alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 12-15-00095-CR

GLYNDA MORROW § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

 Appellant §

§

vs. § 12TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee

§

§ AT TYLER, TEXAS

MOTION TO WITHDRAW

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Now comes Austin Reeve Jackson, counsel for Appellant in the above entitled and 

numbered cause, and makes this Motion to Withdraw, and for good cause shows the following:

I.

Counsel was appointed to represent Appellant in the appeal of this matter. Having

undertaken a diligent and thorough review of the record, counsel has concluded that, in his 

professional judgment, there exist no arguable grounds for reversible error. A copy of 

Appellant’s Brief filed pursuant to the requirements of Anders v. California, along with a copy of 

this Motion, has been served on Appellant who has also been informed of the right to file a pro 

se brief by 30 September, the right object to this Motion, and the right to obtain a copy of records 

from counsel. Said notification was sent to Appellant by first class certified mail at:

Inmate 01990171

Carol Young Complex

5509 Attwater Ave.

Dickinson, TX 77539

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, undersigned counsel respectfully prays 

that, in accordance with the applicable law, the Court grant this Motion to Withdraw and afford 

Appellant an opportunity to file a pro se brief in this matter. 

ACCEPTED

12-15-00095-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

8/31/2015 4:55:33 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 8/31/2015 4:55:33 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Austin Reeve Jackson

Texas Bar No. 24046139

112 East Line, Suite 310

Tyler, TX 75702

Telephone: (903) 595-6070

Facsimile: (866) 387-0152

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was 

served on counsel for the State by efile. Further, a copy of this Motion was also served on 

Appellant by certified first class mail.

/s/ Austin Reeve Jackson
EXHIBIT
32.2





WRITTEN
STATEMENT


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report of China 3C Group and its
subsidiaries (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31,
2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), the undersigned, Jian Zhang, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company certifies, 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 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) 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.





Dated:
      December 24, 2009
                  By:
                  /s/
      Jian ZhangName:
                  Jian
      ZhangTitle:
                  Chief
      Financial Officer (Principal Accounting and Financial
    Officer)
# C_2011340EN.01001402.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/14

---

Order of the President of the Court of 8 August 2011 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-597/10) (1)

1

2011/C 340/25

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.

1

---
Robert WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. Timothy BLANCHARD, et al.

No. 17-7431.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Kevin BRENNAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6755.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 16, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41382

Summary Calendar

ROBERT MARTINEZ

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT CORRECTIONS

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CV-176

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Martinez, formerly Texas prisoner # 1188230, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for lack of prosecution.

Martinez had raised a number of claims regarding a prison disciplinary hearing

and various conditions of confinement. The district court dismissed without

prejudice after Martinez failed to comply with an order to amend his complaint.

Martinez’s appellate brief fails to adequately address the district court’s

basis for dismissing his complaint. Although this court liberally construes pro
No. 06-41382

2

se briefs, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), even pro se litigants

must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,

224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Martinez has failed to brief the relevant issue

for appeal, his appeal is frivolous and is dismissed. See Howard v. King, 707

F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Martinez’s motion for

production of documents also is denied. 

Martinez is cautioned that the dismissal of his appeal as frivolous counts

as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383,

387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). He is also cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes

under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil

action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless

he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). 

MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DENIED; APPEAL

DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
# C_2012049EN.01002103.xml

| 18.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/21

---

Order of the President of the Court of 14 November 2011 — 4care AG v Office For Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade marks and designs), Laboratorios Diafarm, SA

(Case C-535/10 P) (1)

1

2012/C 49/37

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.

1

---
EXHIBIT
13.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Dr.
Kenneth W. Powell, President, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial
Officer of Titan Trading Analytics Inc. (the “Company”) , hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





a.
            the
      Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended
      October 31, 2007 (the “Annual Report”) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and





b.
            the
      information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents in all material
      respects the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





By:
                  /s/
      Dr. Kenneth W. PowellName:
                  Dr.
      Kenneth W. PowellTitle:
                  President,
      Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial
  OfficerDate:
                  April
      30, 2009





This
written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
as an exhibit to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F. A signed original of
this statement 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.





This
certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 20-F pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the
extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
# C_2012295EN.01000301.xml

| 29.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-334/10) (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 6(2), first subparagraph, (a) and (b), Article 11A(1)(c) and Article 17(2) - Part of a capital item forming part of the assets of a business - Temporary use for private purposes - Permanent alterations to that item - Payment of VAT in respect of the permanent alterations - Right to deduct)

2012/C 295/04

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Applicant:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 6(2), first subparagraph, (a) and (b), Article 11A(1)(c) and Article 17(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Deduction of input tax — Taxable person who has made temporary use for private purposes of part of a capital item forming part of the assets of his business and who has, for those purposes, made permanent alterations to that part of the item — Entitlement to deduct the VAT paid in respect of the permanent alterations

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(2), first subparagraph, (a) and (b), Article 11A(1)(c) and Article 17(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that, first, a taxable person who makes temporary use for private purposes of part of a capital item forming part of the assets of his business is entitled, under those provisions, to deduct the input value added tax on the expenditure incurred in carrying out permanent alterations to that item even though those alterations were carried out with a view to that temporary use for private purposes and, secondly, that right to deduct exists irrespective of whether the taxable person was charged VAT and deducted that VAT upon the acquisition of the capital item to which those alterations were made.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.

