alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-22-00012-CR

John Adonis-Hercule BRACY,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-CR-8524

Honorable Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE RIOS, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

SIGNED April 6, 2022.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
Exhibit 4.1


 


Advisors Asset Management, Inc.

18925 Base Camp Road

Monument, Colorado 80132


February 7, 2020


 


Advisors Disciplined Trust 1990


c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee


BNY Atlantic Terminal


2 Hanson Place, 12th Floor


Brooklyn, New York 11217


 


Re: Advisors Disciplined Trust 1990 (the “Fund”)


Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have examined
the Registration Statement File No. 333-234726 for the above captioned Fund. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement
of the references to Advisors Asset Management, Inc. as evaluator.


You are hereby authorized
to file a copy of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	Advisors Asset Management, Inc.
	 	 
	 	 	 
		By	/s/ALEX R. MEITZNER
	 	 	Alex R. Meitzner
	 		Senior Vice President
Exhibit 99.9

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,
chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's
knowledge, that:

The
Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the "Report") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

/s/ V. Prem Watsa V. Prem Watsa Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 10, 2017


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited and will be retained by Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code),
the undersigned officer of Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The
Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the "Report") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

/s/ David Bonham David Bonham Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate: March 10, 2017


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited and will be retained by Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Pierre SHUFFORD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-6443.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 30, 2003.

Decided Aug. 20, 2003.

Antonio Pierre Shufford, Appellant pro se. Winnie Jordan Reaves, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Antonio Pierre Shufford appeals from the orders of the district court denying relief on his motions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). He preserved for this appeal only his claim that his counsel provided ineffective assistance. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). This court may only grant a certificate of appealability if the appellant makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). The relevant inquiry is whether “ ‘reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.’ ” *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Shufford has failed to make this showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000             OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1999             NOV-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000             OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                       9,053,069              11,520,876
<SECURITIES>                                47,107,923              52,476,079
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,863,589               1,867,238
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            58,387,593              66,259,397
<PP&E>                                       4,133,654               4,483,487
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,187,376               2,387,012
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              64,459,357              72,549,284
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,696,963              24,891,826
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        33,330                  33,330
<OTHER-SE>                                  46,435,502              47,253,470
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                64,459,357              72,549,284
<SALES>                                      6,208,031               9,031,402
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,782,637              11,211,363
<CGS>                                        3,015,124               5,468,401
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,027,789              13,328,810
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (2,889,942)               4,040,583
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              78,174                  89,524
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,566,616               1,833,612
<INCOME-TAX>                                   825,000                  51,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            741,616               1,782,612
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   741,616               1,782,612
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.22                    0.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22                    0.53


</TABLE>
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40301 Su m m ar yC al endar

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee

v. A L B E R T S M IT H , III , D e fe nda nt

- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 1: 03- C R

- 41- 1

B e fo r e B E N AV ID E S , P R A D O , a n dS O U T H W IC K , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: * A lb e r tS m it h , I I I , fe d e r a l p r is o n e r # 1 0 4 9 8 -0 7 8 , a p p e a ls t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s j u d g m e n td e n y i ngh i s mo t i o n t o r e d u c e h i s s e n t e n c e p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U. S

. C. § 3 58 2( C) ( 2) b as e d o n t he a m e ndm e nto f t he c r ac k c o c ai ne Se nt e nc i ng G u i del i n es. Sm i t h argu es that i n den yi n g t h e m ot i on , t h e di st ri ctcourtt reat ed th e G u id e li n e s a s m a n d a to ryinv iola tion of Un ite dS ta te s v . B o o k e r, 54 3 U

. S. 22 0 ( 20 05 ) a nd Kim b r o ug h v . Un ite dS ta te s , 552 U

. S

. 85 ( 200 7) , an d thu s, fai l ed to co n s id e rth e p u r p o s e o f t h e a m e n d m e n t, w h ic h w a s to cu r e th e d is p a r ityin United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April9, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-40301 Document: 00511075597 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2010N o. 09- 40301

