alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLAIBORNE LEE SHERRON

No. 7114SC107

(Filed 31 March 1971)

Appeal from *Bickett, Superior Court Judge,*18 August 1970 Session of Durham County Superior Court.

Defendant was charged in a bill of indictment, proper in form, with the offense of breaking and entering a store building with the intent to commit a felony therein. Upon call of the case for trial he tendered a plea of guilty to non-felonious breaking and entering. The plea was accepted after a determination by the court that it was freely, understanding^- and voluntarily made. Judgment was entered imposing an active prison sentence of two years and defendant appealed.

*Attorney General Morgan by Deputy Attorney General Moody for the State.*

*W. Paul Pulley, Jr., for defendant appellant.*

GRAHAM, Judge.

Defendant’s court appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he candidly states that he is unable to find error in any of the proceedings. We have reviewed the record proper and find that no error appears on the face thereof.

No error.

Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Parker concur.
Exhibit 19.15.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 No. 333-113789 and the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (No. 333-182712 and No. 333-182712-02) of AngloGold Ashanti Limited of our reports dated 02 April 2015, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of AngloGold Ashanti Limited and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of AngloGold Ashanti Limited included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended
31 December 2014.



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|/s/ Ernst & Young Inc.                
|                                      
|Ernst & Young Inc.                    
|Registered Auditor                    
|                                      
|Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa
|02 April 2015                         



E-9
Order filed, November 18, 2014

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00775

- CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF L .T.H., A CHILD , Appellant

On Appeal from the 309th District Court

Harris County, Texas Tri al Court Cause No. 2012

- 70308



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due October 27, 2014

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the
record. The record has not been filed with the court. Becau se the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Delores Johnson , the substitute court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 A0 45 0 . J ONES v . EVANS et a l

.

An d rew Ev an s an d Ku rt Ren fro e fi l ed a ci vi l act i on ag ai n s t Ch et J on es s eek i n g

rep ay m en t o f a l o a n

. Wh en Jo n es fai l ed to an s wer t h e cl ai m , t h e t ri al co u rt g ran t ed

Ev an s ’ s m o t i o n fo r de f

a u l t ju d g m en t

. J on es ap p eal ed

, b u t aft er t h e ap p eal was

d o c k e t e d

, J o n es fi l ed fo r Ch ap t er 7 b an k ru p t cy p ro tect i o n in t h e Un i t ed St at es

Ban kru p t cy Co u rt fo r th e N o rt h ern Di s t ri ct o f Geo rg i a. He t h en fi l ed a n o t i ce t o s t ay

h i s ap p eal an d h as s u b m i t t ed a co p y o f t he Ch ap t er 7 p et i t io n t o t h i s Co u rt

.

“ [T] h e ap p el lat e co u rt s o f t h i s s t at e are co n s t i t u ti o n al l y req ui red to d i s p o s e o f

ev ery cas e at th e t erm o f co urt fo r wh i ch i t is en t ered o n t he c o u rt ’ s d o ck et s fo r

h eari n g o r at t he n ex t t erm of co u rt

. See G a. Co n s t. o f 1 9 8 3

, A rt

. VI, Sec. IX, Para.

II. Acco rd i n g l y , t h i s Co u rt d o es n o t h av e t he p o w er t o st ay a cas e

. ” S e e B o a r d

ma n

v. Br en ni n kmei

j er , 3 2 8 Ga. Ap p . 8 82 , 8 82 -8 8 3 (7 6 3 SE2 d 2 6 7 ) (2 0 1 4 ).

W e t h erefo re rem an d t h i s cas e t o t h e t ri al co urt u n t i l t h e s t ay o f p ro ceed i ng s

i s l i ft ed

. See i d. On ce t h e b an k ru p t cy s t ay i s l i ft ed

, Jo n es m ay re-i ns t i t u te hi s ap p eal

b y fi l i n g a n ew no t i ce o f ap p eal in t h e t ri al co u rt w i t h i n 3 0 d a y s o f t h e d at e o f t h e

en t ry o f b an k ru p t cy

co u rt ’ s o rd er l ift i ng t h e s t ay . Id

. November 20, 2018C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 11/20/2018
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5278 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 405 West Second Street in Dixon, Illinois, 

as the ‘‘President Ronald W. Reagan Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5278 EH

1 SECTION 1. PRESIDENT RONALD W. REAGAN POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 405 West Second Street in 

5 Dixon, Illinois, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘President Ronald W. Reagan Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘President Ronald W. 

