alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 12-23-00136-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DAVID KENT FITCH, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 475TH 

DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, David Kent Fitch pleaded “guilty” to fraudulent 

use or possession of identifying information. In accordance with the agreed punishment 

recommendation, the trial court sentenced Appellant to fifty-five years in prison. Appellant 

appealed.

The clerk’s record has been filed and the trial court’s certification states that this is a plea 

bargain case, and the defendant has no right of appeal. The certification is signed by Appellant 

and his counsel. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). Appellant also signed a waiver of appeal. 

When the defendant is the appellant, the record must include the trial court’s certification 

of the defendant’s right of appeal. Id. This Court must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that 

shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” Id. Based on 

our review of the record, the trial court’s certification appears to accurately state that this is a 

plea bargain case and Appellant has no right to appeal. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court of appeals should review record to determine whether trial

court’s certification is accurate). Because the trial court did not grant Appellant the right to 

appeal his conviction, we dismiss the appeal.
2

Opinion delivered June 30, 2023.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JUNE 30, 2023

NO. 12-23-00136-CR

DAVID KENT FITCH,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 475th District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 475-0039-23)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being 

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that 

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health Special Emphasis Panel; Center of Excellence for Research on Complementary and Integrative Health (P01) (CERCIH).                    

*Date:*                         July 15, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Center for Complementary and Integrative, Democracy II, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Sonia Elena Nanescu, Ph.D.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.213, Research and Training in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: June 14, 2022.

Victoria E. Townsend,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-13132 Filed 6-16-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
# C_2018454EN.01000102.xml

| 17.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 454/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 454/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9193 — Fairfax Financial Holdings/Eurolife ERB Insurance Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 454/02)

On 6 December 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9193. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9193. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Octavius MATTHEWS, Petitioner v. Andrew M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security.

No. 18-9311

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

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

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

___________________

No. 00-20901

Summary Calendar

___________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NHAN KHIEM TRAN, also known as Tony Tran, 

also known as Larry Tran,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CV-1686

USDC No. H-89-CR-135-2

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

April 1, 2002

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nhan Khiem Tran (“Tran”), federal prisoner # 48684-079,

appeals the district court’s denial of his motion filed pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Tran argues that the district court

erred in determining that Dirks was authorized to sign his motion

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as Tran’s authorized agent

because Dirks does not qualify as Tran’s next friend. Even

assuming that the district court erred when it determined that
No. 00-20901 

- 2 -

Dirks was Tran’s agent,“[i]t is not enough that the granting of

[Rule 60(b) relief] might have been permissible, or even

warranted--denial must have been so unwarranted as to constitute

an abuse of discretion.” Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d

396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981). Tran did not demonstrate in his Rule

60(b) motion, nor does he show on appeal, that he was prejudiced

in any particular way by Dirks signing Tran’s name to the motion. 

Thus, he fails to show that the district court’s denial of his

Rule 60(b) motion was an abuse of discretion.

Tran also argues that Judge Hughes should be recused from

his case. This court will not address this argument because the

COA was granted only on the issue discussed above. See Lackey v.

Johnson, 116 F.3d 149, 151-152 (5th Cir. 1997).

The motion to supplement the record is moot in light of the

opinion.

AFFIRMED.
Independent Auditors Report


To the Shareholders and Board of Trustees of
the Smith Barney Income Funds:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of the Smith Barney Diversified Strategic Income Fund of the
Smith Barney Income Funds (Fund) for the year ended July 31,
2002, we considered its internal control, including control
activities for safeguarding securities, in order to determine our
auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on
the financial statements and to comply with the requirements of
Form N-SAR, not to provide assurance on internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility,
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the
expected benefits and related costs of controls.  Generally,
controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the entity's
objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes
that are fairly presented in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Those controls include the safeguarding of assets against
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, error or
fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of any
evaluation of internal control to future periods is subject to
the risk that it may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation
may deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in internal control that might be material
weaknesses under standards established by the American Institute
of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness is a
condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the
internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low
level the risk that errors or fraud in amounts that would be
material in relation to the financial statements being audited
may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees
in the normal course of performing their assigned functions.
However, we noted no matters involving internal control and its
operation, including controls for safeguarding securities that we
consider to be material weaknesses as defined above as of July
31, 2002.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management and the Board of Trustees of the Fund and the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not intended to be and
should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.


                                                       KPMG LLP

New York, New York
September 12, 2002
# C_2018107EN.01000901.xml

| 22.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/9

---

Commission notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Imposition of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 107/09)

| Member State | Greece |
| --- | --- |
| Route concerned | Athens-Kozani-Kastoria |
| Date of entry into force of the public service obligations | From 1 September 2018 |
| Address where the text and any other information or documentation related to the public service obligation can be obtained | Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority website:
  http://www.ypa.gr or http://www.hcaa.gr
  as well as www.promitheus.gov.gr |

Member State

Greece

Route concerned

Athens-Kozani-Kastoria

Date of entry into force of the public service obligations

From 1 September 2018

Address where the text and any other information or documentation related to the public service obligation can be obtained

Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority website:

http://www.ypa.gr or http://www.hcaa.gr

as well as www.promitheus.gov.gr

---
Tamra L. LAMPRELL, Petitioner, v. Rex E. STUCKEY.

