alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

FALLON RAHIMA JALLALI,

Appellant,

v.

CHRISTIANA TRUST, a division of WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND 

SOCIETY, FSB, as Trustee for NORMANDY MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, 

SERIES 2013-15,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-3311

[September 6, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Michael L. Gates, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE-07-010279 

(12).

Alan M. Medof, Boca Raton and Cyrus A. Bischoff, Miami, for appellant.

Melissa A. Giasi of Kass Shuler, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Sarah Sylvester, Plaintiff, v. Paul "Sunny" Sylvester, Jr., Defendant.

No. COA16-637

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 20, 2016

VACATED AND REMANDED.
# C_2018134EN.01003902.xml

| 16.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/39

---

Order of the General Court of 22 February 2018 — Alcan France v Commission

(Case T-288/07) (1)

1

(2018/C 134/56)

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.

1

---
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-1300 

AMGEN INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD, ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS GMBH, 

and HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC., 

Defendants-Appellants. 

Lloyd R. Day Jr., Day Casebeer Madrid & Batchelder LLP, of 

Cupertino, California, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief were 

David M. Madrid and Linda A. Sasaki-Baxley. Of counsel on the brief were 

Stuart L. Watt and Wendy A. Whiteford, Amgen Inc., of Thousand Oaks, 

California; and Cecilia H. Gonzalez and Margaret D. Macdonald, Howrey 

LLP, of Washington, DC. 

Leora Ben-Ami, Kaye Scholer LLP, of New York, New York, argued for 

defendants-appellants. With her on the brief were Thomas F. Fleming, 

Patricia A. Carson, Christopher T. Jagoe and Howard S. Suh. Of counsel on 

the brief were Lee Carl Bromberg and Julia Huston, Bromberg & Sunstein 

LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts. Of counsel were Daniel Forchheimer, 

Matthew McFarlane, and Krista M. Rycroft, Kaye Scholer LLP, of New York, 

New York; and Timothy M. Murphy, Krista M. Rycroft, Kimberly J. Seluga, 

and Keith E. Toms, Bromberg & Sunstein LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts. 

Donald R. Ware, Foley Hoag LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts, for 

amicus curiae Biotechnology Industry Organization. With him on the brief 

were Barbara A. Fiacco and Jeremy A. Younkin. Of counsel on the brief was 

Hans Sauer, Biotechnology Industry Organization, of Washington, DC. 

Appealed from: United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts 

Judge William G. Young
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-1300 

AMGEN INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD, ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS GMBH, 

and HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC., 

Defendants-Appellants. 

Judgment 

ON APPEAL from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts 

In CASE NO(S). 05-CV-12237. 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam (RADER, PLAGER, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED: _October 10, 2008__ / s / Jan Horbaly

 Jan Horbaly, Clerk
STATE of North Carolina v. Jesus MARTINEZ

No. 25PA17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Daniel M. Blau, Attorney at Law, Robert Hale, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Martinez, Jesus.

Lauren M. Clemmons, Special Deputy Attorney General, Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th of January 2017 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 19th of January 2017 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10-KSB FOR
FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         460,939
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,770
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     73,060
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               540,769
<PP&E>                                          25,687
<DEPRECIATION>                                (18,821)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 568,586
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,668
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,400
<OTHER-SE>                                     557,918
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   568,586
<SALES>                                          7,322
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,776
<CGS>                                            4,546
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,546
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               322,048
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,493
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (289,779)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (290,579)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2  Certification of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Securities and Exchange Commission Release 34-46427  I, Tran Viet Thang, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Trai Thien USA 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. The registrant's other certifying officers 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 we 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 quarterly report is being prepared;  b) 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;  c) disclosed in this report any change in registrant's internal control over financial reporting the occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter 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 officers 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 registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) all 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: August 27, 2010/s/ Tran Viet ThangTran Viet ThangChief Financial Officer
STATE v. Anthonio Shontari FARRAR

112P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2017

David Weiss, Attorney at Law, for Farrar, Anthonio Shontari.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of April 2017 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of April 2017."
**
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Salesh Balak, certify that: 

 

1.   I have reviewed this report on Form10-Q/A of Universal Biosensors, Inc.; and

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa 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.

Date: May 1, 2020 

 
/s/ Salesh BalakSalesh BalakPrincipal Financial OfficerUniversal Biosensors, Inc.**
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                     NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       APR-31-1999
<CASH>                                 719,798
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                          625,574
<ALLOWANCES>                           (57,492)
<INVENTORY>                         11,389,491
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             0
<PP&E>                               2,629,270
<DEPRECIATION>                        (636,486)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      16,841,121
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        0
<BONDS>                             56,879,789
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                             3,484,392
<OTHER-SE>                         (44,945,084)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        16,841,121
<SALES>                              4,628,391
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     4,705,584
<CGS>                                3,918,573
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        4,652,708
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         86,844
<INCOME-TAX>                            34,744
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          0
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                            52,100
<EPS-BASIC>                              .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                0


</TABLE>
STATE v. Amanda Gayle REED

331A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 6, 2016

Matthew C. Coxe, Attorney at Law, for Reed, Amanda Gayle.

Melody R. Hairston, Assistant Attorney General, Derrick Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ernie Lee, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th of September 2016 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th of September 2016."
STATE v. Michael Anthony SCATURRO, Jr.

207P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 23, 2017

Michele Goldman, Attorney at Law, for Scaturro, Michael Anthony (Jr.).

Anne Goco Kirby, Assistant Attorney General, Ben R. David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of June 2017 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd of June 2017."
Order entered January 2, 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 19 - 00229 - CR No. 05 - 19 - 00230 - CR No. 05 - 19 - 00231 - CR No. 05 - 19 - 00232 - CR No. 05 - 19 - 002 33 - CR TYRONTAE LOMON COOPER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 15th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 069973 , 069975, 069976, 069977 & 069796 

### O RDER We REINSTATE these appeals. We abated the appeals for the tr ial court to hold a hearing to determine the accuracy of the November 21, 2019 corrected volume 5 of the reporter’s record . The trial court held a hearing and made findings of fact which were filed in a supplemental clerk’s record with this Court. We ADOP T the trial court’s finding that the November 21, 2019 corrected volume 5, page 87, line 7 of the reporter’s record accurately reflects the proceedings in the trial court (“sentence you to 40 years TDC”). See T EX . R. A PP . P. 34.6 (e)(2).– 2

–

W e DIRECT the Cle rk to strike volume 5 of the May 10, 2019 reporter’s record. Pending before the Court is the State’s December 23, 2019 motion for extension of time to file its brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the State’s brief due on or before January 21, 2020. /s/ B ILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
# C_2009256EN.01002303.xml

| 24.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/23

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 September 2009 — El Morabit v Council

(Joined Cases T-37/07 and T-323/07) (1)

1

(Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures with a view to combating terrorism - Freezing of funds - List of persons, groups and entities - Action for annulment)

2009/C 256/42

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mohamed El Morabit (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: U. Sarikaya, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan, G. Van Hegelsom and B. Driessen, Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and M. De Mol, and, in Case T-37/07, M. de Grave and, in Case T-323/07, Y. de Vries and M. Noort, Agents); and Commission of the European Communities (represented: in Case T-37/07 by S. Boelaert and J. Aquilina, and in Case T-323/07 by P. van Nuffel and S. Boelaert, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for the annulment, in part, of, first, Council Decision 2007/445/EC of 28 June 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decisions 2006/379/EC and 2006/1008/EC (OJ 2007 L 169, p. 58) and, second, Council Decision 2006/1008/EC of 21 December 2006 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2006 L 379, p. 123), in so far as the name of the applicant appears on the lists of persons, groups and entities to which those provisions apply.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Mr Mohamed El Morabit to bear his own costs and pay those of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Mohamed El Morabit to bear his own costs and pay those of the Council;

| 3. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 14. 4. 2007.

1

---
B*. , V 3,3SU-^

Ju/Ut \-Xj MS.

.... jC&"9.7.'^/\ Ctf'#l/[M#LA//?a?/S.-

:/?^ _<&* /:^P^£j^JM57^f:/^

COmOFCRmmiAPPBALs

c/e^^ j:^ ^{ff/Ajj f/uf# ypfr/e <j?^?ce

£&&>ty. a/i&glcf &/&/{_ /^^a^M. 7^e 4//?i-

\p&fj0A). M?A7 Ja/&±0.F..Aa6&s 60fy#5.j ^y),72>

\Vi?^# Q/?7C£0.„ 4c&>&f'sy /&.-/%£? ^eSM/ud-

^2^ALtjJ^d^^Atr..:f^i W'IjL.JiA^„:£&w_.

,_i..__^^^J^/^^J£^^j^.!^^ye^ .j4t*f&„A^y&^...

T

/

_.__• x^iC^y.3'^....... v&l^*4f&4£S.-
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Felton, Judge Haley and Senior Judge Coleman 

BRAD ALLEN POTTER 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1475-08-4 PER CURIAM 

 OCTOBER 21, 2008 

TEAM RUTHLESS, L.L.C. AND 

 TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Peter J. Jones, on briefs), for appellant. 

 (Amy L. Epstein; Law Offices of Roger S. Mackey, on brief), for 

appellees. 

 Brad Allen Potter appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding 

that he failed to prove his injury, sustained while participating in an employer-sponsored martial 

arts seminar, did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. We have reviewed the 

record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we 

affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Potter v. Team Ruthless, 

L.L.C., VWC File No. 233-60-72 (May 19, 2008). We dispense with oral argument and 

summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code 

§ 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
State of North Carolina v. Napoleon Richard Cooper, Defendant.

No. COA16-483

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 20, 2016

NO ERROR.
NO. 07-08-0354-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

OCTOBER 1, 2008

______________________________

DAVID SINCHES, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 31ST DISTRICT COURT OF GRAY COUNTY;

NO. 7595; HON.STEVEN RAY EMMERT, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellant David Sinches attempts to appeal from his conviction of the offense of forgery by passing and the resulting sentence of twenty-four months in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Sentence was imposed on July 29, 2008.  On that same day, the trial court certified appellant had no right of appeal and that appellant had waived the right of appeal.  Tex. R. App. P. 25.2.  Appellant filed his notice of appeal on September 8, 2008.1

	By a September 16 letter, this Court notified appellant that his notice of appeal appeared late and directed him to file any documents or matters considered necessary for the Court to determine its appellate jurisdiction.  By the same letter, this Court advised appellant that his appeal was subject to dismissal unless the Court received an amended certification under Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2 providing that appellant has the right of appeal or he demonstrated other grounds for continuing the appeal, on or before October 16, 2008.  Appellant has corresponded with the Court, but his correspondence does not provide information permitting us to conclude we have jurisdiction over his appeal.

	To be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the sentence is imposed or suspended in open court or within 90 days after that date if a motion for new trial is filed.  Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a).  Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

	A timely notice of appeal is essential to invoke our appellate jurisdiction.  State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408, 411 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996).  If it is untimely, we can take no action other than to dismiss the proceeding.  Id. at 523.  See also Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998).  Further, the rules we must follow require us to dismiss an appeal in a criminal case in the absence of a certification showing the appellant has the right of appeal.  Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

	 Accordingly, appellant’s appeal is dismissed.2

	James T. Campbell

	Justice

Do not publish.
NO. 12-08-00373-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

MICHAEL KENNEDY, § APPEAL FROM THE 349TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

MEDICAL DEPARTMENT,

SHERIFF DEPARTMENT

AND FORREST BRADBERRY, § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

APPELLEES

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for Appellant’s failure to comply with the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3.

Appellant’s docketing statement was due to have been filed at the time the appeal was

perfected, i.e., September 19, 2008. See TEX. R. APP. P. 32.1. On that date, this court notified

Appellant that he should file a docketing statement within ten days if he had not already done so.

However, Appellant failed to file a docketing statement.

On October 2, 2008, this court issued a second notice advising Appellant that the docketing

statement was past due and giving him until October 13, 2008 to comply with Rule 32.1. The notice

further provided that failure to comply with this second notice would result in the appeal being

presented for dismissal in accordance with Rule 42.3. The time for filing the docketing statement

under this second notice has expired, and Appellant has not filed the docketing statement as required

by Rule 32.1 and the court’s notices. 
2

Because Appellant has failed, after notice, to comply with Rule 32.1, the appeal is dismissed.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

Opinion delivered October 22, 2008.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)