alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Joel Marin, * From the 142nd District Court

of Midland County,

Trial Court No. CR42371.

Vs. No. 11-14-00303-CR * November 10, 2016

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
Exhibit 99.1

Declaration by the Board of Management and Supervisory Board  of DaimlerChrysler AG pursuant to Section 161 of the German Stock  Corporation Act (AktG) regarding the German Corporate
Governance Code in  effect as of June 2, 2005*

Section 161
of the German Stock Corporation Act (AktG) requires the Board of Management and the Supervisory Board of a listed stock corporation to declare each year that the recommendations of
the "German Corporate Governance Code Government Commission" published by the Federal Ministry of Justice in the official section of the electronic Federal Gazette have been and are being met or, if
not, which recommendations have not been or are not being applied. Shareholders must be given permanent access to such declaration.

The
German Corporate Governance Code ("Code") contains rules with varying binding effects. Apart from outlining aspects of the current German Stock Corporation Act, it contains recommendations from
which companies are permitted to deviate. However, if they do so, they must disclose this each year. The Code also contains suggestions which can be ignored without giving rise to any disclosure
requirement.

The
Board of Management and the Supervisory Board of DaimlerChrysler AG have decided to disclose not only deviations from the Code's recommendations (see I.) but also  without being
legally obliged to do so  deviations from its suggestions (see II.).

For
the period from December 2004 until July 20, 2005, the following declaration refers to the Code in effect as of May 21, 2005. For the corporate governance practice of
DaimlerChrysler AG since July 21, 2005, this declaration refers to the requirements of the Code in effect as of June 2, 2005, published in the electronic Federal Gazette on
July 20, 2005.

The
Board of Management and the Supervisory Board of DaimlerChrysler AG declare that both the recommendations and the suggestions of the "German Corporate Governance Code Government Commission", have
been and are being met. The Board of Management and the Supervisory Board also intend to follow the recommendations and suggestions of the German Corporate Governance Code in the future. The following
recommendations and suggestions are the only ones not been or being applied:

I.     Deviations from the Recommendations of the German Corporate Governance Code

1.     Deductible with the D&O insurance (Code Clause 3.8, Paragraph 2)



---





2.     Individualized reporting of Board of Management compensation (Code Clause 4.2.4)



3.     Approval of sideline activities (Code Clause 4.3.5)



4.     Compensation of the Supervisory Board (Code Clause 5.4.7, Paragraph 2)



II.    Deviations from the Suggestions of the German Corporate Governance Code

1.     Broadcast of the Annual Meeting (Code Clause 2.3.4)



2.     Variable compensation of the Supervisory Board relating to the company's long-term success (Code Clause 5.4.7)



The Board of Management

The Supervisory Board


---

2

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Kathleen P. McSherry, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ridgewood Energy K
Fund, LLC;

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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant'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)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant'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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.



Date: November 14, 2005
/s/ Kathleen P. McSherry
Kathleen P. McSherry
Senior Vice President and Chief Executive Financial
Officer (principal financial and accounting officer)
#### Emily E. Scott and P. P. Scott, her Husband, *Appellants,*v. William Ohlhaber, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision Filed January 12, 1928.

Petition for Rehearing Denied March 28, 1928.

*John Ziegler,*for Appellants;

*Jack B. Ohlhaber,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.

W HITFIELD, P. J., AND TERRELL AND BUEORD, J. J., concur.
SYKES, et al. v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al.

248A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 25, 2019

Robert E. Fields, III, Attorney at Law, Samuel Pinero, II, Attorney at Law, William A. Blancato, GAL Appellate Attorney, Leon E. Porter, Attorney at Law, Ellis B. Drew, III, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Sykes, Susan, et al.

Elizabeth L. Winters, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, Chad D. Hansen, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, Adam H. Charnes, Attorney at Law, for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina.

D. Erik Albright, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Cigna Healthcare of North Carolina, Inc.

Stephen D. Feldman, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Medcost LLC.

Jennifer K. Van Zant, Attorney at Law, Greensboro.

Benjamin R. Norman, Attorney at Law, Greensboro.

W. Michael Dowling, Attorney at Law.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief filed on the 25th of January 2019 by Plaintiffs:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 25th of January 2019."

