alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS

J AVI ER FL ORES, Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

. § § § § § § No. 08-10-00063- CR

Appea l from 41st District Court of El Paso County , Texas (TC # 20090D03590)

MEMORAN DUM OP INION This appea l is befor e the Court on its own motion fo r deter mination whether the appea l should be dismiss ed for want of jurisdiction. Finding that there is no appea lable order , we dismiss the appe al for w ant of jurisdiction. Appellant, pro s e , fi l ed a handwr itten notice of appea l on J anuar y 20, 2010 indicating an intent to appea l various actions of the trial court which alleg ed l y d eprived Appellant of his constitutional rights. Appellant’s notice of appea l also includes a statement that the trial court ref used to rule on h is application for writ of habea s corpus. The District Clerk has provided information to the Court indicating that neither a judgme nt of conviction nor an appea lable order has been enter ed by the trial court. On Fe bruar y 16, 2010, the Clerk of the Court notified Appellant of the Court’s intent to dismiss the appea l for want of jurisdiction unless Appellant filed a response within fiftee n day s showing the Court has jurisdiction of the appea l. No response has been rec eived. Gene rally , we o n l y h ave jurisdiction to consider an appea l by a criminal defe ndant wher e there has been a final judgme nt of conviction. See W orkman v. Stat e , 1 7 0 T ex . C rim. 621, 343 S.W .2d 446, 447 (1961); Bridle v. State , 16 S.W .3d 906, 907 (Tex.App.--F ort Worth 2000, no pet.).An appellate court does not have jurisdiction to consider interlocutory order s, unless that jurisdiction

has been expressly gra n t ed by law. See T E X .C O D E C R I M .P R O C .AN N . art. 44.02 (Ve rnon 2006); Bridle , 16 S.W .3d at 907. The exceptio n s t o the rule are : (1) cer tain appea ls while on defe rre d adjudication community supervision, Kirk v. State , 942 S.W .2d 624, 625 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997); (2) appea ls from the denial of a motion to reduc e bond, T E X . R

. A P P . P

. 31.1; McKown v. State , 915 S.W .2d 160, 161 (Tex.App.--F ort Worth 1996, no pe t.); and (3) cer tain appea ls from the denia l of habea s corpus relief

, W right v. State , 969 S.W .2d 588, 589 (Tex.App.--Da llas 1998, no pet.). When

a trial judge ref

uses to issue a writ or denies an applicant a hear ing on the merits of his or her claims, there is no rig ht to appea l. Ex parte Villanueva , 252 S.W .3d 391, 394 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008), citing Ex parte Harge tt , 819 S.W .2d 866, 868 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The trial court’s refusa l to ru l e o n Appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus is not appea lable. Fur

ther, the notice of appea l does not ref lect that the t ri al court enter ed any other appea lable orde r. We there fore dismiss the appe al for w ant of jurisdiction. April 22, 2010 ANN CRAWFORD McCL URE, J ustice Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Rivera, JJ

. (Do Not Publish)
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER Appellate case name: In re TIC Philly Lansdale 2, LLC, TIC Philly Lansdale 3 , LLC , TIC Philly Lansdale 4 , LLC , TIC Philly Lansdale 5 , LLC , TIC Philly Lansdale 6 , LLC , TIC Philly Lansdal e 7 , LLC , TIC Philly Lansdale 8 , LLC , TIC Philly Lansdale 9 , LLC , TIC Philly Lansdale 10 , LLC , TIC Philly Lansdale 11 , LLC , TIC Philly Lansdale 13 , LLC , TIC Philly Lansdale 14 , LLC , TIC Philly Lansdale 16 , LLC , TIC Philly Lansdale 18 , LLC , TIC Philly Lansd ale 19 , LLC , TIC Philly Lansdale 2 0 , LLC , TIC Philly Lansdale 2 1 , LLC , TIC Philly Lansdale 2 3 , LLC , TIC Philly Lansdale 2 4 , LLC , TIC Philly Lansdale 2 5 , LLC , TIC Philly Lansdale 2 7 , LLC , TIC Philly Lansdale 2 9 , LLC , TIC Philly Lansdale 30 , LLC , TIC Philly Lansdale 31 , LLC , TIC Philly Lansdale 3 2, LLC , TIC Philly Lansdale 33 , LLC , and Wayne Mar, d/b/a TIC Philly Lansdale H Appellate case number: 01

- 22

- 00192

- CV

Trial court case number: 2021

- 46723

Trial court: 151st District Court of Harris Cou nty

On March 15, 2022, r elators filed a Request for Temp or ary Relief, asking this Court to stay all trial court proceedin gs in Cause No. 2021

- 46723 , TIC Philly Lansdale 1, LLC, et al. v. Moody Nat ional Philly Lansdale S, LLC, et al. , in the 1 51st Dis trict Court of Har ris County, Texas. Relators ’ motion for temporary relief is denied

