alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-08-00493-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

DAVID LUCIO MARTINEZ, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE.

On Appeal from the 156th District Court 

of Bee County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yanez, Garza and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, David Lucio Martinez, attempts to appeal his conviction. The trial court

has certified that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.”

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
2

On August 22, 2008, this Court notified appellant’s counsel of the trial court’s

certification and ordered counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether appellant

has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings as to

whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the

existence of any amended certification.

On September 25, 2008, counsel filed a letter brief with this Court. Counsel’s

response does not establish that the certification currently on file with this Court is incorrect

or that appellant otherwise has a right to appeal. 

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed

if the trial court’s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of appeal.

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); see TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, this appeal is

DISMISSED. Any pending motions are denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered 

and filed this the 23rd day of October, 2008.
---

Loan Agreement

Between

Clyvia Technology GmbH Friedrich-List-Allee 10 41844
Wegberg-Wildenrath

- in the following referred to as Clyvia -

a n d

BTec Holding AG Rheinweg 1 8200 Schaffhausen
Switzerland

- in the following referred to as BTec -

Preamble

Clyvia has developed a plant for depolymerisation. In view of
Clyvias need for capital, the parties enter into the following agreement.

1.

[Handwriting: received 16/06/08] BTec grants Clyvia a loan in the
amount of EUR 16.000,00 (in words: sixteen thousand Euro). Clyvia hereby
confirms receipt.

2.

The loan is paid into the account of Clyvia Technology GmbH,
Wegberg-Wildenrath.

3.

Interest on the loan is 10% per annum of the loan amount.

[Initials                
 Initials]

Page 1 of 2

---

4. The loan may be cancelled with a term of one month prior
to the month end, however not before the end of the 90th calendar-day
after the full loan amount has been received in the account named in item 2.

5. Clyvia is entitled to repay the loan including interest
to BTecs account at any time without the requirement of providing termination
notice.

6. To secure the loan Inventa assigns BTec 98,000 (in
words: ninety eight thousand) shares in Clyvia Inc., USA. BTec is entitled to
freely sell the shares in their entirety or in part if Inventa does not repay
the loan amount or does not pay the entire amount including interest, otherwise
BTec is required to return them to Inventa.

7. This contract is exclusively subject to the law of the
Federal Republic of Germany with the exception for the UN convention on
contracts for the International sale of goods.

8. All disputes, which arise out of or in connection with
this agreement will be settled conclusively according to the rules of
arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) according to the
version effective at the time of the arbitration proceeding by one or more
appointed arbitrators according to these rules of arbitration excluding the
jurisdiction of a court. The arbitrational tribunal may also come to a binding
decision in regards to the validity of this arbitration agreement.

The place of the arbitration proceeding is Zurich.

In addition to the ICC rules as well as the binding other
regulations, German law applies for the arbitrational proceeding.

The parties agree on German as the language to be used in the
arbitrational proceeding.



Wegberg, dated June 16, 2008



|[Signature]            |  | [Signature]                 
|---------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|Clyvia Technology GmbH |  | BTec Holding AG             
|Dieter Wagels          |  | C. Stampfli Dr. Niederbacher

Page 2 of 2

---
In the MATTER OF: K.D.

No. COA16-546

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 15, 2016

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.
#- 

### J?4j±J_i?JZg ^T0FCR1M,NAUPPEALS ,Gfer*c hcJim 

### ^ $/>*/*£>/a- /id**? ~jU*/./ty rrn 5^ [m^/w^ Jwc VSi!^ eVieA^-A^ktJt^J^ ^oJ-jfiooSj^WitoJ-JL^ £^2s

r CJ92ZC*/3 7tiCX2& X5&& 

### LLf/OdUfk; (JSUsT T •foft z Ml*? *£.?7 GtLsio &s_22t
In the MATTER OF: J.M.

No. COA17-1413

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 17, 2018

DISMISSED.
Anthony M. KYLES, Employee, Plaintiff, v. The GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., Employer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Carrier, Defendants.

