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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00568-CR

Kevin RICHARDSON a/k/a Kevin Davis,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CR-4987

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 1, 2008

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Appellant was sentenced on June 30, 2008. Because appellant did not file a timely motion

for new trial, his notice of appeal was due to be filed on July 30, 2008. See TEX.R. APP. P. 26.2(a).

Appellant filed a notice of appeal in this court on July 28, 2008; however, he failed to file his notice

of appeal with the trial court. See Douglas v. State, 987 S.W.2d 605, 605 & n.2. (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (dismissing appeal where notice of appeal was timely filed

in appellate court but not in trial court and noting rule 25.1 contains saving provision for notices of
04-08-00568-CR

-2-

appeals mistakenly filed in appellate courts but only applies to appeals in civil cases). On August

4, 2008, appellant timely filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file his notice of appeal;

however, he never filed his notice of appeal with the trial court. 

On August 26, 2008, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should

not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241

(Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (out-of-time appeal from final felony conviction may be sought by filing a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure). Appellant

failed to respond to our order. This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
# C_2007223EN.01002101.xml

| 22.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/21

---

Action brought on 3 July 2007 — Stefan Meierhofer v Commission

(Case F-74/07)

(2007/C 223/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Stefan Meierhofer (Munich, Germany) (represented by: H.-G. Schiessl, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of the defendant's decision of 10 May 2007 concerning the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the defendant's decision of 10 May 2007 concerning the applicant;

| — | Annulment of the defendant's appeal decision of 19 June 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the defendant's appeal decision of 19 June 2007;

| — | Order the defendant to reassess in the light of the current assessment criteria the oral examination taken by the applicant on 29 March 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to reassess in the light of the current assessment criteria the oral examination taken by the applicant on 29 March 2007;

| — | Order the defendant to take a new decision on the applicant's inclusion on the reserve list for recruitment competition AD/26/05 in the light of the new examination results; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to take a new decision on the applicant's inclusion on the reserve list for recruitment competition AD/26/05 in the light of the new examination results;

| — | Order the defendant to give reasons for is new decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to give reasons for is new decisions;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant participated in EU recruitment competition AD/26/05 (AD5 officials). On completion of the examination the applicant was notified by the examination board that he had not been placed on the reserve list as he had not obtained the mark required.

The applicant claims that insufficient reasons were given for the Commission's decision not to place him on the reserve list and claims that procedural errors occurred during the oral examination.

---
##### 



NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
PURSUANT TO THE
TOWN SPORTS INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC.  2006 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
 THIS AGREEMENT  Agreement Company  Participant
 Preliminary Statement
 Committee Option  Grant Date Common Stock Plan
  Tax Matters Code
 Grant of Option Option Shares Option Price
 Vesting and Exercise .
 Vesting Date




---



##### 



Percentage of OptionVesting Date
    
    Shares VestedFirst Anniversary of Grant Date
    
    
    25
    %Second Anniversary of Grant Date
    
    
    50
    %Third Anniversary of Grant Date
    
    
    75
    %Fourth Anniversary of Grant Date
    
    
    100
    %
    Option Term th Section 5
 Termination
 Section 4,
  Restriction on Transfer of Option
 2




---



##### 



Non-Compete; Nonsolicitation .
 Noncompete
Period  provided however
  Section 7(a)
 Section 7(a)
 3




---



##### 



Confidential Information Section
7(b)
  Rights as a Stockholder
 Provisions of Plan Control
 4




---



##### 



Notices Notice
  th
 with a copy to:
 th
  No Obligation to Continue Employment
 Waiver of Jury Trial .
 Governing Law .
 Consent to Jurisdiction Dispute
 5




---



##### 



Agreed Venue Section 10
 Counterparts .
 [Remainder of Page Left Blank]
 6




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 Company:TOWN SPORTS INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC.By:Name:Title:Participant:[Name]
 7
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-08-00345-CV

IN RE HAROLD BARTON

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Harold Barton filed a petition for writ of mandamus and requested this Court to 

order the trial court to enter an order admitting the writing of Peggy Barton, dated 

January 19, 2007, to probate as the last will and testament of Peggy Barton.

We note that Harold failed to serve the trial court with the petition. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 9.5, 52.2. However, we suspend the application of these service rules and do not 

require proof of service on the trial court so that we may expedite the disposition of this 

proceeding. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2.

Upon an application by Harold to probate the writing as the will of Peggy, the 

trial court found the writing was not a will. Because the trial court’s ruling disposed of 

the controverted issue involved between the parties, we determine that the ruling is a 
In re Barton Page 2

final appealable order. TEX. PROB. CODE ANN. § 5(g) (Vernon Supp. 2008); Majeski v. 

Estate of Majeski, 163 S.W.3d 102, 106 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, no pet.) (“[W]e must 

consider whether the order is part of a proceeding that left unresolved issues or 

whether the order "concluded a discrete phase" of the proceedings.”). See Cherry v. Reed, 

512 S.W.2d 705, 707 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1974, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (“The 

trial court's summary judgment denying probate of the writing offered by appellants 

effectively disposed of the basic controverted issue between the parties.”); see also

Fischer v. Williams, 160 Tex. 342, 347 (Tex. 1960) (“If the motion to dismiss the contest on 

the ground that contestants had failed to show an interest in the estate had been 

sustained, the order would have finally disposed of the controverted question involved, 

and would have been appealable.”)

