alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

 This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2007-CR-10592 and 2007-CR-10463, styled The State of Texas v.

Ronald M. Watts, pending in the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas.

iii i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00657-CR

IN RE Ronald WATTS

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and filed: September 17, 2008

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On August 28, 2008, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus, complaining that

the respondent has not ruled on his various petitions for writ of habeas corpus. Counsel has been

appointed to represent relator in the trial court. We conclude that appointed counsel for relator is

also his counsel for an original proceeding on the issues presented. Relator is not entitled to hybrid

representation. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The absence of

a right to hybrid representation means relator’s pro se petition for writ of mandamus will be treated

as presenting nothing for this court’s consideration. See id.; see also Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d

806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding). Consequently, this court has
04-08-00657-CR

-2-

determined that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Therefore, the petition is DENIED. TEX.

R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

Relator is encouraged to refrain from filing further pro se petitions regarding his pending

criminal proceeding.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
In the Matter of A.B.

No. COA15-895.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 16, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed in part, Vacated and Remanded in part.
In the Matter of the Foreclosure by ROGERS TOWNSEND & THOMAS, PC, Substitute Trustee of a Deed of Trust Executed by Julia Weskett Beasley, dated February 12, 2007 and recorded on February 16, 2007 in Book No. 1211 at Page 169 of the Carteret County Registry, North Carolina.

No. 276PA15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

Renner Jo St. John, for Holder VF-1, Inc., et al.

Gregory M. Katzman, for Beasley, Julia Weskett.

Joseph S. Dowdy, Raleigh, for Holder VF-1, Inc., et al.

Donald Richard Pocock, for Holder VF-1, Inc., et al.

D. Martin Warf, Raleigh, for Holder VF-1, Inc., et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th of August 2015 by Respondent (Julia Weskett Beasley) 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:

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
# C_2009044EN.01006901.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/69

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 November 2008 — Avanzata and Others v Commission

(Case F-48/06) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Contractual staff - Classification and remuneration - Persons formerly employed under Luxembourg law)

(2009/C 44/118)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Eric Avanzata (Hussigny, France) and 20 other members of contract staff (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the Commission decisions determining the applicants' conditions of appointment, in particular, their function groups, grades, steps and remuneration as laid down in their contracts of employment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 154 of 1.7.2006, p. 26.

1

---
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.12

                        [Unofficial English Translation]

(LOGO) B A N K  H A P O A L I M
THE BUSINESS DIVISION
THE MAIN MANAGEMENT
THE BUSINESS BRANCH
23 MENACHEM BEGIN STREET, TEL AVIV, 66183
DATE: JULY 11, 2010

For the attention of:
TEFRON LTD. (hereinafter: "the Company")

Dear Sir/ Madam,

              RE: YOUR COVENANT DOCUMENT TO US, DATED MARCH 2, 2010

Whereas In the framework of the Covenant document which you signed in our favor
        on March 2, 2010 (hereinafter: "THE COVENANT DOCUMENT"), you committed to
        us, INTER ALIA, that your EBITDA, based on your consolidated financial
        statements as of December 31, 2010 (hereinafter: "THE SAID STATEMENTS")
        will be positive (hereinafter: "THE SAID COVENANT"); and

Whereas You have informed us that you will not meet the Said Covenant in reports
        pursuant to your consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2010,
        and you have asked us, notwithstanding the foregoing, not to exercise our
        rights pursuant to the said Covenant Document;

                      Therefore we wish to inform you that:

1.   We consent, on a one-time basis, not to take any measures against you
     following the breach of the Said Covenant, subject to the following: that
     your EBITDA, according to your consolidated financial statements as of
     December 31, 2010 shall not be less than U.S.$ - 2.1 million (negative two
     million and one hundred thousand U.S. dollars), and that no other cause
     shall be established for us to declare your debts to us to be immediately
     due and payable;

2.   Except as aforesaid, there shall be no change in the Covenant Document and
     in the Said Covenant.

3.   Our consent, as set forth above, is subject to your obtaining an identical
     consent from any entity to which non-compliance with any financial
     covenants based on the Said Statements confers a right to the immediate
     payment of your debts and obligations thereto, including from Israel
     Discount Bank Ltd. and from Bank Leumi LeIsrael Ltd.

