alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-01-0063-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	JULY 3, 2001

	______________________________

	SWITCHCRAFT, INC., APPELLANT

	V.

	WESTGUARD COMPONENTS GROUP, INC., APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;

	NO. 46,565-C; HONORABLE PATRICK PIRTLE, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and QUINN and JOHNSON, JJ.

	On February 7, 2001, the clerk of this court received a copy of a Notice of Appeal from a Judgment in Cause No. 46,565-C in the 251st District Court of Randall County, Texas.  The Judgment was signed on January 8, 2001.  The Notice of Appeal was filed on behalf of appellant Switchcraft, Inc. 

	On March 8, 2001, the clerk of this court received and filed the clerk’s record and on April 5, 2001 two volumes of the reporter’s record were received and filed. 

	The time for filing appellant’s brief was May 7, 2001.  Appellant’s brief was not received by such date and no motion to extend time to file the brief was filed.  

	By letter dated June 11, 2001, appellant was advised that appellant’s brief had not been filed and that unless a response showing good cause for continuing the appeal was received within 10 days, the appeal would be subject to dismissal.  No response has been received to the letter of June 11, 2001.  Neither appellant’s brief nor a motion to extend time for filing the brief have been filed.  

	Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.3, 43.2(f).  Costs are taxed to appellant.  Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.  

							Per Curiam

Do not publish.
Mark SOKOLOW, et al., petitioners, v. PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION, et al.

No. 16-1071.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
# C_2010221EN.01004301.xml

| 14.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Valigeria Roncato v OHIM –Roncato (CARLO RONCATO)

(Case T-124/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for community word mark CARLO RONCATO - Unregistered national figurative and word marks RV RONCATO and RONCATO - Earlier national figurative and word marks RV RONCATO and RONCATO - No likelihood of unfair advantage being taken of the distinctive character and repute of the earlier marks - Due cause for the use of the mark applied for - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 221/70

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Valigeria Roncato SpA (Campodarsego, Italy) (represented by: P. Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Roncato Srl (Campodarsego) (represented by: M. Cartella and M. Fazzini, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 January 2009 (Cases R 237/2008-1 and R 236/2008-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Valigeria Roncato SpA and Roncato Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Valigeria Roncato SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Valigeria Roncato SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, of 6.6.2009.

1

---
Proposed Board Compensation Schedule


EXHIBIT 10.43







	Proposed Board Compensation Schedule

to be effective January 1, 2006


	 Board Retainer - all members

	$

	100,000 


	 Additional Retainers:

	 	 
	-

	Committee Retainer - Lead Director

	$

	30,000  


	-

	Committee Retainer - Audit Chair

	$

	25,000  


	-

	Committee Retainer - Comp Chair

	$

	20,000  


	-

	Committee Retainer - Other Chair

	$

	15,000  


	-

	Committee Retainer - PLIC Policyholder Chair

	$

	7,500  


	-

	Committee Retainer - Audit Non-Chair

	$

	5,000  


	-

	Committee Retainer - Comp Non-Chair

	$

	2,500  


	All Retainers to be paid 50/50 cash/RSUs
Created with Sketch.Menu Transparency
	Contact Us Search
Search
 Main navigation

      
      About the CFTC
                          The Commission
                        Chairman & Commissioners
                        CFTC Organization
                        Advisory Committees
                        Budget & Performance
                        Privacy at the CFTC
                        Careers
                        Diversity and Inclusion at the CFTC
                        Industry Oversight
                          Industry Filings
                        Trading Organizations
                        Clearing Organizations
                        Data Repositories
                        Intermediaries
                        Market Surveillance
                        Contracts & Products
                        Rules & Rule Amendments
                        Anti-Money Laundering
                        Law & Regulation
                          Commodity Exchange Act & Regulations
                        How Rules Are Made
                        Holding Wrongdoers Accountable
                        Federal Register
                        Public Comments
                        CFTC Staff Letters
                        Office of Technology Innovation
                        Market Data & Economic Analysis
                          Data at CFTC
                        Commitments of Traders
                        Bank Participation Reports
                        Cotton On-Call
                        Financial Data for FCMS
                        Net Position Changes Data
                        Staff Reports
                        Weekly Swaps Report
                        Cleared Margin Reports
                        Office of the Chief Economist
                        Forms & Submissions
                        Learn & Protect
                          Check Registration & Disciplinary History
                        Submit a Tip
                        Reparations Program
                        RED List
                        Advisories & Articles
                        Videos
                        Publications
                        News & Events
                          Press Releases
                        Public Statements & Remarks
                        Events Carousel Rotation On
              On


External Meetings: Call w/Markit
  
    



  Discussions concerning product definitions.
      
  When
              06/28/2012

  Rulemaking(s)
              II. Definitions

  CFTC Staff
              Terry Arbit

  Visitor(s)
              Marcus Schueler Armins Rusis Adam Kansler Peter Malyshev

  Organization(s)
              Markit


Resources

CFTC Regulations
	Commodity Exchange Act
	Privacy Policy
	Web Policy
	FOIA
	EEO Statement
	No Fear Act
	Accessibility Statement
	Procurement
	USA.gov
	Glossary

Actions

Search Public Comments
	Submit Tips & Complaints
	Search Industry FilingsWhistleblower.gov
	Office of Technology InnovationInspector GeneralSitemap

HomeCFTC Headquarters
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20581
202.418.5000
*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-11410

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MIGUEL GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:99-CR-114-1-Y

 

September 11, 2000

Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM*:

Miguel Garcia appeals the district court’s denial of his

motions to suppress evidence and his motion to exclude expert

testimony. Garcia entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the

right to appeal the district court’s denial of these motions.

