alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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. 05-19-00233-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 Nos. 069973, 069975, 069976, 069977 & 069796

ORDER

We REINSTATE these appeals. 

We abated the appeals for the trial 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 ADOPT 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(e)(2).
–2–

We DIRECT the Clerk 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/ BILL PEDERSEN, III 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 31.1 

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Curtis W. Mewbourne, Chief Executive Officer of Mewbourne Development Corporation, Managing General Partner of Mewbourne Energy Partners 05-A, L.P.(the “Registrant”), certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of Mewbourne Energy Partners 05-A, L.P. 

 

2. Based on myknowledge, 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on myknowledge, 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, theperiods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying 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 materialinformation 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 thisquarterly 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’sauditors 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 internalcontrols; and 

 

6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I haveindicated 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 anycorrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. 

 

Date: November 14, 2005
# C_2009113EN.01000701.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 March 2009 — Antartica Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), The Nasdaq Stock Market Inc.

(Case C-320/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(5) - Refusal to register - Earlier trade mark of repute NASDAQ - Figurative sign ‘nasdaq’ - Use of the earlier mark for goods and services allegedly offered free of charge - Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark - Relevant public)

2009/C 113/12

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Antartica Srl (represented by: E. Racca and A. Fusillo, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), The Nasdaq Stock Market Inc. (represented by: J. van Manen and J. Hofhuis, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 May 2007 in Case T-47/06 Antartica v OHIM by which that Court dismissed as unfounded an action brought by the applicant for registration of the figurative trade mark ‘nasdaq’ in respect of goods in Classes 9, 12, 14, 25 and 28 against Decision R752/2004-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 December 2005 setting aside the Opposition Division’s decision which rejected the opposition brought by the proprietor of the Community and national word marks ‘NASDAQ’ in respect of goods in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 and 42 — Interpretation of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

Antartica

OHIM

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Antartica Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Antartica Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

1

---
----

(2004/C 88 E/0124)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2854/03

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 September 2003)

Subject:   The MEDA Programme and women

At the part-session in February 2003 I tabled a question about the implementation of the First Regional Programme for the participation of women in economic and social life and development. Commissioner Christopher Patten assured me that it would be launched in 2004, since the identification and preparatory phase would end in April or May 2003.

In view of the above, will the Commission explain the reasons for this delay? Exactly what stage has been reached in drawing up the programme, since no invitations for the submission of proposals have yet been published? Will invitations for the submission of proposals be published forthwith so that the programme can be launched in 2004, as scheduled?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2003)

The identification/formulation phase which determines the priority areas of co-operation to be addressed in the course of the implementation of this important regional programme aiming at enhancing women's participation in the economic development of the MEDA region started in December 2002 and was completed in August 2003.

The next step consists of presenting the programme to the MED Committee. Once the decision is adopted (we anticipate it for the first quarter 2004), the call for proposals will be duly issued.

The information will be available on the EuropeAid Web site: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/tender/index_en.htm).

----
#### Shavar SIDERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D03-945.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 19, 2003.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Rebecca M. Becker, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See State v. Causey,*503 So.2d 321 (Fla.1987).

THOMPSON, PLEUS and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Order entered February 25, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-01051-CV

LEONARD M. CHERMACK AND JANET CHERMACK, Appellants

V.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE COMPANY LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 471st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 471-03076-2017

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants’ unopposed motion to extend time to file their 

brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no later than March 

8, 2021.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
# C_2008247EN.01001201.xml

| 27.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/12

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 18 June 2008 — Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission

(Case T-475/07 R)

(Application for interim relief - Directive 91/414/EEC - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Admissibility - No urgency)

(2008/C 247/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Dow AgroSciences Ltd (Hitchin, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom); Dow AgroSciences LLC (Indianapolis, Indiana, United States); Dow AgroSciences (Mougins, France); Dow AgroSciences Export (Mougins); Dow AgroSciences BV (Hoek, Netherlands); Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft (Budapest, Hungary); Dow AgroSciences Italia Srl (Milan, Italy); Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland); Dow AgroSciences Iberica, SA (Madrid, Spain); Dow AgroSciences s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic); Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S (Kongens Lyngby, Denmark); Dow AgroSciences GmbH (Munich, Germany); Dintec Agroquímica — Produtos Químicos, Lda (Funchal, Madeira, Portugal); Finchimica SpA (Brescia, Italy); (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Doherty and L. Parpala, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision 2007/629/EC of 20 September 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of trifluralin in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2007 L 255, p. 42), until delivery of the judgment in the main proceedings.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.0

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT

The Board of Directors
Coherent Communications
Systems Corporation

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No.
33-86612) on Form S-8 and the Registration Statement (No. 33-86620) on Form S-8
of Coherent Communications Systems Corporation of our report dated January 23,
1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Coherent Communications
Systems Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the
related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows
for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997, and the
related financial statement schedule II, which report appears in the December
31, 1997, annual report on Form 10-K of Coherent Communications Systems
Corporation.

                                          KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

McLean, Virginia
March 23, 1998
<PAGE>   1



                                  EXHIBIT 12.1

    STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES(1)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           Year        Year       Year        Year     Mar. 18,    Jan. 1,      Year
                                           Ended      Ended       Ended      Ended      1994 -      1994 -      Ended
                                         Dec. 31,    Dec. 31,   Dec. 31,    Dec. 31,   Dec. 31,    Mar. 17,   Dec. 31,
                                           1998        1997       1996        1995       1994        1994       1993
                                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<S>                                      <C>      <C>          <C>         <C>         <C>        <C>        <C>     
 Income (loss) before income taxes       $ 5,279  $  (6,218)   $ 11,969    $ 6,923     $ 9,585    $ 2,857    $ 13,169


 Interest                                                                                                     
                                           8,896      9,091       9,517      9,607       6,867        115         924


 Interest portion of rental expense                                                                           
                                             673        646         714        645         237         24         398


 Amortization of debt expenses                                                                                
                                             473        456         376        376         264          -           -
                                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Earnings                               $ 15,321    $ 3,975    $ 22,576   $ 17,551    $ 16,953    $ 2,996    $ 14,491
                                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Fixed charges                          $ 10,042   $ 10,193    $ 10,607   $ 10,628     $ 7,368     $  139     $ 1,322
                                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Ratio                                                                                                        
                                             1.5        0.4         2.1        1.7         2.3       21.6        11.0
                                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>



 (1)    All dollars in thousands.
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 ICP
Solar Technologies Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
October
31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Sass Peress, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

/s/ Sass Peress------------------------------- 
Sass Peress 
Chief Executive Officer 
December 15, 2008

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request. The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's
Form 10-Q solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States
Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate
disclosure document.

---
Kelly Lee Burris BOLDON, Plaintiff, v. David Michael BOLDON, Defendant.

No. COA17-170

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 17, 2017

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 10.1.7

                         CONSUMER REPORT USER AGREEMENT
                       ADDENDUM FOR STAFFING RELATED FIRMS


                                      Terms


Avert Customer #  ________________

Company Name (as it appears on User Agreement) _________________________________

     In addition to the standard 'Terms of the Consumer Report User  Agreement',
     User certifies and agrees:

          *    To use the  Avert  service  for the sole  purpose  of  performing
               pre-employment   screening   background   checks  on  individuals
               applying for employment with User

          *    Not to resell any aspect of the Avert service to User's clients

          *    To recognize that Avert may review User's  Subscription Fee every
               30 days to  identify  whether  User's  usage  exceeds 50% (yearly
               applicants screened/current number of employees)

          *    To  recognize  that if User's usage  exceeds 50%,  then Avert may
               increase User's  Subscription Fee (this clause  supercedes clause
               #18 on the standard Consumer Report User Agreement)

          *    To pay for services via direct debit method


     *    To complete account set up, Avert,  Inc. will need to receive a signed
          copy of the  standard  Consumer  Report User  Agreement in addition to
          this signed Addendum.




     -----------------------------------------------------------------------
     User Authorized Signature             Title                        Date


     -----------------------------------------------------------------------
     Avert Authorized Signature            Title                        Date

                                                 ADP Staffing Related Industries
Slip Op. 08 - 116

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

 

 :

UNITED STATES, :

 :

 Plaintiff, :

 :

 v. : Before: MUSGRAVE, Senior Judge

 : Court No. 04-00382

AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY :

CO., CHENG TENG, CARLOS PASERA, :

and M&T PROGRESSIONS, :

 :

 Defendants. :

 :

JUDGMENT

Upon consideration of plaintiff’s amended motion for default judgment and the lack of any

response from the remaining defendants to the Court’s Order to Show Cause dated September 12,

2008, it is hereby 

ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff The United States against

defendants Cheng Teng, Carlos Pasera, and M&T Progressions, jointly and severally, for

antidumping duties in the amount of $23,164.88, plus penalties in the amount of $553,713 pursuant

to 19 U.S.C. § 1592(c)(1), plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest in the amount(s) established

by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1961(a) and (b).

 /s/ R. Kenton Musgrave 

 R. KENTON MUSGRAVE, Senior Judge

Dated: October 22, 2008

New York, New York
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Aames Investment Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, A. Jay Meyerson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Jon D. Van Deuren., Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1359, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



1. This report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 results of operations of the Company. this report is being prepared;



Dated: August 15, 2005:



/s/ A. Jay MeyersonA. Jay MeyersonChairman and Chief Executive Officer




Dated: August 15, 2005:



/s/ Jon D. Van DeurenJon D. Van DeurenChief Financial Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Talib Ali MUHAMMAD

No. 122P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Anne Bleyman, Attorney at Law, for Muhammad, Talib Ali.

Robert M. Curran, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 11th of April 2017 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

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

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th of April 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 17th of August 2017."
**Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 June 2008 – Commission v France**

**(Case C‐507/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 –Industrial and commercial property – Community designs – Article 80(2) – Failure to communicate the list of courts and tribunals

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 7)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1) – Failure to communicate the list, referred to in Article 80(2) of the regulation, of Community design courts, indicating their names and their territorial jurisdiction. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by not communicating to the Commission of the European Communities the list of Community design courts, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 80(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |