alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-11-00292- CV
Melinda Henry, Appellan t

v. Carlos Cor tez , Appellee

F ROM TH E CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO . 2 O F WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY NO. 11- 0359 -F C2, H ONO RAB LE TIM OTH Y L. W RIGH T, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Melinda Henr

y fil ed a noti ce of appea l on May 4, 2011. This Court has
rec eived from the district cler k of Wil l i am s o n C o u n ty a copy of the trial court’s order g ranting Henr y ’s m otion for new t rial on May 1 8 , 2 0 1 1. On August 31, 2011, the C lerk of this Court sent notice to Henr

y reque sting an explanation in writing of why her appea l should not be dismiss ed for want of jurisdiction and notify ing her that her appea l would be dismiss ed for want of jurisdiction if she did not respond to this Court by September 12, 2011. To date, Henr y has not responde d to this Court’s notice. We dismiss t he appe al for w ant of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(a)
.__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Rose and Goodwin Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: September

16, 2011

2
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Universal Biosensors, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls
and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures
to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to
the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is
being prepared;b)
    
    Not applicable;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in
this report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the
end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation;
andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change
in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting
that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control
over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and
report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material,
that involves management or other
employees who have a significant
role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Salesh BalakSalesh BalakChief Financial OfficerUniversal Biosensors, Inc.
Exhibit 32.02

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Tom Hofer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of
Vendalux Corporation on Form 10-KSB for the Annual period ended March 31, 2005
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Vendalux Corporation.

By: /s/
   -----------------------------
Name: Tom Hofer
Title:   Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the registrant and will be
retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2008313EN.01005803.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/58

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2008 — Smadja v Commission

(Case F-135/07) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Recruitment - Appointment - Classification by step - New appointment of the applicant to the same post after his first appointment was annulled by judgment of the Court of First Instance - Principle of proportionality - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Duty to have regard to the welfare of officials)

(2008/C 313/106)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Daniele Smadja (New Delhi, India) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

First, annulment of the Commission decision appointing the applicant, an official placed initially in Grade A*15, step 4, inasmuch as it places her in grade A*15, step 1 following her re-appointment to the post of Director of Directorate B of RELEX after the annulment of her first appointment, and, second, a claim for non-material and material loss

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 21 December 2006, placing Ms Smadja in grade A*15, step 1, with seniority in step as at 1 November 2005; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 21 December 2006, placing Ms Smadja in grade A*15, step 1, with seniority in step as at 1 November 2005;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008, p. 35.

1

---
# CE2004070EN.01022001.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/220 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/220

---

(2004/C 70 E/236)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3107/03

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(22 October 2003)

Subject:   Trans-European networks

Subject:

The Van Miert document, under heading 3, refers to Corridor 8.

However, the Commission proposal of 1 October 2003 no longer includes that corridor aming the 29 priority projects.

In reply to the protest of the Italian delegation to the Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council, Commissioner de Palacio appears to have stated that the reason for its exclusion is the impossibility of allowing access to the corridor to countries which are not as yet EU Member States.

This exclusion criterion has not, however, been applied to other priority projects that appear on the 1 October list, including No 7 (motorway route Igoumenitsa/Patras-Athens-Sofia-Budapest), No 18 (inland waterway route Rhine/Meuse-Main-Danube) and No 22 (Rail line Athens-Sofia-Budapest-Vienna-Prague-Nuremberg/Dresden).

Will the Commission reconsider the exclusion of Corridor 8 from the priority list, given its crucial importance for the democratisation process in the Balkan region?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2003)

(26 November 2003)

The report of the high level group, which was composed of representatives of the 15 Member States, the 10 new ones, Bulgaria, Romania, EIB and the Commission and chaired by Mr Karel Van Miert, was delivered to the Commission on 30 June 2003. It includes in list 3 (Other projects important for territorial cohesion) the rail line Bari-Varna. This line is within the pan-European Corridor VIII as defined in the Ministerial Conferences in Crete and Helsinki in 1994 and 1997.