2 s e n te n c i n gb e tw e e n cr a c k a n dp o w d e r e dco c a in e . H e a s s e r te dth a t h is sentenci n g u n der t h e career of fen der G u i del i n e di d not precl u de a redu ct i on of h is se n te n ce u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ). Sm i t h’ s a r gum e ntt hathi s s e nt e nc i ng unde r t he c ar e e r o f fe nde rG ui de l i ne d o e s n o tp r e c lu d e a r e d u c t io n o f h is s e n t e n c e is fo r e c lo s e db y t h is c o u r t ’s p r e c e d e n t. Se eUni t e d St at e s v . Ande rs o n, 591 F. 3d 789, 790 & n. 4, 791 & n. 8. H i s argum en t s ba sed on t h e B ookera nd Ki m br ough dec i si ons ar e f or ec l os ed by
o urde c i s i o n i n Un itedS ta tes v. D o u b lin , 5 7 2 F .3 d2 3 5 , 2 3 6 -2 9 (5 th C ir .), ce rt. d enie d , 1 3 0 S

. C t. 5 1 7 (20 0 9 ). A c c o r d in g ly , th e G o v e r n m e n t’s m o tio n fo rs u m m a r ya ffir m a n c e is G RA N TE D , a nd the j udg m e nto f t he di s t r i c tc o ur t is A FFI RM ED

. The G overnm en t ’ s al t erna t ive m ot i on f or an extensi on of t i m e i n w h i ch t o f i l e a bri ef i s DI SM I SS ED AS M OO T. Case: 09-40301 Document: 00511075597 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2010
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

                    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments                           ( print page 46626)                        must be received not later than August 25, 2008.                

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco**                     (Kenneth Binning, Director, Regional and Community Bank Group) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:                

*1. Russell Goldsmith*, individually, and as part of a family group, including the Bram & Elaine Goldsmith Family Trust, the Elaine Goldsmith Revocable Trust, the Bruce Leigh Goldsmith Revocable Trust, the Goldsmith Family Partnership, the Goldsmith Family Foundation, and other related family trusts, partnerships, and foundations, all of Los Angeles, California, to retain control and to acquire additional voting shares of City National Corporation, and thereby indirectly retain control and acquire additional voting shares of City National Bank, both of Beverly Hills, California.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 5, 2008.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E8-18365 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
 

SOUTHERN DIVISION
 

FIFTH THIRD BANK, 

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 

09-CV-13137 

vs. 

PAUL D. BORMAN 

PAUL G. SIEBEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Defendant. 

________----el 

ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT IN FAVOR 

OF PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST DEFENDANT 

This is a breach of contract case. On November 30, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion for 

Summary Judgment seeking a judgment against Defendant in the amount of $3,242,832.02. See 

docket entry 8. On December 8, 2009, the Court issued a briefing schedule in which it ordered that 

Defendant's response is due by December 21,2009, and that Plaintiffs reply is due by January 4, 

2010. See docket entry 9. The Court is currently scheduled to hear oral argument on January 20, 

2010. 

Defendant, who is represented by counsel, has neither filed a response in opposition to 

Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment nor has sought an extension oftime to do. Accordingly, 

on January 7, 2010, more than two weeks after the expiration of the response deadline, the Court 

issued an order requiring Defendant to "show cause why the Court should not summarily enter 

judgment in favor of Plaintiff." See docket entry 11. The Court expressly warned that "[s]hould 

Defendant fail to comply with [the show cause] order, the Court will cancel the upcoming hearing 

1
 

2:09-cv-13137-PDB-MJH Doc # 12 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 187
and enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount sought." Id. 

Defendant has not responded to the Court's show cause order and the time to do so has 

expired. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor ofPlaintiff and against Defendant in the 

amount of $3,242,832.02. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing currently scheduled for January 20, 2010, is 

cancelled. 

Dated: I-I S' (0 PAUL D. BORMAN 

Detroit, Michigan UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2
 

2:09-cv-13137-PDB-MJH Doc # 12 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 188
175 La. 240

#### NAEF v. MILLER-GOLL MFG. CO.

No. 31804.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 20, 1932.

H. W. Robinson and E. B. Freeland, both of New Orleans, for appellant.

A. D. Danziger, Daniel Wendling, and Albert B. Koorie, all of New Orleans, for appel-lee.

ST. PAUL, J.

Plaintiff sought to have a receiver appointed for defendant, but was unsuccessful. See 174 La. 232, 140 So. 32.

Thereafter defendant took a rule in the court below to have its costs taxed, including “reasonable counsel fees and other reasonable expenses” in accordance with section 2 of Act No. 159 of 1898, as amended by Act No. 117 of 1916.

The total amount claimed in the rule was $1,918.50; the trial judge allowed $1,768.50; and plaintiff appealed to this court to which the original appeal belonged.

The appellee moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the amount involved is below the appellate jurisdiction of this court, and relies on In re Petit & Boh Co., 128 La. 163, 54 So. 705, wherein it was held that, where there was no longer a fund to be distributed (i. e., still on hand and held for distribution), in excess of the jurisdictional amount, the appellate jurisdiction was then governed by the amount in dispute. Aliter, where there is still a fund to be distributed (i. e., still on hand and held'for distribution), in excess of the jurisdictional amount. In re Receivership of Sheets Lumber Co., 104 La. 771, 29 So. 328; Denegre v. W. G. Tebault Furniture & Realty Co., 130 La. 283, 57 So. 929.

But these cases have no application here. This is a case to tax costs, an incidental demand, and both original and appellate jurisdiction thereof belong where the main demand belonged. State ex rel. Johnson v. Judges of Court of Appeals, 107 La. 69, 31 So. 645; Barker v. Houssiere-Latreille Oil Co., 163 La. 555, 112 So. 415.

The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.
EX-4.9



 Exhibit 4.9 

JOINDER AGREEMENT 
 November 22, 2013 

Delhaize Group 
 Square Marie Curie 40 

1070 Brussels 
 Belgium 

Attention: Chief Financial Officer 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Reference is made to that certain cross-guarantee agreement, dated as of May 21, 2007 (as amended, supplemented or otherwise modified from
time to time, the “Cross-Guarantee Agreement”), by and among Delhaize Group, a limited liability company (“société anonyme”) organized under the laws of the Kingdom of Belgium
(“Delhaize Group”), Delhaize America, LLC, a limited liability company wholly-owned by Delhaize Group organized under the laws of the State of North Carolina (“Delhaize America”), and the other
wholly-owned Subsidiaries of Delhaize Group signatory thereto or that have become a party thereto (collectively with Delhaize Group and Delhaize America, the “Guarantors” and individually, a
“Guarantor”). 
 Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the
Cross-Guarantee Agreement. 
 This letter supplements the Cross-Guarantee Agreement and is delivered by the undersigned, DZA Brands, LLC
(the “New Guarantor”), pursuant to Section 12.1 of the Cross-Guarantee Agreement. The New Guarantor hereby agrees to be bound as a Guarantor by all of the terms, covenants and conditions set forth in the Cross-Guarantee
Agreement as of November 22, 2013. Without limiting the foregoing, the New Guarantor hereby makes each of the representations and warranties and agrees to each of the covenants applicable to Guarantors contained in the Cross-Guarantee
Agreement. 
 THIS LETTER SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND SHALL BE CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the New Guarantor has caused this letter to be executed and delivered by its duly authorized officer as of the date
first above written. 
  

					
	 DZA BRANDS, LLC

		
	By:	 	/s/ G. Linn Evan
		 	Name:	 	G. Linn Evans
		 	Title:	 	Secretary
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 155 (Monday, August 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 46632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18252]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; 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 on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism Initial Review Group; Epidemiology, Prevention and 
Behavior Research Review Subcommittee.
    Date: October 22-23, 2008.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Crowne Plaza Tysons Corner, 1960 Chain Bridge Road, 
Mclean, VA 22102.
    Contact Person: Lorraine Gunzerath, PhD, MBA, Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 
Office of Extramural Activities, Extramural Project Review Branch, 
5635 Fishers Lane, Room 3043, Bethesda, MD 20892-9304, 301-443-2369, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c0aca7b5aebaa5b2a180ada1a9aceeaea9a8eea7afb6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b6dad1c3d8ccd3c4d7f6dbd7dfda98d8dfde98d1d9c0">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, 
Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and 
Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, 
Alcohol Research Center Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 31, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-18252 Filed 8-8-08; 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>
t3

PER CURIAM

— Brian Martin challenges a legal financial obligation imposed following his guilty plea to two counts of possession ofa controlled substance. Martin contends, and the State concedes, thatthe $200 criminal filing fee should be stricken from hisjudgment and sentence due to his indigence, legislative amendments, and Statev. Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d 732, 746- 50, 426 P.3d 714 (2018). We acceptthe State’s concession and remand forthe trial courtto strikethe filing fee from Martin’sjudgment and sentence.

Forthe Court: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATEOFWASHINGTON, 

### ) ) No. 78393-9-I Respondent, 

### )

) DIVISION ONE

_ v. 

### ) BRIAN DAVID MARTIN, 

### ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION

—

Appellant. 

### ) FILED: 

### JUL 1 

### 5 2019