alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### NUM BER 13-0 7-00 048- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG CA RL OS P EDR O A LV A REZ , A pp ellan t,

v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee. On ap pe al f rom th e 2 4th D istrict Co urt of R efu gio C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B ef or e Just i ces Ro dr i guez, B enav i des, and V el a M em or andu m O pi ni on P erC ur i am Ap p e l l a n t , C a r l o s P e d ro A l v a re z , a tt e mp t s t o a p p e a l h i s c o n v i ct i o n fo r m o n ey lau nder ing

. The tr ial co urt has cer ti fied that thi s “i s a ple a- barg ain ca se, and the d efendant has NO rig ht of

app eal,” an d “the defend anth as w aived t he rig ht of app eal.” SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 25 .2(a)(2).2

On J an ua r

y 2 1, 2 01 0, t hi s C ou rt no ti fi ed a pp el l an t’ s c ou ns el o f t he t r i al c ou rt’s cer ti ficat ion and ord ered counse l to: (1 ) rev iew the re cord; (2)determi ne w hether appel lan t has a rig ht to app eal; a nd (3) forw ard to th is Cou rt , by l etter , cou nsel ’s findi ng s a s t o w hether appel lan t has a ri g ht to appeal , or , alt er nati v ely , adv is e thi s Cou rtas to the ex is tenc e of any

amended cer

ti ficat ion

. On M arch 29, 2 010, couns el file d a b ri ef w it h thi s C our t reg ardin g appel lan t’ s r ig ht to ap peal

. On M ay

11, 2 0 1 0, t he St ate fil ed a re spons iv e br ief. The Co urt, hav ing ex amined and fully

co n sid e re d appel lan t’ s b ri ef and the Stat e’s br ief, c oncl udes that app ellant ’s brief

d oes notestab lish thatthe certif ication currently on f ile w ith this Court is inc or re ct or

thatappel lan t ot her

w is e has a r ig ht t o appeal. See , e.g ., Sta te v. Moore , 240 S.W .3d 2 48, 2 53- 54 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2007)

. The Tex as Rul es of A ppel lat e Procedu re prov ide that an appeal must be di smi ss ed if the trial c o u rt ’s ce rtif ication doe s not sho w thatthe de fend anthas the rig ht of app eal. T EX . R. A PP . P. 25. 2(d); se e T EX . R. A PP . P. 37 .1, 4 4.3 , 44. 4. Accordin gly , this app eal is DI SM ISSE D. An y

pendi ng moti ons are deni ed as moot. P E RC U R I A M Do not p ubl is h. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47 .2(b). Del iv ered and filed the 29th day of Jul y , 201 0.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 5997]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2447]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DoD-2009-OS-0120]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by March 8, 
2010.
    Title and OMB Number: Acquisition Management Systems and Data 
Requirements Control List (AMSDL); Numerous Forms; OMB Control Number 
0704-0188.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 921.
    Responses per Respondent: 432.
    Annual Responses: 397,872.
    Average Burden per Response: 66 hours.
    Annual Burden Hours: 26,259,552 hours.
    Needs and Uses: The Acquisition Management Systems and Data 
Requirements Control List (AMSDL) is a list of data requirements used 
in Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. The information collected 
will be used by DoD personnel and other DoD contractors to support the 
design, test, manufacture, training, operation, and maintenance of 
procured items, including weapons systems critical to the national 
defense.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit 
institutions.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The 
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the 
public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without 
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management 
Division, 1777 North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 
22209-2133.

    Dated: January 26, 2010.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2010-2447 Filed 2-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 91 (Tuesday, June 6, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1158-E1159]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  IN RECOGNITION OF THE CARMEL REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE'S BALANCED BUDGET 
                               RESOLUTION

                                 ______

                           HON. SUE W. KELLY

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 6, 1995
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend to my Republican 
colleagues the following resolution of support issued by the town of 
Carmel's Republican Committee. This resolution demonstrates the strong 
public support for Republican-elected officials, who are working to 
achieve the important goals of the Contract With America. Our fight to 
reduce the Federal budget deficit, to have a balanced budget and reduce 
and consolidate Government services has not gone without recognition 
from the American people.
  Therefore, I join with the spirit of this resolution in applauding 
the energy put forth by my colleagues in addressing the many reform-
minded issues facing this Congress. Mr. Speaker at this time, I insert 
the full text of the Carmel resolution into the Record.