Plaintiffs shall have up to and including the 15th day of February 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
#### Citizens Bank and Trust Company, a Corporation, *Appellant,*v. R. J. Binnicker and Elizabeth Nelson Davis, *et al, Appellees.*

Division B.

Decision Filed May 4, 1928.

*Wm. Hunter,*for Appellant;

*Barton & Barton, John B. Sutton*and *Taliaferro & Morris,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered, and decreed by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
**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 on Form 10-QSB of GuruNet Corporation
        (the
“Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Robert
        S. Rosenschein, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
        pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
 
 a.
              the
                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
                  15(d) of
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                  and
 
 b.
              the
                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
                  the
                  Company.
 
 Date:
                  August 4th,
                  2005
              /s/
                  Robert S. Rosenschein
                Robert
                  S. Rosenschein
                Chief
                  Executive Officer
                (Principal
                  Executive Officer)
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
#### Thomas Murphy, Respondent, v Reuben Hoppenstein, M.D., et al., Defendants, and Noel Henry, P.A., et al., Appellants.

[720 NYS2d 62]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered September 22, 1999, which, in an action for medical malpractice, *inter alia,*granted plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b for an extension of time to make re-service on defendant Altman nunc pro tunc as of the time such re-service was made, and directed defendants to serve an answer, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about October 22, 1999, which, in a second action for medical malpractice, *inter alia,*denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations, and, *sua sponte,*consolidated the two actions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We reject defendant Altman’s argument that an extension of the CPLR 306-b 120-day period to make service of the summons and complaint may be granted only if no service, as opposed to improper service, is made within the 120-day period *(see, Gurevitch v Goodman,*269 AD2d 355; *cf., Salamon v Charney,*269 AD2d 256). Such “extensions of time should be liberally granted whenever plaintiffs have been reasonably diligent in attempting service” (Mem of Off of Ct Admin #97-67R, 1997 NY Legis Ann, at 319), regardless of the expiration of the Stat*411ute of Limitations after filing and before service *(see, Griffin v Our Lady of Mercy Med. Ctr.,*276 AD2D 391). Clearly, plaintiffs efforts to serve defendant Altman were reasonably diligent. The second action, which plaintiff commenced before the order of September 22, 1999 apparently reinstated his first action, was timely commenced within six months after the first action was dismissed for what were characterized by the motion court as “law office failings” (CPLR 205 [a]; *see, Tellez v Saranda Realty,*197 AD2d 439). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Andrias, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.3

                         CERTIFICATE OF PERIODIC REPORT

         I, John Aston, Chief Financial Officer of Cambridge Antibody Technology
Group plc (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

     1.  the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the financial year
         ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the
         requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
         of 1934 (14 U.S.C. 78m of 78o(d); and

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

Dated: December 19, 2002
                                         /s/ John Aston
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         John Aston
                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                         Cambridge Antibody Technology Group plc
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 59360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20426]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1607-DR]


Louisiana; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and 
Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-1607-DR), dated September 24, 2005, 
and related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 3, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of September 24, 2005:

    The parishes of Evangeline, Jefferson, and Plaquemines for 
Individual Assistance (already designated for debris removal and 
emergency protective measures [Categories A and B] under the Public 
Assistance program, including direct Federal assistance.)

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 
Individuals and Households Program-Other Needs, 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)


R. David Paulison,
Acting Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department 
of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 05-20426 Filed 10-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                       <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      25,292,229               4,775,153
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,196,681                 386,961
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (53,000)                (11,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,264,596               6,301,408
<PP&E>                                       3,483,301               2,366,756
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,414,549)               (715,928)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,477,384               8,513,848
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,559,293               1,983,951
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                  12,512
<COMMON>                                        79,038                  29,250
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,477,384               8,513,848
<SALES>                                      3,349,165               1,135,141
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,349,165               1,135,141
<CGS>                                        2,131,593               1,358,293
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,494,769               5,481,005
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (8,969,788)             (5,437,018)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (8,969,788)             (5,437,018)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0             (2,383,519)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,969,788)             (7,820,537)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.37)                  (2.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.37)                  (2.67)
        


</TABLE>
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 13, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-11129

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL EARL HILL,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:01-CR-361-ALL

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

Before REAVLEY, GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Earl Hill, federal prisoner # 27877-177, appeals the

district court’s denial of his FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(4) motion for

relief from judgment. Following his guilty plea to one count of

securities fraud and one count of mail fraud, Hill was sentenced

to a term of imprisonment of 60 months on each count, to be

served consecutively and to be followed by a three-year term of

supervised release.
No. 05-11129

-2-

Hill argues that, in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542

U.S. 296 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005), his sentence was unconstitutionally enhanced, that the

enhancement of his sentence caused a structural error in his

sentencing hearing, and that the district court lacked

jurisdiction to enhance Hill’s sentence. Because Hill is

challenging the validity of his underlying sentence, his FED. R.

CIV. P. 60(b)(4) motion should have been construed as a

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Fierro v. Johnson, 197

F.3d 147, 151 (5th Cir. 1999); cf. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 125 S. Ct.

2641, 2651 (2005). Prior to filing the successive motion, Hill

was required to obtain authorization to file the successive

motion. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255. Because Hill

failed to obtain such authorization, the district court did not

err in denying the motion. See Scott v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 260,

262 (5th Cir. 2000). 

AFFIRMED.
#### W. Gregory BAKER and Vikki Lynn Baiers v. Chris A. VERRET, Ed Larry Sikes, Stephanie M. Higginbotham, Darnall, Sikes & Frederick (a CPA Corporation), Louis B. Viviano, B.C.M., L.L.C., LAF Foods, Inc., Greg Baker Enterprises, Inc., CBC International, Inc., XYZ Insurance Co. and XYZ Insurance Co.

No. 02-991.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Aug. 6, 2003.

George Alien Walsh, Alice F. Estill, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants Appellants Vikki Lynn Baiers, W. Gregory Baker.

Nancy Scott Degan, Roy Clifton Cheat-wood, Kent Andrew Lambert, New Orleans, LA, Reginald J. Ringuet, Lafayette, LA, for Secondary Defendants Appellants LAF Foods, Inc., BCM L.L.C., NKF IDR Limited Partnership, CPCI Incorporated, VLB, Inc., Louis B. Viviano, CBC International, Inc., Greg Baker Enterprises, Nawlins Kajun Food L.L.C.

Robert A. Kutcher, Patricia Diane Tun-mer, Nicole Sophia Tygier, Metairie, LA, John Bologna Krentel, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants Appellees William A. Copeland III, Copeland’s of New Orleans, Inc., Alvin C. Copeland, Jr.

Larry Lane Roy, Jennifer A. Wells, Lafayette, LA, for Defendants Appellees Co-regis Ins. Co., Chris Verret.

*1279William H. Parker, III, Lafayette, LA, for Defendants Appellees Ed Larry Sikes, Darnell, Sikes, Kolder, Frederick *&*Rai-ney.

Steven Gerald Durio, Jessica Watts Farmer, Lafayette, LA, for Defendants Appellees Donald J. Baker, Kirby Pecot, Andrew B. Jameson, Max Luttgeharm, M.L. Godley, M.D.

Robert Louis Broussard, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant Appellee Donald J. Baker.

Joseph C. Giglio, Jr., Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff Appellee Walter A. Glod, Jr., M.D.

Court composed of NED E. DOUCET, JR., Chief Judge, GLENN B. GREMILLION, and ELIZABETH A. PICKETT, Judges.

DOUCET, Chief Judge.

For the reasons set forth in *Glod v. Baker,*02-988 (La.App. 3 Cir. 8/6/03), 851 So.2d 1255, 2003 WL 21804398, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal shall be paid two-thirds by Baker and Baiers, and one-third by Vivi-ano and his entities not to include the two LLCs.

AFFIRMED.
#### XO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, State of Florida, Appellees.

No. 1D03-2432.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 12, 2003.

Michael A. Grain of Anderson & Gulotta, Harrisburg, PA, and Julie H. Littky-Rubin of Lytal, Reiter, Clark, Fountain & Williams, LLP, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Charlie Crist, Attorney General, and R. Lynn Lovejoy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Having considered the appellant’s response to this Court’s order, dated June 12, 2003, this appeal is hereby dismissed as premature. *See Monticello Ins. Co. v. Thompson,*743 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); *Hoffman v. Hall,*817 So.2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

WEBSTER, LEWIS and HAWKES, JJ., concur.