No. COA17-594

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 7, 2017

AFFIRMED IN PART. REMANDED.
**Exhibit 12.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Eduardo Navarro de Carvalho, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Telefônica Brasil S.A.;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.  The Company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:

a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.   designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c.   evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

d.   disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.  The Company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a.   all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

----
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4296 

To amend Public Law 94–241 with respect to the Northern Mariana Islands. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 25, 2014 

Mr. SABLAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on the 

Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend Public Law 94–241 with respect to the Northern 

Mariana Islands. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS. 

4 Public Law 94–241 (90 Stat. 263; 122 Stat. 854) 

5 is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ‘‘December 

7 31, 2014, except as provided in subsections (b) and 

8 (d)’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2019’’; and 

9 (2) in subsection (d)— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4296 IH

1 (A) in the third sentence of paragraph (2), 

2 by striking ‘‘not to extend beyond December 31, 

3 2014, unless extended pursuant to paragraph 5 

4 of this subsection’’ and inserting ‘‘ending on 

5 December 31, 2019’’; 

6 (B) by striking paragraph (5); and 

7 (C) by redesignating paragraph (6) as 

8 paragraph (5). 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                     EXHIBIT 8.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2003

1) DIRECT INTEREST

<Table>
<Caption>
NAME OF THE COMPANY                       PLACE OF INCORPORATION            COUNTRY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                       <C>                               <C>
Telegoias Celular S/A                     Goiania                           Brazil
Telems Celular S/A                        Campo Grande                      Brazil
Telemat Celular S/A                       Cuiaba                            Brazil
Teleron Celular S/A                       Porto Velho                       Brazil
Teleacre Celular S/A                      Rio Branco                        Brazil
Norte Brasil Telecon S/A                  Belem                             Brazil
TCO IP S/A                                Brasilia                          Brazil
</Table>
MMC 06.30.2014 10Q Ex_10.6

















Exhibit 10.6


June 6, 2014


Alexander Moczarski
[Address]
[City, State, Zip Code]


Subject:    Terms of Employment




Dear Alex:


This amendment to the Letter Agreement, dated November 21, 2013, between you and Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (the “2013 Letter Agreement”) revises the terms and conditions of your employment by Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. The 2013 Letter Agreement will continue to govern your employment, except as specified below, effective as of May 14, 2014:


		
	1.
	Exhibit A to the 2013 Letter Agreement shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety with the attached Exhibit A.




Please acknowledge your agreement with the terms of this letter agreement by signing and dating below and the enclosed copy and returning one executed document to me on or before June 20, 2014.


Sincerely,




/s/ Daniel S. Glaser
Daniel S. Glaser
President and Chief Executive Officer
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.






Accepted and Agreed:




/s/ Alexander Moczarski        
(Signature)        




June 11, 2014                
(Date)









June 6, 2014
Alexander Moczarski
Page 2


Exhibit A




 
	
		
	Board or Committee Memberships
	•    British-American Business Association (BABA)
•    International Insurance Society (IIS)
•    Bayard

	Annual Base Salary
	$800,000

	Annual Target Bonus Opportunity
	Bonus awards are discretionary. Anticipated target bonus of $1,500,000 commencing with the 2013 performance year (awarded in 2014). Actual bonus may range from  0% - 200% of target, based on achievement of individual performance objectives, Guy Carpenter’s performance and/or Marsh & McLennan Companies’ performance as Marsh & McLennan Companies may establish from time to time.

	Annual Target Long Term Incentive Opportunity
	Long-term incentive awards are discretionary. Anticipated target grant date fair value of $1,500,000, commencing with the award made in 2015.
STATE of North Carolina v. Brandon MALONE

No. 379A17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Paul M. Green, Assistant Appellant Defender, for Malone, Brandon.

Jess D. Mekeel, Assistant Attorney General, Patrick Nadolski, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 9th of November 2017 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by State of NC on the 11th of December 2017 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."
STATE of North Carolina v. Albert Deshawn DENT

No. COA17-857

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 20, 2018

NO ERROR AT TRIAL; REMAND FOR RE-SENTENCING IN 15 CRS 206387.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**477 CA 15-01381**  PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

C. TANISHA BURT, CLAIMANT-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

STATE OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (CLAIM NO. 116197.) (APPEAL NO. 2.)

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (OWEN DEMUTH OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DIFILIPPO, FLAHERTY & STEINHAUS, PLLC, EAST AURORA (ROBERT D. STEINHAUS OF COUNSEL), FOR CLAIMANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Michael E. Hudson, J.), entered November 6, 2014. The interlocutory judgment apportioned liability and ordered a trial on the issue of damages.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at the Court of Claims.

Entered: June 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Order entered January 2, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01063-CV

DOUBLE DIAMOND-DELAWARE, INC., ET AL., Appellants

V.

JEANETTE ALFONSO, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-16333

ORDER

So that the Court may determine whether it has jurisdiction over this appeal, we ORDER

Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre to file, no later than January 14, 2018, a supplemental 

clerk’s record containing a copy of (1) “Certain Defendants’ Verified Second Amended 

Answer;” (2) “Double Diamond Defendants’ Second Amended and Supplemental Answer, 

Verified Plea, Affirmative Defenses, and Counter-Claim;” (3) “Trial Plaintiff’s Notice of Partial 

Non-Suit without Prejudice as to Certain Parties and Claims;” and, (4) “Nelia Vicente’s Notice 

of Partial Nonsuit without Prejudice as to Certain Parties and Claims.” If any of these 

documents cannot be located, Ms. Pitre shall state so in writing. 

Until the Court determines its jurisdiction, the deadline for filing appellants’ brief is 

suspended. 
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Pitre and the 

parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCPW-10-0000049 

09-NOV-2010 

12:42 PM 

NO. SCPW-10-0000049
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I 

PATRICK W. O'BRIEN, Petitioner,
 

vs.


 THE HONORABLE R. MARK BROWNING, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT


OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT; ISLAND MOVERS, INC.; DUSTIN ZAMORA;


HENDERSON GALLAGHER & KANE; JOHN R. WIENOLD; DEPARTMENT OF


VETERAN'S AFFAIRS; and TRIPLER ARMY MEDICAL CENTER,


Respondents.
 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
 

(CIVIL NO. 08-1-1740-08)
 

ORDER
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.


and Circuit Judge Alm, assigned by reason of vacancy)
 

Upon consideration of petitioner Patrick W. O'Brien's 

"Complaint of Crimes, Misconduct, Discrimination, and Toleration 

of Wrongdoings," which is deemed a petition for a writ of 

prohibition, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate a 

clear and disputable right to relief. Therefore, petitioner is 

not entitled to extraordinary relief. See HRS § 602-5(3) (Supp. 

2009) ("The supreme court shall have jurisdiction and power . . . 

to exercise original jurisdiction in all questions arising under 

writs directed to courts of inferior jurisdiction and returnable 

before the supreme court."); Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204, 

982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of prohibition is an 

extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner 
demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack
 

of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or
 

obtain the requested action.). Accordingly,
 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate
 

court shall process the petition for a writ of prohibition
 

without payment of the filing fee.
 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of 

prohibition is denied. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, November 9, 2010. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
 

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
 

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. 


/s/ Steven S. Alm
 

2
#### US INSURANCE AGENCIES CO., et al., Appellants, v. G.H. STORY & COMPANY, INC., and Girard H. Story, Appellees.

No. 5D02-2542.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 15, 2003.

Carlos R. Diez-Arguelles of Attorneys Trial Group, Orlando, for Appellant.