       Whereas, through liberal reporting by TV and newspaper 
     media an obvious attempt has been made to undermine the 
     positions held by our Republican State and Federal Officials 
     on issues of budget deficit reduction, balanced budgets, 
     consolidation of government services and welfare reform; and
       Whereas, due to media's liberal reporting of these issues 
     the Town of Carmel, Putnam County, State of New York, 
     Republican Committee desires to counteract effects of said 
     liberal reports supporting special interest groups; now,
       Therefore, be it resolved, the Town of Carmel Republican 
     Committee membership of ninety-two hereby pledges its support 
     to NYS Governor George Pataki, Senate Majority Leader Joseph 
     Bruno, Assembly Minority Leader Clarence Rappleyea, Senator 
     Vincent Leibell, III; 37th District, Assemblyman Willis 
     Stephens, Jr.; 91st District, and U.S. Senate Majority Leader 
     Robert Dole, U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey and 
     Speaker Newt Gingrich, NYS U.S. Senator Alfonse D'Amato and 
     NYS U.S. 19th District Congresswoman Sue Kelly toward 
     achieving their goals to alleviate the overwhelming tax 
     burden through enactment of balanced budgets, consolidation 
     and reduction of government services and welfare reform and 
     ``Contract with America''; and,
       Be It Further Resolved, that the Chairman of the Town of 
     Carmel, Putnam County, New [[Page E1159]] York, Republican 
     Committee is hereby directed to forward this resolution to 
     the above named State and Federal Officials.
     

                          ____________________
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6392

DALE BRUCE JENKINS, Petitioner – Appellant,

v. ELAINE ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (3:08-cv-01678-TLW)

Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 29, 2009

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dale Bruce Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Dale Bruce Jenkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Jenkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and Jenkins’ motion for a transcript at government expense 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
**Exhibit 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements on Form S-8 (File Nos.333-30122 and 333-43958) and on Form S-3 (FileNo. 333-58726) of webMethods, Inc. of our report datedApril 23, 2003 relatingto the Financial Statements and Financial Statement Schedules, which appear inthis Form 10-K. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading“Selected Financial Data” which appears in this Form 10-K.
**/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP**
McLean, Virginia
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 23

- 00022

- CV

ETC NORTHEAST FIELD SERVICES, LLC , Appellant
v. PENNENERGY RESOURCES, LLC , Appellee

From the 82nd District Court Robertson County, Texas Trial Court No. 22

- 09

- 21523

- CV

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ETC Northeast Field Services, LLC, and PennEnergy Resources, LLC, h ave filed a

“ Joint Motion to Dismiss Interlocutory Appeal and Request to Expedite ” a sserting that they have settled their disputes in the underlying proceeding. Accordingly, the parties request that we (1) set aside the trial court’s Order Confirming Arbitration Award and Denying Motions to Vacate and Reconsider signed January 11, 202 3, without regard to the merits; (2) remand the matter to the trial court forETC Northeast Field Services, LLC v. PennEnergy Resources, LLC Page 2 entry of an order vacating all Delivery Point Arbitration awards and entry of a final judgment conforming with the parties’ settlement agreements; (3) dismiss the interlocutory a pp eal with prejudice; and (4) issue mandate immediately. We have no authority to dismiss the appeal and remand the case to the trial court

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2)

. We have the authority, however, to set aside the trial court’s judgment without reg ard to the merits and remand th e case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the agreement of the parties. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2)( B ); 43.2( d ). Accordingly, the parties’ “ Joint Motion to Dismiss Interlocutory Appeal and Req uest to Expedite ” is granted to t he extent authorized. The trial court’s Order Confirming Award and Denying Motions to Vacate and Reconsider, signed on January
11, 2023 , is set aside without regard to the merits , and the case is remanded to the trial

cour t for rendition of judgment in ac cordance with the agreement of the parties. Costs of appeal are taxed against the party incurring same. See id. R. 42.1(d). And we order

that this Court’s mandate in this case shall issue immediately. See id. R. 18.1 (c)

. Because the Court was unable to grant the entirety of the parties’ motion, the Court has endeavored to implement the substance of the parties’ agreed motion to achieve the same result. If the parties determine that the judgment of the Court does

not acc om plish the parties’ intended res ult, a timely motion for rehearing must be filed that addresses the manner in which the Court can implement the agreement of the parties within the limitations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 42.1; 49.1.ETC Northeast Field Services, LLC v. PennEnergy Resources, LLC Page 3 MATT JOHNSON Justice

Bef ore Justice Johnson , Justice Smith , and Justice D avis 1 S et aside and remanded Opinion delivered and filed July 18, 2024 [CV 06 ]

1 The Honorable Rex Davis , Senior Justice (Retired) of the Tenth Court of Appeals, sitting by assi gnment of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See T EX

. G OV ' T C ODE A NN

. §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003.
#### Alberto PEREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D10-3058.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 19, 2012.

Alberto Perez, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, LAGOA and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Alberto Perez appeals an order revoking his probation. The only issue raised on appeal that merits consideration is the failure of the court’s order of revocation to conform to its oral pronouncement. In its oral pronouncement, at the conclusion of the probation violation hearing, the court specifically found “that [the defendant] was in possession of weapons while on probation.” A written order of probation must conform to the court’s oral pronouncement. *Laffitte v. State,*16 So.3d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). Only the violation of conditions K2 and K4 are supported by the court’s oral pronouncement. Upon remand the court shall amend the order of revocation of probation accordingly. Affirmed in all other respects.

*1217Reversed and remanded with instructions.
**Exhibit 23**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements on Form S-8 (No. 333-33536, 333-45444, 333-89547, 333-77471,333-77439, and 333-62791) of Eclipsys Corporation of our report dated January24, 2003, except for the disclosure information in Note 2 under thecaption “Stock-Based Compensation,” for which the date isMay 22, 2003, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule,which appears in this Form 10-K/A.
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 24, 2013 

# Order

Clerk October 24, 2013

145988 ( 79 ) (81)

MAJESTIC GOLF, L.L.C.,

Plaintiff/Counter

- Defendant

Appellee, SC: 145988

v COA: 300140

Livingston CC: 09

- 024146

- CZ

LAKE WALDEN COUNTRY CLUB, INC.,

Defendant/Counter

- Plaintiff

Appellant.

____________________________________ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff

- appellee for leave to file a

supplemental brief after oral argument is GRANTED. The brief submitted on October

15, 2013, is accepted for filing. On further order of the Chief Justice, the motion of

d efendant

- appellant to file a brief in response to plaintiff

- appellee’s supplement al brief

after oral argument is GRANTED. The brief submitted on October 22, 2013, is accepted

for filing.
exhbiit1020.htm -- Converted by SEC Publisher, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing





Exhibit 10.20

Technical Services Agreement

[Chinese translation]

Between: EcoloCap Solutions Canada Inc. (EcoloCap)

740 St Maurice suite 102 

Montreal QC H3C 1L5

Tel: 0015148763907      Fax: 0015148764080

And

Xinjiang Xiangjianfeng Energy and Technology Development Co., Ltd.

(XJF)

[Chinese translation]

Xinjie Building B-24, 79 Heilongjiang Rd, Urumqi, Xinjiang 

[Chinese translation] 

Telephone: 0991-5506260 

Mobile: 13929982313

Re: Technical services for CDM project: Xinjiang Xiangjianfeng Urumqi 

Dabancheng 200MW Windfarm 1st Phase-49.5MW Project 

[Chinese translation]

Whereby EcoloCap Solutions (Canada) Inc. will perform for XJF necessary technical services for the validation of its CDM projects.

