alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 22, 2018

No. 04-18-00734-CR

Brandy Darlene AIELLO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR1259W

Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On October 11, 2018, appellant filed a motion for leave to file notice of appeal 

complaining of the trial court’s denial of her motion to withdraw plea signed on July 9, 2018.

Absent a timely motion for new trial, the notice of appeal was due August 8, 2018, and a motion 

for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due August 23, 2018. See TEX. R. APP. P.

26.2(a)(1); R. 26.3. Appellant’s notice of appeal is thus late. Absent a timely notice of appeal, 

this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1998) (per curiam); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that appellant show cause in writing within 30 days from 

the date this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All other 

appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending our resolution of the jurisdictional issue.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of October, 2018.
___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 31.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Arnold Salinas, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of
Finao Inc. certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Finao Inc.

         2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
annual report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

         4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

         5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

         a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

         6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in
this quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

July 26, 2004

/S/ Arnold Salinas
------------------
    Arnold Salinas
    Chief Executive Officer and
    Principal Accounting Officer
IIB 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3870 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 511 West 165th Street in New York, New 

York, as the ‘‘Normandia Maldonado Post Office Building’’. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3870 RFS

1 SECTION 1. NORMANDIA MALDONADO POST OFFICE BUILD2 ING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 511 West 165th Street in New 

5 York, New York, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Normandia Maldonado Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Normandia 

11 Maldonado Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 14, 

2020. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
INDEPENDENT PARTY, et al., petitioners, v. Alex PADILLA, California Secretary of State.

No. 17-1200.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# C_2011089EN.01000401.xml

| 19.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/4

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 November 2010 — Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Applus Servicios Technológicos SL

(Case C-216/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Articles 8(1)(b) and (5), 73, 74 and 79 - Figurative mark A+ - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark AirPlus International - Opposition rejected)

2011/C 89/06

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH (represented by: R. Kunze, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent), Applus Servicios Technológicos SL

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 March 2010 in Case T-321/07 Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Applus Servicios Tecnológicos by which that court dismissed an action brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark ‘AirPlus International’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36 and 42 against Decision R 310/2006-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 June 2007 dismissing the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the opposition brought by the appellant against the application for registration of the figurative mark ‘A+’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41 and 42

Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Applus Servicios Tecnológicos

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.

1

---
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 NeoGenomics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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 his knowledge:


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


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





Date: May 8, 2019/s/Douglas M. VanOortDouglas M. VanOortChief Executive OfficerDate: May 8, 2019/s/Sharon A. ViragSharon A. ViragChief Financial Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
#### WINSLOW v. UNITED STATES.

No. 8804.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia

Argued Dec. 13, 1944.

Decided Feb. 5, 1945.

Mr. Jordan R. Bentley, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Mr. Joseph II. San, of New York City, member of the Bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Messrs. Francis M. Shea, Assistant Attorney General, and Wilbur C. Pickett, Acting Director, Bureau of War Risk Litigation, Edward M. Curran, United States Attorney, and Fendall Marbury, Attorney, Department of Justice, all of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. John J. Cummings, Bureau of War Risk Litigation, of Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee.

Before GRONER, Chief Justice and MILLER and EDGERTON, Associate Justices.

PER CURIAM.

This suit is brought by an infant as beneficiary of the war risk *term*insurance policy of a deceased war veteran. The policy had lapsed in the veteran’s lifetime; but it had afterwards revived and matured, by reason of his total permanent disability, under section 305, World War Veterans’ Act, 1924, as amended, 44 Stat 799, 38 U.S.C.A. § 516. Thereafter, in his lifetime, the statutory period of limitations elapsed and suit on the- policy was barred. Despite that fact, appellant argues that since she is an infant she is entitled to sue because section 19 of the World War Veterans’ Act, 46 Stat. 992, 38 U.S.C.A. § 445, provides that “Infants, insane persons, or persons under other legal disability, or persons rated as incompetent or insane by the Veterans’ Administration shall have three years in which *to*bring suit after the removal of their disabilities.”