Sincerely yours,
      /s/
-----------------
Bank Hapoalim Ltd.                              /s/ Amit Meridor, Eran Rotem
                                                ----------------------------
                                                Tefron Ltd.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7990

CURTIS E. CRAWFORD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ROBERT E. GARD, Supervisor, Deputy United

States Marshal,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 95-7991

CURTIS E. CRAWFORD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

J. GARFIELD DILLARD, Chairman, in his personal

and professional capacity; LEWIS P. BARLOW,

Superintendent, in his personal and professional capacity; MAJOR SPIKER, in his personal

and professional capacity; LIEUTENANT WRIGHT,

in his personal and professional capacity;

OTHERS UNKNOWN, in their personal and professional capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.
2

No. 95-7992

CURTIS E. CRAWFORD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN MARSHALL, Deputy, United States Marshal,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CA-95-641-2, CA-95-747-2, CA-95-756-2)

Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 2, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis E. Crawford, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's orders dismissing his

Bivens* complaints. The district court assessed filing fees in

accordance with Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir. 1981), cert.

denied, 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and dismissed the cases without prejudice when Appellant failed to comply with the fee orders. Finding

no abuse of discretion, we affirm the district court's orders. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
|   | CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|

|   | OF      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 |
|--------|----------------------------------------|

|   |          1)    I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of      Titan Technologies, Inc.; |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|    | 2)   Based      in my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue      statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to      make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such      statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by      this quarterly report; and |
|--------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3) Based on      my knowledge, the financial statements and other information contained in      this quarterly report fairly present, in all material respects,      thefinancial condition, results of operations  and cash flows of      the Company, as of and for the period presented in this quarterly      report. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Dated: March      15, 2010 |
|--------|----------------------------|

|   | /s/      Ronald L. Wilder |
|--------|---------------------------|

|   | Ronald L.      Wilder, President |
|--------|----------------------------------|

|   | (Chief      Executive Officer) |
|--------|--------------------------------|

|   | (Chief      Financial Officer) |
|--------|--------------------------------|
* 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. 07-51264

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICTOR AGUILERA-AYALA, also known as Manuel A Agurlar

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-1259-1

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Victor Aguilera-Ayala (Aguilera) appeals the 38-month sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following a previous

deportation. Aguilera argues that the district court erred in applying an eightlevel enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C), for an aggravated

felony. He argues that the Government did not establish by competent evidence

“the fact” of his prior convictions. Specifically, he asserts that, in light of

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 11, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-51264

2

Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) and United States v. GutierrezRamirez, 405 F.3d 352 (5th Cir. 2005), the California abstract of judgments

utilized by the district court are considered “unreliable” to establish the

existence of his prior convictions.

Aguilera’s reliance on Gutierrez-Ramirez is misplaced. In GutierrezRamirez, 405 F.3d at 358-59, this court determined that the district court erred

under Taylor and Shepard when it “exclusively” relied on a California abstract

of judgment to determine whether the defendant’s prior conviction qualified as

a “drug trafficking offense” for purposes of a 16-level enhancement under

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(I). As Aguilera acknowledges in his brief, his argument does not

implicate Taylor or Shepard because he is only challenging the existence of his

prior convictions. See United States v. Neri-Hernandes, 504 F.3d 587, 590-92

(5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1106 (2008). Because Aguilera failed to

produce any evidence calling into question the reliability of the abstract of

judgments, the district court did not err in using them to establish Aguilera’s

prior convictions. See id. at 592.

In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Aguilera

challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and

aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the

offense that must be found by a jury. This argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). United States v.

Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872

(2008).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2008 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-16-2008

Thabault v. Chait

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 06-2209

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Thabault v. Chait" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 442.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/442
Amended in accordance with Clerk’s Order dated 6/6/06 pursuant to Fed. R. App. *

P. 43(c)

PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 06-2209

_____________

PAULETTE J. THABAULT , 

*

as Receiver of Ambassador Insurance Company

v.

