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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00524-CR

Isaias Rodriguez RIOS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2004-CR-9249

Honorable Bert Richardson, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 29, 2008

DISMISSED

Isaias Rios pleaded nolo contendere to first degree murder pursuant to a plea bargain

agreement. As part of his plea-bargain, Rios signed a separate “Waiver of Appeal.” The trial court

imposed sentence and signed a certificate stating that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant

has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Rios timely filed a notice of appeal. The

clerk’s record, which includes the plea bargain agreement and the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2)

certification, has been filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). This court must dismiss an appeal “if a
04-08-00524-CR

-2-

certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.”

Id.

The clerk’s record establishes this is a plea bargain case; that is, the punishment assessed by

the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the

defendant. Rios’s appointed appellate counsel has advised the court in writing that she has reviewed

the record and can find no right of appeal. After reviewing the record and counsel’s notice, we agree

that Rios does not have a right to appeal. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005) (holding that court of appeals should review clerk’s record to determine whether trial court’s

certification is accurate). We therefore dismiss this appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
SMC CORPORATION           EXHIBIT 11STATEMENT OF CALCULATION OF AVERAGECOMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         | Three Months  Ended  March 31, 2001 |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
| Basic  Earnings Per Share:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |                                |
|                Weighted average number of  shares                                                                                                                                                      | 5,745,599                           |
|  Diluted Earnings Per Share:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |                                |
|                Weighted average number of shares                                                                                                                                                       | 5,745,599                           |
|                Stock option plan shares to  be issued at prices ranging from $4.625 to $9.00 per share                                                                                                 | -                                   |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |                                |
|                                            Total Diluted Shares | 5,745,599                           |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-6717

JOHN JAMES BELL, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

WARDEN, Kershaw Correctional Institution, 

 Respondent – Appellee, 

 and 

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 

 Respondent. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (8:08-cv-00304-GRA) 

Submitted: October 2, 2008 Decided: October 10, 2008 

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

John James Bell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

John James Bell seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying his motions to reconsider the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on Bell’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The 

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

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

(2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 

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. 

Miller-El 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 Bell has not made the requisite 

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 

and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because 

2 
3 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Huff v. Paramore

343P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

John M. Huff, Jr., for Huff, John M. (Jr.)

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of September 2016 by Petitioner for Hearing:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
Rodney D. Mollins, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 8, 2016

ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on July 1, 2016 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable Donald B. Hocker be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Hocker shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Hocker shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
In the Matter of K.B.

No. COA16-66.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
# C_2011311EN.01003402.xml

| 22.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2011 — CMB and Christof v Commission

(Case T-407/07) (1)

1

(Public supply contracts - EAR procurement procedure - Supply of equipment for the treatment of medical waste - Rejection of the tender - Action for annulment - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Preliminary administrative complaint - Excusable error - Award criteria - Procedural rules - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of sound administration - Non-contractual liability)

2011/C 311/60

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: CMB Maschinenbau & Handels GmbH (Gratkorn, Austria) and J. Christof GmbH (Graz, Austria) (represented initially by A. Petsche, N. Niejahr, lawyers, F. Young, Solicitor, and Q. Azau, lawyer, and subsequently by A. Petsche, N. Niejahr and Q. Azau)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission, as the legal successor of the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) (represented by: P. van Nuffel, F. Erlbacher and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, annulment of the decision of the European Agency for Reconstruction of 29 August 2007, rejecting the tender made by the applicants in response to an invitation to tender EuropeAid/124192/D/SUP/YU concerning the supply of equipment for medical waste management (OJ 2006 S 233 248826) and awarding the contract to another tenderer, and, second, application for damages

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders CMB Maschinenbau & Handels GmbH and J. Christof GmbH to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders CMB Maschinenbau & Handels GmbH and J. Christof GmbH to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.

1

---
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, David Gao, Chief Executive Officer of Beijing Med-Pharm Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify that, based on my knowledge:

|  | (1) | The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  |   |                                                                                                                                                    |
|--|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (2)    | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

/s/ DAVID GAODavid GaoChief Executive Officer
May 12, 2006
RIGGSBEE v. JONES, et al.

237P16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Avery M. Riggsbee, for Riggsbee, Avery M.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of January 2017 by Plaintiff for Enforcement Orders:

*283"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."
John Fletcher CHURCH, Plaintiff, v. Nancy Black NORELLI and The Norelli Law Firm, Defendants.

No. COA16-799

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 21, 2017

REVERSED.
**Exhibit15.1**

 

Deloitte &Touche LLP

555 17thStreet

Suite 3600

Denver, CO80202

 

October 3, 2007

 

UAP Holding Corp.7251 W. 4th StreetGreeley, CO

 

We have reviewed, in accordancewith the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States),the unaudited interim financial information of UAP Holding Corp. as of and forthe periods ended August 26, 2007, and August 27, 2006, as indicated in ourreport dated October 3, 2007; because we did not perform an audit, we expressedno opinion on that information.

