alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terrence Platt, Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 569]

Application by the defendant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate a decision and order of this Court dated November 18, 2002 *(People v Platt,*299 AD2d 496 [2002]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 15, 2000, on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. By decision and order of this Court dated March 1, 2004, the appellant was granted leave to serve and file a brief on the issues of whether the court erred in discharging a juror over the defense counsel’s objection and in failing to give the defense counsel an opportunity to be heard in connection with notes sent by jurors for clarification of a charge, and the coram nobis application was held in abeyance in the interim. The parties have now filed their respective briefs.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant contends, inter alia, that the appellate counsel’s failure to raise on appeal the trial court’s alleged error in discharging a sworn juror over the defense counsel’s objection constituted ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. This contention is without merit. Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in replacing the sworn juror after conducting a “reasonably thorough inquiry” (CPL 270.35 [2]) into the juror’s unavailability, affording the parties an opportunity to be heard, and placing the facts and reasons for its determination on the record *(see*CPL 270.35 [2] [a], [b]; *People v Jeanty,*94 NY2d 507 [2000]; *People v Merritt,*299 AD2d 370 [2002]; *People v Miranda,*223 AD2d 728 [1996]). The trial court reasonably determined that the juror would be unavailable for more than two hours, as the juror advised the court clerk that he was going to visit his doctor after experiencing a severe allergy attack, and that he “might” appear in court the following day *(see People v Jeanty, supra).*Therefore, appellate counsel’s failure to raise on appeal the trial court’s alleged error in discharging a sworn juror over the *1125defense counsel’s objection did not constitute ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Cozier, J.P., Ritter, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.
Order filed September 5, 2018

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00528

- CV

____________ In the Interest of J.A.M., S.N.M., M.A.H., children

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015

- 06857J

ORDER
This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a parental termination appeal. Appellant’ s brief was due September 4, 2018

. No brief has been filed. Appeals in parental termination cases and child protection cases are to be brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed.
See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (effective May 1, 2012). This accelerated schedule requires greater compliance with briefing deadlines.

Therefore we ord er appellant’s appointed counsel William Thursland , to file appellant’s brief no later than September 17, 2018. If the brief is not filed by that date, counsel may be required to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. In addition, the c ourt may require appointment of new counsel due to the failure to timely file appellant’s brief.

PER CURIAM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

GEORGE G. ELLIOTT,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 349 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of April, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
KEGLEY v. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE.

No. 342P04-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 13, 2005.

Karen M. McDonald, City Attorney, Benjamin R. Sullivan, Anthony Fox, Charlotte, for City of Fayetteville.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th day of September 2005 by Petitioners for Urgent Stay Pending Appeal:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 13th day of September 2005."

Justice BRADY recused.
Supreme Court of Kentucky 

2018-SC-000290-DG

SEAN M. MAGUIRE APPELLANT

ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS

V. CASE NO. 2015-CA-000379-MR

HOPKINS CIRCUIT COURT NO. 05-CI-00835

JAMES WILLIAM CROOK APPELLEE

ORDER AFFIRMING

The vote of the six members of this Court participating in the 

determination of this appeal being equally divided, pursuant to SCR 1.020, the 

opinion of the Court of Appeals hereby stands affirmed.

Keller, Lambert, and Wright, JJ., would affirm the opinion of the Court of 

Appeals. Minton, C.J., Hughes, and VanMeter, JJ., would reverse the opinion 

of the Court of Appeals on other grounds. Nickell, J., not sitting.

ENTERED: August 20, 2020.

_______________________________

CHIEF JUSTICE MINTON
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 12, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40480

Summary Calendar

 

PHILIP GERALD BIQUET,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:03-CV-154-RHC-HWM

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

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Philip Gerald Biquet, Texas prisoner # 1120742, seeks relief

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from his state-court jury-trial

conviction for felony driving while intoxicated. Biquet was

granted a certificate of appealability (COA) by the district court

on the issues whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance

by failing to obtain medical records demonstrating that Biquet (1)

suffered from asthma, thereby justifying his refusal to submit to
No. 04-40480

-2-

a breathalyzer test and (2) had previously suffered two broken

ankles, thereby explaining Biquet’s failure to satisfactorily

perform those roadside sobriety tests requiring balance.

Biquet fails to meet the standard for obtaining habeas relief

on his certified claims of ineffective assistance. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(d)(1) & (2); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697

(1984); Dowthitt v. Johnson, 230 F.3d 733, 741 (5th Cir. 2000).

The introduction at trial of Biquet’s medical records would have

potentially had only a limited impact on the state’s case. The

record reveals other evidence of guilt presented at Biquet’s trial

that supports his conviction, including the arresting officers’

observations of intoxication, Biquet’s admission that he consumed

alcoholic beverages prior to his arrest, and Biquet’s inability to

perform sobriety tests, including sobriety tests that did not

require balance. Under these circumstances, Biquet fails to

demonstrate prejudice resulting from counsel’s alleged errors. See

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697. 

In a reply brief, Biquet asks this court to broaden the scope

of the COA “to include all issues presented that effected

petitioners right to have received a fair trial.” We reject this

request as untimely. See United States v. Williamson, 183 F.3d

458, 464 n.11 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Kimler, 150 F.3d

429, 431 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Prince, 868 F.2d 1379,

1386 (5th Cir. 1989).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 21


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

         Listed below, as of October 31, 2001, are the significant subsidiaries
of the Company and their jurisdictions of organization. All of such subsidiaries
are either directly or indirectly wholly owned by the Company. Other
subsidiaries of the Company have been omitted because, considered in the
aggregate, they would not constitute a significant subsidiary.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           Jurisdiction of
Name of Subsidiary                          Organization
------------------                          ------------
<S>                                         <C>
100% Owned
----------
CUNO Europe S.A.                            France
CUNO Pacific, Pty. Ltd.                     Australia
CUNO Filtration Asia Pte. Ltd.              Singapore
CUNO K.K.                                   Japan
CUNO Latina Ltda                            Brazil
CUNO SarL                                   Italy
CUNO GmbH                                   Germany
CUNO Ltd.                                   United Kingdom
Gendron Industrie SFL                       France
</TABLE>
STATE v. JONES

No. COA05-154

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed November 1, 2005

Certification Date November 21, 2005

Appeal from Wake (04CRS17767, 04CRS17768).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 15 , 2014

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14

- 00300

- CV

MARK LUCAS , Appellant

V.

OWEN KRATZ, JOHN V. LOVOI, T. WILLIAM PR OTER, III, NANCY K. QUINN, WILLIAM L. TR ANSIER, JAMES A. WATT, ANTHONY TRIPODO, BART H. HEI JERMANS, ALISA B. JO HNSON, GORDON F. AHALT, BERNARD DUROC

- DANNER, AND MERIDIAN CONSULTING , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 270th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 26160

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Thi s is an appeal from a judgment signed March 18, 2014 . On June 30

, 2014
appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1.

The motion is granted.2 Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Busby and Wise.
Randy R. LEWIS, Employee, Plaintiff v. BEACHVIEW EXXON SERVICE, Employer and PENN NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., Carrier, Defendants.

No. 645A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

Buxton S. Copeland, Meredith T. Black, Raleigh, for Beachview Exxon Ser., et al.

Perry J. Pelaez, for Randy R. Lewis.

*621*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Defendants on the 21st day of November 2005 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of January 2006."