1

---
Tarome Antonio HARRIS, petitioner, v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden.

No. 16-9478.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Francis HARRIS, petitioner, v. Craig STEADMAN.

No. 17-7369.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
# C_2011311EN.01001101.xml

| 22.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Isernia — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Aldo Patriciello

(Case C-163/10) (1)

1

(Member of the European Parliament - Protocol on Privileges and Immunities - Article 8 - Criminal proceedings for the offence of making false accusations - Statements made outside the precincts of the Parliament - Definition of opinion expressed in the performance of parliamentary duties - Immunity - Conditions)

2011/C 311/14

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale di Isernia

Party in the main proceedings

Party in the main proceedings

Aldo Patriciello

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Isernia — Interpretation of Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities (OJ 1967 152, p. 13) — Member of the European Parliament charged with slander following a false accusation levelled at a representative of the forces of law and order — Notion of the expression of an opinion in the performance of parliamentary duties

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, annexed to the EU, FEU and EAEC Treaties, must be interpreted to the effect that a statement made by a Member of the European Parliament beyond the precincts of that institution and giving rise to prosecution in his Member State of origin for the offence of making false accusations does not constitute an opinion expressed in the performance of his parliamentary duties covered by the immunity afforded by that provision unless that statement amounts to a subjective appraisal having a direct, obvious connection with the performance of those duties. It is for the court making the reference to determine whether those conditions have been satisfied in the case in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.

1

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-01-00003-CR

Frederick Earl Washington, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY, 21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 9560, HONORABLE JOHN L. PLACKE, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant Frederick Earl Washington was convicted of robbery after pleading guilty.

See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 29.02 (West 1994). His sole contention on appeal is that the forty-five

year sentence imposed by the court is unauthorized by law and void. We agree.

The indictment alleged two previous felony convictions for the purpose of enhancing

punishment. See id. § 12.42(d) (West Supp. 2001). On October 11, 2000, when Washington

appeared before the district court and pleaded guilty to the alleged robbery, the parties agreed to

reserve the enhancement issue for the sentencing hearing. With that, the court found Washington

guilty and reset the cause for sentencing.

Washington returned to court on November 28. He did not enter a plea to the

enhancement allegations, the State offered no evidence to prove the enhancement allegations, and the

court did not find the enhancement allegations to be true. Under the circumstances, appellant’s

sentence was not subject to enhancement. In fact, the court’s written judgment reflects that no
2

finding was made regarding the enhancement allegations. Nevertheless, the district court assessed

punishment at imprisonment for forty-five years. 

Robbery is a second-degree felony. Id. § 29.02(b). Washington’s forty-five year

sentence exceeds that authorized for a second-degree felony. Id. § 12.33 (West 1994). A sentence

not authorized by law is void. Levy v. State, 818 S.W.2d 801, 802 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Brown

v. State, 14 S.W.3d 832, 833 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. ref’d); see Ex parte Seidel, 39 S.W.3d

221, 225 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Therefore, we affirm the district court’s judgment as to the

finding of guilt, but reverse that portion of the judgment imposing sentence and remand the cause for

reassessment of punishment within the range prescribed for a second-degree felony.

__________________________________________

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Puryear

Affirmed in Part, Reversed and Remanded in Part

Filed: September 20, 2001

Do Not Publish
Exhibit 24.1



POWER OF ATTORNEY



WHEREAS, BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (the Company), will file with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, under the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006; and



WHEREAS, the undersigned serve the Company in the capacity indicated;



NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints THOMAS N.
HUND or ROGER NOBER, his or her attorney with full power to act for him or her in his or her name, place and stead, to sign his or her name in the capacity set forth below, to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2006, and to any and all amendments to such Annual Report on Form 10-K, and hereby ratifies and confirms all that said attorney may or shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Power of Attorney has been executed by the
undersigned this 14th day of February, 2007.





