alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1... See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-170-CR

JORGE BARRON APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 1 OF DENTON COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

On February 20, 2008, the trial court sentenced appellant Jorge Barron

to three hundred sixty five days’ confinement and a $2,021 fine upon his

conviction by a jury for misdemeanor assault-family violence. Appellant timely

filed a motion for new trial; thus, his notice of appeal was due May 20, 2008.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(2).
2... Appellant did not file a motion for extension of time to file the notice

of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3.

2

On July 10, 2008, we notified appellant of our concern that we lacked

jurisdiction over this appeal because his notice of appeal was not filed in the

trial court until May 22, 2008. We informed appellant that the appeal was 2

subject to dismissal unless he filed a response on or before July 21, 2008

advising us whether the mailbox rule applies in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P.

9.2(b). Appellant has not filed a response.

A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of rule 26 of the

rules of appellate procedure is essential to vest this court with jurisdiction over

an appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1); Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208,

210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); York v. State, 69 S.W.3d 792, 793 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth 2002, no pet.). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has

expressly held that without a timely filed notice of appeal or motion for

extension of time, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal. See Olivo v.

State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Because appellant’s

notice of appeal was untimely filed and he did not timely file a motion for 
3

extension of time, we dismiss this case for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: August 21, 2008
ROYAL– ARMY 20071295

**UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS**

Before

HOLDEN, HOFFMAN, and SULLIVAN

Appellate Military Judges

**UNITED STATES, Appellee**

**v.**

**Private First Class KEITH T. ROYAL, JR.**

**United States Army, Appellant**

ARMY 20071295

Headquarters, Fort Carson

Debra Boudreau, Military Judge

Colonel Michael W. Meier, Staff Judge Advocate 

For Appellant:  Colonel Allen F. Bareford, JA; Major William F. Fischbach III, JA.

For Appellee:  Lieutenant Colonel Francis C. Kiley, JA. 

20 August 2008

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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

Per Curiam:

This case is before us for review under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §866 [hereinafter UCMJ].  Although appellant’s case was submitted to us on the merits, we find error in the findings of the court-martial as described below.

Appellant was charged, *inter alia*, with assault with intent to commit rape, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ (Specification 1 of Charge IV).  He pled guilty to the lesser included offense of assault consummated by a battery, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ; however, the language “with intent to commit rape” was not excepted from the specification at trial.  In his initial post-trial action, the convening authority disapproved the charged language “with intent to commit rape” and approved the remainder of Specification 1 of Charge IV. 

In addition to the language disapproved by the convening authority, appellant’s providence inquiry did not support his plea to one of the assaultive acts alleged in the specification, specifically, the language “removing her clothes.”  Accordingly, the court affirms only so much of the finding of guilty of Specification 1 of Charge IV, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ, as provides:

In that Private First Class Keith T. Royal, Jr., U.S. Army, did, at or near Fort Carson, Colorado, on or about 14 October 2006, unlawfully commit an assault upon Mrs. M.M.H. by dragging her up the stairs, pushing her down on the ground, slapping the left side of her head, slapping her face and head, and punching her in the arm.

**DECISION**

     The remaining findings of guilty are affirmed.  Reassessing the sentence on the basis of the error noted, the entire record, and applying the principles of *United States v. Sales*, 22 M.J. 305 (C.M.A. 1986) and *United States v. Moffeit,*including Judge Baker’s concurring opinion, 63 M.J. 40, 43**(C.A.A.F. 2006), the court affirms the sentence.

FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court

PAGE  

2
# CE2004070EN.01000801.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/8

---

(2004/C 70 E/007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2996/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject:   Measures to reduce fisheries accidents

Subject:

Paragraph 29 of the EP's resolution of 5 April 2001 on Fisheries: safety and causes of accidents (1)‘calls on the Commission to draw up a specific directive for the fishing industry on health and safety at the workplace in accordance with Article 16(1) of the Framework Directive 89/391/EEC’.

1

What steps has the Commission taken?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2002)

(5 December 2002)

The Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that this request is already covered by Council Directive 93/103/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for work on board fishing vessels (thirteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (2), which is the thirteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of the framework Directive, Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 (3).

2

3

---

(1)  OJ C 21 E, 24.1.2002, p. 359.

1

(2)  OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.

2

(3)  OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.

3

---
# The General Register Office (Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 2014 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

N.I.

Statutory Rules of Northern Ireland

# 2014 No. 71

Registration Of Vital Events

# The General Register Office (Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 2014

Made

6th March 2014

Coming into operation

31st March 2014

The Department of Finance and Personnel makes the following Order in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 47(1) and                           (2) of the Births and Deaths Registration (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 F1, Articles 3(3)(b), 19(1)(a), 35(3), 36(1)(b) and (3) and 37 of the Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 F2, and Section 157(1) of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 F3.                        

