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

San Antonio, Texas

December 5, 2022

No. 04-22-00310-CR

Julio C. RIVERON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR2932

Honorable Kevin M. O'Connell, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on August 25, 2022, and after we granted 

two motions for extension of time, the deadline was extended to October 11, 2022. However, to 

date, the brief has not been filed. This court notified appellant’s counsel of the deficiency on 

October 13, 2022. See 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.

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

this court, no later than December 20, 2022, which shall include: (1) a transcription of the 

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

conclusions of law, and (3) recommendations addressing the above enumerated questions. All 

appellate filing dates are ABATED pending further orders from this court.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

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

court on this 5th day of December, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
Amendment No. 1 to License No. 23071 (registration series A 022574)



 Exhibit 4.15.1 
  
 Amendment No. 1 
 to License No. 23071 (registration series A 022574) 
 dated August 1, 2002 
  
 To add the following additional clause to the Conditions For Carrying Out Activities Under
License No. 23071: 
  
 “Wireless data transmission equipment operating at
2,400-2,483.5 MHz may be used, subject to the permission of the state radiofrequency service of the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Telecommunications and Information Technologies.” 
  

					
	 First Deputy Minister
 of the Russian
Federation for
 Telecommunications and
 Information
Technologies
	    	 [Signature]
	    	 B.D. Antonyuk

			
	 	    	 	    	 December 29, 2003

			
	 Deputy Head of the Department
 of the
Organization
	    	 [Signature]
	    	 B.V. Vorobyev

	of Licensing Activity	    	 [Seal]
EXHIBIT B

                                    AGREEMENT


         AGREEMENT  made this 22nd day of April,  1998, by and between Anhui Liu
An Beer Company Ltd., a Peoples'  Republic of China  corporation  (the "Seller")
and  Victoria  Beverage  Company  Limited,  an  Isle  of  Man  corporation  (the
"Purchaser");

         WHEREAS,  the  Seller  is the  owner  of a  certain  number  of  shares
representing  the ownership of fifty-five  percent (55%) of Anhui Haodun Brewery
Co., Ltd. (the "Brewery") (the "Brewery Stock"); and

         WHEREAS,  Seller wishes to sell the Brewery  Stock to  Purchaser;

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and promises contained
herein the signatory parties agree hereto as follows:

         1. Seller  herewith and hereby sells to Victoria the Brewery  Stock and
Victoria herewith and hereby purchases the Brewery Stock from the Seller;

         2.  The  purchase   price  for  the  Brewery  Stock  is  and  shall  be
US$10,500,000 which sum shall be due and payable to the Seller within sixty (60)
days of the date of this  Agreement  and  shall be  payable,  at the  option  of
Victoria in funds, securities or evidence of indebtedness.

         3. The Seller represents and warrants that they are authorized to enter
into this  agreement  and that they are the  owners of the  Brewery  Stock,  the
transference  of which pursuant to this Agreement is not violative of any law or
governmental edict.

         4. Victoria represents and warrants that it is authorized to enter into
this Agreement.

         5. Seller  represents and warrants that the Brewery has total assets of
approximately   US14,200,000   and  total  gross   liabilities   not   exceeding
US$8,700,000   and  the  total   net   shareholders   equity  is   approximately
US$5,500,000. The Seller further represents and warrants that the Brewery is, in
the last twelve (12) months passed,  had total gross  revenues of  approximately
US$15,500,000 and its net profit therefrom was approximately US$1,750,000.

         6. This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of the State of New
York.

         7. This Agreement may be signed in one or more counterparts.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands and seal the first
day, month and year above written.

         VICTORIA BEVERAGE COMPANY LIMITED        ANHUI LIU AN BEER COMPANY LTD.


