alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 John T. Boyd, Chi ef Justice (R et.), Se venth Co urt of Appeals, si tting by

assignment. Tex. Gov’ t Code Ann. §75.002( a)(1) (Ver non Supp. 2003). NO. 07-03-0172-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL E JUNE 6, 2003

______________________________

JIMMY BA RELA, Appellant
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 3 20TH DI STRICT COURT OF PO TTER CO UNTY; NO. 45,848-D; HON. DON EMERSON, PRESIDING

_______________________________ Before QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ., and BOYD, S.J. 1 ON ABA TEMENT AND REMAND Appellant

Ji mmy Ba rela appeals fro m a judgment conv icting hi m of assault on a public servant. The clerk’srecord isdue in this cause, and an extension of the applicable deadline was soug ht. To justify theextension, the distric t clerk r epresented that appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay for the record. Nothing of record app ears showing the appellant i s indigent and entitled to a free record.2

Acco rdin gly, we now abate this appeal and remand th e cause to the 320th District Court of Potter County

(trial court) for further

proceedings . Upon remand, the trial court shall immediately

cause notice of a h earing to be given and, thereafter, condu ct a hearing to determine the foll owing: 1. whether

appellant desi res to prosec ute the appeal; 2. whether

appellant is indigent; and, 3. whether th e appellan t is entitl ed to a free appellate record and to app oint ed co unse l on a ppe al du e to h is ind igenc y. The trial cour

t shall caus e the hearing to be transcr ibed. So too shall it 1) execute findin gs of fact and conclusi ons of law addr essing the for

egoing i ssues, 2) cau se to be devel oped
a supplemental clerk’s record containin g the findings of fact an d conclusions of law and all orders it may is sue as a resul t of its hearing on this matter, and 3) cause tobe developed
a reporter’s

record tra nscribing the evidenc e and arguments pr esente d at the aforementioned hearing. Add iti onally, th e district court shall then file the suppl emental record with the clerk of this court on or before July 3, 2003. Should furt her time be needed by the trial court to perfor m these tasks , then s ame must be reques ted before July 3, 2003. Finally, if the trial court determines that appellant is e ntitled to appoi nted counsel and has
no counsel, it must appoi nt counsel to appel lant and inform thi s court of the name, address, and state bar num ber of the appoint ed counsel. It is so or

dered. Per Curi am
Do not publish

.
Exhibit 3







CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption Experts in the Annual Information Form incorporated by reference in this Annual Report (Form 40-F) and to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 40-F) of Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc. of our reports dated February 11, 2005 (except as to note 15 c (iii) which is as of February 18, 2005), with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc., Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc. managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Angiotech Pharmaceutical Inc., included in the 2004 Annual Report to Shareholders of Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc.

|Vancouver, Canada, | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
|------------------ | ---------------------
|February 18, 2005. | Chartered Accountants
# CE2012199EN.01019201.xml

| 7.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 199/192 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 199/192

---

Tuesday 8 March 2011Appointment of a Member of the European Court of Auditors (Mr Harald Wögerbauer - AT)

P7_TA(2011)0078

European Parliament decision of 8 March 2011 on the nomination of Harald Wögerbauer as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C7-0029/2011 – 2011/0801(NLE))

2012/C 199 E/27

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0029/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0029/2011),

| — | having regard to the fact that at its meeting of 3 March 2011 the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the fact that at its meeting of 3 March 2011 the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors,

| — | having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0048/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0048/2011),

| A. | whereas Harald Wögerbauer fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas Harald Wögerbauer fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU,

| 1. | Delivers a favourable opinion on the nomination of Harald Wögerbauer as a Member of the Court of Auditors; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Delivers a favourable opinion on the nomination of Harald Wögerbauer as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

---
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 Annual report of The Blackhawk Fund (the "Company")
on  Form  10-KSB  for  the  period  ended  December  31,  2004 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steve
Bonenberger,  President  and  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

     1.     The  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

     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.

                                                 /s/ Steve Bonenberger
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Steve Bonenberger, President
                                                 and Chief Executive Officer
                                                 Date: February 28, 2006
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6152** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
EUGENE SUTTON, III , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. Terry L. Wooten , Chief District Judge. ( 4:08

- cr
- 00060

- TLW

- 3 )

Submitted : April 19, 2016 Decided: April 22, 2016

Before AGEE , DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Eugene Sutton, III , Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Eugene Sutton, III, appeals the d istrict court ’ s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) (2012) . We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. United States v. Sutto n , No. 4:08

- cr
00060

- TLW−3 (D.S.C. Jan. 28, 2016) . We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2010048EN.01000601.xml

| 26.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/6

---

Call for proposals under the work programme of the Artemis Joint Undertaking

2010/C 48/06

Notice is hereby given of the launch of a call for proposals under the work programme of the Artemis Joint Undertaking.

Artemis Joint Undertaking

Proposals are invited for the following call: Artemis-2010-1.

Artemis-2010-1

Call documentation including deadline and budget is given in the call text, which is published on the following website:

http://artemis-ju.eu/call2010

---
September 2, 1975

The Honorable C. A. Dickerson County Attorney Fort Bend County Richmond, Texas 77469
Dear Mr. Dickerson: Opinion No. H- 680 Re: Authority ofa county

to contract with a non-profit corporation without seeking competitive bids. You have requested our opinion concerning whether a commissioners court may enter a contract for law enforcement consultant services without competitive bids. Subject to certain exceptions, section 2ofarticle 2368a. V.T. C.S., provides that nocounty or city may make a contract involving an expenditure of $3000 or more without submitting the proposed contract to competitive bids. Among the exceptions to this requirement are contracts for
“personal andprofessional services.” You have informed us thatthe Cbuntywishes to contract with a non-profit corporation whose purpose is set outin its charter as:

To aid in the co-ordination and participation in the activities in the detection, apprehension andprosecution ofthe perpetrators ofmajor crimes committed in Fort Bend County
. . . Under the proposed contract the corporation would coordinate inve’stigaf~- tions ofmajor crimes andwould develop amodus operandi for burglary investigations. In our opinion this would constitute a contract for personal or professional services within the exception contained in article 2368a, section 2. This exception appears tobe a codification ofa case law exception concerning contracts for services requiring special skills. Stephens County v. McCammon, 52S.W. 2d 53 (Tex. Sup. 1932). That case upheld the

p. 2962The Honorable C. A. Dickerson, page 2 (H-680)

execution ofa contract for the services of anarchitect without competitive bids. We believe that the coordination ofcriminal investigations similarly involves the exercise of skill or expertise. Accordingly, a contract may be entered into bytheCommissioners Cburtwithout competitive bids. We express noopinion concerning whether article 2368a excepts contracts for personal or professional services which do not involve the exercise of skill or expertise. SUMMARY A commissioners court may enter a contract for personal or professional services involving the coordination of the investigation ofcrime without receiving competitive bids. Very truly yours,

JOHN L. HILL Attorney General of Texas APPROVED: 

# QJ&dcJw

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant

Opinion Committee

p. 2963
Exhibit
32.02








SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION





In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Macrovision Solutions Corporation (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), James Budge certifies
in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), that
to the best of his knowledge:





(a) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)), and





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





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
hereunto signed this Certification as of May 6, 2009.







By:
              /s/ James
      BudgeJames
      BudgeChief
      Financial Officer
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

DWAYNE JAY NORTON,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:10cv157/RS/MD

MRS. JENKINS, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon plaintiff filing a civil rights complaint (doc. 1) and

a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 2) on June 16, 2010. 

On July 1, 2010, this court entered an order granting plaintiff’s motion to proceed

in forma pauperis and gave him twenty-eight (28) days to file an amended complaint (doc. 

5). Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (doc. 6), which was again found deficient, and

on July 6, 2010 he was given an additional twenty-eight (28) days in which to file a second

amended complaint (doc. 7). Over the next several months plaintiff filed various motions

and numerous deficient documents but still failed to file a second amended complaint. 

Therefore, on December 8, 2010, plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days in which to show

cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute (doc. 16). To date,

plaintiff has not responded to the order or explained his inability to do so.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute

and failure to comply with an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 19 day of January, 2011. 

th

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
Page 2 of 2

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen days after being served a copy hereof. Any different deadline that may appear

on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and does not control. A copy

of any objections shall be served upon any other parties. Failure to object may limit the

scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v.

Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11 Cir. 1988). th

Case No: 5:10cv157/RS/MD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

BILLY CLIFTON STEWART

VS CASE NO. 5:10cv28-RS/MD

MELINDA MIGUEL, et al.

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Magistrate Judge Davis on February 11, 2010 

Type of Motion/Pleading: MOTION TO ACCEPT MEMORANDUM OF LAW EXPLAINING

THE SITUATION FACED CURRENTLY BY THE PLAINTIFF

Filed by: PLAINTIFF on 2/8/10 Document 2

( ) Stipulated/Consented/Joint Pleading

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

/s/Donna Bajzik

Deputy Clerk: Donna Bajzik

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 19 day of th

February, 2010, that:

(a) The requested relief is DENIED.

(b) The court will not consider, in this case, a request for “rehearing” in Case Number 5:01cv5. Furthermore, the deadline for

filing a motion for re-hearing in that case has expired.

/s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### July 29, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



### 136381 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 136381 COA: 283622 Oakland CC: 05-203377-FH DANIEL MATT MAJEWSKI, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 18, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0721 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 29, 2008

Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 13, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 63926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5613]


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

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

National Park Service


National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending 
Nominations and Related Actions

    Nominations for the following properties being considered for 
listing or related actions in the National Register were received by 
the National Park Service before October 27, 2007. Pursuant to section 
60.13 of 36 CFR part 60 written comments concerning the significance of 
these properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation 
may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National 
Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., 
2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of 
Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St., NW., 8th floor, 
Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed 
comments should be submitted by November 28, 2007.

J. Paul Loether,
Chief, National Register of Historic Places/ National Historic 
Landmarks Program.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

District of Columbia

Armed Forces Retirement Home--Washington, 3700 N Capitol St, NW, 
Washington, 07001237.