Defendant shall forthwith submit an appeal bond to this Court, as provided by Appellate Rule 17(b). The bond may be in cash or by a written undertaking with good and sufficient surety in the sum of $250.00.
MISTY McADAMS OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER PALESTINE,TEXAS mcadamsreporting@windstream.net PAM FOSTER FLETCHER JUDGE ANDERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE 500 NORTH CHURCH, SUITE 30

PALESTINE, TEXAS 75801 (903)723-7415 (903) 723-7803 Fax HOUSTON COUNTY

COURTHOUSE 401 EAST HOUSTON AVENUE

CROCKETT, TEXAS 75835 (936)544-3255,EXT. 205

(936)545-0382 Fax 

# 349thJUDICIAL DISTRICT ANDERSON AND HOUSTON COUNTIES



### April 14, 2015


### Twelfth Court ofAppeals 1517 West Front Street, Ste. 354 

### Tyler, TX 75702 RE: Cause Number: Trial Court Case Number: 12-13-00333-CR 12CR-115 

### FILED iN COURT OF APPEALS 

### 12th Court of Appeal;; District



## CATHY S. LUSK/CLERK

Style: Wilbert Walker
v. The State ofTexas 

## In compliance with the Courts letterdated April 8, 2015, enclosed is the Exhibit S-1 for the above reference cause number. 

### Sincerely,



## 349mDistrict Court Reporter Copy to file

ENCLOSURE: Exhibit CD #12CR-115 Wilbert Walker
**Exhibit 5.1**

CERTIFICATION 

I, André Gaumond, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Virginia Gold Mines 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)) 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) 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; 

(c) 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. 

Date: May 31, 2005

/s/ André Gaumond   André Gaumond  President and Chief Executive Officer
exv10w01



 






EXHIBIT 10.01









June 2, 2005




Via Facsimile Transmission




Kennath Marin

Executive Corporate Core Commodity Manager

Memory Product Division

Infineon Technologies AG

Gustav-Heinemann-Ring 212

D-81739 Munchen

Germany




			
	          Re:	 	Extension of Basic Purchase Agreement






Dear Kennath Marin:




     We write to confirm our companies’ agreement to extend the term of the Basic Purchase
Agreement (“Agreement”) between, on the one hand, Infineon Technologies AG, WhiteOak Semiconductor
Partnership (now Infineon Technologies Richmond), and on the other hand, FormFactor, Inc.
Specifically, this letter confirms that we have agreed to extend the term of the Agreement to and
until September 30, 2005. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged.



     As required by the Agreement, and in order to ensure the completeness of everyone’s files, we
would appreciate it if you would countersign this letter in the space provided below and return it
to our office.



     If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.



Very Truly Yours,


 

 



Peter B. Mathews

Sr. Vice President, Worldwide Sales



Accepted and agreed to on June 7, 2005




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Infineon

	 	Technologies AG
	 	 	 	FormFactor, Inc.
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ i.v. KENNETH E.
MARIN
	 	 	 	/s/ PETER B.
MATHEWS
	 

	 	 

	 	 
	 	 
 
	Its:

	 	Comm. Mgr.  MARIN K.
	 	 	 	Sr. VP
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	/s/ i.v. CHRISTIAN
BRUNNER	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	BRUNNER - Sen Dir [illegible]	 	 	 	 





 

 

 

 

7005
Southfront Road, Livermore, CA 94551
USA  •  PH: 925.290.4000  •  FX:
925.290.4010
# L_2012173EN.01002701.xml

| 3.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 173/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 173/27

---

Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation 2012/544/CFSP of 25 June 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 165 of 26 June 2012
  )

In the table of contents and on page 20, the title:

for:

‘Council Implementing Regulation 2012/544/CFSP of 25 June 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria’,

read:

‘Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 544/2012 of 25 June 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria’.

---
Form of Notice of Intention to Terminate Executive Agreements


 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 [Olin Letterhead] 
  
 July 29, 2005 
  
 [Name and Address] 
  
 RE:
    Notice of Non-Extension of Executive Agreement 
  
 Dear             : 
  
 As you know, the term of the current Executive Agreement between you and Olin Corporation (“Olin”), dated November 1, 2002, would automatically
extend for one additional year (that is, through October 31, 2008) unless Olin provides you at least 90 days advance written notice of its decision not to extend the term. This letter shall constitute notice to you that Olin has decided not to
extend the term of the Executive Agreement beyond its currently scheduled termination date of October 31, 2007. Olin’s present intention would be at such time to enter into new revised arrangements with you upon the expiration of the term of
your current Executive Agreement (or earlier, if you were to agree voluntarily to enter into any such new arrangements in exchange for the surrender and termination of your current Executive Agreement), which would be substantially similar to the
executive agreement and change of control agreement given to other senior officers. 
  

	
	Very truly yours,
	
	OLIN CORPORATION
SHOFFNER v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.

COA03-116.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 17, 2004.

Certification Date September 7, 2004.

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed and remanded.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1586

DEBRA F. MEADOWS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CHARLES COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION; KELLER III BUS 

SERVICE INCORPORATED, Keller Jr. Owner/President of School Board; 

HELEN E. KELLER, Owner; KELLER TRANSPORTATION INC.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Timothy J. Sullivan, Magistrate Judge. (8:16-cv-02897-DKC)

Submitted: August 17, 2017 Decided: August 21, 2017

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Debra F. Meadows, Appellant Pro Se. Edmund J. O’Meally, PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A., 

Towson, Maryland; Mark Jay Swerdlin, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, LLP, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

On May 1, 2017, Debra F. Meadows filed a notice of appeal in her pending civil 

case that did not clearly state the order she sought to appeal. In her informal brief, 

Meadows references the magistrate judge’s January 25, 2017, order denying her motion 

for a protective order. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 

U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 

(2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-

46 (1949). The order Meadows seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Meadows’ motion for oral 

argument and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Registrant's Specimen Certificate for Class A Ordinary Shares



 Exhibit 4.2 
  



 

					
	 	  	 BAIDU.COM, INC.
 (Incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands)
	  	 
	 Name of Company:
	  	 	  	 
	 Baidu.com, Inc.
	  	 	  	 
	 	  	 Number:
	  	 Shares:

	 	  	 [            ]
	  	 [            ]

	 Number:
	  	 US$43,520 Share Capital divided into

	 [            ]
	  	 825,000,000 Class A Ordinary Shares of a nominal or par value of
US$0.00005 each,

	 	  	 35,400,000 Class B Ordinary Shares of a nominal or par value of
US$0.00005 each, and

	 	  	 10,000,000 Preferred Shares of a nominal or par value of US$0.00005
each

	 	  	 
	 Shares:
 [            ]
	  	 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT -------------------
[            ]------------------------------------ is the registered

	 	  	 holder of -------------------------------------
[            ]--------------------------- Shares in the above-

	 	  	 named Company subject to the memorandum and articles of association thereof.

	 Issued to:
	  	 GIVEN UNDER the common seal of the said Company on 2005.
	  	 
	 [            ]
	  	 THE COMMON SEAL of the said Company was hereunto affixed in the presence of:
	  	 
	 Dated
	  	 	  	 
	 	  	 DIRECTOR            
	  	 
	 Transferred from:
	  	 These securities represented by this certificate have not been registered under the U.S. Securities
Act of 1933, as amended (the “Act”). The securities may not be sold, offered for sale, pledged, hypothecated, transferred or assigned (I) in the absence of an effective registration statement under the Act
with respect to the securities, or (II) an opinion of US counsel, in a generally accepted form, that registration is not required under the Act, or (III) unless sold pursuant to Rule 144 under the
Act.


  
  







 

 

					
	 	 	 I
	  	 (the Transferor) for the value received

	 	 	 DO HEREBY transfer to
	  	 (the Transferee) the

	 	 	 	  	 shares standing in my name in the

	 	 	 undertaking called
	  	 
	 	 	 To hold the same unto the Transferee
	  	 
	 	 	 Dated
	  	 
	 	 	 Signed by the Transferor
	  	 
	 	 	 in the presence of:
	  	 
	 	 	  
 Witness
	  	 Transferor
STATE v. BALDWIN

No. COA04-658

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 3, 2005.

Certification Date May 23, 2005.

Appeal from the Alamance (03CRS56308).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.