[Chinese translation]

In consideration of these services rendered as well as expenses incurred, EcoloCap shall be paid by XJF professional fees for this project 

and EcoloCap shall be paid a fee for its services which is calculated as follows:

[Chinese translation]

Amount paid = 20% x Net Revenues from CER [Chinese translation]

Net Revenues = Total validated quantity of CER multiplied by 9.5 Euro – 60,000 Euro (First year) [Chinese translation]

Net Revenues = Total validated quantity of CER multiplied by 9.5 Euro (following years) [Chinese translation]






EcoloCap shall be responsible for the preparation of these technical documents (PIN, PDD, etc.) and shall make best efforts to assist 

XJF in the approval processes of these projects by local authorities as well as by the DOE and the EB. All the expenses incurred above

will be borne by EcoloCap.

[Chinese translation]

EcoloCap shall make best effort to help XJF to get financial participation of foreign investors in the Project.

[Chinese translation]

We agree to the above and acknowledge receiving a copy of this agreement. This agreement will have the same 

duration as the related ERPA.

[Chinese translation]

	Dated this 17th day of October 2008.  
	[Chinese translation]  
	   
	     EcoloCap Solutions (Canada) Inc.  
	   
	   
	   
	     Per: DR. TRI VU TRUONG  
	     Dr. Tri Vu Truong  
	     President & CEO  
	   
	   
	     Xinjiang Xiangjianfeng Energy and Technology Development Co., Ltd. (XJF)  
	     [Chinese translation]  
	   
	   
	   
	     Per:HUANG, JUANFENG  
	     Mr. HUANG, Juanfeng  
	     Board Chairman
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Demarcus Tyrone HINES.

No. 2012-KP-0146.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Hines, Demarcus Tyrone; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Desoto, 42nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 06-CR-014861; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 47122-KW.

Denied.
#### Waldrum *v.*Wilbanks.

Opinion delivered May 31, 1926.

Municipal corporations — inquisitorial ordinance. — A city has no authority to adopt an ordinance providing that the mayor or chief of police may summon any person before such officer to answer whether he knows of any violations of the criminal laws of the city and to impose a fine for refusal to answer the question.

Appeal from Greene Circuit Court; *W. W. Bandy,*Judge;

affirmed.

*Jeff Bratton,*for appellant.

Humphreys, J.

Appellee filed a petition in the circuit court of Greene County for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain his liberty, alleging that he was unlawfully detained by appellant, the chief of police of the city of Paragould, under a judgment for contempt predicated upon §§ 283, 284 and 285 of Bandy’s Digest of the Ordinances of the city of Paragould, which were unconstitutional and void. The ordinance referred to provided that the mayor or chief of police of said city might summon any person before such officer or court to answer whether he knew of any violations of the criminal laws of the city and to impose a fine upon him for a refusal to answer the question.

The response admitted that appellee was being held in custody by appellant pending the payment of a $25 fine imposed by the police judge of said city for a refusal to answer questions propounded to him by said officer as *322to whether he knew of any violations of the ordinance of’ said city against gambling, but denied the invalidity of §§ 283, 284 and 285 of said digest, under which the fine was imposed.

The cause was submitted upon the pleadings and an agreed statement of facts, which resulted in a finding that the ordinance under which appellant had been fined was void, and a consequent judgment dismissing* him from custody.

The agreed statement of facts showed that the city of Paragould had passed ordinances for the purpose of suppressing gambling, drunkenness, breaches of peace, and divers other misdemeanors, in accordance with authority vested in it by the Legislature, and also that appellant was summoned before the police judge to answer whether he knew of any violations of the ordinance of said city against gambling, and, upon his refusal to answer, was fined $25 and committed to the custody of the chief of police, to be confined in the county .jail, which was also used as a city jail, until the fine was paid.

The sole question therefore presented by this appeal for determination is whether the city of Paragould had authority to pass an inquisitorial ordinance i» aid of the enforcement of its ordinances against crime. We have examined the sections of Crawford & Moses’ Digest conferring authority upon municipal corporations to adopt ordinances of various kinds, and find nothing in any of them conferring power to adopt ordinances of an inquisitorial nature, and nothing in the statutes from which such authority might be inferred. It is unnecessary to determine whether such power could be delegated to municipal corporations by the Legislature. That question is not before us, so we refrain from expressing any opinion upon that point.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.