F1S.I. 1976/1041 (N.I. 14); Article 47(1) was amended by section 22 of 2011 c. 20 (N.I.) and Article 47(2) was amended by paragraph 20 of Schedule 1 to S.I. 1999/663

F2S.I. 2003/413 (N.I. 3)

F32004 c. 33

## Citation, commencement and interpretationN.I.

1.—(1) This order may be cited as the General Register Office (Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 2014 and shall come into operation                     on 31st March 2014.                  

(2) The Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 F4 shall apply to this Order as it applies to an Act of the Assembly.                  

F41954 c. 33 (N.I.)

## Fees payableN.I.

2.  The fee payable under a statutory provision specified in column 1 of the Schedule in respect of the matter specified in relation                     to it in column 2 shall be the fee specified in relation to it in column 3.                  

## RevocationN.I.

3.  The General Register Office (Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 2012 F5 is hereby revoked.                  

F5S.R. 2012 No. 443

Sealed with the Official Seal of the Department of Finance and Personnel on 6th March 2014.

L.S.

T N Caven

 A senior officer of the

Department of Finance and Personnel

 Article 2

## SCHEDULEN.I.

### FEES PAYABLE

## Explanatory Note

(This note is not part of the Order)

This Order provides for the various fees payable under the Births and Deaths Registration (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 relating                        to searches in registers, viewing records, and the provision of certificates. It also provides for fees in relation to change                        of name services, the provision of commemorative certificates, the individual notification of registration events and entries                        in the Record of Northern Ireland Connection. It also provides for the various fees payable under the Marriage (Northern Ireland)                        Order 2003 and the Civil Partnership Act 2004 relating to giving notice for intended marriage or civil partnership, the solemnisation                        of marriage and registration of civil partnership, searching and viewing marriage and civil partnership records and providing                        marriage and civil partnership certificates.                     

This Order revokes and replaces the General Register Office (Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 2012.
* 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. 07-10567

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PAVEL NIETO-GARCIA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-313-3

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Pavel Nieto-Garcia has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Nieto-Garcia has not filed a response. Our independent

review ofthe record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 175 (Monday, September 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53802-53803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17993]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1602-DR]


Florida; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and 
Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Florida (FEMA-1602-DR), dated August 28, 2005, and 
related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 4, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of August 28, 2005:

    Bay, Escambia, Gulf, and Santa Rosa Counties for Public 
Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, 
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public

[[Page 53803]]

Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

Michael D. Brown,
Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of 
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 05-17993 Filed 9-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
EXHIBIT 23.1
                              CONSENT OF AUDITORS
 
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
 
The Board of Directors
Premier Bancorp, Inc.:
 
We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-34243) on Form S-4 of Premier Bancorp, Inc., of our report dated February
18, 1999, relating to the consolidated statements of financial condition of
Premier Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and
comprehensive income, and cash flows for the years then ended, which report
appears in the December 31, 1998 Form 10-KSB of Premier Bancorp, Inc.
 
/s/ KPMG LLP
March 24, 1999
 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
 
                                       65
STATE v. HILTON.

No. COA08-321.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 6, 2009.

Certification Date January 26, 2009.

Appeal from Cleveland (05CRS54637).

Case reported without published opinion. No prejudicial error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Lynwood Eugene HARRIS, Jr.

No. 391P14.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Brendan O'Donnell, for Harris, Lynwood Eugene (Jr.).

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Jennifer Harjo, Wilmington.

W. Clark Everett.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 20th of October 2014 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th of October 2014 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."

ERVIN, J. recused.
----

(2004/C 33 E/080)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0810/03

by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject:   Averting alcohol-related harm in Finland and the Union

Finland, Sweden, and Denmark will have to end their restrictions on alcohol imports at the beginning of 2004. Once Estonia has been admitted to the EU on 1 May 2004, Finland will be faced with a very difficult situation from the public health point of view. Alcoholic drinks are significantly cheaper in Estonia than in Finland, the price difference being due mainly to the different tax rates. The scale of alcohol-related harm varies in proportion to changes in total alcohol consumption. Studies indicate that, once import restrictions have been lifted, total consumption in Finland will rise by as much as 15 %, resulting in, among other things, an increase in alcohol-related deaths, by 450 cases a year, and in an upsurge, also linked to alcohol, in the demand for social and health services, amounting to over 500 000 additional visits a year.

