alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE GENERAL DISCIPLINARY HEARING OF TROOPER THOMAS M. CARBERRY.

December 8, 1987.

Petition for certification granted.
NO. 07-09-0319-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL C NOVEMBER 9, 2010

__________________ ____________ DAVID TULIO RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

__________________ ___________ FROM THE 84 TH DISTRICT COURT OF HUTCHINSON COUNTY; NO. 10,257; HONORABLE WILLI AM D. SMITH, JUDGE

__________________ _________ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

CONCURRING OPINION
I agree with the result reached by the ma jority, and I applaud the decision to address Appellant's third issue as presented; however, I write separately to express my opinion that Appellant's general prem ise about that issue is misstated.2 By his third issue Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to "follow the strictures of Article 36. 01 (a)(1), Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, by not reading the State's enhancement paragraphs to the jury and subsequently entering the Appellant's plea to the same." While I agree that the trial court committed error during the punishment phase of Appel lant's trial, it wasn't because the enhancement paragraphs weren't read and a plea wasn't entered.
On January 29, 2009, a Hutchinson Count y Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Appellant with the fi rst degree felony offense of aggravated assault on a public
servant 1 (Count One) and the stat e jail felony offense of burglary of a building 2 (Count Two). While the indictment itself did not contain any enhancement allegations, on August 17, 2009, the State filed notice of its intent to seek enhancement of the punishment range for each count. 3 Notwithstanding the expr ess intent to request the court to instruct the jury on the enhanced ran ge of punishment, the State never insisted that the enhancements be read or t hat Appellant enter a plea th ereto. By failing to do so, the State waived those enhancements. Because those enhancements were waived, the trial court did not commit error by failing to read the enhancements or have the Appellant enter a plea. While the trial court may have erred in instructing the jury as to the range of punishment, an issue not presented to this Court, it did not err in the

1 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(2), § 22.02(a)(2), § 22.02(b)(2)(B) (V ernon Supp. 2010).

2 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(1), § 30.02(c)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2010).

3 See Brooks v. State, 957 S.W.2d 30 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) (holdi ng that enhancement allegations do not need to be contained within the body of the primary charging document).3 manner presented by Appellant's th ird issue. Accordingly, I concur with the majority in finding no reversible error raised.

Patrick A. Pirtle Justice
Do not publish.
[Nos. 57121-0, 57130-9.

En Banc.

April 25, 1991.]

#### Certification From the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington in Debbie C. Clark, *Individually and as Personal Representative, Plaintiff,*v. Pacificorp, *Defendant.*Dee Anna Whitten, *Individually, as Personal Representative, and as Guardian ad Litem, Respondent,*v. Associated Building Components, Inc., et al, *Defendants,*The Department of Labor and Industries, *Appellant.*

The opinion in the above captioned case as reported in the advance sheets at 116 Wn.2d 804-831 has been omitted from this permanent bound volume because a motion for reconsideration was pending at the time of publication. The opinion is reported in a later volume of Washington Reports.
Exhibit 4.1

	
	Digital Brands Group, Inc. SHARES NUMBER
***** ***** INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
CUSIP 25401N101 $0.0001 PAR VALUE COMMON STOCK
COMMON STOCK
THIS CERTIFIES THAT * SPECIMEN *
***** Is The Owner of
FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF
Digital Brands Group, Inc.
Transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this
Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by
the Registrar.
Dated: *****
COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED:
VSTOCK TRANSFER, LLC
             Transfer Agent and Registrar
Co-Chief Executive Officer
By:____________________________
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. THOMAS JACOBS.

November 2, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
584 A.2d 247

#### R.G. KENLIN CO. v. SHOE FIT CORP. AND CHARLES WONG.

June 11, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

I N RE

CHRIS SANCHEZ
,
Relator. §
§
§
§ No. 08

- 20

- 000 58

- CR

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

ME MORANDUM O P I N I O N
Relator Chris Sanchez, pro se, has filed an application for a writ of mandamus against the
41st District Court of El Paso County, asking this Court to grant him a new trial
, or to reverse the
judgment of conviction in his criminal case. The writ application should be denied.

Sanchez was co nvicted of murder. This Court heard Sanchez ’s direct appeal in 2013 and

affirmed his conviction in the 41st District Court in trial court cause number 20090D01202. See

Sanchez v. State , No. 08

- 11

- 00074

- CR, 2013 WL 841681 (Tex.App.