         By:    /s/ Si Yi Zhong
         ---------------------------------
         Si Yi Zhong, President


                                       20
# STATEOFLOUISIANA

COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT

GABRIELLE C. JAMESON AND KIM L. JAMESON WIFE OF/ AND BOBBY A. JAMESON VERSUS HONORABLE WARREN L. MONTGOMERY, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITYAS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ST. TAMMANY PARISH, IAIN DOVER, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND UNDERWRITERS OF LLOYD'S, LONDON 

### NO. 2022 CW 1339



### JANUARY 5, 2023

In Re: Warren Montgomery, individually and in his official

capacity as District Attorney, 22nd Judicial District, State of Louisiana, Iain Dover in his individual 

### capacity, and Certain Underwriters of Lloyd's, London, applying for supervisory writs, 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, No. 201609230.

BEFORE: THERIOT, CHUTZ, AND HESTER, JJ.

WRIT DENIED.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT MRT WRC CHH
EXHIBIT 31.2




CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS


ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








| | · | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2019, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | · | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: Feb 15, 2020 |  | /s/ Saskya Bedoya           | 
|------------------ |  | --------------------------- | 
|                   |  | Saskya Bedoya               | 
|                   |  | Principal Financial Officer |
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 10-7138 September Term 2011

1:07-cv-00418-RJL

Filed On: January 27, 2012

Richard Dominguez, On behalf of himself and

all others similarly situated,

Appellant

v.

UAL Corporation and United Air Lines, Inc.,

Appellees

BEFORE: Henderson, Tatel, and Griffith, Circuit Judges

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the court’s order to show cause filed January 17, 2012,

and the responses thereto, it is

ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that the sealed opinion filed January 17, 2012, be

unsealed. The Clerk is directed to unseal the opinion and release it publicly.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Jennifer M. Clark 

Deputy Clerk
#### Ilya Makaron, Appellant, v Luna Park Housing Corporation, Respondent.

[809 NYS2d 520]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J), dated February 9, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On February 21, 2003, at approximately 8:45 a.m., the plaintiff slipped and fell on what he described as black ice on a sidewalk outside the defendant’s apartment complex. The plaintiff testified at his deposition that he did not see the ice until after his fall. He further testified that there had been no precipitation for two or three days before the accident.

The defendant made a prima facie showing that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the icy condition alleged to have caused the plaintiff’s fall *(see Zabbia v Westwood, LLC,*18 AD3d 542 [2005]; *Carricato v Jefferson Val. Mall Ltd. Partnership,*299 AD2d 444 [2002]; *DeVivo v Sparago,*287 AD2d 535 [2001]). In opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Murphy v 136 N. Blvd. Assoc.,*304 AD2d 540 [2003]; *Tsivitis v Sivan Assoc.,*292 AD2d 594 [2002]). The plaintiff’s contention that shortly before his fall the defendant created the hazardous condition when its employees cleared snow from the sidewalk, leaving black ice exposed, was speculative. Even accepting the accuracy of the plaintiffs account that he saw the defendant’s employees engaged in snow removal, the area where he fell was not where he observed the defendant’s employees working. Moreover, the proof offered on the plaintiffs behalf by his son-in-law (whom the plaintiff did not identify as *771a witness in response to the defendant’s discovery request), in effect, that he walked past the subject sidewalk and observed black ice being exposed by the defendant’s employees, was a feigned issue of fact clearly designed to defeat the defendant’s motion *(see Stancil v Supermarkets Gen.,*16 AD3d 402 [2005]; *Wilson v Prazza,*306 AD2d 466 [2003]). Thus, the defendant’s motion was properly granted *(see Ronconi v Denzel Assoc., 20*AD3d 559 [2005]; *Scher v Kiryas Joel Hous. Dev. Fund Co.,*17 AD3d 660 [2005]; *Stoddard v G.E. Plastics Corp., 11*AD3d 862 [2004]; *Taylor v New York City Tr. Auth.,*8 AD3d 658 [2004]; *Smelley v Ahmed,*3 AD3d 559 [2004]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Lifson and Lunn, JJ., concur.
Skip to Content
Release dates
About
Current release
*Other formats:*
 ASCII (48 KB)
PDF (115 KB)
CSV (103 KB)

----

**June 2010**

Section A
Section B

All files contain data as of the current quarter. Files in comma-separated variable (CSV) format contain all available historical data.Section CReserve Bank Surveys of Farm Credit Conditions and Farm Land Values   C.1. Non-real-estate Farm Lending Compared with a Year EarlierASCII (12 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (17 KB)  C.2. Expected Farm Loan Volume for the Next QuarterASCII (11 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (12 KB)  C.3. Indicators of Relative Credit AvailabilityASCII (12 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (14 KB)  C.4. Average Fixed Interest Rates on Farm LoansASCII (10 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (6 KB)  C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm LoansASCII (4 KB)PDF (3 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (1 KB)  C.6. Trends in Farm Real Estate Values and Loan VolumeASCII (7 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (12 KB)  C.7. Trends in Farm Income and ExpendituresASCII (4 KB)PDF (3 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (7 KB)Release dates |AboutCurrent release*Other formats:* ASCII (48 KB) |PDF (115 KB) |CSV (103 KB)
Statistical releases
Home |Economic research and dataAccessibility |Contact Us**Last update: July 6, 2010**
*Release Date: December 31, 2009*

*Other formats:*
ASCII (2 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

----

```
B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks
```

| Year | Estimated volume (billions of dollars) | Share of outstanding real estate farm loans (percent) |
|------|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
||
| 6    | -1                                     | 3                                                     | 0 | 5 | .022 | -.004 | .009 | .000 | .016 |
| 15   | 0                                      | 3                                                     | 5 | 7 | .051 | -.001 | .011 | .015 | .022 |
| 12   | -12                                    | 3                                                     | 8 | 14 | .037 | -.037 | .009 | .022 | .040 |
| 42   | 10                                     | 9                                                     | 5 | 17 | .123 | .030 | .027 | .014 | .049 |
| 35   | 8                                      | 6                                                     | 5 | 16 | .097 | .022 | .017 | .014 | .041 |
| 32   | 4                                      | 6                                                     | 8 | 14 | .082 | .010 | .015 | .021 | .034 |
| 18   | 1                                      | 5                                                     | 2 | 10 | .044 | .003 | .012 | .005 | .021 |
| 17   | 2                                      | 11                                                    | 4 | 0 | .039 | .005 | .024 | .009 | .000 |
| 20   | 2                                      | 6                                                     | 1 | 12 | .042 | .003 | .012 | .002 | .023 |
| 8    | -3                                     | 0                                                     | 5 | 6 | .015 | -.006 | .000 | .009 | .011 |
| 54   | 5                                      | 8                                                     | 12 | 29 | .093 | .008 | .013 | .020 | .046 |
| n.a. | 33                                     | 41                                                    | 34 | n.a. | n.a. | .051 | .064 | .051 | n.a. |
```
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding.
Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.
```

*Other formats:*
ASCII (2 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

Statistical releases

----

HomeEconomic research and dataAccessibilityContact Us
#### Johnnie WILLIAMS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Steve D’ASARO, Defendant and Appellee.

No. 14488.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

March 27, 1933.

Habans & Coleman and A. I. Kleinfeldt, all of New Orleans, for appellant:

Legier, MeEnerny &. Waguespack, of New Orleans, for appellee.

JANVIER, Judge.

Plaintiff, a laborer, seeks to recover from his employer $300, alleging that that amount is necessary to compensate him for personal injuries sustained, loss of wages, and for doctors’ bills incurred when, as the result of a defective ladder furnished by D’Asaro, plaintiff fell to the ground while engaged in performing work which D’Asaro employed him to do. The defense is that, if plaintiff sustained injuries, the accident which caused them did not occur while he was engaged in performing work for defendant.

Plaintiff testified that on September 3 the ladder on which he was working broke, and he fell to the ground. Defendant’s evidence shows that plaintiff performed no work after August 27, and that the ladder which plaintiff ■complains of did not break, is still in good .•condition, and has not been in any way repaired.

The evidence preponderates toward defendant’s side of the ease, and we therefore cannot say that the judgment in defendant’s favor is manifestly erroneous.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be, and it is, affirmed at the cost of appellant.

