alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# ,40. lo-m-oo9a<i-££ nd. id-m-ooaao- CR . ©^f^ 

# I»SD§1 IN THE CDURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS fWm&f^'^Q^tpggg 

## AUSTIN, TEXAS MAY 132015 l>rnckEdward #d63 FRDM APPEAL No § 

# Us ! § tibial court No.£U>?fh3Qrvi^lobl^ THE STATE DF TEXAS § jjQfllWr COUNTY

FIRST MOTION FDR EXTENTIDN DF TIME TD FILE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
To the Honorable Judge of,said court of criminal appeals: 

## Comes now, LjAJTftC-JL Co^af? , petitioner, and files this
rr,o •(- ^ o o -Fo V OV+ OO+^OO O"F O^ OO+ >/ f Ofll rlOW<= TO Uh 1 rh +Q file 3 "fitItlOn for discretionary review. In support of this motion, petitioner



### 14 2015 i 

### AbelAcosta, Cierk on<? . . '—T~ * The petition uas convicted in the p£ IQ th District court of 

# 1/Qdl\ldfcr county, Texas of the offence of Afl^f&Uqfc£-(3 in case No. lb-H~00£2D~ CR styled state of Texas 

# ftobbe^ Us C^drndg. &VoA<<l (2o4£>
- The petitioner appeal to the court of appeals 

# \er|4H district. The case was f\-Qv\rm^d onPpOl ^ day of 20lQ

II 

### --T^8 BEesent deadline for filing the petition for Discretionary 

### review isMfto\ U day of 20\&) The petitioner has not requested any extention prior to this request.Ill 

### Petitioner request for an extention is based upon the following fact: Petitioner was not notified of the decision of the court of 

# appeals in his case until \\pj\[\^> daY of 2DJ^_. Petitioner attorney on appeal.has informed petitioner that He/She will not represent him on the petition for Siicrgtionary review. Petitioner has been trying to odtain legal counsel for this matter.
Wherefore, petitioner prays this court grant this motion and 

### extend the deadline for filing the petition for Discretionary relD-iq-ooai4-c£ 

# view in case No^. 10-IM-QO&Q-CR, to~SuU jQ day of 20_[S__. 

# IgAJUuck;iKmjJ signature 

# "Dcunck Qo*^ print name petitioner pro se 

### T.D.C.D. # I4ffi)(c&(g Texas Department of crimial justice Bill Clements Unit 9601 spur 591 Amarillo Texas 79107-9606

Certificate': of service 

### I certify that a true, and^correct copy of the aboyeand foregoing first motion for extention of time to file petition for Discretionary review has been forearded by U.S mail, postage prepaid, first class to the state prosecutor, P.o Box ±2ff/i 6-Austin Texas, 78711. 

## On this day Mqi\ l^> day of 20 \^)Inmate Declaration 

## I bWflC^ KO"3t> , T.D.C.J. # !43*&lg5U> being presently incarcerated in the Bill Clements Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in poter, county, Texas, verify and declare under penalty of perjury that the above and foregoing statements

are true and correct. 

## Executed this day MflU(^ day of 20 VD

signature 

## Oafridel fc^> printed name petitioner pro se 

## T.D.C.J. #HfrfoSio
**Exhibit 10.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 Nos. 333-11598 and 333-72320) pertaining to the 1990Share Option Scheme, the 1997 Share Option Scheme, as amended, the 1998 Directors and Consultants Option Scheme, as amended, the Exceptis Technologies Limited Share Option Scheme, the 1999 Employee Share Purchase Plan, as amended and the 1999 U.S.Employee Share Purchase Plan, as amended, of Trintech Group PLC (the “Company”) and the Registration Statement (Form F-3 No. 333-116087) pertaining to the disposition of 300,000 outstanding ordinary shares, represented by 150,000 AmericanDepositary Shares, of the Company, of our report dated April 26, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Trintech Group PLC included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended January 31, 2006.

 

/s/ Ernst & Young 

 

Dublin, Ireland 

May 12, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 67771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27758]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-71,523]


SA Industries 2, Inc., Formerly Known as Gates Corporation, Fluid 
Power Division, Including On-Site Leased Workers From Corporate 
Services, Inc., and the Workplace, Inc., Rockford, IL; Amended 
Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment 
Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(``Act''), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a 
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance 
on July 31, 2009, applicable to workers of Gates Corporation, Fluid 
Power Division, a subdivision of Tomkins PLC, including on-site leased 
workers from Corporate Services, Inc. and The Workplace, Inc., 
Rockford, Illinois. The notice was published in the Federal Register on 
September 22, 2009 (74 FR 48304).
    At the request of the State Agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in the production of hydraulic hose coupling components.
    New information shows that in early October 2010, SA Industries 2, 
Inc. purchased the business of the Rockford, Illinois location of the 
Gates Corporation, Fluid Power Division, a subsidiary of Tomkins PLC 
and is now known only as SA Industries 2, Inc. Since the October 
purchase, the Rockford, Illinois location is no longer referred to as 
the Fluid Power Division or is a subsidiary of Tomkins PLC. The on-site 
leased workers from Corporate Services, Inc., and The Workplace, Inc. 
are no longer employed at the Rockford, Illinois location of SA 
Industries 2, Inc., formerly known as Gates Corporation, Fluid Power 
Division, a subsidiary of Tomkins PLC.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to 
properly reflect these matters.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by a shift in 
the production of hydraulic hose coupling components to Mexico.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-71,523 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of SA Industries 2, Inc., formerly known as Gates 
Corporation, Fluid Power Division, a subsidiary of Tomkins PLC, 
Rockford Illinois, who became totally or partially separated from 
employment on or after July 1, 2008, through July 31, 2011, and all 
workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation 
from employment on date of certification through two years from the 
date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment 
assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 28th day of October 2010.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-27758 Filed 11-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
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 November 22, 2010

