alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Roger BLACKSTOCK

242P09-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

*155Roger Blackstock, for Blackstock.

Anne M. Middleton, Special Deputy Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th of June 2017 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."

Ervin, J. recused
**Exhibit 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of Directors and Shareholders 

PSS World Medical, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement File Nos. 33-80657, 33-90464, 333-15043, 333-64185, 33-85004, 33-97756, 33-99046, 33-97754, 333-30427, 333-50526, 333-58272 and 333-104262 on Form S-8 of PSS World Medical, Inc. of our reports dated May 23, 2006,with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of PSS World Medical, Inc. as of March 31, 2006, and April 1, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years inthe three-year period ended March 31, 2006, and the related financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2006 and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting as of March 31, 2006, which reports appear in the March 31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of PSS World Medical, Inc. 

Our report dated May 23, 2006, on management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as ofMarch 31, 2006, contains an explanatory paragraph that states that PSS World Medical, Inc. acquired Southern Anesthesia & Surgical, Inc. during fiscal year 2006. Management excluded from its assessment of the effectiveness of PSS WorldMedical, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2006, Southern Anesthesia & Surgical, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting of PSSWorld Medical, Inc. also excluded an evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting of Southern Anesthesia & Surgical, Inc. 

KPMG LLP 

May 23, 2006 

Jacksonville, Florida 

Certified Public Accountants
STATE v. Gyrell Shavonta LEE

335PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 17, 2017

Paul M. Green, Assistant Appellant Defender, Durham, for Lee, Gyrell Shavonta.

Kimberly D. Potter, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Andrew Womble, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Camden R. Webb, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Cato Institute.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 16th of May 2017 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of May 2017."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 23rd day of May 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
# CE2004070EN.01015101.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/151 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/151

---

(2004/C 70 E/157)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2871/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 September 2003)

Subject:   Research on human embryos and embryo stem cells

Subject:

The proposal for a Council decision (1) amending Decision 2002/834/EC states that at the Council meeting of 30 September 2002, the Council and the Commission agreed that ‘detailed implementing provisions concerning research activities involving the use of human embryos and human embryonic stem cells shall be established by 31 December 2003.’ Until that time, the Commission will not propose to fund such research, with the exception of proposals for projects that involve the use of banked or isolated human embryonic stem cells in culture. ‘This leads to the conclusion that the Commission considers that research using human ‘supernumerary’ embryos or stem cells created from them will, as from 2004, be able to receive funding, even if the implementing measures have at that time yet to be adopted, come into force or become applicable. This position would appear to contradict the Commission's statement that ‘during that period [until 31 December 2003] and pending establishment of the detailed implementing provisions, it will not propose to fund such research’ (See 12374/02 ADD 1, p. 5.).

1

Can the Commission confirm that it will not propose to fund such research until the detailed implementing provisions are adopted, in force and applicable?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2003)

(17 October 2003)

On 30 September 2002 the Council and the Commission agreed that detailed implementing provisions concerning the use of human embryos and human embryonic stem cells which can be financed under the sixth Framework Programme will be defined between now and 31 December 2003.

To this end, the Commission adopted a proposal amending the specific research programme on 9 July 2003 (2). The Council and the Commission have undertaken to reach an agreement and complete the legislative process, after Parliament has given its opinion, by 31 December 2003 at the latest.

2

The Commission confirms that do its utmost to honour this commitment and hopes that Parliament will provide active support.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 390.

1

(2)  COM(2003) 390 final.

2

---
## COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 2

- 10

- 181

- CR

JOHN D. MOORE APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 16TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

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


### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

------------ Appellant John D. Moore attempts to appeal from the order on his motion

for DNA testing, which the trial court denied on January 5, 2010. Moore filed his

notice of appea l on April 26, 2010, although it was due on February 4, 2010. See

Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1).

On May 19, 2010, we sent a letter to Moore stating that we were

concerned that we may not have jurisdiction over his appeal because his notice

of appeal was not timely filed. We stated that the appeal could be dismissed for

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.want of jurisdiction unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed

with this court a response showing grounds for continuing th e appeal. See Tex.

R. App. P. 44.3. Moore filed a response contending that this court has

jurisdiction over his appeal because he did not receive notice of the order until

April 6, 2010.

Our appellate jurisdiction over a criminal appeal is triggered through a

timely notice of appeal. See Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1996). Although a party who does not receive notice of a judgment or order

is given additional time to file a notice of appeal in a civil case, there is no

comparable rule for criminal cases. See Tex. R. App. P. 4.2; Tex. R. Civ. P.

306a. But see Rodriguez v. Court of Appeals, Eighth Supreme Judicial Dist. , 769

S.W.2d 55 4, 557 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (s tating that an out

- of

- time appeal may

be granted in the exercise of original habeas jurisdiction ). In the absence of a

timely notice of appeal, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address

the merits of the appeal in a criminal case and can take no action other than to

dismiss the appeal. Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App.

1998)

.3

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

SUE WALKER JUSTICE

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: August 19 , 2010
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 Adera Mines Limited (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Slavko Bebek, 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 June, 2006.



| | SLAVKO BEBEK                                       
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | Slavko Bebek                                       
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



















---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7743
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus JOSEPH LEWIS PULLEN, SR., Defendant - Appellant.
No. 03-7783
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus JOSEPH LEWIS PULLEN, SR., Defendant - Appellant.
No. 03-7784
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,- 2 - versus JOSEPH LEWIS PULLEN, SR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-01-133) Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: February 23, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Lewis Pullen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant, II, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Joseph Lewis Pullen, Sr., appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for electronic monitoring/home incarceration, denying his motion for personal recognizance bond pending appeal, and denying his motion for reconsideration for electronic monitoring/home confinement. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Pullen , No. CR-01-133 (E.D. Va. Sept. 15, 2003; Sept. 26, 2003; Nov. 3, 2003). 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 THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

No. 08-0805

IN RE  JINDAL SAW LIMITED, JINDAL ENTERPRISES LLC, AND SAW PIPES USA

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

**ORDERED:**

1.Relator’s emergency motion for stay, filed September 29, 2008, is granted.   All trial court proceedings in Cause No. 370,130-401, styled *Yvonne Lara, individually, as personal representative of the Estate of Carlos L. Lara, deceased, and as next friend for Tina Lara and Joe Lara v. Jindal Saw Limited, Jindal Enterprises LLC, and Saw Pipes USA, Inc.*, in the Probate Court No 1 of Harris County, Texas, are stayed pending further order of this Court.

2.The petition for writ of mandamus remains pending before this Court.

Done at the City of Austin, this October 24, 2008.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
**EXHIBITA**

**Section906 Certifications**

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. § 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the annual report of **Nevsun Resources Ltd.** (the“Company”) on Form 40-F as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the "Report"), **I**, **Clifford T. Davis, ChiefExecutive Officer** of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

| 1. | TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Dated: **January 10, 2013**

| By: | */s/ Clifford T. Davis* |
|-----|-------------------------|

|   | **Clifford T. Davis**Chief Executive Officer** |
|--------|------------------------------------------------|

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. JUSTIN ANDREW GOMEZ,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 18

- 30083
D.C. No. 1:15

- cr - 00232

- EJL

- 2

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 18, 2019

Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BATAILLON, ** District Judge. Justin Andrew Gomez appeals the district court’s imposition of the career offender enhancement at his sentencing for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in vio lation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JAN 6 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
Gomez ’s career offender enhancement was based on prior convictions for assault with a firearm, Cal. Penal Code § 245(a)(2) , and possession of methamphetamine for sale, Cal. Health and Safety Code § 11378. See United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1(a). At sentencing, Gomez objected to the district court’s use of his assault conviction to supp ort its determination that he was a career offender. He did not object to the use of his methamphetamine conviction as the second predicate

. Gomez argues for the first time on appeal tha t his § 11378 conviction i s categorically overbroad because Califor nia law reaches geometric isomers of methamphetamine, Cal. Health and Safety Code §§ 11033, 11055(d)(2), while
federal law includes only optical isomers, 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(14), 812 Schedule II(c) , Schedule III(a)(3). He challenges his career offender statu s on that basis
here.
We review for plain error

. See United States v. Gonzalez

- Aparicio , 663
F

. 3d 419 , 426

– 27 (9th Cir. 2011 ); Fed. R. Crim. P. 52 (a). The government asserts
that geometric isomers of methamphetamine do not exist, rendering any overbreadth illusory

. This argument hinges on both a n unsettled question of law,
see United States v. Rodriguez

- Gamboa , No. 19

- 50014 ,

__ F.3d

__ , 2019 WL
7206435 (9th Cir. 2019) , and on the unresolved factual question of the isomer’s3

existence

. Because “ a n error that hinges on a factual dispute is not ‘obvious’ as required by the ‘plain error’ standard , ” United States v. Yijun Zhou , 838 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 2016) , the district court did not plainly err in determining that
Gomez was a career offender.
AFFIRMED
.
STATE of North Carolina v. Gregory Lewis WILLIAMS.

No. COA15-1076.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 17, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Remanded for resentencing.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00849-CV

Craig Erich HEILMANN,

Appellant

v.

