alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 22, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 69 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 7- cv -2 30 76 -J AL ROY GEER, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r - App el la nt , vers us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Res po nd en t - Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 22 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andW ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ro y Geer ap pe al s t he di stric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 m ot io n at ta ck in g h is dru g c on vi ct io n. Geercla im s h is co un se l, EdSh oh at , was i ne ffec ti vefo r de nyin g h is rig htto tes ti fy at t ria l. We prev io us ly rem an de d t hi s ca se so th at th e d is tri ctco urt co ul d h ol d a n e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng to de te rm in e whe th er t he pe rfo rm an ce p ro ng of t he Stri ckl an d te stwas v io la te d. Stri ckl an d v . W as hi ng to n , 1 46 6 U.S. 6 68 , 10 4 S . Ct 2 05 2 (1 98 4) . After h eari ng co nf li ct in g t es ti m on y

fro m bo th Geer an d S ho ha t, t he di stric t co urt fo un d t ha t Sh oh atm or e li ke ly tha n n ot fo ll owe d h is no rm al pra ct ic e an d a dv is edGeer o f hi s ri gh t t o c ho os e whe th er h e wis he d t o t es ti fy . The d is tri ctco urt fu rth er fo un d t ha t Sh oh atco nv in cedGeer n ot to tak e th e st an d b ecau se of Ge er’s p rio r drug co ns pi racy con vi ct io ns . “ [I]f
co un se l b el ie ve s t ha t i t wo ul d b e u nwi se forth e d efen da ntto tes ti fy , cou ns el m ay , an d i nd eedsh ou ld , adv is e th e cl ie ntin th e st ro ng es t p os si bl e te rm s n otto tes ti fy .” Uni te d Sta te s v. Te ag ue , 95 3 F .2d15 25 , 15 33 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ) ( en ba nc ). Afte r rev ie win g t he reco rdwe fin d n o c le ar erro r in th e d is tri ctco urt’s fin di ng s o f hi st or ic al fact s. Se e Gal le go v. Uni te d Sta te s , 17 4 F .3d11 96 , 11 98 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) ( “ It i s p erfe ct ly leg it im at e fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o fi nd , bas edon al l t he ev id en ce i n t he reco rd , th ata de fen da nt ’s tes ti m on y ab ou t h is pa rti ci pa ti on in a drug sch em e is no t cr ed ib le .”). Andwe fu rth er fi ndno erro r in th e de te rm in at io n b y

th e d is tri ctco urt t ha t Gee r fai le d t o m ak e a s ub st an ti al sh owi ng th atSh oh atde pr iv edhi m of the rig htto tes ti fy

in vi ol at io n o f th e Si xt h
Gee r v. United States , 354 F. App’ x 417 (11th Cir. 2009). 1 2Am en dm en t. The refo re, we aff irm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f Geer’s § 22 55
m ot io n. AFFIRMED

3
# C_2016105EN.01000601.xml

| 19.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 105/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 105/6

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 16 March 2016

adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 1 of the European Union for the financial year 2016

(2016/C 105/04)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,

Having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (1) and in particular Article 41 thereof,

1

Whereas:

| (1) | the Union’s budget for the financial year 2016 was definitively adopted on 25 November 2015 (2), |
| --- | --- |

(1)

the Union’s budget for the financial year 2016 was definitively adopted on 25 November 2015 (2),

2

| (2) | on 10 March 2016, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 1 to the general budget for the financial year 2016, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

on 10 March 2016, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 1 to the general budget for the financial year 2016,

| (3) | given the fact that draft amending budget No 1 to the general budget for 2016 needs to be adopted without delay so as to be able to cover immediate and urgent funding needs resulting from the massive influx of refugees and migrants into the Union, it is justified to shorten, in accordance with Article 3(3) of the Council’s Rules of Procedure, the eight-week period for the information of national Parliaments laid down in Article 4 of Protocol No 1 on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

given the fact that draft amending budget No 1 to the general budget for 2016 needs to be adopted without delay so as to be able to cover immediate and urgent funding needs resulting from the massive influx of refugees and migrants into the Union, it is justified to shorten, in accordance with Article 3(3) of the Council’s Rules of Procedure, the eight-week period for the information of national Parliaments laid down in Article 4 of Protocol No 1 on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union.

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The Council’s position on draft amending budget No 1 of the European Union for the financial year 2016 was adopted on 16 March 2016.

The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council’s website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

Done at Brussels, 16 March 2016.

