alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, DC 20549
 Form 6-K Report of Foreign Issuer Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the month of:   May, 2005 CALL-NET ENTERPRISES INC.   2235 Sheppard Avenue East
Suite 1800
North York, Ontario
Canada M2J 5G1
(Address of Principal Executive Officers) Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover of Form
20-F or Form 40-F: Form 20-F   o
    
    Form 40-F   þ
 Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information contained in this Form
is also thereby furnishing the information to the SEC pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the
Securities Exchange Actof 1934: Yes   o
    
    No   þ
 If Yes is marked, indicate the file number assigned to the registrant in connection with Rule
12g3-2(b):   N/A




---



##### 



SIGNATURE Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, the registrant has duly
caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereto duly authorized.  CALL-NET ENTERPRISES INC.Date:   May 26, 2005
    By:
    /s/   Roy GraydonName:
    Roy GraydonTitle:
    Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX Exhibit
    
    Description of Exhibit99.1
    
    Notice of Special Meeting and Management Proxy Circular  May 25,
200599.2
    
    Proxy for Holders of Common Shares99.3
    
    Proxy for Holders of Class B Non-Voting Shares99.4
    
    Letter of Transmittal for the registered holders of Common Shares
and Class B Non-Voting Shares99.5
    
    Officer's Certificate
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of Directors 

Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd.: 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-147093) and Form S-4 (No. 333-141128) of Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd. of our report dated March 10, 2008 with respect to the consolidated balancesheets of Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholder’s equity and cash flows for the year endedDecember 31, 2007 and the period from December 2, 2006 through December 31, 2006, and the consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows of Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. and subsidiaries (the“Predecessor”) for the period from January 1, 2006 through December 1, 2006 and for the year ended December 31, 2005, which report appears in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of Freescale SemiconductorHoldings I, Ltd. 

Our report dated March 10, 2008, contains explanatory paragraphs related to (1) the Company’s adoption ofStatement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), *Share-Based Payment*, as of January 1, 2006 and (2) the Company’s acquisition of all of the outstanding stock of the Predecessor in a business combination accountedfor as a purchase. As a result of the acquisition, the consolidated financial information for the period after the acquisition is presented on a different basis than that for the periods before the acquisition and, therefore, is not comparable.

KPMG LLP 

Austin, Texas

March 10, 2008
<PAGE>
      
                               EXHIBIT 15



To the Shareholders and Board of Directors
of Sears, Roebuck and Co.

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the 
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited 
interim financial information of Sears, Roebuck and Co. for the three-
month and nine-month periods ended September 27, 1997 and September 28, 
1996, as indicated in our report dated October 28, 1997; because we did 
not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your 
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three-month period ended 
September 27, 1997, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement 
Nos. 2-64879, 2-80037, 33-18081, 33-23793, 33-41485, 33-43459, 33-45479, 
33-55825, 33-58139, 33-58851, 33-64345, 333-8141 and 333-38131 of Sears,
Roebuck and Co.; Registration Statement Nos. 33-64215, 333-9817 and 
333-30879 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corp.; 
Registration Statement Nos. 33-57205 and 333-11973 of Sears, Roebuck 
and Co. and the Savings and Profit Sharing Fund of Sears Employees; 
Registration Statement No. 33-44671 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears 
DC Corp.; and Registration Statement Nos. 33-64775 and 333-18591 of Sears,
Roebuck and Co. and Sears, Roebuck and Co. Deferred Compensation Plan.

We are also aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) 
under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the 
Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant, or a report 
prepared or certified by an accountant, within the meaning of Sections 7 
and 11 of that Act. 