11 Reagan Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 9, 2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5278 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostReagan Post Office Building’’. Dixon, Illinois, as the ‘‘President Ronald W. al Service located at 405 West Second Street in
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROY V. CLARK, JR.

No. 7527SC20

(Filed 7 May 1975)

Criminal Law § 155.5— docketing of record — expiration of 90 days — extension of time

Appeal is subject to dismissal where the record on appeal was not docketed within 90 days after the date of the judgment appealed from and an order extending the time for docketing was entered after the 90-day period had expired. Court of Appeals Rule 5.

Appeal by defendant from *Grist, Judge.*Judgment entered 11 September 1974 in Superior Court, Lincoln County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 March 1975.

Defendant was charged in a bill of indictment with the larceny of an automobile belonging to Nadine Ellis Brown and having a value of $600.00. He pleaded not guilty. The jury found defendant guilty as charged, and from judgment entered on the verdict, defendant appealed.

*Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Jerry J. Rutledge, for the State.*

*M. Clark Parker, for defendant appellant.*

MAETIN, Judge.

We note that the judgment appealed from was entered 11 September 1974. More than ninety days thereafter, the trial court granted defendant’s motion for an extension of the time to docket the record on appeal in this Court. This was too late. See *State v. Lee,*15 N.C. App. 234, 189 S.E. 2d 505 (1972). “Within ninety days after the date of a judgment appealed from, but not thereafter, the trial tribunal may for good' cause shown extend the time for docketing the record on appeal not exceeding sixty days. Eule 5.” *State v. Lassiter,*18 N.C. App. 208, 196 S.E. 2d 592 (1973).

For failure to comply with the Eules of Practice in the Court of Appeals, this appeal is subject to dismissal. Nevertheless, we have carefully considered defendant’s assignments of error and conclude that defendant’s trial was free of prejudicial error.

*678Appeal dismissed.

Judges Britt and Hedrick concur.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 519 

To authorize additional appropriations for the family caregiver support program under the Older Americans Act of 1965, and for the National 

Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information, for fiscal years 2010, 

2011, and 2012. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 14, 2009 

Mr. ISRAEL (for himself, Mr. RODRIGUEZ, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr. WEINER, 

Ms. BEAN, and Ms. SHEA-PORTER) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, and in addition 

to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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 authorize additional appropriations for the family caregiver support program under the Older Americans Act 

of 1965, and for the National Clearinghouse for LongTerm Care Information, for fiscal years 2010, 2011, 

and 2012. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Elder Caregiver Sup5 port and Information Enhancement Act of 2009’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

HR 519 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS 

2 FOR THE FAMILY CAREGIVER SUPPORT PRO3 GRAM UNDER THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT 

4 OF 1965. 

5 Section 303(e)(2) of the Older Americans Act of 

6 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3023(e)(2)) is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘$173,000,000’’ and all that follows through ‘‘2021’’, and 

8 inserting ‘‘and $250,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 

9 2010, 2011, and 2012’’. 

10 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS 

11 FOR THE NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE FOR 

12 LONG-TERM CARE INFORMATION. 

13 There is authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 

14 for each of the fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012 for the 

15 operation of the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term 

16 Care Information established by the Secretary of Health 

17 and Human Services under section 6021(d) of Public Law 

18 109–171. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
<PAGE> 1
Exhibit 3.01
Certificate of Amendment of the Articles of Incorporation of Diatect
International Corporation

Endorsed - Filed
in the office of the Secretary of State
of the State of California
February 14, 2000
Bill Jones, Secretary of State


The undersigned, George H. Henderson and John L. Runft, hereby certify that:

1.  They are, respectively, the duly elected President and Secretary of
Diatect International Corporation, a California corporation (the
"Corporation").

2.  Article III of the Articles of Incorporation shall be, and hereby is,
amended to read as follow:

                            ARTICLE III

This Corporation is authorized to issue only one class of shares which shall
be designated as "Common Stock" or "Common Shares."  The total authorized
number of such shares which may be issued is fifty million (50,000,000).

3.  The foregoing amendment has been approved and adopted by resolution of the
Board of Directors of the Corporation adopted at a meeting of the directors
held on November 17, 1999.

4.  In accordance with Section 603 of the California Corporations Code, the
foregoing amendment was approved by written consent of shareholders of the
corporation representing in excess of fifty-one percent (51%) of the issued
and outstanding shares of common stock of the corporation, which shareholders
would be entitled to vote upon said resolution at a formal meeting of the
shareholders of the corporation held for the purpose of acting upon such
resolution.  The total number of outstanding shares of the corporation is
19,535,231.  The number of shares voting in favor of the amendment exceeded
the vote required.  The percentage vote required was more than 50%.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned under penalty of perjury hereby declare
that the statements contained in this Certificate of Amendment are true of
their own knowledge and executed this Certificate of Amendment on this 14th
day of February, 2000.

/S/George H. Henderson, President of Diatect International Corporation

/S/John L. Runft, Secretary of Diatect International Corporation
# L_2015026EN.01003401.xml

| 31.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 26/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 26/34

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 1986/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 regarding access to the Second Generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) by the services in the Member States responsible for issuing vehicle registration certificates

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 381 of 28 December 2006
  )

On page 1, recital 2 and footnote 5:

for:

‘... and Council Decision 2006/000/JHA of ... on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation of the Schengen Information System (SIS II) (4) (5) constitute ...

read:

‘... and Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (4) (5) constitute ...

on pages 1-3, recitals 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 and Article 1(1) and the second paragraph of Article 3:

for:

‘Decision 2006/000/JHA’,

read:

‘Decision 2007/533/JHA’.

---

(5)  See page 99 of this Official Journal.’

5

(5)  
  OJ L 205, 7.8.2007, p. 63.’

5

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

# CERTIFICATION OF
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Solely
for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of
Flexible Solutions International, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that, to
the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A (Amendment No. 2) of the
Company for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                    |                        
|------------------- | -----------------------
|Date: March 8, 2006 | /s/ Daniel B. O'Brien  
|                    | Daniel B. O'Brien      
|                    | Chief Financial Officer
Order entered October 23, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 20
- 00708
- CV
IN RE DAVID REISS, Relator
O riginal P roceeding from the 191st Judicial District Co urt

Dalla s County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 18
- 02498

O RDER Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Evans Before the Court is relator ’ s Oct ober 22, 2020 “ Agreed Motion to Extend Deadline in October 15, 2020 Opinion. ” I n the motion, relators ask this Court to
gran t a t en - d ay extension for the 191st Judicial District Court to rule on the pending motions s pec ified in our Oct ober 15 , 2020 opinion and order

. We GRANT th e motion, and DIRECT the 191st Judicial District Court to file with the Clerk of the Court , by No vemb er 3, 2020 , a certified copy of its orders evidencing compliance with this Court’s October 15, 2020 opinion an d order

.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
1

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1239

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Rafael Rosales-Martinez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 7, 2007

Filed: December 11, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rafael Rosales-Martinez pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry following removal,

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2), and conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court1

 sentenced him as a career offender

to 170 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, RosalesMartinez’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), which questions whether the district court erred in

sentencing Rosales-Martinez as a career offender. 
-2-

The plea agreement, however, contains a waiver of Rosales-Martinez’s right to

appeal his sentence, and we will enforce that appeal waiver here. The record reflects

that Rosales-Martinez understood and voluntarily accepted the terms of the plea

agreement, including the appeal waiver; the appeal falls within the scope of the

waiver; and no injustice would result. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886,

889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss

appeal where both plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and

voluntarily, appeal falls within scope of waiver, and no miscarriage of justice would

result); see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000)

(per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case). 

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we

find that there are no nonfrivolous issues not covered by the appeal waiver.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

______________________________
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 09
- 00294
- CV JAMES C. FULLER , Appellant
v. BENITO MOYA, ET AL
. , Appellee s

From the County Court at Law Walker County, Texas Trial Court No. 9678CV

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant James C. Fuller filed su it against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and TDCJ employees Benito Moya, Tommy Goodin, Freddie English, Floyd Hicks, an unnamed property officer for the Wynne Unit, and “Major Butcher.” The trial court granted English’s and Hick’s motion to dis miss and dismissed Fuller’s “cause of action” as frivolous “with prejudice as to all claims.” However, not all the named defendants had been served when the dismissal order was signed, two of the defendants appeared and filed answers after the dismissal order was signed, and onlyFuller v. Moya Page 2

English and Hicks sought a dismissal. By order dated November 10, 2009, this Court requested briefing from the parties regarding whether the dismissal order is appealable. The parties have filed briefs with Fuller contending th at the order is appealable while the appellees contend that it is not. We agree with the appellees and will dismiss the appeal. Generally, “ an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of a ll pending parties and claims in the record, except as nec essary to carry out the decree.” Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191,
195 (Tex. 20 01) (footnotes omitted). However,

a judgment may be final, even though it does not dispose of all parties name d in the petition, if the remaining party was never served with citation and did not file an answer, and nothing in the record indicates that the plaintiff ever expected to obtain serv ice upon the remaining party. Garcia v. State Farm Lloyds , 287 S.W.3d 8 09 , 812 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 20 09 , pet. filed) (citing Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Penn , 362 S.W.2d 230, 232 (Tex. 19 62)); see also M.O. Dental Lab v. Rape , 139 S.W.3d 671, 674

- 75 (Tex. 20 04) (reaffirming validity of Youngstown Sheet & Tube ).
Here , the trial court granted English’s and Hick’s motion to dismiss on June 10,
2009. Moya and the unnamed property officer for the Wynne Unit were served on May 24 (before the dismissal order), but the returns for these citations were not filed until June 2 9. Moya answered Fuller’s suit on July 13. Goodin was served by certified mail, return receipt requested, on July 24. Fuller filed a “Motion for Summary Judgement” on July 27. And Goodin answered Fuller’s suit on August 10.Fuller v. Moya Page 3

The record reflects that, a fter the June 10 dismissal, other defendants were served and Fuller has continued to litigate his claims with respect to the remaining defendants. Therefore, the June 10 order of dismissal is not a final, appealable judgment. See Garcia , 287 S.W.3d at 81 2

. Accordingly, we dismiss Fuller’s appeal.

FELIPE REYNA Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Reyna, and Justice Davis Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed December 16, 2009 [CV06]
**Exhibit
      32(b)**





**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-Q of New River Pharmaceuticals
      Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending October 2, 2005, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Krish
      S. Krishnan, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
      of
      the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)  the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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











/s/
                Krish S. KrishnanKrish
                S. KrishnanChief
                Operating Officer, Chier Financial Offiver and Secretary(Principal
                  financial and accounting officer)November
                16, 2005
#### DONNELL RICHARDS, Appellant, v. WILHELMINA S. LINDQUIST, RENEE L. KENNEDY, aka RENEE L. WALDO, and CHARLES ALDABE, aka CHARLES D. ALDABE, Respondents. RENO ESCROW COMPANY, a Nevada Corporation, DONNELL RICHARDS, Appellants, v. WILHELMINA S. LINDQUIST, RENEE L. KENNEDY, et al., Respondents. WILHELMINA S. LINDQUIST and RENEE L. KENNEDY, H. DALE MURPHY, ESQ., HARRY MULHOLLAND, ESQ., and ROBERT O. FORT, ESQ., et al., Third-Party Respondents.

No. 8907

April 6, 1978

576 P.2d 749

*164[Rehearing denied May 17, 1978]

*Donnell Richards*and *Paul A. Richards,*Reno, and *John Tom Ross,*Carson City, for Appellants.

*C. Nicholas Pereos,*Reno, for Respondents and Third-Party Respondents Lindquist and Kennedy.

*Laxalt, Berry & Allison,*Carson City, for Third-Party Respondent Mulholland.

*H. Dale Murphy,*Reno, for Third-Party Respondent Murphy.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

In separate actions consolidated for trial, appellant Richards sought to (1) foreclose on a deed of trust securing a promissory note, and (2) set aside a transfer of property allegedly made to defraud creditors. Respondents moved for and were granted summary judgment.

Appellant here contends summary judgment was not proper because numerous issues of material fact are in dispute. Even viewing the record, as we must, in a light most favorable to appellant, we perceive no such dispute in the material facts; accordingly, the district court judgment is affirmed. NRCP 56; Olson v. Iacometti, 91 Nev. 241, 533 P.2d 1360 (1975).