alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40873

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CARL GREEN MORGAN

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:07-CR-19-1

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Carl Green Morgan has moved for

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

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Morgan has filed a response. The record is insufficiently

developed to allow consideration at this time of Morgan’s claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal

when [they have] not been raised before the district court since no opportunity

existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 22, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40873

2

Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006)(internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and

Morgan’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          59,903
<SECURITIES>                                    30,920
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,603
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,867
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               136,666
<PP&E>                                          24,801
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,746
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 159,033
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,595
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              214
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     116,942
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   159,033
<SALES>                                         62,240
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               145,665
<CGS>                                            5,018
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   47,328
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                74,004
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,138
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  50
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,160
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,280
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,333
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,880
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.85


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                               EXHIBIT 32.1

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

    I, Robert G. Burton, Sr., the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Cenveo, Inc. (the "Company"), certify pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

    (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m or 78o(d)); and

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


Dated: June 26, 2007                         /S/  ROBERT G. BURTON, SR.
                                        --------------------------------------
                                                Robert G. Burton, Sr.
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive
                                                       Officer
Exhibit
23.2





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We have
issued our reports dated March 3, 2010, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements, schedule and internal control over financial reporting
included in the Annual Report of Cenveo, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended January 2, 2010.  We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said reports in Registration Statement Nos.
333-153447, 333-61467, 333-118861, 333-74490, 333-26743, 333-161927 and
333-161925 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-74065, 333-39013,
333-36337 and 333-162559 on Form S-3.





/s/ GRANT THORNTON
LLP


Melville,
New York


March 3,
2010
# C_2008022EN.01005502.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/55

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 19 October 2007 — M v Agence européenne des médicaments (EMEA)

(Case F-23/07) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Officials - Invalidity - Invalidity Committee - Refusal to convene - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2008/C 22/106)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: M (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Cohen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Agence européenne des médicaments (EMEA) (represented by: V. Salvatore and S. Vanlievendael, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the EMEA of 25 October 2006 rejecting the application brought by the applicant for an Invalidity Committee to be convened — Application for damages.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007, p. 35.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4142 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4142

  To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to prohibit the use of 
benefits to purchase marijuana products, to amend part A of title IV of 
   the Social Security Act to prohibit assistance provided under the 
 program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy 
 families from being accessed through the use of an electronic benefit 
  transfer card at any store that offers marijuana for sale, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 4, 2014

 Mr. Gosar (for himself, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, Mr. 
    Jones, Mr. LaMalfa, and Mr. Duncan of Tennessee) introduced the 
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, 
  and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to prohibit the use of 
benefits to purchase marijuana products, to amend part A of title IV of 
   the Social Security Act to prohibit assistance provided under the 
 program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy 
 families from being accessed through the use of an electronic benefit 
  transfer card at any store that offers marijuana for sale, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No Welfare for Weed Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO FOOD AND NUTRITION ACT OF 2008.

    Section 3(k) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
2012(k)) is amended by inserting ``, marijuana products,'' after 
``tobacco,''.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON USE OF ELECTRONIC BENEFIT TRANSFER CARD TO 
              ACCESS TANF ASSISTANCE AT ANY STORE THAT OFFERS MARIJUANA 
              FOR SALE.

    Section 408(a)(12)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
608(a)(12)(A)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (ii);
            (2) by striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                            ``(iv) any establishment that offers 
                        marihuana (as defined in section 102(16) of the 
                        Controlled Substances Act) for sale.''.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect 1 
year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
State of North Carolina v. Merritt Cornelius Banks

No. COA16-492

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 1, 2016

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 24
                                                                      ----------

                               Powers of Attorney

       KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature
appears below hereby constitutes and appoints Susan L. Critzer as his true and
lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution and
resubstitution for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and all
capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Integ Incorporated for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 1999 and all amendments to such Annual Report on
Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents
in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting
unto said attorney-in-fact and agent full power and authority to do and perform
each and every act and thing requisite or necessary to be done in and about the
premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and
agent, or his substitute, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

        Signatures                        Position                    Date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 /s/ Mark B. Knudson, Ph.D
-------------------------------
 Mark B. Knudson,Ph.D                 Chairman of the Board       March 17, 2000


 /s/ Frank B. Bennett
-------------------------------
 Frank B. Bennett                     Director                    March 17, 2000


 /s/ Robert S. Nickoloff
-------------------------------
 Robert S. Nickoloff                  Director                    March 17, 2000


 /s/ Walter L. Sembrowich, Ph.D
-------------------------------
 Walter L. Sembrowich, Ph.D           Director                    March 17, 2000


 /s/ Winston R. Wallin
-------------------------------
 Winston R. Wallin                    Director                    March 17, 2000
# C_2009069EN.01003602.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/36

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 January 2009 — Volkswagen v OHIM

(Case T-174/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark TDI - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(c) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 62(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2009/C 69/84)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Risthaus, H.-P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla and R. Jepsen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 March 2007 (Case R 1479/2005-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign TDI as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Volkswagen AG to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Volkswagen AG to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1387
LAWRENCE WILDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA96-3472-S) Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 27, 1997 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence Wilder, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the following district court orders: (1) letter order finding no ground to act upon Appellant's complaints against his former counsel; (2) order denying Appellant's motion for preliminary injunction; (3) marginal order denying Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel; (4) order denying Appellant'smotion for the court to order his union to provide him with counsel; and (5) letter order returning documents unrelated to any pending motion. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, see 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). To the extent that Appellant seeks review of the denial of his motion forpreliminary injunction, this court has jurisdiction over that portion of the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We find that the district court did not err in denying the motion. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the motion on the reasoning of the district court. Wilder v. Shalala , No. CA-96-3472-S (D. Md. Feb. 12, 1997). To the extent that Appellant seeks review of the remaining orders, this court does not have jurisdiction because the orders are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. We therefore dismiss the appeal as to the denials of remaining motions.3 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 IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-20-00326-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 324th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 324-595838-16