. It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

___________ /s/ Julie Co untiss

__________ Acting individually

Date: March 18, 2022
| 1.     | Such Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the period ending August 31, 2010, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2010, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Zhong Sen International Tea Company. |

| Date:  September 21, 2010            |
|-------------------------------------------|
|                                      |
| /s/ Binquan Zhang                    |
| Binquan ZhangChief Financial Officer |
# Implementation of Sections 603 and 604 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-228)

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Consistent with the authority contained in section 604 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-228)(the “Act”), and with reference to the determinations set out in the report to be transmitted to the Congress pursuant to section 603 of that Act regarding noncompliance by the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority with certain commitments, I hereby impose the sanction set out in section 604(a)(2), “Downgrade in Status of the PLO Office in the United States.” This sanction is imposed for a period of 180 days from the date hereof or until such time as the next report required by section 603 of the Act is transmitted to the Congress, whichever is later. You are authorized and directed to transmit to the appropriate congressional committees the report described in section 603 of the Act.

Furthermore, I hereby determine that it is in the national security interest of the United States to waive that sanction, pursuant to section 604(c) of the Act. This waiver shall be effective for a period of 180 days from the date hereof or until such time as the next report required by section 603 of the Act is transmitted to the Congress, whichever is later.

                    You are hereby authorized and directed to transmit this determination to the Congress and to publish it in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

[FR Doc. 08-869

Billing code 4710-10
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT
AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
Nuveen Exchange-Traded Funds

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of each of the Nuveen Exchange-Traded Funds listed in Exhibit
A attached hereto (the "Funds") for the year ended October 31,
2000, we considered its internal control, including control
activities for safeguarding securities, to determine our auditing
procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the
financial statements and to comply with the requirements of
Form N-SAR, and not to provide assurance on internal control.

The management of the Funds is responsible for establishing
and maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility,
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess
the expected benefits and related costs of internal control.
Generally, internal controls that are relevant to an audit pertain
to the entity's objective of preparing financial statements for
external purposes that are fairly presented in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles.  Those internal
controls include the safeguarding of assets against unauthorized
acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in any internal control,
misstatements due to errors or fraud may occur and not be
detected.  Also, projections of any evaluation of internal control
to future periods are subject to the risk that internal control may
become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the
degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may
deteriorate.


Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in internal control that might be material
weaknesses under standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A material weakness is
a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of
the specific internal control components does not reduce to a
relatively low level the risk that errors or fraud in amounts that
would be material in relation to the financial statements being
audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by
employees in the normal course of performing their assigned
functions.  However, we noted no matters involving internal
control, including control activities for safeguarding securities,
and its operation that we consider to be material weaknesses as
defined above as of October 31, 2000.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the
Board of Directors and management of the Nuveen Exchange-
Traded Funds and the Securities and Exchange Commission and
is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other
than these specified parties.


/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
December 18, 2000


Exhibit A


Funds with October Fiscal Year End

Nuveen Performance Plus Municipal Fund, Inc.
Nuveen Municipal Advantage Fund, Inc
Nuveen Municipal Market Opportunity Fund, Inc.
Nuveen Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund
EXHIBIT 99.4

                            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 Eltek Ltd. (the "Company") on Form
20-F for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dov Frumovich, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to SS. 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; and

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


/S/ DOV FRUMOVICH *
___________________
Dov Frumovich
Chief Financial Officer

July 14, 2003


* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2296

THE CIT GROUP/EQUIPMENT FINANCING,

INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

NABIL J. ASTERBADI,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (CA-93-857-1)

Submitted: March 23, 2005 Decided: April 1, 2005

Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dale A. Cooter, COOTER, MANGOLD, TOMPERT & WAYSON, L.L.P.,

Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Steven N. Leitess, Jeremy S.

Friedberg, Andrew L. Cole, LEITESS, LEITESS & FRIEDBERG, P.C.,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Nabil J. Asterbadi appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for correction of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(a). We have reviewed the record and find that the district

court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. See

Kocher v. Dow Chem. Co., 132 F.3d 1225, 1229 (8th Cir. 1997)

(stating review standard). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. See CIT Group/Equip. Fin., Inc. v.

Asterbadi, No. CA-93-857-1 (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 24, 2004 & entered

Sept. 28, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


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





EXHIBIT
      32.2





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of THE MOBILE STAR CORP. (the “Company”) On
      Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“Report”), I, Eran
      Gronich, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
      adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best
      of
      my knowledge:





i  The
      certifications required by Rule 13a-14(b) (17 CFR 240.13a-14(b)) or Rule
      15d-14(b) (17 CFR 240.15d-14(b)) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
      of
      the United States Code (18 U.S.C. 1350).





ii  A
      certification furnished pursuant to this Item will not be deemed “filed” for
      purposes of section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the
      liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be
      incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the
      Exchange Act, except to the extent that the small business issuer specifically
      incorporates it by reference.





/s/
                Eran GronichEran
                GronichChief
                Accounting/Financial Officer
              (Principal
                Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 32(b) - SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION (CFO)


                        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 of Monarch Services, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending October 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Marshall Chadwell, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

    (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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: December 15, 2004

/s/   Marshall Chadwell
----------------------------
Marshall Chadwell
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2





Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of China Media Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ying Xue, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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) 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.




Dated:  May 14, 2010




By:          /s/Ying Xue


Ying Xue


Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-20133

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff–Appellee, 

v. 

JEFFERY ARNOLD DEAL, 

Defendant–Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:15-CR-336-1 

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jeffery Arnold Deal pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with 

two counts of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced him to concurrent terms of 

63 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. 

On appeal, Deal challenges the calculation of his guidelines range of 

imprisonment under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A), which states that the base 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 14, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-20133 Document: 00514074227 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2017
No. 16-20133

2 

offense level is 20 if the offense occurred subsequent to a felony conviction for 

a crime of violence. He avers that his Texas conviction for robbery no longer 

qualifies as a crime of violence because the former residual clause and 

accompanying commentary of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) are invalid in light of 

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). That argument is unavailing, 

see Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886, 892 (2017), and Texas robbery 

qualifies as an enumerated crime of violence under the former commentary to 

§ 4B1.2, see United States v. Santiesteban-Hernandez, 469 F.3d 376, 380-81 

(5th Cir. 2006), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Rodriguez, 711 

F.3d 541, 547-63 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc); United States v. Moore, 635 F.3d 

774, 776 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v. Velasco, 465 F.3d 633, 641 n.9 (5th 

Cir. 2006) (definitions of crime of violence set forth in U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.2 and 

2L1.2 are treated interchangeably). Because the offense qualifies as an 

enumerated crime of violence, we need not address Deal’s additional argument 

that Texas robbery does not constitute a crime of violence under § 4B1.2 

because it lacks the element of use, threatened use, or attempted use of force. 

See United States v. Olalde-Hernandez, 630 F.3d 372, 376 (5th Cir. 2011). 

 AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 16-20133 Document: 00514074227 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2017
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 20

- 10827 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:19

- cr - 60344

- RKA

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus ROGENIOR PIERRE PAUL, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ ( May 17, 2021 ) Before WILSON, RO SENBAUM , and LUCK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Thomas Sclafani , appointed counsel for Rogenior Paul in this direct criminal appeal , has moved to withdraw from further representation of Paul and filed a brief

USCA11 Case: 20-10827 Date Filed: 05/17/2021 Page: 1 of 22 pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that Sclafani ’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, Sclafani ’s mot ion to withdraw is GRANTED , and Paul ’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

USCA11 Case: 20-10827 Date Filed: 05/17/2021 Page: 2 of 2
* This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §

46(d).

** 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. 98-20317 Conference Calendar

TIMOTHY AGUILAR, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus ALICE MASON ABBOTT; DAVID TURNER, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-97-CV-1654

- - - - - - - - - - February 10, 1999 Before BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. * PER CURIAM: ** Timothy Aguilar, a Texas prisoner (# 647166), appeals from the dismissal of his pro se civil rights action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The district court

sua sponte dismissed the complaint because it was barred by the applicable two-year Texas statute of limitations. A district court may

sua sponte dismiss a complaint as frivolous on statute-of-limitations grounds where “it is clearNo. 98-20317 -2- from the face of a complaint that the claims asserted are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.” Moore v. McDonald , 30 F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir. 1994). For § 1983 claims, federal courts apply the general personal injury statute of limitations of the forum state, Owens v. Okure , 488 U.S. 235, 249-50 (1989), which is two years in Texas. Cooper v. Brookshire , 70 F.3d 377, 380 n.20 (5th Cir. 1995); see T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 16.003(a) (West). Aguilar’s assertions that his claims were not discoverable until June 1995 are meritless, because his own allegations reflected that in 1993 he was aware of the injury he alleges and of circumstances that would have led a reasonable person to investigate further at that time. See Piotrowski v. City of Houston , 51 F.3d 512, 516 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the limitations provision. AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 23.1



                     CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the use of our report dated  November 9, 2001 (except  paragraph 2
of Note 7, as to which the date is November  19,  2001),  included in the Annual
Report  on Form 10-K of Sonus  Corp.  for the year  ended  July 31,  2001,  with
respect to the consolidated financial statements,  as amended,  included in this
Form 10-K/A.


                                                      /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Seattle, Washington
September 9, 2002
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





I, Ronald
Williams, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of DRC Ventures, Inc. for the quarter ended December 31, 2009
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of DRC Ventures, Inc.





Dated:
      February 15, 2010
                  By:
                  /s/ Ronald WilliamsName:
                  Ronald WilliamsTitle:
                  President, Principal Executive Officer
                    and Principal Financial
Officer





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.