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed October 17, 2008

[OT06]
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57315-57316]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19298]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-4980-N-39]


Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and 
surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible 
use to assist the homeless.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 30, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 
DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and 
speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-
free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-
7588.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1988 
court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans 
Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a 
weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus 
Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for 
suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the 
purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been 
determined suitable or unsuitable this week.


[[Page 57316]]


    Dated: September 22, 2005.
Mark R. Johnston,
Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs.
[FR Doc. 05-19298 Filed 9-29-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-29-M
STATE of North Carolina v. James Michael SMITH.

No. COA15-614.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 3, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
**Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 January 2008 – Commission v Italy**

**(Case C‐69/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/35/EC – Environment – Public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to implement, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to implement the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6 of the directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
In the MATTER OF: C.C., C.C., C.C.

No. COA16-971

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 21, 2017

AFFIRMED.
# C_2009141EN.01003901.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/39

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 April 2009 — Bodegas Montebello v OHIM — Montebello (MONTEBELLO RHUM AGRICOLE)

(Case T-430/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative Community trade mark MONTEBELLO RHUM AGRICOLE - Earlier national word mark MONTEBELLO - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Absence of similarity between the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

2009/C 141/79

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bodegas Montebello, SA (Montilla, Spain) (represented by: T. Andrade Boué, I. Lehmann Novo and A. Hernández Lehmann, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. López Fernández de Corres and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Montebello SARL (Petit-Bourg, France) (represented by: G.-G. Lamoureux, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2007 (Case R 223/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Bodegas Montebello, SA and Montebello SARL

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Bodegas Montebello, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Bodegas Montebello, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-6923

TONY L. MOORE, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

ANTHONY PADULA, Warden Lee Correctional Institution, 

 Respondent – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District 

Judge. (8:07-cv-01471-HMH) 

Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 17, 2008 

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Tony L. Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Tony L. Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th 

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Moore has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-86457, 333-93516, 333-32713 and 333-60651) and
Form S-8 (Nos. 333-19197, 333-60079 and 333-60619) of Winston Hotels, Inc. of
our report dated January 19, 2001 relating to the financial statements and the
financial statement schedules, which appears in this Form 10-K.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Raleigh, North Carolina
March 15, 2001
* 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. 07-61029

SUSAN LEE WILTSHIRE,

Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.

NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONWIDE MUTUAL

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants–Counter Claimants–Appellees,

JUDITH KRISTIE SMITH; THOMAS R. CLARK, JR.,

Counter Defendants–Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:06-CV-605 

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and OWEN and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

AFFIRMED. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.6.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 10, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JAMES ALSTON,

Petitioner, 

v. 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Respondent. 

____________________ 

2010-3007 

______________________

 

Petition for review of an arbitrator’s decision in BW-2009-R-0004, by 

Barry E. Shapiro. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

JAMES W. RICHARD, II, AGE, Local 1923, of Baltimore, Maryland, 

argued for petitioner. 

SCOTT D. AUSTIN, Senior Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of 

Washington, DC, argued for respondent. With him on the brief were 

TONY WEST, Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, 

Director, and BRIAN M. SIMKIN, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the 

brief was APARNA V. SRINIVASAN, Attorney, Office of the General 

Counsel, Social Security Administration, of Baltimore, Maryland. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, MAYER, and PROST, Circuit Judges). 
AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

July 21, 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
Exhibit 31.1  Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  I, Paul Tidwell, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Innocap, Inc.  2. Based on 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;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  4. I am 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 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; and c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my 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; and d) 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.  5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of 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; and  b) 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.   Date: January 4, 2013  /s/ Paul Tidwell Paul Tidwell Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
NO. 07-08-0074-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

SEPTEMBER 25, 2008

______________________________

ANTHONY DAVID DRAGER,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 108 DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY; TH

NO. 57,042-E; HON. RICHARD DAMBOLD, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Anders Opinion

_________________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

Anthony David Drager (appellant) appeals his conviction for conspiracy to engage

in organized criminal activity. He entered an open plea of guilty and, after a hearing to the

trial court on punishment, was sentenced to twenty years confinement on each count. 
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 1

2

Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an

Anders brief, wherein she certifies that, after diligently searching the record, she 1

concluded that appellant’s appeal is without merit. Along with her brief, she has filed a

copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel’s belief that there was no

reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response pro se. By letter dated

September 18, 2008, this court also notified appellant of his right to file his own response

by October 20, 2008, if he wished to do so. Appellant has filed a response.

In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed

two potential areas for appeal including defects in the indictment and ineffectiveness of

counsel. Upon her final analysis, counsel determined that no reversible error existed.

Thereafter, we conducted our own review of the record along with appellant’s response to

assess the accuracy of appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any error,

reversible or otherwise, pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App.

1991) and concluded the same. 

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment is affirmed. 

Brian Quinn 

 Chief Justice

Do not publish.