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Womack and Wallach, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

IN THE INTEREST OF H.L., A CHILD
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants filed an “Emergency Notice of Appeal” on October 20, 2020, in 

which they state that they are appealing the trial court’s denial of their petition for writ 

of habeas corpus. We sent Appellants a letter on October 27, 2020, noting our 

concern that we may not have jurisdiction over this appeal because the trial court 

clerk had informed this court that the trial judge has not signed an order in this case 

and that it appears there are no final judgments or orders subject to appeal. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 26.1(a). In the letter, we informed Appellants that they had until 

November 16, 2020, to furnish this court with a signed copy of the order they seek to 

appeal. We also advised Appellants that if no order had been signed and furnished to 

this court by November 16, 2020, this appeal would be dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). Although Appellants filed a response 

to our letter, they have not furnished this court a signed copy of the order they seek to 

appeal, nor have they showed grounds for jurisdiction. Because we have no 

jurisdiction to address Appellants’ appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1 (providing for filing of notice of appeal from 

date that judgment or order is “signed”), 43.2(f), 44.3; see also Sammour v. Fed. Gov’t, 

No. 02-20-00268-CV, 2020 WL 6601596, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 12, 

2020, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (“There is no signed order or judgment in this case. We 

therefore dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.”). 
3

/s/ Dana Womack

Dana Womack

Justice

Delivered: December 17, 2020
EX-4.3



 Exhibit 4.3 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO

 REPLACEMENT CAPITAL COVENANT 

Amendment No. 1 To Replacement Capital Covenant (this “Amendment”) dated as of July 18, 2014, by Dominion Resources, Inc.,
a Virginia corporation (together with its successors and assigns, the “Corporation”), to the Replacement Capital Covenant dated as of June 17, 2009 (the “June 2009 RCC”) entered into by the Corporation in favor of and for
the benefit of each Covered Debtholder (as defined in the June 2009 RCC). 
 Recitals 

A. The Corporation entered into the June 2009 RCC in connection with the issuance of $685,000,000 aggregate principal amount of its 2009 Series
A 8.375% Enhanced Junior Subordinated Notes (the “Series A Notes”). 
 B. Pursuant to clause (iv) of Section 4(b) of the
June 2009 RCC, the Corporation may amend the terms of the June 2009 RCC without the consent of the Covered Debtholders provided that such amendment or supplement is not adverse to the Holders of the then-effective Covered Debt and an officer of the
Corporation has delivered to the Holders of the then-effective Covered Debt in the manner provided for in the indenture or other instrument under which such Covered Debt was issued a written certificate stating that, in his or her determination,
such amendment or supplement is not adverse to the rights of the Holders of the then-effective Covered Debt. 
 C. The intent and effect of
this Amendment is to change, from 180 days to 365 days, the length of the measurement period utilized for determining the Corporation’s ability to redeem or repurchase all or a portion of the Series A Notes when such determination is made via
reference to the amount of net cash proceeds received by the Corporation from the issuance and sale of its Common Stock or other equity-like securities or the market value of common stock delivered or issued by the Company in connection with certain
transactions (as described in the June 2009 RCC) prior to such redemption or repurchase. 
 D. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein
shall have the meaning given such terms in the June 2009 RCC. 
 NOW THEREFORE, the Corporation hereby amends the June 2009 RCC as set forth
in this Amendment. 
 Section 1. The reference to “180 days” contained in the definition of “Measurement Period”
contained on Schedule I of the June 2009 RCC is hereby deleted and replaced with “365 days.” 
 Section 2. Except as
expressly amended hereby, all of the provisions of the June 2009 RCC continue in full force and effect. 
 Section 3. This amendment
shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York. 
 [Signature Page Follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly
authorized officer, as of the day and year first above written. 
  

			
	 DOMINION RESOURCES, INC.
  

	By:	 	 /s/ G. Scott Hetzer

		 	G. Scott Hetzer
		 	Senior Vice President and Treasurer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 17, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135468(35) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 135468 

 COA: 276266 

Wayne CC: 74-000164 

74-000219 

OSCAR EDWARD GULLEY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s April 28, 

2008 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

d0910 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 17, 2008 

 Clerk
[Cite as State v. Madaris, 123 Ohio St.3d 127, 2009-Ohio-4903.]

T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLANT , v . M ADARIS , A PPELLEE . [Cite as State v. Madaris, 123 Ohio St.3d 127, 2009-Ohio-4903.] Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on the authority of State v. Harris. (No. 2008-1052

— Submitted August 11, 2009

— Decided September 22, 2009.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-070287,
2008-Ohio-2470.

__________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority
of State v. Harris , 122 Ohio St.3d 373, 2009-Ohio-3323, 911 N.E.2d 882

. M OYER , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , and C UPP , JJ., concur.

__________________ Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Pr osecuting Attorney, and Scott M. Heenan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. Timothy Young, State Public Defe nder, and Sarah M. Schregardus, Assistant State Public Defender, for appellee.

__________________
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Willie Dee Price, Appellant

No. 06

- 19

- 00119

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 336th District Court of Fannin County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CR

- 19

- 26944 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered b y Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Burgess and Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial cour t

. We note that the appellant, Willie Dee Price, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED DECEMBER 9 , 2019 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk