alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-18-00681- CR NO. 03-18-00682- CR
Charles Wayne Bryant, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 27TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NOS . 430 68, 4 3112 , H ONO RAB LE JACK W. P RESCOTT, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Charles Way

ne Br y ant, appea

ring pro se, seeks to appea l fr om the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgme nt nunc pro tunc. “The standard for deter mining jurisdiction is
. . . whether the appea l is authorized by law.” Abbott v. State , 271 S.W .3d 694, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). I n criminal case s, an appea l is authorized only when a trial court “ente rs a judgme nt of g uilt or other appea lable order .” Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a) (2); see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.02 (“A defe ndant in any criminal action has the rig ht of appea l under t h e ru l es h er einafter presc ribed .
. . .”). A pos t-judg ment order deny ing a m otion for judgment nunc pro tunc i s not an appea lable order
. See Abbott , 271 S.W .3d at 697 (holding that no rule or statutory or constitutional provision authorizes appea l of post-judgme nt order deny ing time-cre dit); Mayzone v. State , N o . 1 3

- 1 7
- 0 0 3 0 0

- CR , 2 0 1 7 T e x. A p p . L E X I S 1 0 4 6 8 , a

t * 1 ( T e x. A

p p . — A u s ti n N o v . 9 , 2 0 1 7 , n o p e t. ) (mem. op., not desig nated for publication) (holding that there is no appellate jurisdiction over denialof m otion for judgment nunc pro t unc); Castor v. Stat e , 205 S.W .3d 666, 667 (Tex
. App.—Waco

2006, no pet.) (same)
. Acc ording ly , we dismiss these appea ls for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

__________________________________________ Chari L . Kelly , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Tria na and K elly Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: January

16, 2019 Do Not Publish

2
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 18, 2024

NO. 03

- 24

- 00086

- CV

Larry W. Campbell and Jacquie L. Campbell , Appellant s

v.

Rolling Hills Reserve Property Owners Association, Inc. , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 33R D DIS TRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES SMITH AND THEOFANIS

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT S ’ MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on January 8, 2024

.

Larry W. Campbell and Jacquie L. Campbell have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and

having considered the motion , the Court agrees that t he motion should be gran ted . Therefore, the

Court grants the motion and dismiss es the appeal

. The appellant s shall pay all costs relating to

this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION, ) 

WARNER BROS. RECORDS INC., )

CAPITOL RECORDS, INC., BMG MUSIC, )

and UMG RECORDINGS, INC., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-0804-CG-B

)

LINDA MUHAMMAD, )

)

Defendant.

DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

On March 10, 2005, default was entered by the clerk as to Linda Muhammad pursuant to

F.R.Cv.P. 55(a). (Doc. 9). Based upon Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment (Doc. 11), and good cause

appearing therefore, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that:

 1. Defendant shall pay statutory damages to Plaintiffs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504 for infringement

of Plaintiffs' copyrights in the sound recordings listed in Exhibit A to the Complaint, in the total principal sum

of Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000.00) (representing the minimum statutory award of $750 for each of eight

infringements).

 2. Defendant shall pay Plaintiffs' costs of suit herein in the amount of Two Hundred Five Dollars

($205.00).

 3. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502, Defendant shall be and hereby is enjoined from directly or indirectly

infringing Plaintiffs' rights under federal or state law in the following copyrighted sound recordings:

"Jungle Love," on album "Ice Cream Castle," by artist "The Time" (SR# 55-021);

"Hang," on album "Yourself or Someone Like You," by artist "Matchbox 20" (SR# 227-755);

"Hungry Like the Wolf," on album "Rio," by artist "Duran Duran" (SR# 38-444);

"Talk Dirty to Me," on album "Look What the Cat Dragged In," by artist "Poison" (SR# 82-349);

Case 1:04-cv-00804-CG-B Document 12 Filed 06/20/05 Page 1 of 2
2

"Here Comes the Rain Again," on album "Touch," by artist "Eurythmics" (SR# 52-363);

"The Woman in Me (Needs the Man in You)," on album "The Woman in Me," by artist "Shania

Twain" (SR# 207-884);

"There's No Way," on album "40 Hour Week," by artist "Alabama" (SR# 60-774);

"Love Don't Live Here Anymore," on album "Like a Virgin," by artist "Madonna" (SR# 59-442);

and in any other sound recording, whether now in existence or later created, that is owned or controlled by

the Plaintiffs (or any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate record label of Plaintiffs) ("Plaintiffs' Recordings"),

including without limitation by using the Internet or any online media distribution system to reproduce (i.e.,

download) any of Plaintiffs' Recordings, to distribute (i.e., upload) any of Plaintiffs' Recordings, or to make

any of Plaintiffs' Recordings available for distribution to the public, except pursuant to a lawful license or with

the express authority of Plaintiffs. 

