alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-10-00550-CV

Paul Sims, Individually and as next friend of N.S., a minor, Appellant

v.

Carla Kay Weaver, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 08-598-C277, HONORABLE KEN ANDERSON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Paul Sims, Individually and as next friend of N.S., a Minor, has filed an

unopposed motion to dismissthe appeal, informing this Court that he no longer desires to pursue his

appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).

 

J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Puryear and Pemberton

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: January 6, 2011
**Exhibit
      31.1**





**RULE
      13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS**





I, **Zhao
      Yan Ding** ,
      certify
      that:





1.  I
      have
      reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of GFR Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
      “Company”).





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 statement 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 am responsible for establishing and
      maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
      Rules
      13a-15d-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) 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 consolidates 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 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





(c)  Disclosed
      in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial
      reporting that occurred during the Company’s fourth fiscal quarter 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 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.





Date:
      April 11, 2008


By:/s/Zhao
                Yan Ding**Zhao Yan Ding**
Christopher Medina (CrossAppellant), Richard Medina,

and /s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 16, 2014

No. 04-14-00360-CV

Jennifer L. ZUNIGA,

Appellant/Cross-Appellee

v.

Christopher MEDINA (Cross-Appellant), Richard Medina, and Shelly Medina,

Appellees

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-CI-10872

Honorable Larry Noll, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Craig Carter's Notification of Late Reporter's Record is hereby GRANTED. Time is 

extended to August 15, 2014.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of July, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# STATEOFLOUISIANA



# COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INEREST OF B.W. NO. 2023 CW 0510 

### AUGUST 14, 2023 In Re: A.W., applying for supervisory writs, 23rd Judicial

District Court, Parish of Ascension, No. 23261. BEFORE: McCLENDON, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ.

WRIT DENIED AS MOOT. The March 20, 2023 minute entry included in the instant writ application reveals the trial court has vacated the March 14, 2023 judgment granting the ex parte motion filed by Morris and Jennifer Herrin, of which the instant relator, A.W., seeks review.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT PMc CHH SMM
Exhibit
32.2




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 Annual Report of GFR Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K and 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zhong
Ya Li, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
based on my knowledge:
 
 (1)
              The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
 
 (2)
              The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
 
 Date:
July 22, 2010





GFR
      PHARMACEUTICALS, INC./s/Zhong Ya LiZhong
      Ya Li, Chief Financial
Officer
EXHIBIT 3



Form 52-109F1

Certification of Annual Filings



I, Peter Dasler, CEO of CanAlaska Uranium Ltd. certify that:



1.

I have reviewed the annual filings (as this term is defined in Multilateral Instrument 52-109 Certification of Disclosure in Issuers Annual and Interim Filings) of CanAlaska Uranium Ltd. for the period ending April 30, 2007;



2.

Based on my knowledge, the annual filings do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required to be stated or that is necessary to make a statement not misleading in light of the circumstances under which it was made, with respect to the period covered by the annual filings;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the annual financial statements together with the other financial information included in the annual filings fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the issuer, as of the date and for the periods presented in the annual filings;



4.

The issuers other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting for the issuer, and we have:



(a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused them to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance that material information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which the annual filings are being prepared;

(b)

designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused it 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 the issuers GAAP; and

(c)

evaluated the effectiveness of the issuers disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by the annual filings and have caused the issuer to disclose in the annual MD&A our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by the annual filings based on such evaluation; and



5.

I have caused the issuer to disclose in the annual MD&A any change in the issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the issuers most recent interim period that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers internal control over financial reporting.



DATED:

August 27, 2007





Per:

Peter Dasler



Peter Dasler

Chief Executive Officer
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 4:10cr22-SPM

CECIL RAY GANT, 

 

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendant proposed to enter a guilty plea to Counts One, Two, Three and Six of

this indictment. The district judge referred this matter to me for purposes of hearing

Defendant's proposed change of plea pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 and to enter a

report and recommendation as to whether to accept the change of plea. All parties

consented to this procedure, and the written consent has been entered. After hearing, it

is found that:

1. Defendant understands the nature of the charge or charges as to which the

plea is offered.

