alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-10836 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MENG TUAN WANG, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:03-CR-21-2-A

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Meng Tuan Wang appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute approximately 1,000 doses of MDMA. He argues that the district court’s denial of an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), constituted error because the denial was based on his failure to admit to relevant conduct. As examination of the record indicates that there was a sufficient basis for the district court’s denial of the adjustment forNo. 03-10836 -2- acceptance of responsibility, that denial did not constitute reversible error. See United States v. Solis , 299 F.3d 420, 458 (5th Cir. 2002). Wang contends that the hearsay statements of his codefendant was insufficiently reliable to be utilized to determine the quantity of MDMA for which he was accountable. As Wang has failed to show that the challenged hearsay statements were unreliable, the district court’s determination of drug quantity was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Maseratti , 1 F.3d 330, 340 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Chavez , 947 F.2d 742, 746-47 (5th Cir. 1991). Wang also asserts that he was deprived of his due process rights when the district court refused to allow him to call the probation officer as a witness during the sentencing hearing. As the information sought to be introduced from the probation officer was available from law enforcement agents, one of whom was questioned extensively at the sentencing hearing regarding that information, any error was harmless. See United States v. Davidson , 984 F.2d 651, 657 n.11 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment of conviction is

AFFIRMED.
Juan Pablo ARREOLA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7272.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Michael Paul BRADLEY, petitioner, v. GEORGIA.

No. 18-7770.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia denied.
```
  
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 08/11/09          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       38,844
COMMITMENTS
   8,302    2,372    6,608   16,646   19,840   31,555   28,820    7,288   10,023

CHANGES FROM 08/04/09 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        910)
     378      125    1,249     -593     -100    1,034    1,274     -124     -364

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    21.4      6.1     17.0     42.9     51.1     81.2     74.2     18.8     25.8

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       59)
       7       12       17       31       22       50       44
```

----

Updated August 14, 2009
|   | Re: | Employment      Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2008 and amended as of July 30, 2008      (the “Employment Agreement”) between TheStreet.com, Inc., (the “Company”), and James      J. Cramer (“Cramer”) |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 1. | By      deleting the text in Section 2(a)(ii) that reads “One Million Five Hundred      Sixty Thousand Dollars($1,560,000)” |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | And      replacing it with the following: |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|

|   | “One      Million Three Hundred Thousand Dollars  ($1,300,000)”. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Except      as expressly modified, amended or supplemented by this letter agreement,      all other terms and provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain      and continue unmodified in full force and  effect. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   | Best      regards,           |   |
|--------|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |                         |   |
|   |   | THESTREET.COM,      INC.     |   |
|   |   |                         |   |
|        | By:    | /s/ Thomas      Clarke       |   |
|   |   | Thomas      J. Clarke, Jr.   |   |
|   |   | Chief      Executive Officer |   |

| /s/ James      Cramer |   |   |  |   |
|-----------------------|--------|--------|--|--------|
| James      J. Cramer  |   |   |  |   |

----
Latwang Janell REID EL BEY, petitioner, v. NORTH CAROLINA, et al.

No. 18-7898.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of North Carolina, Wilson County denied.
# Official Journal L 99I/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 099I |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6210 April 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 099I

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6210 April 2019

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | RULES OF PROCEDURE |
| | * | European Data Protection Supervisor Decision of 2 April 2019 on internal rules concerning restrictions of certain rights of data subjects in relation to the processing of personal data in the framework of activities carried out by the European Data Protection Supervisor | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

RULES OF PROCEDURE

*

European Data Protection Supervisor Decision of 2 April 2019 on internal rules concerning restrictions of certain rights of data subjects in relation to the processing of personal data in the framework of activities carried out by the European Data Protection Supervisor

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
N.E.L., et al., petitioners, v. DOUGLAS COUNTY, COLORADO, et al.;

N.E.L., et al., petitioners, v. Monica Gildner, et al.

No. 18-503.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 12.1


Certification
 
 I, Duncan Copeland, certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Northcore Technologies 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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4. The Company’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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company 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 Company, 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding reliability of financial reporting and preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
 
 c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’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
 
 d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company's auditors and the audit committee of the Company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 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 Company'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 Company's internal control over financial reporting.
 
 
 Dated:  March 30, 2010
-sd- Duncan CopelandDuncan CopelandChief Executive Officer
Rene BORRERO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6025.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
```
  
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 06/01/10          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      169,961
COMMITMENTS
  40,797   31,144   33,338   77,545   74,223  151,679  138,704   18,281   31,256

CHANGES FROM 05/25/10 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      2,181)
     371   -2,571    1,734      210    2,626    2,315    1,789     -135      392

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    24.0     18.3     19.6     45.6     43.7     89.2     81.6     10.8     18.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      189)
      39       44       57       66       67      145      145
```

----

Updated June 4, 2010
# Official Journal C 69A/14 M

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 69A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5114 March 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 69A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5114 March 2008

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 069A/01 | Publication of a vacancy for a Director of the European Institute for Gender Equality in Vilnius (Lithuania) — COM(2008) 10062 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Commission

2008/C 069A/01

Publication of a vacancy for a Director of the European Institute for Gender Equality in Vilnius (Lithuania) — COM(2008) 10062

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Wayne NICOLAISON, petitioner, v. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, Minnesota.

No. 18-7375.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
NO. 12-19-00417-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE: HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY

AND HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA,

RELATORS

§

§

§

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Hyundai Motor Company and Hyundai Motor America filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus challenging Respondent’s order defining the scope of discovery, which stemmed from 

a motion to compel filed by Real Party in Interest Randale Case, as representative of the Estate of 

Vonda Wynette Case, Deceased, for and on behalf of all those entitled to recover for her death 

under the Texas Wrongful Death and Survival Acts, and as next friend of XXXXXXX XXXX, 

minor and Lillie Jean Craig, individually.1 On March 25, 2020, this Court conditionally granted 

the petition and directed Respondent to vacate his order of August 9, 2019, in which it set forth 

the scope of discovery. By an order signed on March 27, Respondent complied with this Court’s 

opinion and order, rendering this proceeding moot. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ 

of mandamus as moot. 

Opinion delivered April 2, 2020.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

1 Respondent is the Honorable J. Clay Gossett, Judge of the 4th District Court in Rusk County, Texas.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 2, 2020

NO. 12-19-00417-CV

HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY

AND HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA,

Relators

V.

HON. J. CLAY GOSSETT,

Respondent

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by 

Hyundai Motor Company and Hyundai Motor America; who are the relators in appellate cause 

number 12-19-00417-CV and the defendants in trial court cause number 2017-172, pending on the 

docket of the 4th Judicial District Court of Rusk County, Texas. Said petition for writ of 

mandamus having been filed herein on December 20, 2019, and the same having been duly 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the writ should not issue, it is therefore 

CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and 

the same is, hereby dismissed as moot.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
Ronald Leroy SATTERLEE, petitioner, v. Alicia MILLER-DEGASE, Assessor of Douglas County, Missouri, et al.

No. 18-792.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District denied.
Amos Junior SCOTT, petitioner, v. Heriberto H. TELLEZ, Acting Warden.

No. 18-7098.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# L_2011013EN.01000101.xml

| 18.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 13/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 13/1

---

Notice concerning the provisional application of the Agreement amending for the second time the Partnership Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 as first amended in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005

The Agreement amending for the second time the Partnership Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 as first amended in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005
   (1), was opened for signature in Ouagadougou on 22 June 2010 and thereafter from 1 July to 31 October 2010 at the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union in Brussels.

1

The last signature having taken place on 31 October 2010, in accordance with Decision No 2/2010 of the ACP-EU Council of Ministers of 21 June 2010 on transitional measures applicable from the date of signing to the date of entry into force of the Agreement amending for the second time the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000, as first amended in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005
   (2), this Agreement is therefore provisionally applied as from 31 October 2010.

2

---

(1)  
  OJ L 287, 4.11.2010, p. 3.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 287, 4.11.2010, p. 68.

2

---
##### 



Exhibit 21.1 SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT NAME
    
    JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATIONInformatica GmbH
    
    GermanyInformatica Software Limited
    
    United KingdomInformatica Software Ltd.
    
    CanadaInformatica Japan KK
    
    JapanInfluence Software
    
    CaliforniaInformatica Software (Switzerland) AG
    
    SwitzerlandInformatica International, Inc.
    
    DelawareInformatica Cayman Ltd.
    
    Cayman IslandsIS Informatica Software Ltda.
    
    BrazilInformatica Belgie N.V.
    
    BelgiumInformatica Nederland B.V.
    
    The NetherlandsInformatica France S.A.S.
    
    FranceStriva Corporation
    
    DelawareStriva Technology Inc.
    
    CaliforniaStriva Technology Limited
    
    United KingdomInformatica Business Solutions Private Ltd.
    
    IndiaInformatica International, Inc.  Singapore Branch
    
    Singapore
NO. 07-12-00389-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

JANUARY 7, 2013

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF MANUEL A. 

VIDALES AND NELDA NORA VIDALES

FROM THE 286TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOCKLEY COUNTY;

NO. 11-10-22811; HONORABLE PAT PHELAN, JUDGE

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Manuel A. Vidales, filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s judgment 

or order signed on June 21, 2012. We dismiss for want of prosecution and failure to 

comply with a directive of this Court.

After Vidales filed his notice of appeal, the Clerk of the 286th District Court of 

Hockley County filed a request for an extension of time to file the clerk’s record on the 

basis that Vidales had not paid or made arrangements to pay for preparation of the 

clerk’s record. This motion was granted and, by letter dated October 23, this Court 

notified Vidales that the clerk’s record for this appeal had not been paid for nor had 

arrangements been made to pay for preparation of the clerk’s record. This letter further 
2

directed Vidales to make arrangements for preparation of the clerk’s record, and to 

submit a status report regarding the appeal on or before November 19. The letter also 

notified Vidales that failure to comply with the directive of the Court could result in 

dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). On 

November 20, this Court again notified Vidales that the clerk’s record had neither been 

paid for nor had payment arrangements been made for preparation of the clerk’s record. 

By this letter, Vidales was directed to ensure that the clerk’s record was filed or to certify 

that payment had been made or that arrangements for payment had been made for 

preparation of the clerk’s record by December 19, or the appeal might be dismissed for 

want of prosecution. To date, Vidales has not responded to either directive. Further, by 

motion filed December 19, the trial court clerk again requested an extension of time to 

file the clerk’s record on the basis that Vidales has still failed to pay for or make 

arrangements to pay for preparation of the clerk’s record. 

Because no clerk=s record has been filed in this appeal due to the fault of 

Vidales and Vidales has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to comply with the 

requisites, we now dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution and for failure to comply 

with a directive of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c), 42.3(b), (c).

Mackey K. Hancock

 Justice
Ronald JONES, petitioner, v. DELAWARE.

No. 17-6916.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Nathan WILSON, petitioner, v. GEORGIA STATE PRISON.

No. 17-6839.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 22, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
NATIONWIDE BIWEEKLY ADMINISTRATION, INC., petitioner, v. BMO HARRIS BANK, N.A.

No. 18-960.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 25, 2019.

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