 4. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 503, Defendant shall destroy all copies of Plaintiffs' Recordings that

Defendant has downloaded onto any computer hard drive or server without Plaintiffs' authorization and shall

destroy all copies of those downloaded recordings transferred onto any physical medium or device in

Defendant's possession, custody, or control.

DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of June, 2005. 

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00804-CG-B Document 12 Filed 06/20/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          233000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                233000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  308000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           232000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       3128000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (3053000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    308000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  6000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (6000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (6000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (6000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60457

Summary Calendar

BREVER McCALLUM,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MISSISSIPPI STATE TAX COMMISSION and

JEROLD B. ERIKSON,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Mississippi

(3:93-CV-804-BrN)

April 2, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Brever McCallum appeals the district court’s grant of judgment

as a matter of law on her federal and s tate law claims based on

sexual harassment. Because we find that the district court

properly entered judgment as a matter of law for the defendants

under Boeing Co. v. Shipman

, 411 F.2d 365, 374-75 (5th Cir.

1969)(en banc ), we do not address McCallum’s claims that the

district court improperly denied her motion for a new trial and her

motion for backpay. We AFFIRM for essentially the same reasons2

stated in the district court’s careful and detailed examination of

the case.

AFFIRMED.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Aphton Corporation
(the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Frederick W. Jacobs, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and
Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, as amended;
and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: February 25, 2004By:
    
    /s/ Frederick W. JacobsFrederick W. Jacobs
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer and Chief Accounting Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
**Exhibit 32.2**

***URANIUM RESOURCES, INC.***

405 SH 121 Bypass,Building A, Suite 110, Lewisville, TX 75067

972.219.3330 Phone   972.219.3311 Fax

November9, 2007

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 5th Street, N.W.

Washington,D.C. 20549

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

I,Thomas H. Ehrlich, Vice President - Finance and Chief Financial Officer ofUranium Resources, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)  TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30,2007 which this certification accompanies fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| */s/* Thomas H. Ehrlich                                    | * * |
|------------------------------------------------------------|----------|
| Thomas H. Ehrlich                                          |     |
| Vice President —  Financeand Chief Financial  Officer |     |
| November 9, 2007                                           |     |

 

 

 

----
#### STATE v. BEATTY

No. 255A97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 225

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals denied 23 July 1997.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          30,522
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   90,314
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,666)
<INVENTORY>                                     98,898
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               228,636
<PP&E>                                         173,635
<DEPRECIATION>                                (70,814)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 665,594
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          102,560
<BONDS>                                        559,325
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                   (137,718)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   665,594
<SALES>                                        151,543
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               151,543
<CGS>                                           95,693
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   95,693
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                41,875
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,576
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,151)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       277
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,601)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    319
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,920)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
     Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of AMDL, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary L. Dreher, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.     /s/ Gary L. Dreher  Gary L. Dreher Chief Executive Officer May 13, 2004
<Page>

                               NASH-FINCH COMPANY
                               PROFIT SHARING PLAN
                                  2001 REVISION

                         FIRST DECLARATION OF AMENDMENT

Pursuant to the retained power of amendment contained in Section 11.2 of the
instrument entitled "Nash-Finch Company Profit Sharing Plan--2001 Revision," the
undersigned hereby amends the said instrument in the manner described below.

1.   Section 14.2 is amended to add a definition of "Disabled" that reads as
     follows:

     "DISABLED. A Participant will be considered "Disabled" only if:

            (a)   in the case of a Participant who is participating in the
                  Company's long-term disability plan, he or she is receiving
                  benefits under the plan, or

            (b)   in the case of any other Participant, he or she is certified
                  as being disabled by the Social Security Administration and is
                  receiving disability benefits under the disability provisions
                  of the Social Security Act."

2.   The definition of Section 415 Wages in the Special Effective Dates
     Addendum is amended to read as follows:

     "The definition of "Section 415 Wages" in Section 14.2 of the Plan is
     generally effective for Plan Years beginning on and after January 1, 1998.
     Effective for Plan Years beginning on or after January 1, 2001, the
     definition of "Section 415 Wages" shall include elective amounts that are
     not includable in the gross income of the Employee by reason of Code
     section 132(f)(4)."