Deloitte & Touche LLP

Chicago, Illinois
October 28, 1997
Texas Sean Gorman New York Partner Washington, DC Connecticut 713.221.1221 Office Seattle 800.404.3970 Fax Dubai sean.gorman@bgllp.com London Bracewell & Giuliani LLP 711 Louisiana Street Suite 2300 Houston, Texas 77002-2770
June 1, 2015

Mr. Christopher A. Prine Clerk, First Court of Appeals 301 Fannin Street Houston, TX 77002-2066
Re: Case No. 01-13-00349-CV; 

### Brenham Oil & Gas, Inc. v. ENI S.p.A.; In the Court of Appeals for the First Judicial District of Texas

Dear Mr. Prine:
I am counsel for Appellee, ENI S.p.A., in the above-referenced case. I have changed firms. Please update your records with my new contact information:

Sean Gorman Bracewell & Giuliani LLP 711 Louisiana Street, Suite 2300 Houston, Texas 77002-2770 Telephone: 713-221-1221 Facsimile: 800-404-3970 Email: sean.gorman@bgllp.com
Additionally, please add Yvonne Y. Ho, also with Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, as co-counsel for Appellee. Her contact information is as follows:

Yvonne 

### Y. Ho Bracewell & Giuliani LLP 711 Louisiana Street, Suite 2300 Houston, Texas 77002-2770 Telephone: 713-221-1369 Facsimile: 800-404-3970 Email: yvonne.hobgllp.com ACCEPTED 01-13-00349-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/1/2015 5:04:24 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKMr. Christopher A. Prine

June 1, 2015 Page 2 Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours,

Sean Gorman

S G/slw

cc: Mr. Rand P. Nolen Mr. George M. Fleming Mr. 

## a Sean Jez Ms. Jessica A. Kasischke Ms. Kelsey L. Stokes FLEMING, NOLEN & JEZ, LLP 2800 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 4000 Houston, TX 

### 77056 By E-File

By E-File

#4905304.1
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

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

______________________

In re : ADDISA JAHRUSALEM FRANCIS, aka Jacqueline Dennis,
Petitioner

______________________

2022

- 151

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:20

- cv

- 02081

- MMS, Senior Judge Margaret M. Sweeney.

______________________

ON PETITION AND MOTION

______________________

P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

Addisa Jahrusalem Francis petitions this court for “a
writ of control to compel mandate in accordance with the judgment ” of this court in Francis v. United States , Appeal
No. 2022

- 1188 . She also submits motion s for “entry of default judgment” and an “order of supersedeas bond.”

Ms. Francis filed a complaint at the United States
Court of Federal Claims primarily challenging her and her
husband’s prior criminal conviction. Th e court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. On appeal, we Case: 22-151 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 06/28/2022IN RE : FRANCIS 2

dismissed after concluding that Ms. Francis had failed to raise any non

- frivolous challenge to the judgment of the
Cou rt of Federal Claims

. This court subse quently denied
her petition for en banc review and issued a mandate

.To the extent that Ms. Francis is seeking a writ of mandamus, such relief is appropriate only when the petitioner has demonstrated clear entitlement to the relief requested
and no alte rnative means to obtain such relief

. See Cheney
v. U.S. Dist. Ct. of D.C. , 542 U.S. 367, 380

– 81 (2004). Ms. Francis’s petition states that she seeks “ release [] of HenryFrancis [Ms. Francis’s husband] from United States Maximum Security [Penitentiary] and petitioner Addisa Jahrusalem Francis . . . held by Supervised Release.” Pet.

at 13. T his court has already explained to Ms. Francis why
the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction to grant
such re quest . Under these circumstances, we must conclude that Ms. Francis is not entitled to the relief she seeks.

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The petition is denied.

(2) A ll pending motions are denied.

Jun e 28 , 2022
Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court Case: 22-151 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 06/28/2022
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 21, 2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-19-00065-CR

RICHARD RAY MCDONALD, Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 228th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 1563875 

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

Appellant, Richard Ray McDonald, pleaded guilty to and was convicted of 

burglary of a habitation with the intent to commit theft. Pursuant to the terms of a 

plea-bargain agreement between appellant and the State, on October 29, 2018, the 

trial court sentenced appellant to 30 years’ imprisonment.