No. 19M61

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the supplemental appendix under seal granted.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 116 (Thursday, June 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 36357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12983]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 11757]


Renewal of Defense Trade Advisory Group Charter

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of State announces the renewal of the Charter 
for the Defense Trade Advisory Group (DTAG) for another two years. The 
DTAG advises the Department on its support for and regulation of 
defense trade to help ensure the foreign policy and national security 
of the United States continues to be protected and advanced, while 
helping to reduce unnecessary impediments to legitimate exports in 
order to support the defense requirements of U.S. friends and allies. 
It is the only Department of State advisory committee that addresses 
defense trade related topics. The DTAG will remain in existence for two 
years after the filing date of the Charter unless terminated sooner. 
The DTAG is authorized by Department of State regulations and the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act. For more information, contact Michael 
Miller, Designated Federal Officer, Defense Trade Advisory Group, and 
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, 
Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, telephone: (202) 663-2861.

Michael Miller,
Designated Federal Officer, Defense Trade Advisory Group, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. 2022-12983 Filed 6-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-25-P
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A1556. DONALD J. ADAMS et al. v. NELLIE ANN ADAMS et al.

Nellie Ann Adams and Edith Chatfield (the “Plaintiffs”) filed a dispossessory

action against Jay Adams and Lorraine Adams (the “Defendants”). The Defendants

answered and filed counterclaims against the Plaintiffs. The trial court entered an

order requiring the Defendants to pay $400 of rent per month into the registry of the

trial court on May 30, 2017. The trial court subsequently entered an order granting

the Plaintiffs a writ of possession to the subject property on February 26, 2018. The

February 26, 2018 order reserved for trial the issues of the Defendants’ failure to

make rental payments, attorney fees, and the Defendants’ counterclaims. The

Defendants filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s order on March 1, 2018. We,

however, lack jurisdiction.

Here, the trial court’s order is not final because the trial court has not yet

adjudicated the issues of the Defendants’ failure to make rental payments, attorney

fees, and the Defendants’ counterclaims. Consequently, because this action remains

pending below, the Defendants were required to use the interlocutory appeal

procedures – including obtaining a certificate of immediate review fromthe trial court

May 04, 2018
– to appeal the trial court’s order. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Boyd v. State, 191 Ga.

App. 435, 435 (383 SE2d 906) (1989). The Defendants’ failure to do so deprives us

of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

05/04/2018
Jose Juan VALLEJO, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5953

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Geary GILMORE, Petitioner, v. Shirlee HARRY, Warden

No. 18-9059

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

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



I, Richard B. Vincent, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of STAT Software, Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



4.

The registrant's other certifying officers 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 quarterly 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 quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

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 officers 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 officers 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.



Date:  August 20, 2004

/s/ Richard B. Vincent

Treasurer
Eric Allen HAENSGEN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5771

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# CE2004065EN.01018201.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/182 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/182

---

(2004/C 65 E/198)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2603/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Council

(20 August 2003)

Subject:   Risk of deportation of leading Chechen from France to the Russian Federation

Subject:

According to information gathered by the Chechnya Committee, Mr Rouslan Maigov, his wife and their four children have applied for asylum in France. Mr Rouslan Maigov is the brother of Aslambek Maigov, the Moscow representative of the Chechen President Asian Maskhadov. Mr Rouslan Maigov has been arrested and beaten up several times in Russia and Chechnya. When last arrested in December 2001, a ransom of RUB 160 000 was paid to secure his release. Mr Rouslan Maigov is under particular threat for carrying cassettes in which President Maskhadov conveyed his orders to Mr Maigov's brother. Nevertheless, OFPRA (the French Refugee Office) followed by the appeal committee have rejected the application by Mr Rouslan Maigov and his family for asylum in France on the grounds that if Mr Aslambek Maigov is in Moscow without, apparently, being under threat, his brother Rouslan and his family could live in Russia. The argument put forward by the competent French authorities obviously does not take account of the arrests and maltreatment to which the Russian authorities have subjected Mr Rouslan Maigov in the past or the obvious ‘interest’ which the Russian authorities have shown in Mr Rouslan Maigov, or the fact that it is unfortunately the current practice in Russia to subject the members of leading Chechens' families to threats, intimidation and violence by way of a warning. Finally, Mr Rouslan Maigov, his wife and four children will be expelled from the reception centre for asylum-seekers at Marseilles in the next few days and will be forced to leave the country.

Is the Council aware of the situation of Mr Rouslan Maigov and his family? Does the Council consider that the decision by the competent French authorities is consistent with the common rules on the right of asylum laid down in the Schengen agreements? In more general terms, given the serious threats to which Chechens in the Russian Federation are subjected, does the Council not consider that it should take emergency measures to block any decision to expel Chechens living in the countries which are signatories to the Schengen agreements?

Reply

(17 November 2003)

(17 November 2003)

The Council cannot intervene in individual asylum applications in the Member States, or in other individual cases such as those referred to in the question

---