p1115 

# Order

November 22, 2010

141436

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141436 COA: 284649 Wayne CC: 07-020910-FC WINSTON ROBERT BRIGGS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 25, 2010 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.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Empire Financial
Holding Company (the "Company") for fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Donald A. Wojnowski Jr., Principal Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
                  U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

         (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.


/s/ Donald A. Wojnowski Jr.                          March 20, 2006
---------------------------                          --------------
Donald A. Wojnowski Jr.                                   Date
Principal Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

 ___________________ 

No. 11-50792

___________________ 

JESUS C. HERNANDEZ, Individually and as the surviving father of Sergio 

Adrian Hernandez Guereca, and as Successor−in−Interest to the Estate of 

Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca; MARIA GUADALUPE GUERECA 

BENTACOUR, Individually and as the surviving mother of Sergio Adrian 

Hernandez Guereca, and as Successor−in−Interest to the Estate of Sergio 

Adrian Hernandez Guereca,

Plaintiffs − Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY; UNITED STATES BUREAU OF CUSTOMS 

AND BORDER PROTECTION; UNITED STATES BORDER PATROL; 

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT 

AGENCY; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Defendants − Appellees

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−

CONS w/ 12−50217

JESUS C. HERNANDEZ, Individually and as the surviving father of Sergio 

Adrian Hernandez Guereca, and as Successor−in−Interest to the Estate of 

Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca; MARIA GUADALUPE GUERECA 

BENTACOUR, Individually and as the surviving mother of Sergio Adrian 

Hernandez Guereca, and as Successor−in−Interest to the Estate of Sergio 

Adrian Hernandez,

Plaintiffs − Appellants

v.

JESUS MESA, JR.,

Defendant − Appellee

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 26, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
CONS w/ 12−50301

JESUS C. HERNANDEZ, Individually and as the surviving father of Sergio 

Adrian Hernandez Guereca, and as Successor−in−Interest to the Estate of 

Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca; MARIA GUADALUPE GUERE 

BENTACOUR, Individually and as the surviving mother of Sergio Adrian 

Hernandez Guereca, and as Successor−in−Interest to the Estate of Sergio 

Adrian Hernandez,

Plaintiffs − Appellants

v.

RAMIRO CORDERO; VICTOR M. MANJARREZ, JR.,

Defendants − Appellees

____________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Texas, El Paso

____________________ 

ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

(Opinion June 30, 2014, 5 Cir., 2014, 757 F.3d 249) 

(Opinion on En Banc Rehearing April 24, 2015, 5 Cir., 2015, 785 F.3d 117)

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, JOLLY, JONES, SMITH, DENNIS, 

CLEMENT, PRADO, OWEN, ELROD, SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, GRAVES,

HIGGINSON and COSTA, Circuit Judges. 

BY THE COURT: 

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc 

with oral argument on September 20, 2017. Briefing instructions will follow 

in a separate court directive.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1263 CA 15-00642**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

JASON T. AUGHTMON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RAYMOND T. WARD AND TAMMEY M. WARD, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

STEVE BOYD, P.C., WILLIAMSVILLE (STEPHEN BOYD OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

BROWN & KELLY, LLP, BUFFALO (KRISTEN B. DEGNAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Frank Caruso, J.), entered August 5, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained when a vehicle owned by defendant Tammey M. Ward and driven by defendant Raymond T. Ward collided with the vehicle driven by plaintiff. Following discovery, plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on the issue whether he sustained a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of serious injury ( see Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Supreme Court properly denied the motion. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, he failed to meet his initial burden with respect to the 90/180-day category inasmuch as he failed to submit evidence establishing as a matter of law that he sustained “a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature” that was causally related to the subject accident ( id. ; see Heatter v Dmowski , 115 AD3d 1325, 1326; see also Hartman-Jweid v Overbaugh , 70 AD3d 1399, 1400). In support of his motion, plaintiff submitted, inter alia, the affirmed report of a physician who examined plaintiff on behalf of defendants. The physician concluded, based on all of plaintiff’s medical reports, as well as the imaging studies conducted since the date of the accident ( cf. Quinones v Ksieniewicz , 80 AD3d 506, 506-507), that plaintiff had “extensive congenital variation and degenerative disease of the lumbar spine that was not caused by the accident of record” and that plaintiff’s injuries were caused by those preexisting “anatomical elements.” We thus conclude that plaintiff failed to meet his burden of establishing, as a matter of law, that his alleged pain and injuries were caused by the subject accident ( see**-2- 1263 CA 15-00642** 
generally Carrasco v Mendez , 4 NY3d 566, 580).

Entered: November 13, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                2,037,560
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                           408,378
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      2,567,558
<PP&E>                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       14,234,592
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   124,139
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                  70
<COMMON>                                  1,034
<OTHER-SE>                           11,109,349
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         14,234,592
<SALES>                               2,735,994
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      2,735,994
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         1,749,248
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      268,251
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         877,063
<INCOME-TAX>                            199,543
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     677,520
<DISCONTINUED>                           32,533
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                            710,053
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                               .05
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 99.1**

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS’ REPORT

Board of Directors and Stockholders FC Banc Corp.

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of FC Banc Corp. (the “Company”) and subsidiaryas of March 31, 2003, and the related consolidated statements of income for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, the consolidated statement of cash flows for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, and theconsolidated statement of changes in stockholders’ equity for the three-month period ended March 31, 2003.  These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical proceduresto financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters.  It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States ofAmerica, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, weare not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of income,changes in stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein) and in our report dated January 10, 2003, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. 

| /s/ S.R. SNODGRASS, A.C. |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
|                          |   |
|                     |   |
| Wexford, PA              |   |
| April 24, 2003           |   |
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH, an Ohio 

corporation, d/b/a Abercrombie Kids, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

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

NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS 

ASSOCIATION; GENERAL 

CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH-DAY 

ADVENTISTS; NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION OF EVANGELICALS; 

CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY; 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

FOUNDATION; BAPTIST JOINT 

COMMITTEE FOR RELIGIOUS 

LIBERTY; AMERICAN JEWISH 

COMMITTEE; THE SIKH COALITION, 

 Amici Curiae.

No. 11-5110

(D.C. No. 4:09-CV-00602-GKF-FHM)

(N.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before KELLY, EBEL, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Appellant's unopposed motion to dismiss appeal is granted. See 10th Cir. R. 

27.3(A)(9) and Fed. R. App. P. Rule 42(b).

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 27, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 11-5110 Document: 01019466358 Date Filed: 07/27/2015 Page: 1 
2

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of the court.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 11-5110 Document: 01019466358 Date Filed: 07/27/2015 Page: 2
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01

                              SKILLSOFT CORPORATION

                         CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To SkillSoft Corporation:

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
reports included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statement File Numbers 333-30616, 333-30618, 333-61626, 333-63556,
333-65778, 333-65638, 333-76628 and 333-81474.


                                          /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP



Boston, Massachusetts
April 24, 2002
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lloyd Fishman, Appellant.

[787 NYS2d 866]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert G. Seewald, J.), rendered September 6, 2001, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 8V2 to 17 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal forecloses his claim that the trial court failed to exercise its sentencing discretion *(see People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273 [1992]; *People v Diaz,*304 AD2d 468 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 561 [2003]). Were we to conclude otherwise, we would find this claim to be unpreserved and unavailing. Even if we were to conclude that the court mistakenly believed that it had no discretion to impose a lower sentence, there would be no need to remand for resentencing because the court expressed no reservations about the agreed-upon sentence *(id.).*

The appeal waiver also forecloses defendant’s excessive sentence claim, and if we were to find otherwise, we would perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Marlow and Ellerin, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                     EXHIBIT 8.1

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
          Name of the Company                                    Country of Incorporation
<S>                                                              <C>
Sify eLearning Limited                                                     India
(formerly Satyam Education Services Limited)
Safescrypt Limited                                                         India
Satyam Webexchange Limited                                                 India
Sify Plasticscommerce Limited                                              India
IndiaWorld Communications Limited                                          India
Sify International Inc.                                                    USA
E Alcatraz Consulting Private Limited                                      India
</TABLE>

All the above companies are 100% subsidiaries of Sify ie., Sify owns 100% of the
stock and controls 100% of the voting power in the above companies.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1997

To reinstate the safeguard measures imposed on imports of certain steel 

products, as in effect on December 4, 2003. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 9, 2003

Mr. BYRD (for himself, Mr. BAYH, and Mr. ROCKEFELLER) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To reinstate the safeguard measures imposed on imports 

of certain steel products, as in effect on December 4, 2003.

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

3 SECTION 1. REINSTATEMENT OF SAFEGUARD MEASURES 

4 ON CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS. 

5 Notwithstanding the proclamation of the President of 

6 the United States of December 4, 2003—

7 (1) those safeguard measures implemented 

8 under Proclamation 7529 of March 5, 2002, with re9 spect to certain steel products, including the modi10 fications made by Proclamation 7529 to subchapter 
2

•S 1997 IS 

1 III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

2 of the United States, shall remain in effect during 

3 the period beginning on December 5, 2003, and end4 ing on the applicable date provided in subchapter III 

5 of chapter 99 of such Schedule, as in effect on De6 cember 4, 2003; and 

7 (2) the proclamation of the President of Decem8 ber 4, 2003, and the modifications to the Har9 monized Tariff Schedule made by that proclamation, 

10 shall have no effect.

Æ