-- El Paso Mar. 6, 2013, no
pet.) (not designated for publication). No petition for discretionary review was filed, meaning that

Sanchez’s conviction is final.
To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must meet two requirements. The relator must

establish
, (1) that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and (2) that what
he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not a discretionary or judicial decision. Bowen v. Carnes , 343 S.W.3d 805, 810 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011) (orig. proceeding).2

Under Texas law , the sole method for a collateral attack on a felony conviction is through
an application for a writ of habeas corpus. In re Harrison , 187 S.W.3d 199, 200 (Tex.App.

-- Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding). The procedure set forth in Article 11.07 of the Texa s Code of
Criminal Procedure is the exclusive post

- conviction judicial remedy available when the conviction

is final
, and the applicant is confined by virtue of his or her felony conviction as in this case. Id

. The petition for writ of mandamus is denied

.

JEFF ALLEY, Chief Justice

March 20 , 2020
Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)
EX-4.5




 Exhibit 4.5 

CERTIFICATE OF DOMESTICATION 

OF 
 REDBALL ACQUISITION
CORP. 
 Pursuant to Sections 103 and 388 of the General 

Corporation Law of the State of Delaware 

RedBall Acquisition Corp., a Cayman Islands exempted company limited by its shares, which intends to domesticate as a Delaware corporation
pursuant to this Certificate of Domestication (upon such domestication to be renamed “SeatGeek, Inc.” and referred to herein after such time as the “Corporation”), does hereby certify to the following facts relating to the
domestication of the Corporation in the State of Delaware: 
  

	 	1.	 The Corporation was originally incorporated on June 10, 2020 under the laws of the Cayman Islands.



  

	 	2.	 The name of the Corporation immediately prior to the filing of this Certificate of Domestication is RedBall
Acquisition Corp. 


  

	 	3.	 The name of the Corporation as set forth in the Certificate of Incorporation is SeatGeek, Inc.



  

	 	4.	 The jurisdiction that constituted the seat, siege social or principal place of business or central
administration of the Corporation immediately prior to the filing of this Certificate of Domestication is the Cayman Islands. 


  

	 	5.	 The domestication has been approved in the manner provided for by the document, instrument, agreement or other
writing, as the case may be, governing the internal affairs of RedBall Acquisition Corp. and the conduct of its business or by applicable non-Delaware law, as appropriate. 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of Domestication to be executed in its name this day of [●],
2021. 
  

			
	 REDBALL ACQUISITION CORP.,
 a
Cayman Islands exempted company



 
			
		
	By:	 	      

		 	Name:
		 	Title:
No. 64.

#### Anthony A. Wanet, plaintiff in error, *vs.*James L. Corbet, defendant in error.

[1.] A Justice of the Inferior Court may issue an attachment returnable to the Superior Court.

[2.] In construing a Statute, great regard ought to be paid to the construction put upon it by the sages of the law, who lived at the time or soon after it was made.

[3.] An attachment may be made returnable toYhe next term of the Superior or Inferior Court of the County, at the option of the party suing out the same.

Attachment, in Stewart Superior Court. Tried before Judge Powers, April Term, 1853.

On the 10th day of May, 1852, William A. Rawson, a Justice of the Inferior Court of Stewart County, issued an attachment in favor of Anthony A. Wanet, against James A. Cor-bet, returnable to the October Term, 1852, of Stewart Superior Court.

At the April Term of said Court, 1853, counsel for defendant moved the Court to dismiss the attachment, upon the grounds:

1st. Because the attachment was tested and issued by a Justice of the Inferior Court of said County, and made returnable to the Superior Court of said County.

2d. Because the said attachment, being issued more than thirty days before the July Term, 1852, of the Inferior Court of said Gounty, was made returnable to the Superior Court of said County, October Term, 1852, when it should have been made returnable to the July Term, aforesaid, of said Superior Court.

Judge *Powers*presiding for Judge Iverson, sustained the motion and dismissed the attachment, and this decision is assigned as error.

*442Clark, for plaintiff in error.

Tucker, for defendant in error.

*By the Court.*

Lumpkin, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] We readily admit that there is plausibility at least, not to say force, in the construction contended for under our attachment laws, upon both of the points embraced in the bill of exceptions.

[2.] But we do not feel at liberty to disregard the established practice of our predecessors, for more than fifty years, to the contrary. A construction put upon the law, by Judges who lived at the time when it was made, or soon thereafter, and so firmly settled and familiarly and universally known, should be changed by no person short of the Legislature.

“ Great regard,” says *Sir E. Coke, “*ought, in construing a Statute, to be paid to the construction which the sages of the law who lived at the time, or soon after it was made, put upon it; because they were best able to judge the intention of the makers at the time when the law was made. 2 *Inst.*11, 136, 181.

[3.] We consequently reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court, upon both of the grounds embraced in the bill of exceptions.
585 A.2d 348

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. STEWART WILSON.

July 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
585 A.2d 396

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LAMONT HOLMES.

October 16, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
585 A.2d 404

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LUIS DEL ORBE.

October 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
NO. 07-08-0086-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

APRIL 24, 2008

______________________________

KENCO BANCSHARES, INC., APPELLANT

V.

E.O.WINKLES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS INDEPENDENT

EXECUTOR AND TRUSTEE UNDER THE WILL OF

ALICE E. WINKLES, DECEASED, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 39TH DISTRICT COURT OF KENT COUNTY;

NO. 1639; HONORABLE CHARLES LEWIS CHAPMAN, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

On April 17, 2008, appellant Kenco Bancshares, Inc., filed an unopposed motion to

dismiss this appeal. No decision of this Court having been delivered to date, we grant the

motion. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). As no

agreement regarding appellate costs has been filed, all costs incurred by this appeal are
2

adjudged against appellant. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d). No motion for rehearing will be

entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

James T. Campbell

 Justice
# Reports

## Part 50 Reports

**Mining Industry Accident, Injury, Illness, Employment, and Coal Production Reports**

Part 50 of Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulation (30 CFR Part 50) requires mine operators to immediately notify MSHA of accidents, requires operators to investigate accidents, and restricts disturbance of accident related areas. This part also requires operators to file reports with MSHA pertaining to accidents, occupational injuries and occupational illnesses, as well as employment and coal production data.

Data collected via Part 50 is summarized in quarterly and annual reports.Access Part 50 Reports here

## Quick Links

Mine Data Retrieval System (MDRS)

## Related Links

Form 7000-1: Mine Accident, Injury and Illness Report

Form 7000-2: Quarterly Mine Employment & Coal Production Report
Exhibit 32.2

RF MONOLITHICS, INC.

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Harley E Barnes III, Chief Financial Officer of RF Monolithics, Inc. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY
that, to his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended February 28, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to
be executed this 13th day of April, 2010.



/s/ Harley E Barnes IIIName: Harley E Barnes IIITitle: Chief Financial Officer


*A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Opinion filed October 13, 2011

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-11-00189-CV

__________

RICKY DAVILA, SR., Appellant

V.

SYLVIA DAVILA, Appellee

On Appeal from the 32nd District Court

Mitchell County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 15,893

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce signed on June 9, 2010. Appellant, Ricky 

Davila, Sr., timely filed a notice of appeal. However, neither a clerk’s record nor a reporter’s 

record has been filed, and no filing fee has been paid. We dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution.

The clerk of the trial court notified this court that appellant has neither filed a written 

designation specifying the matters to be included in the clerk’s record nor made arrangements to 

pay for the clerk’s record. Additionally, the court reporter notified this court that appellant has 
2

not made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record. On August 10, 2011, the clerk of this 

court wrote appellant and requested that he forward proof that he has filed a designation of the 

clerk’s record and made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record and reporter’s record by 

August 19, 2011. In the letter of August 10, 2011, the clerk also informed appellant that the 

failure to provide the requested proof by the date indicated could result in the dismissal of this 

appeal. Additionally, the clerk’s letter of August 10, 2011, informed appellant that the failure to 

pay the required filing fee by August 19, 2011, could result in the dismissal of this appeal. 

Appellant has not responded to the clerk’s letter of August 10, 2011.

The failure to file the clerk’s record and reporter’s record and to pay the required filing 

fee appears to be due to appellant’s acts and omissions. Therefore, pursuant to TEX. R.

APP. P. 37.3(b) and 42.3(b), the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

PER CURIAM

October 13, 2011

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.
585 A.2d 405

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JULIUS MORRIS.

October 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 242 *N.J.Super.*532, 577 A.2d 852)
585 A.2d 407

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOSEPH ARTHUR COTE.