Deanna Rae HEILMANN,

Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2000-CI-02542

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding1

BEFORE JUSTICE CHAPA, JUSTICE RIOS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, the appellant’s motion 

for rehearing is DENIED, and our August 5, 2020 opinion and judgment are withdrawn. The trial 

court’s August 30, 2018 final order and its October 19, 2018 amended order for turnover relief are 

AFFIRMED. The costs of this appeal are taxed against the appellant.

SIGNED October 28, 2020.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

1

The Honorable Laura Salinas signed the final order, and the Honorable John Gabriel signed both the turnover order 

and the amended order for turnover relief.
* 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. 07-20942

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

WALTER MARTINEZ-MALGAR

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-281-1

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Walter MartinezMalgar has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Martinez-Malgar has not filed a

response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 22, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
STATE of North Carolina v. Jesus Adan Cruz RIOS

No. COA17-249

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 15, 2017

AFFIRMED.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00600-CR

Ryan Tony Davis, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LAMPASAS COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 7975, HONORABLE C. W. DUNCAN JR., JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Ryan Tony Davis appeals a judgment of conviction for burglary. In a previous

opinion dated June 13, 2008, we overruled appellant’s first issue, by which he contended that the

trial court abused its discretion by overruling his motion for mistrial, but partially sustained

appellant’s second and remaining issue, by which he contended that the trial court’s restitution

order was not supported by the record. We abated the appeal for a restitution hearing and directed

the trial court to prepare and file findings of fact and conclusions of law specifying to whom and

in what amount restitution is to be made. See Barrera v. State, No. PD-1642-07 (Tex. Crim. App.

Sept. 10, 2008) (reaffirming authorities relied on in our earlier opinion).

A supplemental record has been filed containing the reporter’s record of the

restitution hearing and a clerk’s record containing the trial court’s findings and conclusions. The

clerk’s record also contains a copy of a reformed judgment of conviction specifying, consistent
2

with the trial court’s findings, that appellant is to pay $5,000 in restitution to the Lampasas

Independent School District and $24,419.20 in restitution to the Texas Association of School Boards

Insurance Company.

We have examined the testimony at the restitution hearing and find that it supports

the trial court’s findings and conclusions. At the hearing, appellant’s counsel stated that he had

no objections to the findings. Having been given thirty days to do so, counsel has not filed a

supplemental brief.

We conclude that appellant’s second issue was properly resolved by the trial court

following abatement. There being no further issues raised by appellant, the reformed judgment of

conviction is affirmed.

___________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Henson

Affirmed

Filed: September 26, 2008

Do Not Publish
# C_2010100EN.01003902.xml

| 17.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/39

---

Order of the General Court of 4 February 2010 — Crunch Fitness International v OHIM — ILG (CRUNCH)

(Case T-408/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Revocation - Withdrawal of the request for revocation - No need to adjudicate)

2010/C 100/61

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Crunch Fitness International, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: initially J. Barry, Solicitor, and subsequently H. Johnson, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Laitinen and D. Botis, Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: ILG Ltd (Dun Laoghaire, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 August 2007 (Case R 1168/2005-4) relating to revocation proceedings between ILG Ltd and Crunch Fitness International Inc.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to rule on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to rule on the action.

| 2. | The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 8, of 12.1.2008.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael SHERIDAN

No. 82P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

Michael Sheridan, for Sheridan, Michael.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 10th of March 2017 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Wake County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."
Exhibit 23
<PAGE>


                CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

     We have  issued  our  report  dated  January  13,  2000,  accompanying  the
consolidated  financial  statements and schedules  incorporated  by reference or
included in the Annual Report of TF Financial  Corporation  and  Subsidiaries on
Form  10-K for the year  ended  December  31,  1999.  We hereby  consent  to the
incorporation by reference of said report in the  Registration  Statements of TF
Financial Corporation and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File No. 33-87176, effective
December  7, 1994,  File No.  333-09235,  effective  July 31,  1996 and File No.
333-27085, effective May 14, 1997).


/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 24, 2000
Catawba County, et al. v. Loggins

152PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

J. David Abernethy, Attorney at Law, David W. Hood, Attorney at Law, Hickory, for Catawba County (by and through its Child Support Agency), et al.

Blair E. Cody, III, Attorney at Law, Hickory, for Loggins, Jason.

John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General, Gerald K. Robbins, Special Deputy Attorney General, Benjamin J. Kull, Assistant Attorney General, for N.C. Department of Health and Human Services.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of May 2016 by NC Department of Health and Human Services for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of September 2016."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within *208the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).