3.   A new Exhibit F is added thereto in the form attached hereto.

The amendments set forth at items 1 and 2 above are effective as of January 1,
2001. The amendment set forth at item 3 above is effective as of January 1,
2002.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed by
its duly authorized officers this 15th day of February, 2002.

                                                       NASH FINCH COMPANY


Attest: /s/ NORMAN R. SOLAND                           By:  /s/ RON MARSHALL
       ---------------------------------                    --------------------
        Secretary                                           President

<Page>


                               NASH FINCH COMPANY
                               PROFIT SHARING PLAN

                                    EXHIBIT F

                SPECIAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO THE ADOPTION OF
                         THE PLAN BY U SAVE FOODS, INC.

This Exhibit F sets forth special provisions of the Plan applicable to the
adoption of the Plan by U Save Foods, Inc. ("U Save") effective as of January 1,
2002.

SERVICE CREDIT. Service completed as an employee with U Save prior to the date
on which U Save became an Affiliated Organization, will be taken into account
under the Plan for all purposes in accordance with the provisions of Article 10
but only with respect to any individual who was an Employee on January 1, 2002.
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 13

- 00296

- CV

GLEN WYLIE, JR.

, Appellant

v.

THE CITY OF HUBBARD

, Appellee

From the 66th District Court

Hill County, Texas

Trial Court No. 47658

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Glen Wylie, Jr., filed motion for voluntary dismissal of the appeal. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). Wylie no longer wishes to pursue the appeal. Dismissal of

this appeal would not prevent a party from seeking relief to which it would otherwise

be entitled. The motion is granted , and the appeal is dismissed.

AL SCOGGINS

JusticeWylie v. The City of Hubbard Page 2

Before Chie f Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted; appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed October 24, 2013

[CV06]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 1997 and is qualified its
entirety be reference to such financial statement.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,454,535
<SECURITIES>                                   633,197
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,328<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      22,521,976<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                               (130,732)<F3>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,495,304
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,075
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       24,452,229<F4>
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,495,304
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               219,706<F5>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               104,662<F6>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   115,044<F7>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F7>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F7>
<FN>
<F1>Includes all receivables with "other assets"on the balance sheet.
<F2>Includes investment in J.V. of $20,639,430 and costs related to the aquisition
of the asset underlying the investment of $1,882,546.
<F3>Represents amortization of Costs related to the aquisition of the asset
underlying the investment.
<F4>Deficit of General Partners ($50,777), limited partners of $24,503,006
<F5>Includes all revenues of Partnership.
<F6>Includes all expenses of Partnership.
<F7>Net income allocated $1,150 to the General Partners and $113,888 to the Limited
Partners.  Average net income is $.06 on 2,060,450 units outstanding.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________ IN RE DOROTHY M. HARTMAN

__________________________ 2013-1070 (Serial No. 11/003,123)

__________________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

__________________________ ON MOTION

__________________________ O R D E R Dorothy Hartman moves for le ave to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon consideration thereof, I T I S O RDERED T HAT : The motion is granted. F OR T HE C OURT
/s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk s24 Case: 13-1070 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 01/14/2013
Interoperability of 

Sustainability Standards

Laura Thompson

Director, RMS Program
Similarities and Differences in Standards https://www.rmscertified.com
Chain of custody standards operate independently to offer the highest level of 

assurance that information flowing through the supply chain is consistent
“There are different 

interpretations of ISO 

across aluminum 

suppliers for beverage 

cans... which flows to 

include/exclude, the 

terms to use and the 

formula itself.”

Aluminum company representative 

regarding ISO14021 (Environmental 

Labels and Declarations) and 

recycled content claims
ISO only recently issued 22095

(Chain of Custody – General

Terminology and Models) to

help harmonize terminology

• Generic framework

• Brand reputation

• Shared language

• Product integrity

• Consumer trust
Can we learn from other industry sectors?

In the US, many major pulp and paper companies carry three chain of custody standards.
Can we learn from other industry sectors?- PEFC

v v

Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification
The importance of data - Key Indicators for the UNECE region
The importance of data - Key Indicators for the UNECE region
“Aligning incentives, 

regulations and markets 

with sustainability can 

catalyse a transformation 

towards inclusive and 

sustainable green 

economies”

The State of the World’s Forests: 

Forest Pathways for Green Recovery 

and Building Inclusive, Resilient and 

Sustainable E
Standards can play 

a major role in the 

plastics sector

Certification programs 

could potentially play 

a role in providing data

• Recycled materials

• Biomaterials

• Low carbon fossil 

derived plastics

• Other attributes
THANK YOU

Laura Thompson

Director, RMS Program

Laura.Thompson@greenblue.org

www.rmscertified.com