October 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Order entered March 25, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00068
- CV IN THE INTEREST OF P.J.H. AND M.J.H., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court

Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 85368

O RDER The reporter’s record is past due. On March 17, 2021, we ordered the reporter’s record be filed by April 16, 2021 after counsel for app ellant notified the
Court that he had requested the record and was in the process of paying the reporter’s fee. Shannon Sudderth, Offi cial Court Reporter for the 354 th Judicial District
Court , filed a letter on March 24, 2021 informing the Court that counsel for appellant has not communicated with her regarding the record. She states that counsel contacted her predecessor but has not provided the dates for the hearings he wants transcribed or made payment arrangements.In light of these circumstances, we ORDER appellant to file, by April 1,

2021 , written verifi cation that he has requested that Ms. Sudderth prepare the reporter’s record and has paid or made arrangement to pay her fee. Should appellant file the required written verification, the Court will set a new deadline for the reporter’s record. Should app ellant fail to comply, the Court will order the appeal be submitted without the reporter’s record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(c).
We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Sudderth and all parties.
/s/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.1
  CERTIFICATION
    Accompanying
    Form 10-Q
    Report
    of First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc.
 Pursuant
    to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
    (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. §1350(a) and
    (b))
  Form 10-Q
  Bruce
    W. Duncan
        Scott
    A. Musil
        A signed original of this written statement required by
    Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be
    retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
    Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The information
    contained in this written statement shall not be deemed
    filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, nor shall it be deemed
    incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act
    of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except as shall
    be expressly set forth by specific reference to such filing.
COMMON REASONS WHY THE BOARD MAY INITIALLY

REJECT AN APPEAL 

In an effort to assist appellants and their representatives to file appeals that 

comply with the Merit Systems Protection Board’s regulations and procedures, 

we have prepared a list of the most common reasons why appeals are rejected. In 

order to assure that your appeal is properly filed, you should comply with the 

requirements of 5 C.F.R. § 1201.24(a) and attempt to avoid these common errors. 

Doing so will allow the MSPB to begin processing your appeal as soon as it is 

received. 

1. The appellant’s appeal is premature because the Board received the appeal

prior to the effective date of the action being appealed or prior to the

agency issuing a final decision concerning the appellant’s performance,

conduct, or reduction-in-force status. 5 C.F.R. §1201.22(b).

2. The appeal is filed by someone other than the appellant, his or her

representative, or a party properly substituted under § 1201.35. 5 C.F.R.

§1201.24(a).

3. The appeal does not contain the appellant’s name, address, and telephone

number, and/or does not identify the name and address of the agency that

took the action being appealed 5 C.F.R. §1201.24(a)(1).

4. The appeal does not contain a description of the agency’s action and its

effective date. 5 C.F.R. §1201.24(a)(2).

5. If the appeal is not electronically filed, it lacks the signature of the

appellant or, if the appellant has a representative, of the representative. 5

C.F.R. §1201.24(a)(9).

6. If the appeal is not electronically filed, the appellant did not file two copies

of the appeal and all attachments with the appropriate Board office. 5

C.F.R. §1201.26(a).

7. Pleadings and attachments were not filed on 8.5 by 11-inch paper, and no

good cause was provided. 5 C.F.R. §1201.26(c).

8. The appellant checked multiple actions being appealed, and indicated only

one effective date or no effective date at all for the appealed actions.

9. The appellant filed a stay request but did not submit evidence that the

employing agency was served a copy of the request. 5 C.F.R. §1209.8(c).

Updated 07/2019
J. A16027/17

2018 PA Super 203

IN RE: G.M.S., A MINOR :

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

:

APPEAL OF: L.N.C., NATURAL MOTHER : No. 299 WDA 2017

Appeal from the Order, January 30, 2017,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Orphans’ Court Division at No. CP

- 02

- AP

- 0000173

- 2016

IN RE: B.D.C., A MINOR :

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

:

APPEAL OF: L.N.C., NATURAL MOTHER : No. 300 WDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Dated January 30, 2017,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Orphans’ Court Division at No. CP

- 02

- AP

- 0000174

- 2016

IN RE: L.A.C., A MINOR :

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

:

APPEAL OF: L.N.C., NATURAL MOTHER : No. 301 WDA 2017

Appeal from the Order, January 30, 2017,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Orphans’ Court Division at No. CP

- 02

- AP

- 0000175

- 2016

BEFORE: STABILE, J., FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., AND STRASSBURGER, J. *

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY FORD ELLIOT T, P.J.E.: FILED: July 11, 2018

I join in the Majority Opinion except as to footnote 6.

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.J. A16027/17

- 2

-

Judge Stabile join s the concurring statement.
---

Exhibit 99.8

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the reference to our Firm under the caption
Interest of Experts and to the use in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of our
report dated March 23, 2015, with respect to the consolidated statements of
financial position of Trillium Therapeutics Inc. (formerly Stem Cell
Therapeutics Corp.) as at December 31, 2014 and 2013, and the consolidated
statements of loss and comprehensive loss, changes in equity, and cash flows for
the years then ended.

|                | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP             
|--------------- | ----------------------------------
|Toronto, Canada | Chartered Professional Accountants
|March 24, 2015  | Licensed Public Accountants       

---