 

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included inyour Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 26, 2007, isincorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333–133261 and No. 333–127064on Form S-8.

 

We also are aware that theaforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared orcertified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountantwithin the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

 

 
| Deloitte & Touche LLP |   |
|---------------------------|--------|

 

----
Candace D. KHASHMAN, Plaintiff, v. Samer F. KHASHMAN, a/k/a Sam Khashman, Defendant.

No. COA15-361.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Aug. 2, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed; Remanded with instructions.
March28, 2012

**CONSENT OF ENGINEER**

Referenceis made to the Annual Information Form to be included in the Annual Report onForm 40-F (collectively, the “40-F”) of Nevsun Resources Ltd. to be filed withthe United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Ihereby consent to (i) the references to my name in the 40-F as an author of thereport entitled “Nevsun Resources Limited, Bisha Polymetallic OperationEritrea, Africa, NI 43-101 Technical Report”  dated 01 January 2011,revised 29 March 2011, and (ii) to the use of the report in the 40-F.

*/s/ Jay  Melnyk*___________________Jay Melnyk

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6382

LACY D. HOCUTT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

A. HATHAWAY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief

District Judge. (5:07-hc-02096-FL)

Submitted: September 25, 2008 Decided: October 16, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lacy D. Hocutt, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lacy D. Hocutt seeks to appeal the district court’s order

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. Miller-El 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 Hocutt 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
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of FC Financial Services, Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended May 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Taras Chebountchak,Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 14th day of July, 2005.



| | /s/ Taras Chebountchak                             
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | Taras Chebountchak                                 
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

















---
STATE of North Carolina v. Matthew Chad BEAVER.

No. COA15-1179.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Plain Error.
The Honorable Joseph M. Hood, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of *

Kentucky, sitting by designation. 

The official case caption misspells JoAnn Anderson’s first name. 1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 08a0598n.06

Filed: October 2, 2008

No. 07-1630

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JOANNE ANDERSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

POSTMASTER GENERAL, UNITED

STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Defendant-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Before: MOORE, COOK, Circuit Judges; and HOOD, District Judge.*

COOK, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff JoAnn Anderson, a fifty-seven-year-old African-American 1

female, filed this Title VII suit against her employer, defendant John Potter, Postmaster General of

the United States Postal Service (the “Postal Service”). Anderson alleges that the Postal Service

discriminated and retaliated against her on the basis of race, sex, age, and prior Equal Employment

Opportunity (“EEO”) complaints, and subjected her to a hostile work environment. In a thorough

opinion addressing Anderson’s numerous factual contentions, the district court concluded that

Anderson failed to articulate a prima facie case for any of her claims, and granted summary judgment

for the Postal Service. Having reviewed the briefs and record, we reach the same conclusion.
No. 07-1630

Anderson v. Postmaster General

2

Because a separate opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the court’s judgment,

adopting its analysis.
No. 07-1630

Anderson v. Postmaster General

3

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment. I concur in

the judgment, on the ground that summary judgment is appropriate because Anderson has failed to

show a genuine issue that the defendant’s asserted legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its

actions were pretextual. Moreover, Anderson has failed to allege sufficient facts to show a genuine

issue regarding the existence of an actionable hostile-work-environment claim.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136472 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136472 

 COA: 283303 

Wayne CC: 06-004706-FC

SHARON KAY RADTKE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 18, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court to grant 

credit for time that the defendant spent in jail awaiting resolution of the case. Though the 

defendant was not entitled to bail under Michigan Constitution 1963, Article I § 15, 

because she was charged with murder and the proof was evident, this did not affect her 

eligibility for sentence credit under MCL 769.11b. In all other respects, leave to appeal is 

DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented should be 

reviewed by this Court. 

p0915 

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 22, 2008 

 Clerk
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(C)(2), Attorney General Michael B. Muaksey is substituted for 1

former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as respondent.

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

 

No. 07-2016

SIONO SANTOSA,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, 1

Respondent.

 

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on June 11, 2008, is amended as follows:

On page 8, line 4, replace "conclusive" with "sufficient"
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S BALANCE SHEETS AND RELATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE PERIOD
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             285
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,540
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     20,329
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,963
<PP&E>                                          23,869
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,881
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  56,521
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,313
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,810
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,797
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    56,521
<SALES>                                        150,643
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               150,643
<CGS>                                          131,863
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  131,863
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 751
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,272
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,712
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,560
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,560
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.39
        

</TABLE>
# C_2008128EN.01002704.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/27

---

Order of the President of the Court of 28 February 2008 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union

(Case C-167/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 128/53)

Language of the case: Spanish

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.

1

---