alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

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

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________________________

No. 99-40011

Summary Calendar

_______________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF: Joseph A. Hansler, doing

business as Automated Services, Inc.,

Debtor.

JOSEPH A. HANSLER,

Appellant,

versus

ALLEN L. POTTER,

Appellee.

____________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(96-20848-C-13)

_____________________________________________

November 26, 1999

Before POLITZ, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

This appeal presents one issue: Whether the bankruptcy court

had jurisdiction to approve and disburse attorney’s fees to Allan

Potter (“Potter”) after Chapter 13 debtor Joseph Hansler (“debtor”)

exercised his right to dismiss the proceeding. We hold that it

did.

The debtor invoked his right to dismiss under 11 U.S.C. §

1307(b) on August 13, 1997. Twelve days later, on August 25,
 

2See 11 U.S.C. §§ 330, 331.

 

1In re Harshbarger, 205 B.R. 109 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1996)

(quoting In re Fricker, 131 B.R. 932, 938 (Bankr. E.D.Pa. 1991));

see also In re Lawson, 156 B.R. 43, 46-47 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1993),

aff’d 999 F.2d 543 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that court had

jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees even after the bankruptcy was

dismissed).

 

211 U.S.C. § 350; cf. Lathorp v. Meyer (In re Helena B.

Lathorp), 49 B.R. 885, 887 (1985).

2

Potter, the debtor’s former attorney who had represented the debtor

in his Chapter 13 proceeding, filed a motion with the bankruptcy

court to reconsider its August 13 order dismissing the case. The

sole purpose of the motion was to get the court to approve and the

trustee to disburse attorney’s fees. Eventually, this disbursement

was funded in part by the trustee’s recovery of funds that had been

erroneously disbursed to another creditor. The Code expressly

provide that the debtor’s attorney can apply to the court, and the

court may approve, compensation for services rendered to the

estate.2 

Like other courts that have considered this issue, we hold

that dismissal of a Chapter 13 proceeding “does not result in the

bankruptcy court losing jurisdiction to consider the allowance of

attorney fees to Debtor’s counsel.”1 Moreover, until the estate is

fully administered and the court has discharged the trustee, the

trustee has the power, inter alia, to correct errors made during

the administration process.2 Although the debtor’s § 1307(b)

dismissal may have precluded the bankruptcy court from taking other

actions, the court had jurisdiction to approve and disburse

attorney’s fees to Potter.
3

As our holding on this point resolves this appeal, we need not

address other issues raised by the parties. The judgment of the

bankruptcy court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
      32.1




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**





In
      connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Internet Infinity, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007 (the
“Report”), I, George Morris, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
      certify that to my knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78o(d)); and





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




Date:
                  August 11, 2008*/s/
                  George Morris*George
                  Morris
                Chief
                  Financial Officer


The
      above
      certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB
      or as a separate disclosure document.
In re Paul C. O'FLYNN.

No. 186P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 26, 2007.

Paul C. O'Flynn, Pro Se.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner on the 23rd day of April 2007 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Carteret County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of April 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 23rd day of April 2007 in this matter for a motion for mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Carteret County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in Conference this the 26th day of April 2007."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          51,013
<SECURITIES>                                     9,814
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,316
<ALLOWANCES>                                       369
<INVENTORY>                                      2,830
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                77,850
<PP&E>                                           2,256
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,694
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  93,732
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,697
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      73,279
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    93,732
<SALES>                                         84,778
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                84,778
<CGS>                                           38,943
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,943
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,432
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,382
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,079
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,303
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,303
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.94
        

</TABLE>
Jfourtl) Court of Sppeate

Antonio,

May 28,2014

No. 04-13-00769-CR

Juan Boaerge Rivera,

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,

Appellee

Trial Court Case No. 1197727D

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the record and briefs in this appeal and has determined that oral

argument will not significantly aid it in determining the legal and factual issues presented in the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.8. Therefore, all requests for oral argument are denied, and the

cause is advanced for ON BRIEFS submission on July 8, 2014, to the following panel: Chief

Justice Stone, Justice Marion, and Justice Barnard. All parties will be notified of the Court's

decision in this appeal in accordance with Tex. R. App. P. 48.