John G. Pierce of John G. Pierce, P. A., Orlando, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

U.S. Insurance Agencies Co. and Paul W. Smith, Jr. appeal an adverse judgment in favor of G.H. Story *&*Company, Inc., and Girard H. Story. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the final judgment is supported by competent, substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN, ORFINGER and MONACO, JJ., concur.
STATE v. Daniel LUNA

406P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Daniel Luna, for Luna, Daniel.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ben R. David, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of November 2017 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."
#### In re GEORGESON SHAREHOLDER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., SHARE EXCHANGE LITIGATION Lila T. Gavin v. AT & T Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1:01-2721 Allan H. Starr, etc. v. Georgeson Shareholder, Inc., et al., S.D. New York, C.A. No. 1:02-8921 Allan H. Starr, etc. v. Georgeson Shareholder, Inc., et al., S.D. New York, C.A. No. 1:03-1163 James L. Jerome v. Georgeson Shareholder, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:03-1822

No. 1548.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Aug. 11, 2003.

Before WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman, JOHN F. KEENAN,* BRUCE M. SELYA, JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, D. LOWELL JENSEN, J. FREDERICK MOTZ and ROBERT L. MILLER, Jr., Judges of the Panel.

*

 Judge Keenan took no part in the decision of this matter.

*ORDER DENYING TRANSFER*

WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation consists of four actions pending in two districts as follows: three actions in the Southern District of New York, and one action in the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiff in the Illinois action moves the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. All responding parties oppose transfer. They are: i) common defendants Georgeson Shareholder Communications Inc. and Georgeson Shareholders Securities Corp. (collectively, Georgeson); ii) AT & T Corp. (the co-defendant in the Illinois action and in two of the three New York actions); iii) Vodafone Group PLC (the codefendant in the third New York action); and iv) Allan H. Starr (the plaintiff in two of the three New York actions). If the Panel orders centralization over their objections, then the Georgeson defendants, AT & T and plaintiff Starr would support selection of the Southern District of New York as transferee district.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that Section 1407 centralization would neither serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Movants have failed to persuade us that any common questions of fact and law in this docket are sufficiently complex, unresolved and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer. *1373We point out that alternatives to transfer exist that can minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings. *See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Company (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation,*446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1978). *See also Manual for Complex Litigation, Third,*§ 31.14 (1995).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these four actions is denied.
(109 So. 472)

No. 28024.

#### STATE v. FIFE et al.

(June 28, 1926.)

*(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)*

Criminal law <&wkey;|020.

Where fine imposed for practicing medicine without license does not exceed $300, and imprisonment does not exceed 6 months, and constitutionality of Act No. 56 of 1914, as amended by Act No. 54 of 1918, was maintained by lower court, Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over case, in view of Const, art. 7, § 10.

Appeal from Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans; Frank T. Echezabal, Judge.

Joseph B. Fife and another were convicted of practicing medicine without a license, and they appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Donelson Caffery, Paul A. Sompayrac, and Anna C. McCay, all of New Orleans, for appellants.

Percy Saint, Atty. Gen., and Henry Mooney, Dist. Atty., J. Bernard Cocke, Asst. Dist. Atty., T. Semmes Walmsley, City Atty., Eugene D. Saunders, and G. B. Harrison, Jr., all of New Orleans, for the State.

ROGERS, J.

The defendants were charged by bill of information with practicing medicine without a license. They were tried and convicted, and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and to serve 30 days in the parish prison, and, in default of paying the fine, to serve 30 days additional. Appeals were applied for and granted to the appellate division of the criminal district court for the parish of Orleans and to this court.

After their conviction and prior to their sentence, defendants filed a motion in arrest of judgment, attacking the constitutionality of the statute (Act 56 of 1914, as amended by Act 54 of 1918) which they were charged with having violated. This motion was overruled.

The 'counsel for the state have moved to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction in this court.

As the fine imposed does not exceed $300, the imprisonment inflicted does not exceed 6 months, and as the constitutionality of the statute was maintained by the court below, we have no jurisdiction of this case. Const, art. 7, § 10.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Elba MCLAWHORN, Plaintiff, v. N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Defendant.

No. COA17-206

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 19, 2017

AFFIRMED.