alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISMISS and Opinion Filed November 20, 2019 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01335-CR 

REGINALD ARLEIGH NOBLE, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. W00-50025-K 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Bridges, Whitehill, and Nowell 

Opinion by Justice Nowell 

On October 30, 2019, Reginald Arleigh Noble filed his notice of appeal. According to the 

notice, Mr. Noble filed an application for an article 11.07 writ of habeas corpus in the Criminal 

District Court No. 4 on August 8, 2019. That court forwarded the writ to the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals on September 13, 2019. Twelve days later, the court of criminal appeals notified 

Mr. Noble by postcard the following: 

The Court has previously entered an order citing you for abuse of the writ of habeas 

corpus. The application for writ of habeas corpus filed by you in the CRIMINAL 

DISTRICT COURT #4, received by this Court on 9/13/2019, does not satisfy the 

requirements for consideration set out in the order described above. Therefore, the Court 

will take no action on this writ. 

 Although Mr. Noble seeks to appeal the “abuse of writ from the Court of Criminal 

Appeals,” he cites no authority for the proposition we may review actions taken by the Texas Court 
 –2– 

of Criminal Appeals. “[O]ur jurisdiction over an appeal must be based on either (1) the general 

constitutional grant, subject to any restrictions and regulations imposed by the legislature; or (2) a 

specific statutory grant of jurisdiction.” See Harris v. State, 402 S.W.3d 758, 760 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.). We have no jurisdiction to review actions taken by the Texas 

Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Barlow, 48 S.W.3d 174, 175–76 (Tex. 

2001); Tune v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 23 S.W.3d 358, 361 (Tex. 2000); see also TEX. CODE 

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 4.04 (“The Court of Criminal Appeals shall have, and is hereby given, final 

appellate and review jurisdiction in criminal cases coextensive with the limits of the state, and its 

determinations shall be final.”). 

Therefore, we dismiss this appeal. 

 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 

191335F.U05 

 

/ Erin A. Nowell/ 

ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

REGINALD ARLEIGH NOBLE, 

Appellant 

No. 05-19-01335-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 4, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. W00-50025-K. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell, 

Justices Bridges and Whitehill 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DIISMISS this appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. 

Judgment entered November 20, 2019
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed August 26, 2019.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00767

- CV
IN RE GARMIN INTERNA TIONAL, INC. , Relator
Original Proceeding from the 192nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 17

- 02833


### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Whitehill, Partida

- Kipness, and Pedersen, III

Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III Relator has filed a motion to dismiss its petiti on for writ of mandamus. Relator states th at
pursuant to a R ule 11 a greement, the trial court has vacated its June 10, 2019 order that is the subject of the mandamus petition. Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss relator’s petition

for writ of ma ndamus. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1.

190767F.P05 /Bill Pedersen, III/ BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
Lora Sims is the Director of Facial Identification Training and a 

Biometrics SME currently employed by Ideal Innovations, Inc. In 

this position, Ms. Sims coordinates all training classes as well as 

many other Face related activities within the company and 

provides subject matter expertise on Biometrics for contracts 

and consulting/expert witness work. 

Involved in the biometrics field since 2007, Lora has advanced 

through her organization, starting as a helpdesk operator 

servicing worldwide tactical operations support in tenprint and 

latent print identification and being promoted to Tenprint Examiner in 2008. Soon thereafter, 

the system she worked on was upgraded to become a multi-modal system, integrating face and 

iris modalities to the fingerprint system, and her career evolved into the role of a Sr. Biometric 

Examiner (BE). 

In this Sr BE position, she has co-authored an internal training to competency program on facial 

identification and iris comparisons and been made responsible for mentoring and training new 

employees through the tenprint and facial training program while integrating them into an 

operational environment. She also further advanced her own qualifications and capabilities by 

qualifying as a Certified Tenprint Examiner through the International Association for 

Identification (IAI) in 2013 and was recertified in 2018.

Lora joined the Facial Identification Scientific Working Group (FISWG) in 2011 where she served 

first on the training subcommittee and then on the One-to-One subcommittee. She serves as 

the chair of the FISWG from spring 2015 to present. Lora also served as the chair of the Facial 

Identification Subcommittee of the Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for 

Forensic Science from 1 October 2014 to 30 September 2021. 

Lora was appointed to the FSSB in October 2021 and serves as the chair of the 

Digital/Multimedia Scientific Area Committee.
**EXHIBIT 15.1**








May
      1, 2007




The
      Board of Directors and Stockholders of Genentech, Inc.





We
      are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
      pertaining to the Genentech, Inc. Tax Reduction Investment Plan, the 2004 Equity
      Incentive Plan, the 1999 Stock Plan, the 1996 Stock Option/Stock Incentive
      Plan,
      the 1994 Stock Option Plan, the 1990 Stock Option/Stock Incentive Plan, and
      the
      1991 Employee Stock Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-37072)
      related to the resale of common shares deliverable upon the exchange of Liquid
      Yield Option Notes, the Registration Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-128400) related
      to the exchange offer for Senior Notes, and in the related Prospectuses, as
      applicable, contained in such Registration Statements of our report dated April
      16, 2007, relating to the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial
      statements of Genentech, Inc. that are included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter
      ended March 31, 2007.





Very
                truly yours,/s/ Ernst
                & Young LLPPalo
                Alto, California
6H 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0335

LARRY JAMES LEPPEK,

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

 v.

EVELYN MAE SHUEY,

 Defendant and Appellee.

ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parties having failed to jointly 

and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c),

IT IS ORDERED THAT Mathew M. Stevenson, whose name appears next on 

the list of attorneys desiring appointment as mediators for Money Judgments appeals 

which is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the 

mediation process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P., 

7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appointment.

A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to 

the parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof.

DATED this July 19, 2022.

Bowen Greenwood, Clerk of the Supreme Court

c: Larry James Leppek, Michael David Bybee, Mathew M. Stevenson

07/19/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0335
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 of
Team, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ted W. Owen, Executive Vice President  Chief Financial 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m 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/    TED W.
OWEN                                              
|Ted W. Owen Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

January 7,
2011
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Venture Catalyst Incorporated (the
Company) for the Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Greg Shay, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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; and

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

By:

/s/ GREG SHAYGreg ShayChief Executive Officer, President andChief Operating Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


Dated: May 15, 2006
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MELNICK DENYING APPELLANT’S

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Appellant, Heart & Core LLC, has moved for reconsideration of the Board’s

January 11, 2023, decision denying the appeal. Heart & Core had elected to conduct

the appeal under the Board’s Rule 12.2, Small Claims (Expedited) procedure and th e

parties agreed to brief the matter under Board Rule 11. A response from the

government is deemed unnecessary.

Heart & Core was awarded firm

- fixed price contracts to provide, among other

things, comforters and bathrobes for the United States Air Forc e Academy and sought

price increases to account for unexpected cost increases. The Board denied the appeal

given the fixed price nature of the contracts.

“Reconsideration might be appropriate if the request ‘is based upon newly

discovered evidence, mi stakes in the findings of fact, or errors of law.’” Green Valley

Co. , ASBCA No. 61275, 18

- 1 BCA ¶ 37,044 at 180,330 (quoting Alliance Roofing &

Sheet Metal, Inc. , ASBCA No. 59663, 15

- 1 BCA ¶ 36,063). However, reconsideration

is not an opportunity for a p arty to reargue its position. Id. Motions for reconsideration

are granted when we have made an oversight affecting the outcome of the appeal.

Kellogg Brown & Root Servs, Inc. , ASBCA No s . 57530, 58161, 19

- 1 BCA ¶ 37,321

at 181,535

.

Heart & Core compla ins that the Board’s decision did not adequately address a

reference in its Rule 11 reply brief to generalized government communications about

Appeal of

- )

)

Heart & Core LLC ) ASBCA No. 63403

)

Under Contract Nos. FA7000

- 18

- D

- 0004 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Ms. Jen Swendseid

President

Minnetonka, MN

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Caryl A. Potter , Esq.

Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney

Isabelle P. Cutting, Esq.

Maj Alissa J. Schrider, USAF

Trial Attorneys2 the impact of inflationary pressures upon small contractors and possible solutions that

might be mutually agreeab le. Heart & Core is simply rearguing its case, which did not

establish contractual entitlement to recovery. It has not persuaded us that we have

made an oversight that affects the outcome of the appeal. Accordingly, the motion for

reconsideration is den ied.

Dated: February 1, 2023

MARK A. MELNICK

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63403

, Appeal of Heart &

Core LLC , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: February 1, 2023

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
EXHIBIT 12.1

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Sandro Rogérioda Silva Gamba, certify that:

 

1.	  I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 20-F of Gafisa S.A.;

 

2.	  Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.	  Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.	  The company’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:

 

a)	  Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)  	Designedsuch internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

 

c)	  Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and

 

d)	  Disclosedin this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period coveredby the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal controlover financial reporting; and

 

5.	  The company’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)	  Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and

 

b)	  Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the company’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: April 27, 2016
Exhibit 32

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 of KBL Healthcare Acquisition Corp. III (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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; and

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



|                     |  |                         |  |                                                                                       
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 13, 2009 |  |                        
|                     | 
|                     |  | /s/ Marlene Krauss M.D.
|                     |  | Name:                   |  | Marlene Krauss M.D.                                                                   
|                     |  | Title:                  |  | Chief Executive Officer and Secretary (Principal Executive Officer)                   
|                     | 
|Date: March 13, 2009 |  |                        
|                     | 
|                     |  | /s/ Michael Kaswan     
|                     |  | Name:                   |  | Michael Kaswan                                                                        
|                     |  | Title:                  |  | Chief Operating Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
Exhibit
      10.15


    Supplier
      Agreement

     

    Supplier:
       Xinjiang
      Guansheng Technology Chemistry Co., Ltd

    Buyer: Fujian
      Zhongde Technology Co., Ltd

    Date:
       March.
      05, 2007

    Place:
       Fuqing

    


    According
      to the "Contract Law of P.R.of China" and friendly negotiation, both sides
      of
      supplier and buyer, agreed to fulfill this contract on the following
      clauses:

    


    I.
      Name,
      index, quantity, unit price and package of goods:

     

    
      	
              Name
                of Product

            	 	
              Packing

            	 	
              Quantity(T)

            	 	
              Unit
                price

              (including
                tax)

            	 	
              Amount

            
	
              Vegetable
                Oleic Acid

            	 	
              Pure
                water

            	 	
              466.2

            	 	
              4,500
                yuan/T

            	 	
              2,097,900yuan

            


    

    


    II:
      Delivery date: before March 31st, 2007

    III.
      Delivery location: Buyer’s plant

    IV.
      Transportation method and expense: the supplier undertake the expense of goods
      transportation 

    V.
      Delivery and Balance Method: Instant test after products arrival, pay cash
      after
      testing, then unload and supplier take back the barrels

    VI.
      If
      both parties involved in disputes, it shall be solved through negotiation first;
      If not, it shall issue at the local court.

    Each
      Party keeps one copy of this agreement, it shall effective at the above
      signature date.

    


    Supplier(SEAL):
      Xinjiang Guansheng Technology Chemistry Co., Ltd 

    Address:
      Wulumuqi Oil Chemical Industry Park

    Tel:
      0994-5326 777

    


    Buyer(SEAL):Fujian
      Zhongde Technology Co., Ltd.

    Address:
      Fuqing Longtianzhen Fulu Industry Park

    Tel:
      139
      0500 2670; 0591-8577 1034
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Right Aid Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Fleury, James, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>MVAIC, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant.Marshall &amp; Marshall, PLLC (Barbara Carabell of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), dated August 16, 2016. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted a motion by defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (sued herein as MVAIC) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>For the reasons stated in <i>Veraso Med. Supply Corp., as Assignee of Greer Foster Salvanita v MVAIC</i> (___ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2016-1629 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: March 08, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

MORRIS L. STURDIVANT, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 09-0126-WS-C

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, :

Commissioner of Social Security,

:

Defendant.

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to

the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated March 19, 2010 is

ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

DONE this 8th day of April, 2010.

 s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00126-WS-C Document 26 Filed 04/08/10 Page 1 of 1