alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### GIOVANNI MOJICA Appellant

THE STATE OFTEXAS Appellee

Comes now, 

### Cause No. 

### MAIS-57202

IN THE COUNTY JUH/i 

## r tiit' uo 

### C

iiU'N**~~ ;;·~~l••ni:.N**  "". · r t, 

### f-RK DALLAS 

### COUNTy

) ) ) 

### ) ) ) ) 

### DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

NOTICE OF APPEAL



### GIOVANN! MOJICA, the Defendant in this Cause, having
been convicted on August 4th, 2014 ofassault- family violence, after ajurytrial on the merits · and having been sentenced to 135 days confinement and a $0 fine hereby gives notice ofappeal.

SIGNED THIS5th Court of AppealsFILED: 08-28-15Lisa Matz, Clerk

## Cause No. 

# A Is--S 

# 1Z 0 

## z__

THESTATE OFTEXAS 

# vs.



# &'0\..9&!. II ,{ ,' 

# u § § 

### §



### TRIAL COURT'S CERTIFICATION OFDEFENDANT'S RIGHT OFAPPEAL*
, u ge o the trial court, certify this criminal case: is not a plea-bargain**ca.~e,** 

### and the defendant has the ri t ofappeal, [or] is a plea-bargain case, but matters were r.:lised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, and not withdrawn or waived, and the defendant has the right ofappeal, [or] 

## o is a plea-bargain case, but the trial court has given permission to appeal, and the defendant has the right ofappeal, [or] 0 is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has 

### NO right ofappeal, for] 0 the defendant has waived the right ofappeal, [or] 0 other (pi s specify):

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

Ju I have received a copy ofthis certification. I have also been informed ofmy rights concerning any appeal ofthis criminal case, including any right to file a

### pro se petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 ofthe Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure. I have been admonished that my attorney must mail a copy of the court ofappeals' judgment and opinion to my last known address and that I have only 30 days in which to file a 

### prose petition for discretionary review in the Court ofCriminal Appeals. Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. I acknowledge that, if I wish to appeal this case and if I am entitled to do so, it is my duty to inform my appellate attorney, by written communication, of any change in the address at which I am currently living or any change in my current prison unit. I understand that, because of appellate deadlines, ifI fail to timely inform my appellate any change in my address, I may lose the opportunity to file a

### prose petition for discretionary rev·

# c:~ Defendant Mailing Address: Telephone #: Fax # (ifany):**~l«f'"11Jo.:** Mailing Address: Telephone #: Fax # (ifany): 

## * A defendant in a criminal case has the right ofappeal under these rules. The trial court shall enter a certification of the defendant's right to appeal in every casein which itenters ajudgmentofguilt orotherappealable order. In aplea bargain case- ·-· that is, a case in which a defendant's plt:a was guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant

.._. a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or(B) after getting the trial court's permission lO appeal." TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 25.2(a)(2).
**EXHIBIT  14******

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in AXA's Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-109227, 333-104438, 333-99083, 333-91900, 333-75600, 333-70516, 333-9212, 333-12088 and 333-12944) and on Form F- 3 (Nos. 333-12872 and 333-12956) of our report dated February 26, 2004 relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears on page F-1 of AXA’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

  

|   | PricewaterhouseCoopers        Audit 

Catherine        Pariset

Paris,        France June 25, 2004 |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
$[ ] [ ]

$[ ] [ ]

INPUT

.05

80
Consistent with USTR's Section 301 notice, OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. requests

confidential treatment for the information designated as business confidential in this submission. Such

information consists of information that would not customarily be released to the public, including

business or trade secrets regarding production costs and processes, data on sales, product characteristics

customers, destinations, and other product, sales, and cost-related business secrets. Business confidential

information has been indicated herein by enclosing it in single brackets (“[ ]”). A public version of these

comments is also being filed with all confidential information removed.

OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. submits this exclusion request on behalf of our business

unit. OMRON in the US is the only designer of this product and only supplier of this component.

BASE COVER 1 GANG D471is a switch housing and is used only automotive purposes of containing

the power window switch, which is an OEM-specified dimension. It is only used for further assembly of

components which go into domestic automobile production, which is specified by auto manufacturer.

This product is not a target of the US Administration's 301 investigation regarding Intellectual Property

concerns. This is not a concern to IP transfer and impressment. This product contains no IP of interest

related to autonomous vehicle production.

The tariff action ultimately poses a risk of significant damage to OMRON, the domestic automobile

industry, and ultimately the US consumer as a increase in price. Like in the case of similar approvals for

vehicle components at the HTS level, OMRON views this product in the same manner. Immediate

movement of production to a US manufacturer or another country would pose significant re-tooling

costs, significant amounts of time, and approvals pertaining to consumer automobile safety standards are

costly and would take a significant amount of time to obtain.

OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. believes that CBP can easily exclude the BASE COVER

1 GANG D471 in question based solely on the product description. The following are draft CBP

exclusion instructions:

"BASE COVER 1 GANG D471; two raised cubical boxes; one is hollow Plastic base cover for POWER

WINDOW SWITCH made of plastic resin; dimensions 47.00mm X 30.00mm X 27.00mm."

This information will be contained on the invoice from the supplier.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5320 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5320

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to modify the authority of the 
Secretary of Defense to carry out the defense laboratory modernization 
                                program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 1, 2023

  Mr. Bacon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to modify the authority of the 
Secretary of Defense to carry out the defense laboratory modernization 
                                program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Defense Capability Development Minor 
Construction Enhancement Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT DEFENSE LABORATORY 
              MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.

    Section 2805(g)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is amended in 
subparagraph (D) by inserting ``or development, production, and 
sustainment of combat capabilities'' before the period at the end.
                                 <all>
```
#### SOUTHTOWN DENTAL CENTER, Plaintiff, v. Shirley PATRICK, Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff/Appellant, v. WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANY, Third Party Defendant/Respondent.

No. 55321.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 23, 1989.

*525Mark Robert Bahn, St. Louis, for Shirley Patrick.

Joseph H. Mueller & Robyn Susan Greif-zu, St. Louis, for Wausau Ins. Co.

Joseph F. Mueller, St. Louis, for South-town Dental.

CRANDALL, Presiding Judge.

Shirley Patrick, defendant/third party plaintiff, appeals from the grant of summary judgment in favor of Wausau Insurance Company, third party defendant. We dismiss the appeal.

Plaintiff, Southtown Dental Center, brought an action against Shirley Patrick for an unpaid bill for dental services. Patrick then filed a third party petition against Wausau. On motion of Wausau, the trial court granted summary judgment in its favor. The underlying claim of *Southtown Dental Center v. Patrick*remained unresolved.

A final and appealable judgment is one which disposes of all parties and all issues in the case and leaves nothing for future determination unless a trial court specifically designates a particular judgment as a final judgment for purposes of appeal. *Fairfield Square Development Company v. Walter Rogalski and Thelma Rogalski v. Ldeberman Corporation,*767 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Mo.App.E.D.1989). When a trial judge specifically designates a judgment as final for purposes of appeal, where the judgment otherwise would not be final, he must also make a determination that there is no just reason for delay. *Id.,*Rule 74.-01(b). Here, the entry of summary judgment disposed of fewer than all the parties and issues because the *Southtown Dental Center v. Patrick*litigation is still pending. There is no indication in the record that the trial court designated this judgment as final for purposes of appeal, nor was there a determination that there is no just reason for delay. Therefore, we conclude that the summary judgment entered in favor of Wausau on Patrick’s third party action is not final for purposes of appeal, The appeal is dismissed.

REINHARD and CRIST, JJ., concur.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 9, 2009

d0701 

# Order

July 9, 2009

137560

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137560 COA: 274906 Berrien CC: 2004-404391-FY RYAN DERREK ALTHOFF, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 2, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 86 (Thursday, May 2, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 19639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10856]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993; Wilfred Baker Engineering, Inc.; Petroleum 
Chemical Processing--Joint Agreement

    Notice is hereby given that, on March 20, 1996, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. Sec. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Wilfred Baker Engineering, 
Inc. filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney 
General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
membership of a cooperative research agreement. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, B.P. Oil Company, Cleveland, OH has joined 
the joint venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activities of the joint venture.
    On March 14, 1995, Wilfred Baker Engineering, Inc. filed its 
original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25252).
    The last notification was filed on July 24, 1995. A notice was 
published in the Federal Register on February 23, 1996 (61 FR 7020-
7021).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 96-10856 Filed 5-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 17, 2021

No. 04-21-00068-CR

Albert Araiza GARCIA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR0541

 Honorable Velia J. Meza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

 Appellant’s brief was originally due May 12, 2021. On June 3, 2021, this court issued an 

order directing appellant’s appointed counsel, Mr. Michael J. Sawyer, to file, no later than June 

14, 2021, a response stating a reasonable explanation for failing to timely file the brief and 

demonstrate the steps being taken to remedy the deficiency. Our order cautioned Mr. Sawyer that 

if he failed to file an adequate response by June 14, 2021, this appeal would be abated to the trial 

court for an abandonment hearing, and the trial court would be asked to consider whether 

sanctions are appropriate. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2). We have received no response. 

Pursuant to Rule 38.8(b)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we abate this case 

to the trial court and ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to answer the following 

questions: 

(1) Does appellant desire to prosecute his appeal? 

(2) Is appellant indigent? If appellant is indigent, the trial court shall take 

such measures as may be necessary to assure the effective assistance of counsel, 

which may include the appointment of new counsel. 

(3) Has appointed or retained counsel abandoned the appeal? Because 

sanctions may be necessary, the trial court should address this issue even if new 

counsel is retained or substituted before the date of the hearing. 

The trial court may, in its discretion, receive evidence on the first two questions by sworn 

affidavit from the appellant. The trial court shall, however, order the appellant’s counsel to be 

present at the hearing. 

The trial court is further ORDERED to file supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records in 

this court, no later than July 19, 2021, which shall include: (1) a transcription of the hearing 

and copies of any documentary evidence admitted, (2) written findings of fact and conclusions 

FILE COPY
of law, and (3) recommendations addressing the above enumerated questions. All appellate filing 