Either party may file motion requesting the Court to reconsider its determination that

oral argument will not significantly aid the Court in determining the legal and factual issues

presented in the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.8. Such motion should be filed within ten (10)

days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED on May 28,2014.

athering Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, have hereunto set my hand and a/fixed the seal o/the said

court on this May 28, 2014.
Exhibit 10.1


 





Loan Agreement


 


Lender: Merit
Crown Limited (a company registered in Hong Kong, company No.: 2174556).


 


Borrower: Hongkong
Takung Assets and Equity of Artworks Exchange Co., Ltd. (a company registered in Hong Kong, company No.: 1801348).


 


The two parties
enter into this Agreement after full consultations.


 


Article 1. The
Borrower borrowers US$1.5 million from the Lender to meet the Borrower’s working capital needs. The loan period shall commence
from the date when the Lender pays the full amount to the Borrower after deduction of the interest according to Article 2 (tentatively
15 July 2016) and end on 31 December 2016.


 


Article 2. The
Borrower shall pay interest to the Lender at the annual interest rate of 8% based on the actual loan period. The interest for the
actual loan period shall be paid on the commencement date of the loan period, and will be deducted from the loan amount by the
Lender.


 


Article 3. Upon
expiry of the loan period, the Borrower shall repay the principal and interest to the Lender in a lump sum at the amount of US$1.5
million. The parties can agree in advance to shorten or extend the loan period.


 


Article 4. This
Agreement has two original copies, each of the Lender and the Borrower will keep one original copy, which shall have equal legal
effect.


 


Article 5. This
Agreement shall take effect on the date when the two parties sign thereon.


 


	
        Lender:

         

        Date:
	
        Borrower:

         

        Date:
STATE v. CLARK.

COA06-206.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 21, 2006.

Certification Date December 11, 2006.

Appeal from the New Hanover (04CRS51773).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

**OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**MICHAEL D. BARTKO Respondent**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **No. 2292 Disciplinary Docket No. 3**

**No. 134 DB 2013 Attorney Registration No. 40760**  **(Out of State)**

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 6 th**  **day of October, 2016, upon consideration of the Recommendation for Public Censure Pursuant to Disciplinar**  **y Board Rule §89.205(e), it is ORDERED that Michael D. Bartko is subjected to public ce**  **nsure by the Supreme**

**Court. Additionally, Respondent is placed on administrative susp**  **ension,** see **Pa.R.D.E. 219(l), and he shall comply with the provisions of Pa.R**  **.D.E. 217.**
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED**


**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**







Certification
      of CFO




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of KH Funding Company (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert L. Harris,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C.
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:




(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) 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 operation of the Company.





Dated:
                November 19, 2007
            /s/
                Robert L. HarrisRobert
                L. HarrisChief
                Financial Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
      Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.




This
      certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-QSB pursuant to Section 906
      of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
      by
      such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such
      certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
      under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to
      the
      extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
# Council Decision 2013/87/CFSPShow full title

Council Decision 2013/87/CFSP of 18 February 2013 on the launch of a European Union military mission to contribute to the            training of the Malian Armed Forces (EUTM Mali)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision 2013/87/CFSP                     

# of 18 February 2013

# on the launch of a European Union military mission to contribute to the training of the Malian Armed Forces (EUTM Mali)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 42(4) and 43(2) thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2013/34/CFSP of 17 January 2013 on a European Union military mission to contribute to the                           training of the Malian Armed Forces (EUTM Mali)(1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,                        

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

(1)By letter dated 24 December 2012, the President of the Republic of Mali addressed an invitation letter to the High Representative                              of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy welcoming the deployment of an EU military training mission in Mali.

(2)On 17 January 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/34/CFSP.

(3)In accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the                              Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions                              and actions of the Union which have defence implications. Denmark does not participate in the implementation of this Decision                              and therefore does not participate in the financing of this mission,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

The Mission Plan and the Rules of Engagement concerning the EU military mission to contribute to the training of the Malian                     Armed Forces (EUTM Mali) are approved.                  

