alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued March 18, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-12-01123-CR

———————————

MICHAEL KEITH COSLETT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 56th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 12CR0266

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found appellant, Michael Keith Coslett, guilty of the offense of 

burglary of a habitation. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(a)(1), (c)(2) (West 

2011). The jury then found the allegation in an enhancement paragraph true and 
2

sentenced him to 11 years in prison. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.32, 12.42(b)

(West 2011). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, 

along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal 

is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 

1396 (1967). 

Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional 

evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal 

authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 

573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has 

thoroughly reviewed the record and is unable to advance any grounds of error that 

warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 

193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

After independently reviewing the entire record in this appeal, we conclude 

that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds for 

review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400

(emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full 

examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 

300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine 

whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 
3

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing 

court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We 

note that an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds 

for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to 

withdraw.* Attorney Steven Hershkowitz must immediately send appellant the 

required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Brown.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

 

* Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and 

that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
Exhibit 23.1


                                  Exhibit 23.1

               Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  Registration  Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-29413)  pertaining to the Miravant Medical Technologies 401(k)
-  Employee  Stock  Ownership  Plan,  (Form S-8 No.  333-34953  and Form S-8 No.
333-93385)  pertaining to the Miravant  Medical  Technologies  1989 Stock Option
Plan,  the Miravant  Medical  Technologies  1992 Stock Option Plan, the Miravant
Medical  Technologies 1994 Stock Option Plan, the Miravant Medical  Technologies
Non-Employee  Directors' Stock Option Plan and the Miravant Medical Technologies
1996 Stock  Compensation  Plan and (Form S-8 No.  333-44728)  pertaining  to the
Miravant  Medical   Technologies  2000  Stock   Compensation  Plan  and  to  the
incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration  Statements  (Form S-3/A2 No.
333-60251,  Form S-3 No.  333-84003,  Form  S-3/A4 No.  333-71696,  Form S-2 No.
333-105947 and Form S-2/A1 No.  333-109367)  and in the related  Prospectuses of
our report dated March 16,  2004,  with  respect to the  consolidated  financial
statements of Miravant Medical Technologies  included in its Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003.

                                                /S/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Woodland Hills, California
March 29, 2004
Pamela MOSES, petitioner, v. Reginald FALKNER, et al.

No. 16-6352.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Western Division denied.
# C_2009282EN.01001802.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/18

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Tripoleos (Greece) lodged on 10 July 2009 — Alfa Vita Vasilopoulos AE, formerly Trofo Super-Markets AE v Hellenic Republic and Local Authorities of the Prefecture of Lakonia

(Case C-257/09)

2009/C 282/35

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Referring court

Diikitiko Protodikio Tripoleos

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alfa Vita Vasilopoulos AE, formerly Trofo Super-Markets AE

Applicant:

Defendants: The Hellenic Republic and Local Authorities of the Prefecture of Lakonia

Defendants:

By order of 7 August 2009 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities decided that Case C-257/09 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Tripoleos) should be removed from the register.

---
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10TH CIR. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously to decide this case on the briefs without oral argument. 

See FED. R. APP. P. 34(f); 10TH CIR. R. 34.1 (G). 

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

DEC 27 2004

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

WADE W. SLAUGHTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 04-1372

v. (D. Colorado)

MR. QUINTANA; MR. RULET; Mr.

SANCHEZ; LT. MESTIPUST;

WARDEN GUNJA; and NORTH

CENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE OF

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

and executives or employees involved

or parties at the U.S. Penitentiary

Florence, 

Defendants-Appellees.

 (D.C. No. 04-Z-735)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, HENRY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.**
-2-

Wade W. Slaughter, a federal prisoner in the custody of the United States

Department of Prisons, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 action without prejudice. The district court’s dismissal was based on Mr.

Slaughter’s failure to submit a certified trust statement for the entire six-month

period preceding the filing of his complaint and his failure to name the same

defendants in the caption and the body of the complaint and in the caption and

affidavit for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

In an April 14, 2004 order, the magistrate judge notified Mr. Slaughter of

these deficiencies and allowed him thirty days to cure them. Mr. Slaughter failed

to do so, and, on May 28, 2004, the district court dismissed his complaint without

prejudice to the refiling of a corrected complaint, motion, and affidavit.

In his appellate brief, Mr. Slaughter fails to explain his failure to file a

corrected complaint in response to the court’s order. We therefore conclude that

the district court’s dismissal was proper.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Slaughter’s 
1

 We grant Mr. Slaughter’s motion to proceed without prepayment of the

filing fee. We remind Mr. Slaughter of his obligation to continue making partial

payments until the entire fee is paid. 

-3-

complaint without prejudice.1 

Entered for the Court,

Robert H. Henry

Circuit Judge
# C_2009069EN.01002701.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/27

---

Action brought on 14 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-18/09)

(2009/C 69/49)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Simonsson and L. Lozano Palacios, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by maintaining in force Ley 48/2003, de 26 noviembre, de regimen económico y de prestación de servicios de los puertos de interés general (Law 48/2003 of 26 November 2003 on the economic rules and supply of services for ports of general interest) and, in particular Article 24(5) and Article 27(1), (2) and (4) thereof, which establish a system of rebates and exemptions for harbour dues, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community Law (1) and, in particular, Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by maintaining in force Ley 48/2003, de 26 noviembre, de regimen económico y de prestación de servicios de los puertos de interés general (Law 48/2003 of 26 November 2003 on the economic rules and supply of services for ports of general interest) and, in particular Article 24(5) and Article 27(1), (2) and (4) thereof, which establish a system of rebates and exemptions for harbour dues, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community Law (1) and, in particular, Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries;

1

| — | order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Spanish law provides for a series of exemptions and rebates relating to harbour dues. Those exemptions and rebates depend on the ports of departure or destination of the vessels and have the consequence that more favourable tariffs are applied, first, to traffic between the Spanish archipelagos and Ceuta and Melilla and, second, to traffic between those ports and ports of the European Union and, third, between ports of the European Union. The Commission takes the view that that legislation is discriminatory.