dates are ABATED pending further orders from this court. 

_________________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

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

court on this 17th day of June, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
**Exhibit 8**

 

----

**List of significant subsidiaries**

The table below provides details of the principal subsidiaries of Avecia Group plc:

|                          |   | **Country of incorporation** |   | **Principal activity** |   | **Percentage of equity owned** |
|-------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|------------------------|--------|--------------------------------|
| ***Subsidiary undertakings*** |   |                         |   |                   |   |                           |
| Avecia Investments Limited    |   | UK                           |   | Holding company        |   | 100%*                          |
| Avecia UK Holdings Limited    |   | UK                           |   | Holding company        |   | 100%*                          |
| Avecia Limited                |   | UK                           |   | Chemical manufacture   |   | 100%*                          |
| Avecia Holdings BV            |   | The Netherlands              |   | Holding company        |   | 100%*                          |
| Avecia Holdings Inc.          |   | USA                          |   | Holding company        |   | 100%*                          |
| Avecia BV                     |   | The Netherlands              |   | Chemical manufacture   |   | 100%*                          |
| Avecia Inc.                   |   | USA                          |   | Chemical manufacture   |   | 100%*                          |
| NeoResins Inc.                |   | USA                          |   | Chemical manufacture   |   | 100%*                          |
| Avecia Biotechnology Inc.     |   | USA                          |   | Chemical manufacture   |   | 100%*                          |
| Avecia Spain SL               |   | Spain                        |   | Chemical manufacture   |   | 100%*                          |
| ***Joint ventures***          |   |                         |   |                   |   |                           |
| Image Polymers Europe         |   | UK                           |   | Chemical manufacture   |   | 50%α                      |
| Image Polymers Company        |   | USA                          |   | Chemical manufacture   |   | 50%α                      |

* all ordinary shares heldα  representspercentage share of limited partnership

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lawrence Perez, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.), rendered July 19, 1984, convicting him of assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the facts, by reversing the conviction for assault in the second degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Several remarks by the prosecutor in her summation are now challenged on appeal. All but one of these remarks were unobjected to at trial, while the defendant’s sole objection was sustained and the court gave a curative instruction. Defense counsel did not request any further curative instruction nor did he move for a mistrial. Therefore, no error of law has been preserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]).

The defendant also did not object to the jury’s verdict as being repugnant. Thus, his claim that his acquittal of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree was repugnant to his conviction of assault in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Satloff,*56 NY2d 745; *People v Stahl,*53 NY2d 1048).

However, upon the exercise of our factual review power (CPL 470.15 [5]), we conclude that the verdict of guilt on the count of the indictment charging assault in the second degree was against the weight of the evidence. There was no evidence connecting the defendant with the stick and knife used by the codefendant to beat the victim. Since this was the basis for the *478charge of assault in the second degree, that charge must be dismissed. Bracken, J. P., Rubin, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 18151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10024]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
[Docket No. 84F-0314]


Coconut Products Corp.; Withdrawal of Food Additive Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the 
withdrawal, without prejudice to a future filing, of a food additive 
petition (FAP 4A3824) proposing that the food additives regulations be 
amended to provide for the safe use of polysorbate 60 as an emulsifier 
to be used in the preparation of coconut milk drink.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew D. Laumbach, Center for Food 
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-217), Food and Drug Administration, 
200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3071.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal 
Register of October 9, 1984 (49 FR 39615), FDA announced that a food 
additive petition (FAP 4A3824) had been filed by the Coconut Products 
Corp., 779 Kii St., Honolulu, HI 96825, proposing that Sec. 172.836 
Polysorbate 60 (21 CFR 172.836) be amended to provide for the safe use 
of polysorbate 60 as an emulsifier in the preparation of coconut milk 
drink. Coconut Products Corp. has now withdrawn the petition without 
prejudice to a future filing (21 CFR 171.7).

    Dated: April 4, 1996.
George H. Pauli,
Acting Director, Office of Premarket Approval, Center for Food Safety 
and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 96-10024 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000

Commission File Number: 333-87441

JP Morgan Commercial Mortgage Finance Corp.
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2000-C9
(Exact Name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware      			13-3789046
(State or Other Juris-		(I.R.S. Employer
diction of Incorporation)     Identification No.)

60 Wall Street
New York, NY  10260-0066
(Address of Principal Executive Office)

212-648-9344
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)


Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:     None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the
Act:     None

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all
reports required to be filed  by Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months
(or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to
file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes  X   No _

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein,
and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's
knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements
incorporated by reference in part III of this Form 10-K or any
amendment to this Form 10-K.

Not applicable.

Aggregate market value of voting stock held by non-affiliates of
the Registrant as of December 31, 2000.

Not applicable.

Number of shares of common stock outstanding as of December 31,
2000.

Not applicable.