2. Defendant understands the right to trial by jury, to persist in a plea of not

guilty, to assistance of counsel at trial, and to confront and cross examine adverse

witnesses, and understands the right against compelled self-incrimination.
Page 2 of 3

3. Defendant understands the maximum possible sentence if the guilty plea is

accepted, including the effect of a supervised release term, understands that the

sentencing guidelines are advisory, and understands that the court has discretion to

depart from those guidelines and sentence up to the statutory maximum sentence.

4. The plea of guilty by the Defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made,

and is not the result of force or threats, or of promises except for promises contained in

the written plea agreement between the parties.

5. Defendant is competent to plead guilty.

6. Defendant understands that answers given by the Defendant during the plea

colloquy, which were under oath, may be later used against the Defendant in

prosecution for perjury or false statement.

7. There is a factual basis for Defendant's guilty plea.

8. There is a plea agreement which should be accepted by the court. Defendant

understands the terms of the plea agreement.

9. Defendant has voluntarily consented to go forward with this plea of guilty

before me. Defendant knowingly and voluntarily has waived the ten day period for filing

objections to this report and recommendation, and agrees that written objections, if any,

must be filed within twenty-four hours from receipt of a copy of this report and

recommendation. The United States also consents to this procedure, including the

shorter period for objections.

Case No. 4:10cr22-SPM/WCS
Page 3 of 3

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the court ACCEPT the plea agreement

and defendant's plea of guilty.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on June 18, 2010. 

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 24 hours after receiving a copy of this report and

recommendation.

Case No. 4:10cr22-SPM/WCS
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 62663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5514]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel, SNRP Review.
    Date: November 26, 2007.
    Time: 11 a.m. to 12 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Phillip F. Wiethorn, Scientific Review 
Administrator, DHHS/NIH/NINDS/DER/SRB, 6001 Executive Boulevard; MSC 
9529, Neuroscience Center; Room 3203, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, (301) 
496-5388, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e097898594888f9290a08e898e8493ce8e8988ce878f96"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="15627c70617d7a6765557b7c7b71663b7b7c7d3b727a63">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)


    Dated: October 29, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-5514 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Order entered November 2 6 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 13 - 00572 - CV ANDRES CHEVEZ, Appellant V. JERRY L. BRINKERHOFF , ET AL, Appellee s On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas T rial Court Cause No. DC - 10 - 015850 - E 

### O RDER The Court GRANTS appellant’s November 20, 2013 motion to extend time to file his brief. We ORDER the appellant’s brief received on November 20, 2013 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS JUSTICE
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JUSTIN EVERETT COOPER, #X62179

Plaintiff,

vs. 4:10cv179-SPM/WCS

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before me upon referral from the Clerk. In an order filed May 17,

2010, Plaintiff was given until June 17, 2010, to supplement his motion to proceed in

forma pauperis with his inmate account bank statement and that his failure to respond

as instructed would result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action. Doc. 7. On

July 1, 2010, the court entered a report and recommendation recommending dismissal

for Plaintiff’s failure to submit the account statement by the deadline given (June 17,

2010). Because Plaintiff submitted an account statement on July 3, 2010, this court

entered an order on July 9, 2010, vacating the report and recommendation. Doc. 8. 

Plaintiff was again advised that the supplement he submitted was insufficient and

directed him once again to submit his inmate account for the period November 1, 2009

to April 30, 2010 by August 9, 2010. Doc. 10. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to

that order.
Page 2 of 2

A trial court has inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to

prosecute. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for failure to 

obey a court order. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 838 and cases cited (11th Cir.),

cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989). Since Plaintiff has failed to comply with orders of this

court his complaint should now be dismissed without prejudice. 

The Plaintiff shall have a 14 day period after service of this report and

recommendation in which to file objections. This will also afford Plaintiff a final

opportunity to show good cause for his failure to respond. Plaintiff may do so by a

motion for reconsideration which will be referred to me by the Clerk.

It is therefore, respectfully RECOMMENDED Plaintiff’s motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, doc. 2, be DENIED as moot and that this case be

DISMISSED without prejudice.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on August 26, 2010.

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14

days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections

limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 4:10cv179-SPM/WCS
#### SAMUEL THOMAS KORNEGAY v. FLOYD HEATH and ALBERT LEE COOMBS.

(Filed 25 March 1964.)

Appeal by defendants from *Cowper, J.,*October 1963 Session of LENOIR.

On June 14, 1962, plaintiff was injured while riding as a passenger in a 1956 Ford owned by defendant Heath and operated by defendant Coombs. Coombs lost control of the car. It ran off the rural paved road, turned upside down and stopped in a field.

Plaintiff instituted this action to recover damages in the amount of $30,000.00.e He alleged his injuries were proximately caused by the negligence of Coombs and that Coombs was operating the car as agent for Heath.

*516Issues as to agency, negligence and contributory negligence were answered in favor of plaintiff; and the jury awarded damages in the amount of $2,500.00. Judgment for plaintiff in accordance with the verdict was entered. Defendants excepted and appealed.

*Lamar Jones for plaintiff*appellee..

*Whitaker ■& Jeffress and Thomas H. Morris for defendant appellants.*

Per Curiam.

As to each and all issues, there was ample evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Assignments of error pertinent to the agency, negligence and contributory negligence issues are untenable. With reference to assignments of error pertinent to the issue as to damages: It may be conceded certain of the court’s rulings relating to the admissibility of evidence are not free from error. However, after full consideration, we have concluded such errors did not substantially prejudice defendants and do not constitute sufficient ground for a new trial either of the entire case or of the issue relating to damages. In these circumstances, the verdict and judgment will not be disturbed.

No error.
# FILED April 29, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT KNOXVILLE MARCH 1997 SESS ION
STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) C.C.A. NO. 03C 01-9604-CC-00163 Appellee, ) ) CARTER COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. ARDEN L. HILL, BILLY RAY

MOORE, ) JUDGE ) Appellant. ) (Certified question) FOR THE APPE LLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: DAVID BAUTISTA CHARLES W. BU RSON Public Defender Attorney General & Repor ter ROBERT Y. OAKS ELI ZABE TH T. RYAN Asst. Public Defender Asst. Attorney General Main Courthouse 450 Jame s Roberts on Pkwy. Elizabethton, TN 37643 Nashville, TN 37243-0493 RANDAL L E. REAG AN DAVID CROCKETT Contract Appellate Defender District Attorney General 602 Gay. St., Ste. 905 Knoxville, TN 37902 KENNETH C. BALDWIN Asst. District Attor

ney General 900 E. Elk Ave. Elizabethton, TN 37643
OPINION FILED:____________________
AFFIRMED JOHN H. PEAY, Judge2 O P I N I O N
The defendant pled guilty to fe lony escape and was sentenced to two years, consecu tive to his current sentence. The parties stipulatedthat the defendant had been

“ < punitively segr

egated’ or placed in <

The Hole,’ as part of the remedial action t aken by the Tennessee Department of Correction s b ased on the Defendant’s escape” and reserved t he follo wing certif ied quest ion of la w:

Whether the Double Jeopardy prov isions of the T ennes see and United States’ Const itutio ns prohibit the State from prosecuting the Defendant in St a te Court after he has been < pu nitively

segregated’ from other in mates as part of the remedial action ta ken by the T ennessee Department of Corrections fo r the act of esca ping. The short and dispositive answer tothis question is no. Ray v. State , 577 S.W.2d 681, 682 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978) (“admini strative discipli nary action by prison authoritiesdoes not preclude prosecution for escape on principles of double jeopardy”). See also United States v. Galan , 82 F.3d 639, 640 (5th Cir. 1996) (feder al double jeopardy principles did not protec t defendant from prosecution for conspiracy to escape afterhe had been “punished” in pri son by being held in seg regation, transfer r ed to a higher level secur

ity facility, and l osing good-time credit). Accordingly, the j udgment below is affirmed.

______________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, Judge3

CONCUR:

______________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, Ju dge

______________________________ CORNELIA A. CLARK , Judge
# C_2009150EN.01000202.xml

| 2.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 150/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 150/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5542 — NPM/Fortis/Helvoet)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 150/04

On 23 June 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5542. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5542. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---