The Kingdom of Spain, which invoked the particular geographic situation of the ports concerned, has not justified either the need for or the proportionality of that measure. Despite having promised to amend the legislation at issue, as far as the Commission is aware, no legislation has been adopted to put an end to the infringement.

---

(1)  OJ L 378, p. 1.

1

---
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350)

In connection  with the Annual Report of Form 10-K for the period ended December
31, 2004 (the "Report") filed by Everlast Worldwide Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company") with the Securities and Exchange  Commission,  the  undersigned,
Gary J.  Dailey,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of,  does  hereby  certify,  to his
knowledge,  that pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,  and the information  contained in
the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition
and results of operations of the Company.

                                   /s/ Gary J. Dailey
                                   ------------------------------------
                                   Gary J. Dailey
                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                   March 28, 2005

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Everlast  Worldwide Inc. and will be retained by Everlast  Worldwide
Inc and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon
request.
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 19

- 00213

- CV

Sylvia MORAN and Leo J. Moran,

Appellants

v.

WELLS FARGO USA HOLDINGS, INC.

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019

- CV

- 02303

Honorable Gloria Saldana, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the appellants ’ motion to dismiss is

GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED. Costs of the appeal are taxed against the party who

incurred them.

SIGNED September 25, 2019.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez , Justice
Michael MANN, petitioner, v. Scott KERNAN, Secretary, California Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 16-5815.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
**Fund**/Ticker

**Fidelity**®**Europe Capital Appreciation Fund**/FECAX

**Summary Prospectus**

**December 29, 2012**
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

In connection with the Annual Report of Adolor Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Michael R. Dougherty, President and Chief Executive 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.



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|                                                          
|                                                          
|/s/ MICHAEL R. DOUGHERTY                                  
|Michael R. Dougherty
President and Chief Executive Officer
|                                                          
|Date: February 24, 2011
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Auditors**

 

Board of Directors 

The Bank of KentuckyFinancial Corporation 

Crestview Hills, Kentucky 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (333-37011 and 333-39322) of The Bank of Kentucky Financial Corporation of ourReport of Independent Auditors, dated January 28, 2004, on the consolidated balance sheets of The Bank of Kentucky Financial Corporation as of December 31, 2003 and 2002 and the related consolidated statements of income, changes inshareholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2003, which report is included in Form 10-K of The Bank of Kentucky Financial Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2003 

 

Crowe Chizek and Company LLC 

 

March 10, 2004 

Louisville, Kentucky
II-01146

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Ann Riehle <annriehle@sbcglobal.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 7:24 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Ann Riehle

16486 169th P1

Mc Alpin, FL 60449
BANK MELLI, petitioner, v. Michael BENNETT, et al.

No. 16-334.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.

Justice BREYER took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 157 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                   House Calendar No. 9
111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 157

                          [Report No. 111-14]

 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2009

  Mr. Perlmutter, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time through the 
legislative day of February 13, 2009, for the Speaker to entertain 
motions that the House suspend the rules. The Speaker or her designee 
shall consult with the Minority Leader or his designee on the 
designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this section.
    Sec. 2.  The matter after the resolved clause of House Resolution 
10 is amended to read as follows: ``That unless otherwise ordered, 
before Monday, May 18, 2009, the hour of daily meeting of the House 
shall be 2 p.m. on Mondays; noon on Tuesdays; 10 a.m. on Wednesday and 
Thursday, and 9 a.m. on all other days of the week; and from Monday, 
May 18, 2009, until the end of the first session, the hour of daily 
meeting of the House shall be noon on Mondays; 10 a.m. on Tuesdays, 
Wednesdays, and Thursdays; and 9 a.m. on all other days of the week.''.
                                                   House Calendar No. 9

111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 157

                          [Report No. 111-14]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           February 11, 2009

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32803-32804]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15241]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-397-000]


Questar Pipeline Company; Notice of Supplemental Filing

June 12, 2001.
    Please take notice that on May 14, 2001, Questar filed supplemental 
information to Questar Pipeline

[[Page 32804]]

Company's Order No. 637 compliance filing that was filed with the 
Commission on July 17, 2001, in the referenced docket. In this 
supplement, Questar states that it is addressing parties' comments and 
issues regarding (1) segmentation, (2) park and loan service and (3) 
cashout provisions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations and are 
due on or before June 29, 2001. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be 
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-
208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
athttp://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-15241 Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
# C_2009167EN.01000602.xml

| 18.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 167/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 167/6

---

Action brought on 26 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-183/09)

2009/C 167/11

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafillou and I. Dimitriou)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with certain provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, or in any event by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic is in breach of its obligations under the first subparagraph of Article 412(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with certain provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, or in any event by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic is in breach of its obligations under the first subparagraph of Article 412(1) of that directive;

1

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2006/112/EC into national law expired on 1 January 2008.

---

(1)  OJ L 347 of 11.12.2006, p. 1.

1

---