In its Conclusions of 5 June 2001 on a Community strategy to reduce alcohol-related harm (1) the Council focused on drinking by young people as an area of particular concern. After the import restrictions have been lifted, alcohol prices in Finland will fall, and consumption will increase accordingly, first and foremost in low income groups, and that includes young people. Article 152 of the EC Treaty stipulates that all Community policies and activities must be defined and implemented in such a way as to ensure a high level of human health protection. The Council, in its Conclusions of 5 June 2001, called on the Commission to put forward proposals for a comprehensive Community strategy aimed at reducing alcohol-related harm and has identified excise duties as one means of pursuing such a strategy.

Contrary to what was stipulated in the text, Directive 92/84/EEC (2) on minimum excise duty rates was not reviewed by the end of 1994. The Union could do much to prevent the harm which alcohol does to public health by imposing standard excise duties on alcoholic beverages above the present rates. Should tax harmonisation on the basis of public health considerations fail to happen, Finland will have no possibility of protecting itself from the worsening adverse consequences of alcohol drinking unless it is allowed to continue to restrict alcohol imports.

----

(1)OJ C 175, 20.6.2001, p. 1.

(2)OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 29.

----
EXHIBIT
10.20

    


    ACKNOWLEDGMENT
LETTER

    


    In
connection with that certain Amended and Restated Call Option Agreement pursuant
to which we have a right to jointly purchase 17,925,943 shares of Kingold
Jewelry, Inc., a Delaware corporation (as adjusted for Kingold Jewelry’s August
10, 2010 one-for-two reverse stock split) (the “Kingold Shares”) from Famous
Grow Holdings Limited, we acknowledge that we have previously agreed that the
right to purchase the Kingold Shares shall be allocated between us in the same
percentage as our relative ownership in Wuhan Kingold Jewelry Co., as of the
date hereof.  Thus, we acknowledge that in the event that the Restated
Call Option Agreement shall be exercised in full, we each shall have the
respective right to purchase the number of the Kingold Shares following our name
below.

    


    
      
        
          
            	
                    Name

                  	 	
                    Shares

                  	 
	 
      	 	 	 
	
                    Zhihong
      Jia

                  	 	 	17,350,194	 
	 
      	 	 	 	 
	
                    Bin
      Zhao

                  	 	 	575,749	 


          

        

      

    

    


    Dated:
October 29, 2010

    


    
      
        	
                /s/ Zhihong Jia

              
	
                Zhihong
      Jia

              
	 
      
	
                /s/ Bin Zhao

              
	
                Bin
      Zhao
STATE v. JACOBS AND McMILLIAN.

No. 617P05-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 24, 2008.

C. Scott Holmes, Durham, for Jacobs.

Lemuel W. Hinton, for McMillian.

L. Johnson Britt, III, District Attorney, for State.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 668 S.E.2d 346.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21 st day of November 2008 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 24th day of November 2008."

TIMMONS-GOODSON, J., recused.
LEE v. LEE.

No. COA07-339.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 4, 2008.

Certification Date March 24, 2008.

Appeal from Halifax (97CVD748).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part; remanded in part with instructions.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-06-389-CR

THOMAS MARTIN	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Thomas Martin appeals his conviction of sexual assault of a child. Martin’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion.  In his motion, counsel avers that he has conducted a professional evaluation of the record and, after a thorough review of the applicable law, has reached the conclusion that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced to support an appeal of this cause and that the appeal is frivolous.  Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no reversible grounds on appeal and referencing any grounds that might arguably support the appeal.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 741, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.).  Martin was given the opportunity to file a pro se brief on his own behalf, but he chose not to do so.

	In our duties as a reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is frivolous.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays, 904 S.W.2d at 923.  Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

	We have carefully reviewed the appellate record and counsel’s brief.  We agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Therefore, we grant the motion to withdraw filed by Martin’s appellate counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

							PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: August 21, 2008
JOHN GAY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-4316

_____________________________/

Opinion filed March 18, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Edward P. Nickinson, III, Judge.

John Gay, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence 

filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a). We reverse and remand.
2

The appellant alleges that his life sentence for attempted capital sexual 

battery exceeds the statutory maximum of thirty years’ imprisonment that may be 

imposed for that offense. §§ 775.082(3)(b); 777.04(4)(a); 794.011(2), Fla. Stat. 

(1989). The trial court failed to attach any portion of the record refuting the 

appellant’s claim or demonstrating why a life sentence for attempted capital sexual 

battery is legal. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to attach 

portions of the record refuting appellant’s claim or to grant relief.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion.

ROBERTS, C.J., SWANSON, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
STATE of North Carolina v. Robin Otto WORTH, Jr.

No. 149P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Amy Bircher, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Robin Otto Worth, Jr., for Worth, Robin Otto (Jr.).

*199Brandy Cook, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 27th of April 2015 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

> "Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 27th of April 2015 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."