DORIS JUNE CHAIT, as Representative of the Estate

of Arnold Chait; PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP,

Appellant

_____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil No. 2:85-cv-02441)

District Judge: Honorable Harold A. Ackerman

 

Argued September 11, 2007

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, RENDELL and FUENTES, Circuit Judges.

 

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

 

At the direction of the Court, the last sentence on page 3 which continues on the

first line of page 4 of opinion filed on September 9, 2008 is amended as follows: 
“The judgment reached $182.9 million after the District Court added

prejudgment interest.”

For the Court,

Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk

Dated: September 16, 2008

lwc/cc: Fordham E. Huffman, Esq.

Robert J. Stickles, Esq.

Tracy K. Stratford, Esq.

Richard B. Whitney, Esq.

Evan R. Chesler, Esq.

Matthew A. Eisenstein, Esq.

Andrew T. Karron, Esq.

Antony L. Ryan, Esq.

Jay K. Wright, Esq.

Kevin McNulty, Esq.
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.1.1


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 No. 333-119285, Form S-8 No. 333-03886, Form S-8 No. 333-37299, Form
S-8 No. 333-74565, Form S-8 No. 333-96197, Form S-8 No. 333-37658, Form S-8
No.333-72778 and Form S-8 No. 333-107273) pertaining to Renal Care Group, Inc.'s
9% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2011, the Renal Care Group, Inc. Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, the Renal Care Group, Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan, the Renal Care
Group, Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan for Outside Directors, the Renal Care Group,
Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan, the Renal Care Group, Inc. Third Amended and
Restated Stock Incentive Plan, the Renal Care Group, Inc. Fourth Amended and
Restated 1996 Stock Incentive Plan, the Dialysis Centers of America, Inc. Equity
Compensation Plan, the Renal Care Group, Inc. 1999 Long - Term Incentive Plan,
the Renal Disease Management by Physicians, Inc. Amended and Restated 1997/1998
Stock Plan, and the Renal Care Group, Inc., Amended and Restated 1999 Long-Term
Incentive Plan of our report dated March 10, 2006, with respect to Renal Care
Group, Inc. management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of Renal Care Group, Inc. included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.



                                             /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Nashville, Tennessee
March 10, 2006
BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. d/b/a BMA Rocky Mount, Petitioner, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION OF HEALTH SERVICE REGULATION, CERTIFICATE OF NEED SECTION, Respondent, and Total Renal Care, Inc. d/b/a Nash County Dialysis, Respondent-Intervenor.

No. COA15-815.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Larry James WATERS.

No. COA15-686.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS


Each of the  undersigned  hereby  certifies that this  Quarterly  Report on Form
10-QSB/A  complies  with  the  requirements  of  Section  13(a)  or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,  and the information  contained in
such report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.


August 21, 2006                                      August 21, 2006


/s/ Jeffrey L. Minch                                 /s/ Troy D. Zinn
Jeffrey L. Minch,                                    Troy D. Zinn,
President and Chief Executive Officer                Secretary and Treasurer and
                                                     Chief Financial Officer


                                       22
# C_2011331EN.01001602.xml

| 12.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2011 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-4/06) (1)

1

(Agriculture - Act of Accession 2003 - Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 - Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 - Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 - 2004/2005 marketing year - Additional levy - Setting of two coefficients - Competence - Legal basis - Empowering measure - Obligation to give reasons - Compliance with essential procedural requirements)

2011/C 331/28

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented: initially by J. Pietras, later by E. Osśiecka-Tamecka, later by: T. Nowakowski, later by M. Dowgielewicz, B. Majczyna and P. Rosniak and finally, by: B. Majczyna, M. Szpunnar and D. Krawczyk, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by A. Szmytkowska, C. Cattabriga and F. Erlbacher, later, by: A. Szmytkowska and P. Rossi, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 of 14 October 2005 setting the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 2004/05 marketing year (OJ 2005 L 271, p. 12), as amended by Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006 (OJ 2009 L 321, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 of 14 October 2005 setting the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 2004/05 marketing year (OJ 2005 L 271, p. 12), as amended by Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006 (OJ 2009 L 321, p. 1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 of 14 October 2005 setting the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 2004/05 marketing year (OJ 2005 L 271, p. 12), as amended by Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006 (OJ 2009 L 321, p. 1);

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.

1

---