For the Council

The President

A.G. KOENDERS

---

(1)  OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 48, 24.2.2016, p. 1.

2

---
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
Internet Infinity, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended March
31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, George Morris, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to Section 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)           Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  July
13, 2009




/s/ George
      MorrisGeorge
      MorrisChief Executive
      Officer







A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Internet Infinity, Inc. and will be retained by Internet Infinity, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

NEHA PATEL, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D16-4488 

 ) 

RASESH PATEL ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

 ) 

Opinion filed September 15, 2017. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk 

County; William Sites, Judge. 

William J. Lobb and Howardene Garrett of 

Law Office of William J. Lobb, Bartow, for 

Appellant. 

Jean Marie Henne of Jean M. Henne, 

P.A., Winter Haven, for Appellee. 

BLACK, Judge. 

 We affirm the order on modification of final judgment of dissolution of 

marriage, which denies Neha Patel's motion to modify the final judgment as it relates to 

timesharing. Competent substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that Ms. 

Patel met her burden of establishing a substantial, material, and unanticipated change 

in circumstances since the entry of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. See 
- 2 -

Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So. 2d 928, 934 (Fla. 2005) ("A decree for purposes of the 

substantial change test includes both a decree that has incorporated a stipulated 

agreement concerning child custody and a decree awarding custody after an 

adversarial hearing."). And we find no error in the court's determination that 

modification was not in the child's best interests at the time of the evidentiary hearing. 

 However, we remand with directions that the trial court strike the language 

of paragraph eleven following its finding that it is not in the minor child's best interests to 

modify the current timesharing and parental responsibility "at this time."1 The trial court 

may neither determine the child's best interests prospectively, see Eisele v. Eisele, 91 

So. 3d 873, 874-75 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), nor delegate its statutory duties to a parent or 

expert, Grigsby v. Grigsby, 39 So. 3d 453, 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Future motions to 

modify the final judgment with regard to timesharing are governed by the statutory 

requirements to establish a "substantial, material, and unanticipated change in 

circumstances" since entry of the final judgment—which has been met in this case—and 

that "modification is in the best interests of the child." See § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2016); 

see also Howell v. Howell, 207 So. 2d 507, 511-12 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968) (discussing the 

law of the case doctrine). 

 Affirmed; remanded with instructions. 

SILBERMAN and CRENSHAW, JJ., concur. 

 

 1We note that the modification order contains two paragraphs numbered 

eleven. Our direction on remand is specific to the second paragraph eleven.
# L_2012337EN.01001301.xml

| 11.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 337/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/13

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1173/2012

of 4 December 2012

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Queso Camerano (PDO))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Queso Camerano’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Queso Camerano’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 4 December 2012.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 101, 4.4.2012, p. 6.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.3.   Cheeses

SPAIN

Queso Camerano (PDO)

---
#### Margaret Kestler Wilson, Plaintiff, v Bruce L. Wilson, Respondent. Law Firm of Jerome A. Wisselman, P.C., Nonparty Appellant.

[799 NYS2d 906]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the nonparty, Law Firm of Jerome A. Wisselman, PC., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated August 13, 2004, as denied its motion for leave to withdraw as counsel for the defendant, Bruce L. Wilson, and (2) an order of the same court dated December 23, 2004, as denied its motion for leave to renew.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the nonparty appellant’s motion for leave to withdraw as counsel for the defendant *(see Matter of Frevola v Frevola,*260 AD2d 480 [1999]; *Cashdan v Cashdan,*243 AD2d 598*549[1997]), and in denying its subsequent motion for leave to renew *(see*CPLR 2221 [e] [2], [3]).

The references in the briefs on appeal to evidence not considered by the Supreme Court, events occurring subsequent to the date of the orders appealed from, and other matter dehors the record are not properly before us and may not be considered *(see Smith v Smith,*277 AD2d 531, 532 [2000]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are also not properly before us on this appeal and have not been considered. Adams, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.
| | Exhibit 23.2
| | ------------

|Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
|--------------------------------------------------------

|The Board of Directors
HealthTronics, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration  statements (Nos.  333-31820,  333-43412,
333-68292,    333-104403,    333-120430,    333-126301   and   333-135100)   on   Form   S-8   and   (Nos.
333-106867,333-114221)  on Form S-3 of  HealthTronics,  Inc. of our report dated April 13, 2006, except as
to Note L, 2005 information related to Specialty Vehicles and Manufacturing,  CryoSurgery,  Rocky Mountain
Prostrate Thermotherapies,  and HIFU discontinued operations,  which is as of March 12, 2007, with respect
to consolidated  statements of income,  stockholders  equity,  and cash flows for the year ended December
31, 2005, which report appears in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of HealthTroncis, Inc.

/s/  KPMG
Ausitn, Texas
March 10, 2008
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 20

- 00031

- CR

ERIC SHANE HARRIS

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 443rd District Court of Ellis County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 44075CR

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this ca use on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court
orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
June 10, 2021
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER (1)

Pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as  created  by  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  the  following  certification  is  being  made to
accompany  Catskill  Litigation  Trust's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
period ended September 30, 2005;

In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Catskill  Litigation  Trust on Form
10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul A. deBary, Acting
Chief Financial Officer of the Catskill Litigation Trust,  certify,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 that to my knowledge:

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

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Catskill Litigation Trust.

                                           /s/ Paul A. deBary
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name:   Paul A. deBary
                                           Title:  Acting Chief Financial Officer
                                           Date:   November 11, 2005

     (1)  A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906
          has been provided to Catskill Litigation Trust and will be retained by
          Catskill Litigation Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
          Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing  certification  is being  furnished  solely  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section  1350 and is not  being  filed as part of the  Report  or as a  separate
disclosure document.
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MARK ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-09-00108-CR

Appeal from the

227th District Court

of Bexar County, Texas

(TC#2008CR0883W)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment adjudicating Appellant guilty of the offense of possession

of heroin in an amount less than one gram. The court sentenced Appellant to two years’ confinement

in a state jail facility. We affirm.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she has concluded that the

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094,

18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967), by advancing contentions which counsel says might arguably support the

appeal. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684

(Tex.Crim.App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972); Gainous v. State,

436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). A copy of counsel’s brief has been delivered to Appellant,

and Appellant has been advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief.

No pro se brief has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is wholly

frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the
appeal. The judgment is affirmed.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

September 23, 2009

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
Exhibit 4.5      CONSENT OF CHRISTIAN DAMOURS  Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 28, 2011 (the Annual Report) of Virginia Mines Inc. (the Company), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  I participated, as an independent Qualified Person (as such term is defined in Canadian National Instrument 43-101  Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects), in the preparation of an independent technical study, completed in 2003 (the Technical Study) concerning mineralized material in the Poste Lemoyne Extension property for the Company.  Portions of the Technical Study are summarized under the heading Item III Description of the Business  3.1 Poste Lemoyne Extension Property  3.1.5 Exploration and Drilling in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the year ended February 28, 2011 (included as Exhibit 1 of the Annual Report, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference therein) and under the heading Poste Lemoyne Extension Property in the Managements Discussion and Analysis of the Company for the year ended February 28, 2011 (included as Exhibit 3 of the Annual Report, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference therein).  I hereby consent to the inclusion of the foregoing written disclosure and to the references to such disclosure and to my name under the foregoing headings and to all other references to such disclosure and to my name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report.    Very truly yours,   /s/ Christian DAmours Name:  Christian DAmours    May 9, 2011
STATE v. HALL.

No. COA05-1097.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 18, 2006.

Certification Date August 7, 2006.

Appeal from Columbus (04CRS1849).

Case without published opinion. No error.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5301 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5301

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on o-Acetylsalicylic acid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2008

 Mr. Pascrell introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on o-Acetylsalicylic acid.

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

SECTION 1. O-ACETYLSALICYLIC ACID.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.12.11 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to o-Acetylsalicylic acid) is 
amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 4.04        CONSENT OF ANTOINE YASSA   Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 28, 2013 (the Annual Report) of Virginia Mines Inc. (the Company), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  I participated, as an independent Qualified Person (as such term is defined in Canadian National Instrument 43-101  Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects), in the preparation of an independent technical study, completed in 2009 (the Technical Study) concerning mineralized material in the Coulon property for the Company. Portions of the Technical Study are summarized under the heading Item III  Description of the Business  Coulon Property  3.1.5 Exploration and Drilling in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the year ended February 28, 2013 (included as Exhibit 1 of the Annual Report, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference herein).  I hereby consent to the inclusion of the foregoing written disclosure and to the references to such disclosure and to my name under the foregoing heading and to all other references to such disclosure and to my name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report.   Very truly yours,    /S/ Antoine YassaName:
Antoine Yassa, P. Geo.   May 13, 2013