|                            |  |  |  |                                                                              
|--------------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Alan L. Boeckmann       |  |  |  | /s/ Donald G. Cook                                                           
|Alan L. Boeckmann, Director |  |  |  | Donald G. Cook, Director                                                     
|                            |  | 
|/s/ Vilma S. Martinez       |  |  |  | /s/ Marc F. Racicot                                                          
|Vilma S. Martinez, Director |  |  |  | Marc F. Racicot, Director                                                    
|                            |  | 
|/s/ Roy S. Roberts          |  |  |  | /s/ Matthew K. Rose                                                          
|Roy S. Roberts, Director    |  |  |  | Matthew K. Rose, Director and Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
|                            |  | 
|/s/ Marc J. Shapiro         |  |  |  | /s/ J.C. Watts, Jr.                                                          
|Marc J. Shapiro, Director   |  |  |  | J.C. Watts, Jr., Director                                                    
|                            |  | 
|/s/ Robert H. West          |  |  |  | /s/ Edward E. Whitacre, Jr.                                                  
|Robert H. West, Director    |  |  |  | Edward E. Whitacre, Jr., Director                                            
|                            |  | 
|/s/ J. Steven Whisler       |  |  |  |                                                                              
|J. Steven Whisler, Director |  |  |  |
FIL ED U.S . C OUR T O F A PPE ALS ELE VEN TH CIR CUI T AUG UST 14 , 2 007 THO MAS K. KA

HN CLE RK IN THE U NI TED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE E LEV EN TH C IR CU IT

No. 05-14631 (D .C. Do c ke t N o. 03 -0 00 83 -C R) UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , versus EDDI E MI L TON GA REY, J R., a . k

. a . M i l e s G a r e y, a . k

. a . M i l t o n G a r e y, a . k

. a . E d d i e G a r e y, Def endant- Appellant.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - On Ap pe a l f ro m th e Un ite d St a te s D istri c t Co ur t fo r t he Mid dle Di str ic t of

Ge or g ia

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- (Opinion April 11, 2007, 483 F.3r d 1159, 11 Cir. 2007) th (August 14, 2007)

B e fo re ED MO ND SON , Ch ie f Jud g e , T JOF L AT , A ND ERS ON , B I RCH , D UB I NA , B L AC K, CA RN ES, B AR KE TT , H UL L , M AR CU S, WI L SON a nd PRY OR , Ci rc uit

Judg e s.

B Y T H E C O U R T :

A member

of this Court in active servic e having reque sted a poll on the sug g estions of rehe aring en banc a nd a majority

of the judg es in this Court in active service having voted in favor of g ranting a re hear ing e n banc, I T I S OR DE R E D t h at t h e a b o v e c au s e s h al l b e r eh ea rd b y t h i s co u rt en b an c. T h e p re v i o u s p an el 's opinion is hereby

VACATED.
SIXTH AMENDMENT
                                ---------------

       THIS  SIXTH  AMENDMENT,  made as of this 15th day of  April,  1998 by and
between  CONVERSE  INC., a corporation  organized and existing under the laws of
the State of  Delaware,  having its  principal  place of business at One Fordham
Road,  North Reading,  Massachusetts  01864  (hereinafter  called  "Converse" or
"Licensor");

                                      AND

ACTIVE APPAREL GROUP, INC., a corporation  organized and existing under the laws
of the  State of New  York,  having  its  principal  place of  business  at 1350
Broadway, Suite 2300, New York, New York, 10018 (hereinafter called "Licensee").


                                   WITNESSETH

       WHEREAS,  the Licensor and the Licensee entered into a Trademark  License
Agreement  dated May 20,  1994,  as amended  on  October 3, 1995,  June 1, 1996,
January 7, 1997,  January 22, 1997 and September  19, 1997,  with respect to the
license of certain  of the  Licensor's  trademarks  in the  United  States  (the
"Agreement"); and

       WHEREAS, Converse and Licensee desire to further amend the Agreement.

       NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

       1. Accounting Year 3 shall be revised to commence October 1, 1997 and end
March 31, 1999.

       2. Paragraph 5.1(b) shall be revised to read as follows:

          "(b) The  Licensee  will pay to Licensor a guaranteed  minimum  annual
license fee  commencing  May 20, 1994,  regardless  of its Net Sales of Finished
Articles sold under this Agreement for each  Accounting Year commencing with the
year 1994 (the "Guaranteed Minimum Fee"), in the amount set forth herein:


          ACCOUNTING YEAR                     GUARANTEED MINIMUM LICENSE FEE
          ---------------                     ------------------------------

1   May 20, 1994 to September 30, 1996                 $280,000.00
2   October 1, 1996 to September 30, 1997              $280,000.00
3   October 1, 1997 to March 31, 1999                  $ 52,500.00"

       3. As amdned hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

       IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the parties have executed this Fifth Amendment as of
the date first above written.

WITNESS:                                     CONVERSE INC.

/s/ illegible                                /s/ illegible
------------------------------------         By---------------------------------


WITNESS:                                     ACTIVE APPAREL GROUP, INC.

/s/ illegible                                /s/ Gordon Horowitz, President
------------------------------------         By---------------------------------