We lack jurisdiction over this appeal because this is a plea bargain case with 

no appealable matters and appellant has not been granted permission to appeal. In a 

plea bargain case—that is, a case in which a defendant’s plea was guilty or nolo 

contendere and the punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended by the 
2

prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant—a defendant may appeal only matters 

raised by a written, pretrial motion or with the trial court’s permission. Tex. R. App. 

P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant’s punishment does not exceed the agreed length of 

confinement. The record does not contain any appealable pretrial rulings, and the 

trial court did not grant appellant permission to appeal.

Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Hassan, and Poissant.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
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 of NT Media Corp. of California,  Inc.
(the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Ali Moussavi,  Principal  Executive  Officer and Acting  Principal  Financial
Officer of the Registrant,  certify to the best of my knowledge,  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 and 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 Registrant.


                                         /S/ ALI MOUSSAVI
Dated:  May 15, 2007                     --------------------------------------
                                         Ali Moussavi
                                         Principal Executive Officer and Acting
                                         Principal Financial Officer
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 February 1, 2006
  BROOKFIELD HOMES CORPORATION
   Delaware
(State or Other Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Organization)
    
    001-31524
(Commission File Number)
    
    37-1446709
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)8500 Executive Park Avenue
Suite 300
Fairfax, Virginia
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
    
    
    
    22031
(Zip Code)
 (858) 481-8500
  o
 o
 o
 o




---



##### 



Item 2.02. Results of Operations and Financial Condition.
  Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.
   1




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
   BROOKFIELD HOMES CORPORATIONBy:

/s/  PAUL G. KERRIGANPaul G. KerriganExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer 2




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX
 Exhibit Number
    
    Exhibit99.1
    
    Press Release issued by Brookfield Homes Corporation on February 1, 2006.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 20

- 588 V

UNPUBLISHED

BYRON WIL SON

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: February 22, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;

Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain

- Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Matthew B. Vianello

, Jacobson Press P.C.

, Clayton, MO 63105 , for petitioner.

Lynn Christina Schlie , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On May 12, 202 0 , Byron Wilson filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillain

- Barre Syndrome (GBS) as a
result of an influenza (fl u) vac cine administered to him on October 2, 2019 . Petit ion at 1

. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On February 8, 2021

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that P etitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, R espondent determined that “ [P] etitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”), which afford [P] etitioner a presumption of causation if the onset of GBS occurs

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required
to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

- Government Act

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance
with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

(2012 ).2

between three and forty

- two days after a seasonal flu vaccination and there is no apparent

alternative cause ”

. Id. at 6 . Respondent further agrees that t he scop e of damages to be
awarded is limited to [ P]etitioner ’ s GBS and its related sequelae only

. Id.

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

P etitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opini o n

should not be published except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________ No. 95-40923 Summary Calendar

_______________

GETZELL JOHNSON MURRELL, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS
GARY W. MORGAN,
Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

(6:95-CV-213)

_________________________ August 1, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

This is a diversity case in which Getzell Murrell, Jr., sues

his for mer attorney for malpractice, for alleged inadequate
representation in criminal proceedings. Murrell pleaded guilty to
the offenses. In Texas, as in most jurisdictions, one cannot sue

his attorney under such circum stances unless SS which has not2

happened here SS

he has been legally exonerated of the charges. S ee,

e.g., Peeler v. Hughes & Luce , 868 S.W.2d 823 (Tex . App. SS Dallas
1993), aff’d , 909 S.W.2d 494 (Tex. 1995).