Garcia argues that law enforcement officials did not have

sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop of
2

the vehicle in which Garcia was a passenger; he also argues that

the length of the detention was unreasonable and became a fullblown arrest without probable cause. A review of the evidence

presented indicates that the officers had reasonable suspicion to

stop the vehicle based on the tip from a previously reliable

informant and based on the officers’ surveillance which

corroborated the confidential informant’s tip. The approximately

forty-five minute detention of the vehicle was not unreasonable as

the officers “diligently pursued a means of investigation that was

likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which

time it was necessary to detain the defendant.” United States v.

Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686 (1985). The alert by the narcotics dog

then provided probable cause to search the vehicle. See United

States v. Zucco, 71 F.3d 188, 191-92 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Garcia argues that the district court abused its discretion in

denying his motion to exclude Sergeant H.G. Tebay’s testimony as

unqualified under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. He

also argues that Sergeant Tebay’s testimony would have violated

Rule 704 which prohibits an expert from testifying concerning a

defendant’s mental state. The district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying Garcia’s motion to exclude Sergeant Tebay’s

testimony because he was an experienced narcotics investigator who

had knowledge concerning how the drug distribution business

operates which would have assisted the jury. See United States v.
3

Washington, 44 F.3d 1271, 1283 (5th Cir. 1995). Further, such

testimony would not have violated Rule 704 as the testimony could

be considered an analysis of the evidence. See United States v.

Speer, 30 F.3d 605, 609-10 (5th Cir. 1994). 

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 31.1
 Certification
 I, John D. Doherty, certify that:1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Central Bancorp, 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(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
   Date: June 22, 2009
    /s/ John D. DohertyJohn D. DohertyChairman and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 23.1
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  (1)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-131503) pertaining to the 2006 Employee
Stock Purchase Plan of Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc.;(2)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-125514) pertaining to the 2005 Long-Term
Incentive Plan of Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc.;(3)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-109482) pertaining to the 1999 Omnibus Stock
Plan of Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc.;(4)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-153547) pertaining to the registration of
4,000,000 shares of common stock;(5)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-158586) pertaining to the registration of
its senior debt securities, subordinate debt securities, convertible debt securities,
preferred stock, common stock, warrants, and units of up to a total dollar amount of
$150,000,000; and(6)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-166954) pertaining to the 2010 Long-Term
Incentive Plan of Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc.
II-00851

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Ken Odell <keneodell@earthlink.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:44 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.

Ken Odell

6217 Loydhill Lane

Fort Worth, TX 76135
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Noble, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2023-Ohio-189.]

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. NOBLE.

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Noble, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2023-Ohio-189.]

(No. 2021-1519—Submitted January 18, 2023—Decided January 24, 2023.)

ON APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT.

____________________

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an 

application for reinstatement by respondent, Michael Allen Noble, Attorney 

Registration No. 0088639, last known business address in Ravenna, Ohio.

{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of June 29, 2022, wherein 

the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(12)(A)(3), suspended respondent from the 

practice of law for a period of one year with six months stayed on conditions, finds 

that respondent has complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. 

V(24).

{¶ 3} Therefore, it is ordered by this court that respondent is reinstated to 

the practice of law in the state of Ohio.

{¶ 4} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies 

of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(E)(1) and that publication be 

made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(E)(2).

{¶ 5} For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Noble, __ Ohio St.3d __, 

2022-Ohio-2190, __ N.E.3d __.

KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER,

and DETERS, JJ., concur.

_________________
# C_2010195EN.01001502.xml

| 17.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/15

---

Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 22 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Prof. Dr. Claus Scholl v Stadtwerke Aachen AG

(Case C-146/09) (1)

1

2010/C 195/23

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<LEGEND>
                      EXHIBIT 27 - Financial Statement Data

</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    dec-31-1999
<CASH>                                  16,557
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           400,672
<ALLOWANCES>                            (24,063)
<INVENTORY>                             1,035,006
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        2,329,933
<PP&E>                                  4,144,921
<DEPRECIATION>                          714,703
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          5,760,151
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   7,723,972
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                2,590,457
<OTHER-SE>                              (5,360,029)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            5,760,151
<SALES>                                 925,987
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        925,987
<CGS>                                   2,106,909
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           2,106,909
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        2,627,021
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      319,120
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (4,127,063)
<INCOME-TAX>                            (86,203)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (4,040,860)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            (4,040,860)
<EPS-BASIC>                             (3.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7684

CHARLES W. PENLAND, SR., 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

CITY OF GREER, South Carolina; KENNETH BOBO, Affiant; MAYOR, 

City of Greer, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District 

Judge. (6:07-cv-03204-HMH) 

Submitted: December 29, 2008 Decided: February 18, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Charles W. Penland, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Charles W. Penland, Sr., appeals the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) 

complaint. On appeal, Penland has failed to raise any arguments 

relevant to the district court’s reasoning for dismissing his 

complaint; thus, he has abandoned his claims. Edwards v. City 

of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999); 4th Cir. R. 

34(b). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district 

court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED
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

I, David J. Surette, the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of
Global Axcess Corp. (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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter
ended September 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or 78o(d)); 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: November 12, 2005

                                     /s/ David J. Surette
                                         ------------------
                                         Name:  David J. Surette
                                         Title: Chief Financial Officer &
                                                Chief Accounting Officer
Ramon Enrique ACOSTA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7149.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Jonathan Adam LAMB, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-5596.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of *Mathis v. United States,* 579 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016).
Luke M. BARELA, petitioner, v. COLORADO.

No. 16-6966.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Colorado denied.
Scott D. CLABOURNE, petitioner, v. Charles L. RYAN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections.

No. 17-7257.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Alber I SAID, petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 17-8204.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.