alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 356/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.356.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 356 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5329 December 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.356.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 356

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5329 December 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 356/01 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive)
   (1) | 1 |
| 2010/C 356/02 | Technical guidance note setting out an indicative list of the codes of the Combined Nomenclature that may cover prohibited seal products — Publication made in accordance with Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products | 42 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2010/C 356/01

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive)
   (1)

(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive)

1

2010/C 356/02

Technical guidance note setting out an indicative list of the codes of the Combined Nomenclature that may cover prohibited seal products — Publication made in accordance with Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products

Publication made in accordance with Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products

42

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit 31.1

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Thomas Gutierrez, President and Chief Executive
Officer of Xerium Technologies, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Xerium
Technologies, Inc. (the Registrant);

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 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 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 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 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: May 12, 2006



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Thomas Gutierrez                 
|Thomas Gutierrez                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT ALEXANDER BELCHER

No. 7514SC564

(Filed 5 November 1975)

Appeal by defendant from *Winner, Judge.*Judgment entered 7 February 1975 in Superior Court, Durham County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 October 1975.

*Attorney General Rufus L. Edmisten by Attorney Noel Lee Allen for the State.*

*John C. Wainio for defendant appellant.*

BROCK, Chief Judge, HEDRICK and CLARK, Judges.

No error.
----

----

**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND **

**CHIEF      FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (1)   | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Oxford Media, Inc.                for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for                the                quarter ended June 30, 2007, fairly presents in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Oxford                Media, Inc.. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: |   /s/                Lewis Jaffe              |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
| Name:           | Lewis                Jaffe                              |
| Title:          | Principal                Executive Officer and Director |
| Date:           | August                14, 2007                          |
|   By: |   /s/                Brian Weiss              |
| Name:           | Brian                Weiss                              |
| Title:          | Interim                Principal Financial Officer      |
| Date:           | August                14, 2007                          |

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00060-CR

Jessie Marquis MACWILLIAMS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CR10224

Honorable Joel Perez, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 6, 2024

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 

On January 25, 2024, appellant pro se Jessie Marquis MacWilliams filed a notice of appeal 

from the trial court’s Agreed Judgment of Competency to Stand Trial. On January 30, 2024, the 

clerk’s record was filed in this court. The clerk’s record does not contain an appealable order. As 

a general rule, a criminal defendant’s right of appeal is limited to an appeal from a final judgment

of conviction. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 44.02; see also State v. Sellers, 790 S.W.2d 316, 

321 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (“A defendant’s general right to appeal under [article 44.02] and 

its predecessors has always been limited to appeal from a ‘final judgment,’ though the statute does 
04-24-00060-CR

- 2 -

not contain this limitation on its face.”). Moreover, “[t]he courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction 

to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law.” Ragston 

v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (quoting Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 

794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)).

This record does not contain a final judgment, and it appears we lack jurisdiction over an 

appeal from an Agreed Judgment of Competency to Stand Trial. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 

46B.011 (“Neither the state nor the defendant is entitled to make an interlocutory appeal relating 

to a determination or ruling under Article 46B.005.”); Fiala v. State, No. 04-17-00170-CR, 2017 

WL 3159439, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 26, 2017, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated 

for publication) (dismissing appeal of competency determination for lack of jurisdiction).

We ordered MacWilliams to show cause by February 12, 2024, why this appeal should not 

be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. No response was filed. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed 

for lack of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
#### Kenneth Byron FORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D02-2590.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 9, 2003.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 15, 2003.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and David John McPherrin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Daniel P. Hyndman, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm an order denying Appellant’s motion to withdraw plea. The record reflects that the motion is facially insufficient. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.170(1); 9.140(b)(2)(A); *Harris v. State,*818 So.2d 567 (Fla. 2d DCA2002).

GUNTHER, STONE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.2

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

As independent auditors, we hereby consent to the inclusion in this Form 10-KSB,
and any amendments thereto,  our reports relating to the consolidated  financial
statements of Solpower  Corporation,  for the year ended March 31, 1998. We also
consent  to the  reference  to this firm  under the  heading  "Experts"  in this
statement.


                                        /s/ Clancy and Co. P.L.L.C.
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        CLANCY & CO., P.L.L.C.
                                        Certified Public Accountants
                                        September 24, 1999
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur O. HUMPHREY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 71-1632

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 14, 1972.

Rehearing Denied March 6, 1972.

*684A. J. McNamara, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellant.

Gerald J. Gallinghouse, U. S. Atty., Patrick McGinity, Mary Williams Caza-las, Asst. U. S. Attys., for plaintiff-ap-pellee.

Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

*

  Rule 18, 5th Cir.; See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Humphrey was convicted on both counts of a two-count indictment of violating narcotic laws.1

The single assignment of error on this appeal is that the district court erred in not requiring the government customs agent to reveal under cross-examination the full particulars of its informer’s connection with the transaction so that defendant could know whether he had a right to disclosure of the informer’s identity. This contention is without merit. This court has held that the government is privileged to withhold the name of the informant on the substantial grounds of public policy unless defendant would be prevented from making his defense without knowledge of informant’s identity. United States v. Acosta, 5 Cir. 1969, 411 F.2d 627; Jimenez v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 397 F. 2d 271. The record reveals only that the informant contacted the customs agents and informed them that the pickup of narcotics was to take place, but is otherwise silent as to participation by the informant in the transaction itself. See Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957); Jimenez v. United States, supra; Miller v. United States, 5 Cir. 1959, 273 F.2d 279.

Since no part of the guilt determination process for this defendant was related to any role the informer may have had in the crime, the court correctly ruled that no further inquiry into the informer’s activity would be permitted.

Affirmed.

1

. Count One charged Humphrey with knowingly and fraudulently importing heroin in violation of Title 21, Section 174; Count Two charged with knowingly and fraudulently causing to be imported marijuana in violation of Title 21, Section 176a.
Exhibit 99.2

<PAGE>
                     [Letterhead of PricewaterhouseCoopers]


                        REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


March 22, 1999

To the Board of Directors of
Union Planters Corporation and
Union Planters Bank, National Association

We have examined management's assertion about Union Planters Bank, National
Association's (the "Company") compliance with the minimum servicing standards
(the "Standards") identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's
UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS as of and for the year
ended December 31, 1998, included in the accompanying management assertion,
attached hereto as Exhibit I. Management is responsible for the Company's
compliance with the Standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
management's assertion about the entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
Standards and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for
our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the
Company's compliance with the Standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned Standards as of and for the year ended December 31, 1998 is
fairly stated, in all material respects.


                                      /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
                                          Memphis, Tennessee


<PAGE>


                                                                       EXHIBIT I


                  MANAGEMENT'S ASSERTION CONCERNING COMPLIANCE
                    WITH THE USAP MINIMUM SERVICING STANDARDS

As of and for the year ended December 31, 1998, Union Planters Bank, National
Association (the "Company"), has complied in all material respects with the
minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of
America's UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS. As of and for
this same period, the Company had in effect a fidelity bond in the amount of
$20,000,000 per claim and an errors and omissions policy in the amount of
$25,000,000.

Union Planters Bank, National Association
March 22, 1999



/s/ Joel R. Katz
--------------------------------
Joel R. Katz
Executive Vice President




/s/ Mark Mosteller                                /s/ Suzanne W. Hardage
--------------------------------                  ------------------------------
Mark Mosteller                                    Suzanne W. Hardage
Senior Vice President                             Senior Vice President
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION OF OUR CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Norman Dority, certify that:



1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Denia Enterprises Inc..;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of

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 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

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 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.



/s/ Norman Dority

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

Norman Dority

Chief Financial Officer



June 18, 2007
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 50862 Summary Calendar

MICHAEL HAENDEL , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v. M. DIGIANTONIO; THOMAS EATON , Defendant s
- Appellee s

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:13

- CV

- 7

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Michael Haendel filed the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit to seek redress for actions connected to his January 2011 arrest. The district court granted the defendants’ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12( c) motion , dismissed the suit, and denied Haendel authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. Now, Haendel moves this court for IFP status, thereby challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. See

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 5, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-50862 Document: 00512723310 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2014No. 13

- 50862

Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997) . Our inquiry into Haendel’s good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Haendel has not met this standard. There is little in his opening and reply briefs that relates to the district court’s judgment dismissing his suit. The majority of the briefs consists of recitations of various facts and law that do not relate to the district court’s judgment. Those few bits of the brief s that do mention various aspects of the district court’s judgment , such as Haendel’s assertion that qualified immu nity is not absolute immunity, do not suffice to show a nonfrivolous appellate claim. This appeal lacks arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard , 707 F.3d at 225. Consequently, Haendel's IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal
is DISMISSED. See B augh , 117 F.3d at 202; 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 13-50862 Document: 00512723310 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2014
No. 99-10957 -1-

* 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. 99-10957 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FRANCISCO SALAZAR CAVAZOS, also known as Paco, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No.4:98-CR-108-5-E

-------------------- February 16, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Francisco Salazar Cavazos appeals the district court’s denial of his request for a minimal or minor participant adjustment under § 3B1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines, a factual determination which we review for clear error. See United States v. Flucas , 99 F.3d 177, 178 (5th Cir. 1996). Although Cavazos contends that he was only a courier, it does not necessarily follow that he was a minor or minimal participant, particularly given the large quantity of cocaine involved. See United States v. Rojas , 868 F.2d 1409, 1410 (5th Cir. 1989). Further, CavazosNo. 99-10957 -2- was admittedly involved over a four-day period in coordinating the transportation and delivery of the cocaine. Thus, he was not substantially less culpable than other participants. See United
States v. Buenrostro , 868 F.2d 135, 136 (5th Cir. 1989)

. Because we find that the district court could properly deny Cavazos a reduction for either minor or minimal participation, we need not reach the issue of whether Cavazos preserved the minor participant issue for appeal. See United States v. HinojosaLopez , 130 F.3d 691, 693 n.1 (5th Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED.