alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-01-0497-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

APRIL15, 2002

______________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF SAMUEL KAHN, A CHILD

_________________________________

FROM THE 72ND DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 93-542,429; HONORABLE J. BLAIR CHERRY, JR., JUDGE

_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

Appellant Robert Alan Kahn perfected an appeal from the trial court’s order denying

his motion for clarification and enforcement of a prior order regarding conservatorship of

Samuel Kahn. Pending before this Court is Kahn’s motion to dismiss this appeal by which

he represents that he no longer wishes to prosecute the matter because an agreed order

has been entered below. We grant his motion and dismiss the appeal

Without passing on the merits of the case, appellant’s request is granted and the

appeal is hereby dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2). Having dismissed the appeal
2

at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will

issue forthwith.

Don H. Reavis

 Justice

Do not publish.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 MAY 4, 2010

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-14726

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 09-00089-CR-ORL-22-KRS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILBER MARROQUIN-TORRES,

a.k.a. Israel Marroquin-Torres,

a.k.a. Roberto Chang,

a.k.a. Wilbert Marroquin-Torres,

a.k.a. Jorge Oritz-Barrera,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(May 4, 2010)

Before CARNES, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Craig L. Crawford, appointed counsel for Wilber Marroquin-Torres in this

direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Marroquin-Torres’s conviction

and sentence are AFFIRMED.

2
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 Innocap, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Tidwell, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  /s/ Paul Tidwell Paul Tidwell Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  June 27, 2011
Exhibit 14.3





SALLES, SAINZ – GRANT THORNTON, S.C.





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Form F-3 (No. 333-111019, 333-119998, 333-126257, 333-143399) and related Prospectus and on Form S-8 (No. 333-118897, 333-113420, 333-141306, 333-139717) pertaining to the Employees' Stock Option Plan of Pointer Telocation Ltd., of our report dated January 25, 2008, with respect to the financial statements of Pointer Recuperación de México, S.A de C.V, included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) of Pointer Telocation Ltd., for the year ended December 31, 2010, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.





/s/ SALLES, SAINZ – GRANT THORNTON,

S.C.

By Rogelio Avalos, CPA





Mexico City, Mexico


March 29, 2011
Exhibit 32.01

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Steven L.
Basta, Chief Executive Officer of BioForm Medical, Inc. (the Company), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, hereby certifies that:



|(i) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 of the Company (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  |                        
|------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                   |  |  | 
|Date: MAY 13, 2009 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ STEVEN L. BASTA
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  | STEVEN L. BASTA        
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  | Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-60122 Summary Calendar

KENNETH MARSH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

V.

ITO CORPORATION; INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION, Local 1303;

DONALD EVANS, President,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

(1:97-CV-531-GR)

September 23, 1999 Before JOLLY, EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Kenneth Marsh, plaintiff-appellant, appeals the decision of
the district court granting summary judgment in favor of
defendants-appellees ITO Corporation, International Longshoremen’s

Association (the Union) and Donald Evans, the Union presi dent.

Marsh filed suit against ITO Corporation, the Union and Evans
alleging discrimination ba sed on disability in violation of the2

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. , and against the Union and Evans alleging breach of the duty of fair
representation under the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §
185(a). We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs and

find no reversible error. We AFFIRM for essentially the same

reasons stated by the district court in its final judgment. M arsh
v. ITO Corporation , No. 1:97-CV-531GR (S.D. Miss. Jan. 19, 1999).
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00403-CV

Chris GRIFFIN d/b/a America Homes and Ranches, and Carol Griffin,

Appellants

v.

Jo Anne ENGLISH, Ralph English, and The Integrity Team, LLC,

Appellees

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 08-483-B

Honorable Emil Karl Prohl, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 24, 2008

DISMISSED

Appellants have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, and appellees do not oppose the

dismissal. Therefore, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellants.

PER CURIAM
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 01-31102 Summary Calendar

_____________________

PATRICIA A. CADE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, WILLIAM HENDERSON, Post Master General; SCIALLA ASSOCIATES; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POSTAL SUPERVISORS,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(01-CV-943-E)

--------------------- June 27, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellant Patricia A. Cade, formerly a postal

employee, appeals the district court’s di smissal pursuant to

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Specifically, the court ruled that all claims in the instant suit

other than racial discrimination are identical to the claims, and

are asserted against identical parties, as in her prior action and

thus are s ubject to dismissal under the doctrines of collateral2

estoppel or issue preclusion. The court held further that the one

claim newly asserted in this action, racial discrimination, should

be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

We have carefully revi ewed the record in this case, the

comprehensive Order and Reasons of the district court, and the

appellate briefs of the respective parties. As a result of our d e

novo review of the district court’s dismissal of Cade’s actions, we

conclude that the rulings of the district court are correct in all

respects, and we affirm for essentially the same reasons expressed

by that court.

AFFIRMED.
STATE v. Judy HARDISON.

No. 387P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 23, 2015.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of November 2015 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd of November 2015."
In the MATTERS OF: A.C., N.B., P.B., R.B., B.B., S.B.

No. COA17-181

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 1, 2017

AFFIRMED IN PART. REVERSED IN PART. REMANDED.
CHANDLER v. ATLANTIC SCRAP AND PROCESSING, et al.

No. 35PA12-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 6, 2016.

Daniel S. Walden, Winston-Salem, for Chandler, Connie.

M. Duane Jones, Charlotte, for Atlantic Scrap and Processing, et al.

Hatcher B. Kincheloe, Charlotte, for Atlantic Scrap And Processing, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of January 2016 by Defendant-Appellants for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th of January 2016."
Tony A. Hawkins v. Earnest R. Sutton, Superintendent

No. 387P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Mr. Tony A. Hawkins, Pro Se.

Mr. Tom Horner, District Attorney, For State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 14th of October 2016 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wilkes County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-14-00238-CR

MARSHALL DESHUN PARKER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 71st District Court

Harrison County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-0417X

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
2

O R D E R

Our review of the clerk’s record in this case indicates that this record contains “sensitive 

data” as that phrase is defined in Rule 9.10 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 9.10(a). Sensitive data includes “a driver’s license number, passport number, social 

security number, tax identification number or similar government-issued personal identification 

number.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(a)(1). The clerk’s record contains the appellant’s social security 

number. Rule 9.10(b) states, “Unless a court orders otherwise, an electronic or paper filing with 

the court, including the contents of any appendices, must not contain sensitive data.” TEX. R. APP.

P. 9.10(b).

Rule 9.10(f) provides, “A court may also order that a document be filed under seal in paper 

form or electronic form, without redaction.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(f). Therefore, because the 

clerk’s record contains sensitive data, we order the clerk of this Court or her appointee, in 

accordance with Rule 9.10(f), to seal the electronically-clerk’s record in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: May 28, 2015
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

A BUDGET TREE SERVICE, INC., 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D22-433

LT Case No. 2020-SC-042279-O

JOSEPH VALIN, 

 Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed November 22, 2022

Appeal from the County Court

for Orange County, 

Amy J. Carter, Judge.

Lisa C. McCrystal, of Wharton Law 

Group, P.A., Oviedo, for Appellant. 

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

SASSO, TRAVER and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-1198 

ABBOTT LABORATORIES and 

ABBOTT CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC. 

(formerly known as Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.), 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

JOHNSON AND JOHNSON, INC. 

and CORDIS CORPORATION, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

Leland G. Hansen, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd., of Chicago, Illinois, argued 

for plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief were Edward A. Mas, II, James M. 

Hafertepe, and Stephanie F. Pall. 

Constantine L. Trela, Jr., Sidley Austin LLP, of Chicago, Illinois, argued for 

defendants-appellees. With him on the brief were David T. Pritikin, Russell E. Cass, 

and Andrew R. Hein. 

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

Judge Sue L. Robinson 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 2008-1198 

ABBOTT LABORATORIES and 

ABBOTT CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC., 

(formerly know as Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.), 

 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

JOHNSON AND JOHNSON, INC. 

and CORDIS CORPORATION, 

 Defendants-Appellees, 

 Judgment

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

in CASE NO(S). 06-CV-613 and 07-CV-259 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam (NEWMAN, MAYER, and LOURIE, Circuit Judges). 

 AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

DATED: October 20, 2008 / s /Jan Horbaly

 Jan Horbaly, Clerk
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATIONS I, Curtis W. Mewbourne, Chief Executive Officer of Mewbourne Development
Corporation, Managing General Partner of Mewbourne Energy Partners 04-A, L.P.
(the Registrant), certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mewbourne Energy
Partners 04-A, L.P. 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant is made known to us
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
prepared; (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and

(c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; 5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function): (a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
controls; and 6. The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date or our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. Date: November 11, 2004 /s/ Curtis W. MewbourneCurtis W. MewbourneChief Executive Officer
Mewbourne Development Corporation,
Managing General Partner of the Registrant 13
STATE of North Carolina v. Napoleon Richard COOPER

No. 30P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

Marilyn G. Ozer, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Cooper, Napoleon Richard.

Isham F. Hicks, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jon David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th of January 2017 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."
STATE of North Carolina v. Darryl Anthony HOWARD

No. 285P97-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 31, 2016

James P. Cooney, III, Attorney at Law, Charlotte.

Barry C. Scheck, Seema Saifee, Attorney at Law, for Howard, Darryl Anthony.

Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, Roger A. Echols, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 16th of July 2014 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 31st of August 2016."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of July 2014 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Ex Mero Motu, Dissolved nunc protunc by order of the Court in conference, this the 31st of August 2016."
STATE v. Dwain Cornelius FERRELL

407P14-5

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Dwain Cornelius Ferrell, for Ferrell, Dwain Cornelius.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*299The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 31st of January 2017 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."
#### Isaiah Leffand, Doing Business as Century Restaurant Equipment Company, Appellant, *v.*Fulton Systems, Inc., Respondent.*

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

June 28, 1943.

*1042
      *Louis 1. Fabricant*for appellant.

*Raphael E. Rhodes*for respondent.

See, also, *Leffand*v. *Fulton Systems, Inc.,*180 Misc. 1042 and *Leffand*v. Schwartz, 180 Misc. 709. — [Rep.

Memoeandum *Per Curiam.*

The court below, having found defendant corporation guilty of contempt, erred in denying the motion to punish its president who knew about the stay of execution and who signed the petition filed in the Federal court.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs, and motion granted, and matter remitted to the court below for further proceedings.

Hammeb, Shientag and Hecht, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10392 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARCEL EZE, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:97-CR-290-ALL-X

- - - - - - - - - - February 22, 1999 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Marcel Aghajiuba Eze challenges his conviction of possession with intent to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(B). He asserts that the district court erred in giving the jury an instruction on deliberate ignorance and by admitting over objection evidence of other packages he had received from Thailand. The district court did not err by instructing the jury on deliberate ignorance. Sufficient evidence existed to support the conclusion that Eze was subjectively aware that he was involvedNo. 98-10392 -2- in an ongoing scheme to smuggle drugs into the United States. See United States v. Scott , 159 F.3d 916, 922 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Posada-Rios , 158 F.3d 832, 875 (5th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, the evidence of the other packages Eze had received from Thailand was relevant to the charge of deliberate ignorance. The district court thus did not abuse its discretion in admitting it. See United States v. Torres , 114 F.3d 520, 526 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 316 (1997); United States v. Beechum , 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc). AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6780

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

VASSEL MCFADDEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (2:01-cr-00176-RBS-1)

Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: September 17, 2008

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vassel McFadden, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant

United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Vassel McFadden appeals the district court’s order

denying his 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582 (West 2000 & Supp. 2008) motion for

reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. United States v. McFadden, No.

2:01-cr-00176-RBS-1 (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 9, 2008 & entered Apr. 15,

2008). 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
Kaleb Lee ROBERTS, Plaintiff, v. MARS HILL UNIVERSITY, the Board of Trustees of Mars Hill University, Defendants.

No. COA16-1093

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 5, 2017

AFFIRMED.