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. 03-11-00183- CR

La Baaron Hu tchison, App ellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 147 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -DC- 09- 3012 10, H ONO RAB LE WI LF ORD F LOW ERS, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
L a Ba aron Hutchison seeks to appea l from a September 2, 2010 judgmen t o f
co n v i ct i on for ag g rava ted assault with a deadly wea pon. Howeve r, the trial court cer tified t h at : (1) this is a plea barg ain case and Hutchison has no rig ht of appea l, and (2) Hut ch i s o n wa i v ed the rig ht of appea l. See Tex. R
. Ap p . P
. 2 5.2(a) (2), (d). Hutchison and his counsel signe d the
cer tification. Fur

ther, Hutchison’s attempted notice of appea l is untimely
. Sentence was imposed
on September 2, 2010. No motion for new trial was filed, thus the deadline for perf ecting appea l was October 4, 2010. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a) (1), 4.1(a)
. Hutchison’s notice of appea l was filed with the trial court on Marc h 15, 2011, and with this Court on Marc h 28, 2011. There was no reque st for extension of t ime to file t he noti ce of appea l. See Tex. R. App. P
. 26.3. Additionally , t h er e i s noindication that notice of appea l was proper ly mailed to the district cler k within the time pr escr ibed by rule 26.2(a ). See Tex. R. App. P . 9.2(b).

Under the circ umstances, we lack jurisdiction over Hutchison’s appea l and there fore dismiss it for want of

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d); Slaton v. State , 981 S.W .2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State , 918 S.W .2d 519, 522-23 (Te x . Crim. App. 1996).

J eff Rose, J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton and Rose Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: June 3, 2011 Do Not Publish

2
### Court of Appeals, State of Michigan ORDER

People of MI v Deandre Taiwan Haywood
Docket No. 345243
LC No. 18-003452-FH Colleen A. O’Brien Presiding Judge Jane M. Beckering
Anica Letica Judges

In accordance with the Michigan Supreme Court’s May 20, 2020 order, People v Haywood , ___ Mich ___ (2020) (Docket No. 160753), and after plen ary consideration of the arguments advanced by the parties on reconsideration, we VACATE our opinion of September 26, 2019, and REINSTATE the prosecutor’s first-tier appeal. The failure of this Court to remand this matter to the Wayne Circuit Court for a determination of whether to appoint appellate counsel for defendant-appellee deprived defendant of his right to counsel in a pr econviction appeal. See e.g., People v Murphy , 481 Mich 919 (2008). This matter is REMANDED to the Wayne Circuit Court for th e appointment of appellate counsel. The circuit court shall transmit a copy of the or der appointing counsel to the Clerk of this Court within 7 days of the decision. Appointed counsel shall file defendant’s appellee’s brief within 35 days of the date of this order. MCR 7.212(A)(2)(a)(ii). The prosec utor may file a reply brief. This Court retains jurisdiction. This or der has immediate effect. MCR 7.215(F)(2).

_______________________________

Presiding Judge
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 32



                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 on Form[10-Q of Universal Automotive
Industries, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Arvin Scott, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, Robert W.
Zimmer, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, and Peter Riofski, as Chief
Accounting Officer of the Company, each 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 operations of the Company.

/s/ Arvin Scott
---------------

Name:  Arvin Scott

Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date:  December 17, 2003

/s/ Robert W. Zimmer
--------------------

Name: Robert W. Zimmer
Title:  Chief Financial Officer
Date:  December 17, 2003


This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

See also the certification pursuant to Sec. 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, which is also attached to this Report.

885669_2
State of North Carolina v. Joshua Eduardo Hogg

No. COA16-379

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 1, 2016

DISMISSED.
**Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 14 July 2008 – Calebus v Commission**

**(Case T-366/06)**

Action for annulment – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Decision 2006/613/EC – List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region – Challengeable act – Lack of direct effect – Inadmissible

1.                     *Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230, first para., EC;
Council Directive 92/43, Arts 4(2), 5 and 6; Commission Decision 2006/613, Art. 1, second para., and Annexes 1, 2 and 3) (see
paras 26-30)*

2.                     *Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para.,
EC; Council Directive 92/43, Arts 4(5) and 6; Commission Decision 2006/613, Annex 1) (see paras 39-44, 46)*

3.                     *Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para.,
EC) (see para. 45)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2006 L 259, p. 1), in so far as it declares the site designated as ‘Ramblas de Gergal, Tabernas y Sur de Sierra Alhamilla’, which includes land belonging to the applicant, to be a site of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Calebus SA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs. |
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Petty, AtLe e and Senior Judge Clements

LONNIE HODGES MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1507-15-1 PER CURIAM MARCH 29, 2016 VIRGINIA INTERNAT IONAL TERMINALS AND CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO.

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Lonnie Hodges, pro se , on brief). (R. John Barrett; Megan B. Ca ramore; Vandeventer Black LLP, on brief, for appellees.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication. Lonnie Hodges appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission dismissing his case for failure to file a timel y request for review. On November 25, 2015, appellant filed a pleading indica ting his appeal of and dissatis faction with the Commission’s findings in his case. On February 4, 2016, this Court directed appellan t to file an amended opening brief to comply with Rules 5A:4(b), 5A:4(d), 5A:20(c), 5A:20(d), 5A:20(e), and 5A:20(h). Appellant failed to submit replacement pleadings in compliance with the Rules of Court. Appellant’s pleading does not include proper assignments of error, in violation of Rule 5A:20(c), or a statement of facts, in violation of Rule 5A:20(d). Likewi se, the pleading does not include the applicable standard of review for any assignments of error as required under Rule 5A:20(e). Appellant did not satisf y Rule 5A:20(h), which requires that the certificate of the brief indicate whether oral argument is waived and that a copy of the brief has been provided to opposing counsel.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - This Court “will not search the record for e rrors in order to interpret the appellant’s

contention and correct deficiencies in a brie f.” Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992). Nor is it this Court’s “function to comb through the record . . . in order to ferret-out for ourselves the validity of [appellant’s] claims.” Fitzgerald v. Bass, 6 Va. App. 38, 56 n.7, 366 S.E.2d 615, 625 n.7 (1988) ( en banc ). “Even pro se litigants must comply with the rules of court.” Fran cis v. Francis, 30 Va. App. 584, 591, 518 S.E.2d 842, 846 (1999). We find that appellant’s failure to comply with Rule 5A:20 is significant. See Jay v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 510, 520, 659 S.E.2d 311, 317 ( 2008) (“the Court of Appeals should . . . consider whether any failure to strictly adhere to the requiremen ts of [the Rules of Court] is insignificant . . .”); cf. Rules 5A:1(a) (authorizin g dismissal of appeal or “such other penalty” deemed appropriate); 5A:26 (aut horizing additional dismissal remedy in appropriate cases). Accordingly, for all of these re asons, we cannot consider appella nt’s appeal and we summarily affirm the Commission’s rulings. 1 See Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

1 On December 8, 2015, appellees filed a motion to dismiss. Upon consideration thereof, the motion to dismiss is denied.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

I, Michael D. Milligan,certify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10–Q of NES Rentals Holdings, Inc.;

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this quarterly report;

 

4.  The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a–15(e) and 15d–15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:

 

a)  designed such disclosure controls andprocedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

b)  evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented within thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)  disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting;

 

5.  The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlsover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

a)  all significant deficiencies in the designor operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information and have identified for theregistrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

b)  any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.

 
| Date: May 17, 2004      |
|-------------------------|
|                    |
| /s/ MICHAEL D. MILLIGAN |   |
|                    |
| Michael D. Milligan     |
| Chief Financial Officer |

 

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
SuperGen Inc. December 31, 1997 Consolidated Financial Statements
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          23,326
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      313
<ALLOWANCES>                                        10
<INVENTORY>                                      1,428
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,120
<PP&E>                                           3,303
<DEPRECIATION>                                     397
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,011
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,444
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        68,976
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,011
<SALES>                                          1,748
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,802
<CGS>                                            1,539
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,041
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   180
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,996)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,996)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,996)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.85)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2010288EN.01000601.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany)) — Winner Wetten GmbH v Mayor of Bergheim

(Case C-409/06) (1)

(Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Organisation of bets on sporting competitions subject to a public monopoly at Land level - Decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht finding the legislation for such a monopoly incompatible with the German Basic Law, but maintaining the legislation in force during a transitional period designed to allow it to be brought into conformity with the Basic Law - Principle of the primacy of Union law - Admissibility of, and possible conditions for, a transitional period of that type where the national legislation concerned also infringes Articles 43 EC and 49 EC)

(2010/C 288/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Winner Wetten GmbH

Defendant: Mayor of Bergheim

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Köln — Interpretation of Arts 43 EC and 49 EC — National legislation, making the business of collecting, accepting, registering and transmitting bets subject to obtaining authorisation, declared unconstitutional by the Bundesverfassungsgericht — Direct effect and primacy of Community law — Temporal limitation on the effects of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

By reason of the primacy of directly-applicable Union law, national legislation concerning a public monopoly on bets on sporting competitions which, according to the findings of a national court, comprises restrictions that are incompatible with the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, because those restrictions do not contribute to limiting betting activities in a consistent and systematic manner, cannot continue to apply during a transitional period.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

---
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2005 / Presidential Documents 55015 

Presidential Determination No. 2005–34 of September 9, 2005 

Waiving Prohibition on United States Military Assistance 

with Respect to Benin 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

Consistent with the authority vested in me by section 2007 of the American 

Servicemembers’ Protection Act of 2002 (the ‘‘Act’’), title II of Public Law 

107–206 (22 U.S.C. 7421 et seq.), I hereby 

• Determine that Benin has entered into an agreement with the 

United States pursuant to Article 98 of the Rome Statute preventing the International Criminal Court from proceeding against 

U.S. personnel present in such country; and 

• Waive the prohibition of section 2007(a) of the Act with respect 

to this country for as long as such agreement remains in force. 

You are authorized and directed to report this determination to the Congress 

and to arrange for its publication in the 

W 

Federal Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, September 9, 2005. 

[FR Doc. 05–18741 

Filed 9–16–05; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P
# C_2012126EN.01001101.xml

| 28.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2012 — Comité de défense de la viticulture charentaise v Commission

(Case T-192/07) (1)

1

(Competition - Decision rejecting a complaint - No Community interest - Scope of the complaint - Competence of the author of the act - Obligation to state reasons)

2012/C 126/21

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Comité de défense de la viticulture charentaise (Sainte-Sévère, France) (represented by: C.-E. Gudin, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially F. Arbault and V. Bottka, and subsequently by V. Bottka and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision SG-Greffe (2007) D/202076 of 3 April 2007 dismissing the complaint in Case COMP/38.863/B2-MODEF in relation to infringements of the EC Treaty

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Comité de défense de la viticulture charentaise to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Comité de défense de la viticulture charentaise to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.

1

---
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  **GROVER**

**SELLERS Al-rc.RNEI** 

**GENERAL I**  **i**


### Honorable

Lou hluq meoPts.ve

&eretary-DlreeWtor stats 

### GouM881oa

fer theBund IJBnd ost1ae 8e.tld* Auatia, 

### Texas mar slrr

**ed** rlth **this** request 

### lthaertalu

redwfr*?edualfumIr." When ah,a this dIepartmeat-8 

### ideally pe 8zr opriat1ao

**for ttaal**  

### 5 roadr

I

. . . .**3tr 25**  **oader** tho 

### appreprlatloa a 0 8ode to thq State 

### Gemmlqslolr for 

### theBllad

W t& Ragulu Session

old the 49th

Leglolatum pro

### rldeo for a put-8tr pwtor. p& ?rbmol @a+- ,.I ’ erio~~,dll prevlde a like aoouab fer perter ): ‘

. “neaoo advloe If the StMb cooel0oioO’ l e r t he a ll a 4 l ol lt h o r l o o d

t ooup&8eat f r bl other hado ti oolary ef Veto4 % 

### riser bo poWI& lo+ ia 8aeorte tYPgr%O Begalar koofon 02 the 49th L6&olattwe u& ahe. dvieo so te vhether or llot the date car- * i.

16 the



### l ppr e p r l a t ed

If o u o h lo 

### o t he r u l oo

a o a e r l a ed

b y e r POt in oonfllot 

### with&ay r .lAt ed l t m lt e o . 

## x8the Aot ereatiqf tha w8to 

### Cadooloa tar tbe , alllul, whloh powtdeo {or its oegaQlBat10a ala tumetioao, autherlt~ is ~a to appoint ud fix tho ampautiom 0r a n l l e a~lvo

Lo t-Y

.- b o t he r

VW. -4i:j.m ~~~~:,B~~o7o,*c.s. ) a8oeorry te 8ake effeotivo %ch

The appU.mtios far a44 aaeegtaoo of trade *a t& uat0d **am00** Obtem8oat **is** l **@herioed 00d**  **OOO& f00uo**  

### 8 r e Qvpropriated



### l t et h o opocff i o

prpoo e o

l lt & r iUd

b y

### oubobetlon 9, seM66 RID 3&7, 

## x c f o ll ooo t h w@e ro

that

## t h o l upp&~.dlrrg



## o f t he o a l a r i oo i q q ue o li o n r o u l d 4 0 %ithia 

## t h o

ap*oprU- 

### tloao provldml if their

uw for that 

### pwpeo8 lo l 

### uthorlrrd by the &raator 

### tar tha 

### United

Stoteo Osvermaeat~ It Tot&tftandoamodvuseIIbJtheAdoral aovernm n to l tUor *ha hove 8~ opproted p&n 

### foraid to 

### the **bll& u&d**  **that th**  **purpo~o** for vhia& ouch 

### funds are advanad are those samorated n the report to the Ebdwdl ao+rtrmo~t 

### filed tion 

### ml, lfq 8eo 2itlo 42, lJ.S.C+A., sea

### 16 lo gl?.

-7 U fra tb abwe tweted &tter that 

### annum1 oalozioo 

## re (1 8 ~otxI4 m8iam.m 0 rrioo ati4 (2)a part-ts80 porter 

### ooroirral@od %u the T wAloo6ua'o reports to.* 

### ?odem.l l 

### uthorltieo

M thatowh w the lteu ther0UbWo beetr 

### prOporljaPWWod+ u ?%I:" aamot, it foliwo tlmt the omwnto oa 

### irraluded aad l p - 

### pro ved p 080 *i $h l e =t bo l p e o l f l o p u r p e n wthe r l o e a v t o m ~tihe & g a o~ t e~t o o y q )twJ e wlo me o~

w e i & % &tocirdlqgl~~rtme-dvlwd 

### that lt iotho 

### *Inloa ef tU0 dogwSao*~ that tbo Stats 

### ~4cmiool~ fos t&o ~;lied :oa&Aorimd to oupplem~nt frert\udo

Iricelwd fra the wnited St&or Oeto~~t tho 

### o8larloo of 

### (1) tbo tendlagM0 h s . M

l up e r +l oor

Md (2 ) l por t-tiw swtw, 6 . t he l xtat nppmwo4

b-y t&o Fwleml l

### uthorltlort



# a _-_.-~._- Ittleta - - lbolot&at

,/. i._ ,: .‘i’~:
EXHIBIT 23.1






INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration
Statements No. 33-81718, 33-89474, 333-19777, 333-14799, 333-
02877, 333-03881, 333-03677 and 333-02812 of C-Cube Microsystems
Inc. on Form S-8 of our reports dated January 15, 1997, appearing
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of C-Cube Microsystems Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 1996.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Jose, California
March 14, 1997