ILLINOIS

Cook County

Lumber Exchange Building and Tower Addition, 11 S LaSalle, Chicago, 
07001238.
West Burton Place Historic District, 143-161 W Burton Pl, Chicago, 
07001239.

MASSACHUSETTS

Bristol County

Spring Brook Cemetery, Spring St, Mansfield, 07001240.

Middlesex County

Revere Beach Parkway--Metropolitan Park System of Greater Boston, 
(Metropolitan Park System of Greater Boston MPS), Revere Beach Pkwy, 
Chelsea, 07001241.

MINNESOTA

Dodge County

Kasson Public School, 101 3rd Ave, NW, Kasson, 07001242.

MONTANA

Musselshell County

Roundup Central School, 600 1st St W, Roundup, 07001243.

NORTH DAKOTA

Burleigh County

Camp Hancock, 101 Main Ave, Bismarck, 07001244.
[FR Doc. 07-5613 Filed 11-09-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-51-M
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Charles B. Keffer, :

Petitioners :

:

v. : No. 1110 C.D. 2022

:

Colfax Corporation and Phoenix, :

Insurance Company (Workers’ :

Compensation Appeal Board) :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day 6

th of November 2023, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that the above-captioned opinion filed August 11, 2023, shall be designated 

OPINION rather than MEMORANDUM OPINION and it shall be reported.

__________________________________

ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated April 14, 2020, with respect to the financial statement of SmartTrust 473 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-235924) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm”.


 


	 	/s/ Grant Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


April 14, 2020
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 15

- 00301

- CR

CHARLES LEE v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 167th District Court of Travis County , Texas Trial Cause No. D

- 1

- DC

- 99

- 995654

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this caus e on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. September 1, 2016
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-13-00360-CR 

JORGE CAVAZOS, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 85th District Court 

Brazos County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 11-00914-CRF-85, Honorable J. D. Langley, Presiding 

 

December 13, 2013 

 

ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Appellant Jorge Cavazos appeals from his conviction for delivery of a controlled 

substance. The clerk’s and reporter’s records were due to be filed on October 14, 2013. 

On November 1, 2013, we notified the court reporter that the reporter’s record was past 

due and to advise us of the status of the record no later than November 12, 2013. On 

November 18th, the court reporter notified this court that there had been no designation 

of the reporter’s record delivered to her and that she would not be requesting an 

extension. The district clerk, on October 11, 2013, requested an extension of time to file 
2

the record because no designation of the record had been filed. It was granted to 

November 13, 2013. To date no record has been filed. 

On November 20, 2013, we directed counsel for appellant to certify to this court 

whether or not he had complied with the appellate rules concerning designation of the 

clerk’s and reporter’s records. Counsel replied that he had not requested the records 

because he has not been able to “obtain the money needed to pay for them.” 

Furthermore, counsel represented that he was in the “process of filing the necessary 

paperwork to obtain a Free Reporter’s Record.” 

Accordingly, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the 85th District Court 

(trial court) for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court shall determine the 

following:

1. whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal; 

 2. whether appellant is indigent; and, if so,

3. whether appellant is entitled to a free record. 

The trial court is also directed to enter such orders necessary to address the 

aforementioned questions. So too shall it include its findings on those matters in a 

supplemental record and cause that record to be filed with this court by January 6, 

2014. Should further time be needed to perform these tasks, then same must be 

requested before January 6, 2014. 

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
# CA2010061EN.01002301.xml

| 12.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 61/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 61/23

---

RESERVE LIST (1)

1

OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AD/131/08

Conference Interpreters (AD 5)

with Hungarian (HU) as their main language

(2010/C 61 A/06)

Merit Group 1

| CSÁKVÁRI | Tünde |
| --- | --- |
| GORKA | Noémi |
| HORVÁTH | Tamás |
| VÍGH | Krisztina |
| VOJKOVICS BENEDEK | Timea |

CSÁKVÁRI

Tünde

GORKA

Noémi

HORVÁTH

Tamás

VÍGH

Krisztina

VOJKOVICS BENEDEK

Timea

Merit Group 2

| BENÁK | Daniela |
| --- | --- |
| BENEDICTY | Gergely |
| GÖRÖMBEI | Katalin Réka |
| KALOCSAI | Eszter |
| MIZSEI | Edit |
| SZEPESVÁRI | Lívia |
| VASY | Júlia Eszter |

BENÁK

Daniela

BENEDICTY

Gergely

GÖRÖMBEI

Katalin Réka

KALOCSAI

Eszter

MIZSEI

Edit

SZEPESVÁRI

Lívia

VASY

Júlia Eszter

Merit Group 3

| FARKAS | András |
| --- | --- |
| GRÓH | Kinga |
| HATÁS | Péter Tamás |
| MANNEKENS | Katja |
| NAGY | Enikö Emese |

FARKAS

András

GRÓH

Kinga

HATÁS

Péter Tamás

MANNEKENS

Katja

NAGY

Enikö Emese

The reserve list will be valid until 31 December 2011 and may be extended.

31 December 2011

---

(1)  A successful candidate may explicitly request her/his name not be published.

1

---