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ricardo Morales, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 835]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), *361rendered June 7, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of 6V2 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The record establishes that defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal *(see People v Moissett,*76 NY2d 909 [1990]). Defendant not only signed a detailed written waiver of his appellate rights, but also received a thorough explanation of the waiver from the court during the plea allocution. Defendant’s waiver forecloses review of his suppression and excessive sentence claims. In any event, were we to find that defendant did not make a valid appeal waiver, we would find these claims to be unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Karen L. Bartlett

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00358-JL

Mutual Pharmaceutical

Company, Inc.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Karen Bartlett’s motion in limine seeking to

exclude from trial any evidence that her doctor Tahsin Ergin

failed to read Sulindac’s warning label and/or failed to warn her

of the drug’s safety risks (document no. 261) is GRANTED as to

parts (a) and (b), but DENIED as to part (c). Such evidence was

originally relevant to Bartlett’s failure-to-warn claims and to

defendant Mutual Pharmaceutical Company’s apportionment and

superseding cause defenses, but this court recently granted

summary judgment on those claims and defenses. See Bartlett v.

Mut. Pharm. Co., 2010 DNH 112, 11-22 (failure-to-warn claims);

document no. 329 (Mutual’s defenses). The evidence is not

relevant to any other claim or defense remaining in the case. 

See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402. Bartlett’s request to exclude it is

therefore granted.

Since Bartlett has notified the court that she no longer

intends to call Dr. Ergin as a witness (document no. 334), her

request that she be allowed to ask certain warning-related

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 335 Filed 08/12/10 Page 1 of 2
questions of him during direct examination without “opening the

door” to cross-examination by Mutual on the matters referenced

above is denied as moot. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: August 12, 2010

cc: Keith M. Jensen, Esq.

Bryan Ballew, Esq.

Patrick J. O’Neal, Esq.

Eric Roberson, Esq.

Christine M. Craig, Esq.

Timothy P. Beaupre, Esq.

Joseph P. Thomas, Esq.

Paul J. Cosgrove, Esq.

Jeffrey D. Geoppinger, Esq.

Linda E. Maichl, Esq.

Stephen J. Judge, Esq.

Pierre A. Chabot, Esq.

2

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 335 Filed 08/12/10 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 207

To prohibit retroactive Federal income tax rate increases.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. SWEENEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To prohibit retroactive Federal income tax rate increases.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Anti-Retroactive Tax5 ation Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. RETROACTIVE INCOME TAX RATE INCREASES PRO7 HIBITED.

8 (a) GENERAL RULE.—No provision of law which im9 poses a Federal income tax rate increase shall apply to

10 any period beginning before the date of the enactment of

11 such law.
2

•HR 207 IH

1 (b) FEDERAL INCOME TAX RATE INCREASE.—For

2 purposes of subsection (a), the term ‘‘Federal income tax

3 rate increase’’ means any amendment to subsection (a),

4 (b), (c), (d), or (e) of section 1, or to section 11(b) or

5 55(b), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, that imposes

6 a new percentage as a rate of tax and thereby increases

7 the amount of tax imposed by any such section.

Æ
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.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Office of Thrift Supervision 

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the authority contained in section 5(d)(2) of the Home Owners' Loan Act, the Office of Thrift Supervision has duly appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as sole Receiver for Ameribank, Northfork, West Virginia (OTS No. 14177). 

Dated: September 23, 2008. 

By the Office of Thrift Supervision. 

Sandra E. Evans, 

Federal Register Liaison.

[FR Doc. E8-22744 Filed 9-29-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6720-01-M
**Exhibit 32.2**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
     I, Rosemarie Bouman, Chief Financial Officer of First Oak BrookBancshares, Inc. (the “Registrant”), do hereby certify in accordance with 18U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, based on my knowledge:
 (3) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant, to whichthis certification is attached as an exhibit (the “Report”), fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and  (4) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall materials respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Registrant.     Dated: March 8, 2004 /S/ ROSEMARIE BOUMAN