# Article 2U.K.

EUTM Mali shall be launched on 18 February 2013.

# Article 3U.K.

The Mission Commander of EUTM Mali is hereby authorised with immediate effect to start execution of EUTM Mali.

# Article 4U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 18 February 2013.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

C. Ashton                            

1

OJ L 14, 18.1.2013, p. 19.
Tammy P. FROST, Employee, Plaintiff v. SALTER PATH FIRE & RESCUE, Employer and Volunteer Safety Workers' Compensation Fund, Carrier, Defendants.

No. 181A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Meredith T. Black, Jonathan C. Anders, Raleigh, for Fire & Rescue, et al.

S. McKinley Gray, III, William A. Oden, III, New Bern, for Tammy P. Frost.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Defendants on the 7th day of April 2006 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 29th day of June 2006."

Accordingly, the new brief of the Defendants shall be filed with this Court not more than 30 days from the date of certification of this order.
CALLANAN v. WALSH

No. COA04-1027

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed August 16, 2005

Certification Date September 6, 2005

Appeal from Transylvania (01CVD129).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for additional findings regarding the date of separation valuation of all items of marital property.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 12, 2019

NO. 03-17-00533-CR

Richard David Mason, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 390TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, TRIANA, AND SMITH

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of 

conviction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs 

is made.
In the Senate of the United States, 

September 26 (legislative day, September 17), 2008. 

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 5571) entitled ‘‘An Act to extend for 5 years the 

program relating to waiver of the foreign country residence 

requirement with respect to international medical graduates, 

and for other purposes.’’, do pass with the following 

AMENDMENT: 

On page 2, line 5, strike ‘‘June 1, 2013’’ and insert 

‘‘March 6, 2009’’. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H.R. 5571 

AMENDMENT
Enrique BADILLO v. Alphonza J. CUNNINGHAM, Christie Cunningham, and Frank Otis Burroughs, Jr.

No. 359A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 15, 2006.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C.App. ___, 629 S.E.2d 909 (2006), affirming an order entered 27 June 2005 by Judge W. Douglas Albright in Superior Court, Rockingham County. Heard in the Supreme Court 21 November 2006.

Wilson & Coffey, LLP, by G. Gray Wilson and Stuart H. Russell, Winston-Salem, for plaintiff-appellant.

Teague, Rotenstreich & Stanaland, LLP, by Paul A. Daniels, Greensboro, for unnamed defendant-appellee Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

Justice MARTIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1248/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1248/2013 of 28 November 2013 approving non-minor amendments to the specification            for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Ternera Gallega            (PGI))         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1248/2013                     

# of 28 November 2013

# approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin                        and protected geographical indications (Ternera Gallega (PGI))                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality                           schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)By virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined Spain’s                              application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication ‘Ternera Gallega’                              registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/96(2).

(2)Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission                              published the amendment application in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (3) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.

(3)As no statement of objection under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments                              to the specification should be approved,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The amendments to the specification published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.                  

# Article 2U.K.

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, 28 November 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Dacian Cioloș                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

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

### **Class 1.1.****Fresh meat (and offal)**U.K.

#### SPAINU.K.

Ternera Gallega (PGI)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 327, 18.12.1996, p. 11.                           

3

OJ C 182, 27.6.2013, p. 16.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ALFREDO OVALLE,

 Appellant,

v.

STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-12-00110-CR

Appeal from the

County Criminal Court at Law #2 

of El Paso, Texas

(TC# 20110C05092)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
STATE v. COX.

No. COA04-1378.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed September 6, 2005.

Certification September 26, 2005.

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
STATE v. SAAFIR.

No. COA06-909.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 6, 2007.

Certification Date February 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Durham (98CRS12136).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Judgment arrested.
IN RE B.G.C.

No. COA06-97.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed December 5, 2006.

Certification Date December 27, 2006.

Appeal from Richmond (05J11).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.