We agree with the District Court that this suit cannot be maintained. The quoted provision in favor of infants and other incompetent persons does not mean that such persons may bring suit without having a right or claim to sue on. Nor does this provision confer any right upon such persons. Its only effect is to keep alive such rights as they have or acquire. Since suit on the policy was already barred when the veteran died, appellant acquired no right as beneficiary of the policy. “The legislation and the policy do not confer two rights. The beneficiary’s interest in the policy is derivative from that of the veteran.” United States v. Towery, 306 U.S. 324, 330, 59 S.Ct. 522, 524, 83 L.Ed. 678.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Donald R. Walsh, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Avatech Solutions,
Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain
any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the

Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
Registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and



5. The Registrants other
certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):



(a) All significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or
not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                        |  |  |  |                                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Date: February 13, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ Donald R. Walsh                    
|                        |  |  |  |                                        
|                        |  |  |  | Donald R. Walsh Chief Executive Officer
Robert Earl CLAYBORNE, Jr., petitioner, v. TECUMSEH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.

No. 17-7840.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
John HANLON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-992.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

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. 333-56, 333-17977, 333-45291) pertaining to the 1992 Stock
Plan, 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1995 Director Option Plan, and the 
1997 Stock Plan of Perclose, Inc., of our report dated April 29, 1998,
with respect to the financial statements and schedule of Perclose, Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended March 31, 1998.



                                                   ERNST & YOUNG LLP



San Jose, California
June 16, 1998
CERTIFICATIONS 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 The Cyber Group Network Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Chief Executive Officer, 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 3(a) or 15(d) of
     the  Securities  and  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.



By: /s/ R. Scott Cramer
    ---------------------------

    R. Scott Cramer
    Chief Executive Officer and
    Chief Financial Officer


Dated: May 19, 2005
# C_2010080EN.01001601.xml

| 27.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/16

---

Appeal brought on 21 December 2009 by Mehmet Salih Bayramoglu against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2009 in Case T-110/09: Mehmet Salih Bayramoglu v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-28/10 P)

2010/C 80/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant(s): Mehmet Salih Bayramoglu (represented by: A. Riza QC)

Appellant(s):

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the Council Decision 2004/511/EC (1) on the ground that it is based on an unlawful failure to act to enable the Turkish Cypriot people to take part in European elections in violation of Article 189 of the EC Treaty read together with Articles 5 and 6 if the Treaty on European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Council Decision 2004/511/EC (1) on the ground that it is based on an unlawful failure to act to enable the Turkish Cypriot people to take part in European elections in violation of Article 189 of the EC Treaty read together with Articles 5 and 6 if the Treaty on European Union.

1

| — | Declare that the six MEPs notified by the RoC after 6 June 2009 returned under the present electoral arrangements do not represent the Turkish Cypriot as required by law. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the six MEPs notified by the RoC after 6 June 2009 returned under the present electoral arrangements do not represent the Turkish Cypriot as required by law.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance was wrong when it ruled that his action was lodged out of time. In support of this argument he submits that the case law relied upon by the CFI did not involve a failure to provide for the fundamental right of participating in elections of an entire people and did not concern a decision whose legal premise was a failure to act and make provisions for elections rather than to purport to postpone the right to hold such elections.

The appellant also submits that it was not the case that he did not invoke the existence of an excusable error or force majeure when lodging his application.

---

(1)  2004/511/EC:Council Decision of 10 June 2004 concerning the representation of the people of Cyprus in the European Parliament in case of a settlement of the Cyprus problem

1

OJ L 211, p. 22

---
II-00111

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Robert Apperson <yankee_rob2002@yahoo.com>

Sunday, December 5, 2010 12:34 PM

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.

Robert Apperson

1311 Lorimer Road

Raleigh, NC 27606
Order entered August 13, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00414-CR

No. 05-15-00415-CR

EMAJIN TREVON JACKSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F14-58177-X, F14-58178-X

ORDER

The Court ORDERS court reporter Jan Cherie Williams to file, within TEN DAYS of 

the date of this order, a supplemental record containing State’s Exhibit nos. 30, 31, 32, and 52.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to Jan Cherie Williams, official court 

reporter, Criminal District Court No. 6, and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
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 quarterly report of SiriCOMM, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2005 (the "Report"), I, Henry
P. Hoffman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.



/s/ Henry P. Hoffman
-------------------------
Henry P. Hoffman
Chief Executive Officer
August 15, 2005


A signed original of this certification 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.