The magistrate judge wrote a lucid report and recommendation,
filed September 25, 1995. It is correct, and the district court

entered judgment dismissing the appeal on the basis thereof. Based

on the plain authority cited in the report, Murrell has no goodfaith basis on which to appeal. The appeal, accordingly, is

DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5 TH C IR
. R. 42.2.
Exhibit 8.1

LIST OF SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES

The following is a list of Capital Product Partners
L.P.s significant subsidiaries as at December 31, 2011:



|                                 |  |                                  |  |                                  |     |  
|-------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------- | --- | -
|Name of Subsidiary               |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation    |  | Proportion of Ownership Interest |    
|Capital Product Operating L.L.C. |  | Republic of The Marshall Islands |  |                                  | 100 | %
|Crude Carriers Corp.             |  | Republic of the Marshall Islands |  |                                  | 100 | %
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Cubic Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, as C.E.O., certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

Date: February 17, 2009

 
| Signature: | /s/ Calvin A. Wallen, III      |
|------------|-------------------------------------|
|       | Calvin A. Wallen, III,  C.E.O. |

 

----
#### In the Matter of Peter G. Savel, Appellant, v Ashley R. Shields, Respondent.

[872 NYS2d 597]

Cardona, P.J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Albany County (Duggan, J.), entered November 15, 2007, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 5, to, among other things, vacate a prior acknowledgment of paternity.

*1084The unmarried parties herein were cohabiting at the time that respondent became pregnant with a child who was born in June 2004. Petitioner’s name is listed on the birth certificate and, three days after the child’s birth, he signed an acknowledgment of paternity. According to petitioner, when the child was approximately eight to nine months old, respondent allegedly told him she had been in a sexual relationship with another man during the time the child was conceived. Although the parties separated in February 2005, petitioner concedes that, thereafter, he had regular contact with the child “about once every one to two weeks.” After respondent, who maintains that petitioner is the child’s father, brought a proceeding seeking child support, petitioner filed a June 2007 petition in Family Court seeking a genetic marker test and an order vacating the acknowledgment of paternity. Following the submission of sworn statements, Family Court issued an order dismissing the petition on the basis of the Law Guardian’s invocation of equitable estoppel on the child’s behalf.

Contrary to petitioner’s arguments on this appeal, the subject proceeding was properly dismissed. Notably, in proceedings involving paternity, it is the *child’s*justifiable reliance on a representation of paternity that is considered and, in determining whether equitable estoppel should be applied to a particular case, the court’s conclusion must be based on the child’s best interests *(see Matter of Sarah S. v James T.,*299 AD2d 785, 785 [2002]; *Hammack v Hammack,*291 AD2d 718, 719-720 [2002]; *see also Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D.,*7 NY3d 320, 327 [2006]). Here, as aptly noted by Family Court, the undisputed proof is that the child, approximately three years old at the time petitioner commenced this proceeding, is bonded to petitioner, who is the only father the child has ever known. Additionally, although petitioner claims that he had reason to question paternity when the child was less than a year old, he, nevertheless, continued fostering a relationship with the child and did not seek to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity until respondent sought a child support order *(see Hammack v Hammack,*291 AD2d at 720). Given all the circumstances, Family Court did not err in concluding that it was in the child’s best interests to preserve the established father-child relationship by applying the doctrine of equitable estoppel and denying petitioner’s request for genetic marker testing *(see*Family Ct Act § 516-a [b] [ii]).

The remaining arguments advanced by petitioner have been examined and found to be unpersuasive.

Mercure, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
NUMBER 13-11-00340-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

ALEJANDRO GARCIA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 94th District Court 

of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Alejandro Garcia, attempts to appeal his conviction for murder. The 

trial court has certified that this Ais a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of 

appeal.@ See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
2

On May 31, 2011, this Court notified appellant=s counsel of the trial court=s 

certification and ordered counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether 

appellant has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel=s findings 

as to whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the 

existence of any amended certification.

Appellant’s counsel did not respond and on August 22, 2011, this Court abated the 

case and remanded it to the trial court for a hearing to determine why counsel failed to 

comply with this Court's order. On September 23, 2011, the trial court held a hearing 

and found that the appellant did not have the right to appeal. The finding of the trial court 

and counsel’s statements at the hearing do not establish that the certification currently on 

file with this Court is incorrect or that appellant otherwise has a right to appeal. 

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be 

dismissed if the trial court=s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of 

appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); see TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, this 

appeal is DISMISSED. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

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

Delivered and filed the

12th day of January, 2012.