The mandate of the high level group was to identify priority projects on the transEuropean transport network (TEN-T). As Corridor VIII is located outside the territory of the Union, (with the exception of the ports of Bari and Brindisi), and will remain so after enlargement, it was not within the mandate of the group to consider it, or any other corridor, for inclusion in the list of TEN-T priority projects.

By the same logic the Commission did not include Corridor VIII in its proposal to modify Decision on the TEN-T guidelines adopted on 1 October 2003 (1). Projects 18 and 22 which follow the route on certain pan-European Corridors concern exclusively works located on the territory of the Union or Acceding Countries.

1

---

(1)  COM(2003) 564 final.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          17,522
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,533
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (517)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,090
<PP&E>                                          10,442
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,275)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,180
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,457
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            26
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,697
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,180
<SALES>                                         22,801
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,801
<CGS>                                            4,855
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,855
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,332
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,912)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (712)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,200)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,200)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)
        

</TABLE>
State of North Carolina v. Calvin Denard Brown

No. COA16-84

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 1, 2016

AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED IN PART.
Michael DAMMONS, Plaintiff, v. N.C. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendant.

No. COA15-1252.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 21, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
1356.

#### McAdams *v.*Ellis.

Certiorari, from Fulton, superior court — Judge Pendleton. July' 7, 1908.

Submitted November 12,

Decided November 25, 1908.

*Horton Brothers & Burress,*for plaintiff.

Powell, J.

It appeared that the defendant, whose wages were sought to be subjected to garnishment, was employed by the garnishee as a. night watchman, at a factory, but that he was without the police-power and discretion possessed by the employee referi-ed to in the case of *Tabb*v. Mallette, 120 *Ga.*97 ( 47 S. E. 587, 102 Am. St. R. 78); “that his duties consisted mainly in walking around the premises of the garnishee and keeping tramps away from the premises, and seeing that fire did not break out; that he had no authority to arrest any one, but only ran them off the premises when he found them loitering; that he worked twelve hours each day; that he had license to run an engine; that he had to make a round over the premises once each hour; about twenty minutes of his time was occupied each hour in making this round; that he had to register sixteen times during this round; in registering he had to use an instrument in the nature of a, key, which, when he turned it, registered in the Western Union office and showed that he was doing his duty; that each morning before he left, after making his eleventh round, he fired the boiler, which took him about thirty minutes; he had to remain in the boiler-room in alL about one hour and forty minutes.” *Held,*that the jury was authorized to find that he was a laborer and that his wages were exempt.

*Judgment affirmed.*
1213.

#### Broxton, Hazlehurst *&*Savannah Railroad Company *et al. v.*Rooks.

Action for damages, from city court of Fitzgerald — Judge Jay. April 33, 1908.

Argued July 16,

Decided November 10, 1908.

*Rosser & Brandon, McDonald & Quincey,*for plaintiffs in error.

*F. G. Boatright, B. J. Reid,*contra.

Powell, J.

The evidence authorized the verdict. None of the errors assigned as to the char-ge of the court are meritorious. No reason appears for granting a new trial. *Judgment affirmed.*
In re: Price

64A16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

William Gerald Price, for Price, William Gerald.

Natasha M. Barone, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, for Federal National Mortgage Association.

J. Scott Flowers, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of July 2016 by Respondent to Reconsider:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT PAUL JENNINGS,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. ALAN AZIZIAN, C hie f Psy c h ologist a t C oa linga State Hospita l; AUDR

EY KING, Exe c utive Dire c t or at C oa linga State Hospita l, De fe nda

nts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-15182 D.C . No. 1:15-c v-00840-SAB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Stanle y Albe rt B oone , M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding ** Subm itte d De c e m

be r 14, 2016 *** B e fore : WALLAC E, LEAVY, a nd FISHER , C irc uit Judge s. Pa ul Je nnings a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismi ssing



# FIL ED DEC 23 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * Je nnings c onse nte d to proc e e d be fore a m a gistra te judge . Se e 28 U.S.C . § 636(c ).

* * * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a rising from

his c onfine m e nt unde r C a lifornia ’ s Se xua lly Viole nt Pre d ators Ac t (“ SVPA” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo a dism issa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915(e )(2)(B )(ii). Huftile v . Mic c i o-Fonse c a , 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th C i r. 2005). W e a ffirm . The distric t prope rly

dism isse d Je nnings’ s a c tion be c a use Je nnings fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t the SVPA’ s post-c om

m itm e nt proc e dure s in e ffe c t in 2013 de

prive d him

of due proc e ss notwithsta nding a ny de n ia l of a

nnua l m e nta l he a l th e va luations. Se e Portman v . C ounty of Santa C

lara , 995 F.2d 898, 904 (9th C i r. 1993) (se tting forth e le m e nts of a § 1983 proc e d

ura l due proc e ss c la im ); se e also C a l. W e lf. & Inst. C ode § 6608(a) (2013) (“ A pe rson who ha s be e n c om m itte d a s a

se xua lly viole nt pre dator sha ll be pe rm itte d to pe t ition thec ourt for c onditional re le a se with or without the re c om m e ndation or c onc urre nc e of the Dire c t or of State Hospita ls.” ); id. § 6608(k) (2013) (“Afte r a m inim um of one y e ar on c onditional re le a se , the c om m itte d pe rson, with or without the re c om m e ndation or c onc urre nc e of the Dire c tor of Sta te Hospita l s, m ay

pe tition the

c ourt for unc onditional disc ha

rge .” ). W e re je c t a s unsupporte d

by the re c o rd Je nnings’ s c onte ntion re g arding the m a gistra te judge . Je nnings’ s m otion for a

ppointm e nt of c ounse l, file d on M arc h 25, 2016, is 1 6 - 1 5 1 8 2 2de nie d.

AFFIRM E D.

1 6 - 1 5 1 8 2 3
1151.

#### Dub *v.*Bryson.

Levy and claim, from city court of Savannah — Judge Freeman. February 5, 1908.

Argued July 2,

Decided November 24, 1908.

*Robert L. Golding,*for plaintiff in error.

*Osborne & Lawrence,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

The evidence fully supports the verdict, and there appears no sufficient reason for reversing the judgment.

*Judgment affirmed.*
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 Quarterly Report of R.G. Global Lifestyles, Inc., on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:



1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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:  October 27, 2004





/s/ Louis L. Knickerbocker

Louis L. Knickerbocker, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



/s/ William C. Hitchcock

William C. Hitchcock, Chief Financial Officer
##### 



1)
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of LaCrosse Footwear, Inc. (the
registrant);2)
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3)
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal year that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ David P. Carlson
IB 

Union Calendar No. 280 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3973 

[Report No. 113–376] 

To amend section 530D of title 28, United States Code. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2014 

Mr. DESANTIS (for himself, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. FARENTHOLD, Mr. CHABOT, 

Mr. BYRNE, Mr. SALMON, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. STEWART, Mr. WEBER

of Texas, Mr. POSEY, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. AMODEI, Mr. 

MASSIE, Mr. LAMALFA, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. 

BRIDENSTINE, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, 

Mr. ROONEY, Mr. SCHWEIKERT, Mr. LANKFORD, and Mr. STUTZMAN) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

MARCH 7, 2014 

Additional sponsors: Mr. MULVANEY, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. BENTIVOLIO, Mr. 

HOLDING, Mr. FORBES, Mr. YOHO, Mr. LATTA, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. 

NEUGEBAUER, Mr. TIPTON, Mr. KLINE, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. 

POE of Texas, Mr. SESSIONS, and Ms. JENKINS

MARCH 7, 2014 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3973 RH

A BILL 

To amend section 530D of title 28, United States Code. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3973 RH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Faithful Execution of 

5 the Law Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 530D OF TITLE 28, 

7 UNITED STATES CODE. 

8 Section 530D(a)(1)(A) of title 28, United States 

9 Code, is amended— 

10 (1) by inserting ‘‘or any other Federal officer’’ 

11 before ‘‘establishes or implements a formal or infor12 mal policy’’; and 

13 (2) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘on the grounds 

14 that such provision is unconstitutional’’ and insert15 ing ‘‘and state the grounds for such policy’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 280 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3973 

[Report No. 113–376] 

A BILL 

To amend section 530D of title 28, United States 

Code. 

MARCH 7, 2014 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS