall be U.S. gallons. Each contract shall be valued as the contract quantity multiplied by the 

settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods

PRICES AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in dollars and cents per gallon and prices shall be in multiples of $0.001 per gallon. The 

minimum price increment will be $0.0001. There shall be no maximum price fluctuation. 

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day of the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination of posting for a 

contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price will be the Floating Price calculated for 

each contract month.
Exhibit 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 Allied First Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Brian K.
Weiss, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

Date:  September 27, 2004           /s/Brian K. Weiss
                                    -----------------
                                    Brian K. Weiss
                                    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          17,404
<SECURITIES>                                     4,041
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,598
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (566)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,904
<PP&E>                                          12,931
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,315)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,613
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,038
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            26
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,575
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    45,613
<SALES>                                         50,180
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,180
<CGS>                                           11,202
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,202
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,105
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,886
<INCOME-TAX>                                       699
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,187
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,187
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                       ----------------------------------

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-63564) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-87882,
33-87776, 33-89382, 333-02340, 333-06303, 333-16963, 333-20853, 333-52603,
333-80861, 333-39462, 333-57670, and 333-63550) of Applix, Inc. of our report
dated January 24, 2001 relating to the financial statements, which is included
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 29, 2002
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
filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2008 (the Report) by Scanner Technologies Corporation (Registrant), I,
Elwin M. Beaty, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, 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, as amended; and

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

| |                          |     |                                                      
| | ------------------------ | --- | -----------------------------------------------------
| |                          | By: | /s/ Elwin M. Beaty                                   
| |                          |     |                                                      
| | Dated: November 19, 2008 |     | Elwin M. Beaty                                       
| |                          |     | Chief Executive Officer 
 and Chief Financial Officer

---
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 965 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2009 

Received 

OCTOBER 14, 2009 

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

AN ACT 

To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to 

provide for the continuing authorization of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. 

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


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 965 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Chesapeake Bay Gate3 ways and Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization 

4 Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

6 Section 502 of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 

7 1998 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public Law 105–312) is 

8 amended by striking subsection (c) and inserting the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

11 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are nec12 essary to carry out this section.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 10, 

2009. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 1350



The Undersigned hereby certifies that to his knowledge the annual report of Stellar Pharmaceuticals Inc. (the Company) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|               |  |     |                        
|-------------- |  | --- | -----------------------
|March 30, 2007 |  | By: | /s/Peter Riehl         
|               |  |     | Peter Riehl            
|               |  |     | Chief Executive Officer
|               |  |     |
#### Krista Regina JAP; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-75286.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 9, 2008.

*636Cindy S. Chang, Esquire, Law Offices of Cindy S. Chang, Walnut, CA, for Petitioners.

CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Lyle Davis Jentzer, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Krista Regina Jap and her husband, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Sael v. Ashcroft,*386 F.3d 922, 924 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Jap did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal because the harassment and mistreatment Jap suffered did not rise to the level of past persecution, *Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003). Assuming, without deciding, that the disfavored group analysis set forth in *Sael*applies in the context of withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Jap failed to demonstrate that it was more likely than not she will be persecuted on account of a protected ground if she returned to Indonesia. *See Hoxha v. Ashcroft,*319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2003).

Jap’s request for oral argument is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie James EARL, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-30398.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 12, 2010.

Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Vincent Thomas Lombardi, II, Esquire, Brian Werner, Thomas Merton Woods, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Willie James Earl, Jr., pro se.

Jerald Lee Brainin, Esquire, Los Ange-les, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Willie James Earl, Jr. appeals from his 68-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § § 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Earl’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. We dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. *See United States v. Nguyen,*235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

**

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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2541 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the national limitation amount for qualified highway or surface freight transfer facility 

bonds. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2019 

Mr. BLUMENAUER (for himself, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Ms. SEWELL of 

Alabama, and Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in 

addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a 

period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the national limitation amount for qualified highway or 

surface freight transfer facility bonds. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Building United States 

5 Infrastructure and Leveraging Development Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘BUILD Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2541 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE NATIONAL LIMITATION AMOUNT FOR 

2 QUALIFIED HIGHWAY OR SURFACE FREIGHT 

3 TRANSFER FACILITY BONDS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 142(m)(2)(A) of the In5 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

6 ‘‘$15,000,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$20,800,000,000’’. 

7 (b) APPLICATION OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS TO

8 CERTAIN TAX-EXEMPT-BOND-FUNDED PROJECTS.—In 

9 the case of any component or segment of a project, if such 

10 component or segment is funded with a bond which re11 ceives an allocation from Secretary of Transportation 

12 under section 142(m)(2)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code 

13 of 1986, such component or segment shall be subject to 

14 Federal requirements that would apply if such component 

15 or segment were funded or financed under title 23 or 49, 

16 United States Code. 

17 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

18 this section shall apply to bonds issued after the date of 

19 the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 15**

 

Tothe General Partner and Unitholders

OSGAmerica L.P.

 

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 333-147290) of OSG America L.P. of our reportdated December 14, 2007 relating to the unaudited predecessor condensedcombined carve-out interim financial statements of OSG America Predecessor thatare included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,2007.

 

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933, ourreport is not part of a registration statement prepared or certified byaccountants within the meaning of Section 7 or 11 of the Securities Act of1933.

 

**ERNST & YOUNG LLP**

 

NewYork, New York

December 17,2007

 

----