alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 12-18-00332-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

TIMOTHY ROBIN NELSON, JR., 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Timothy Robin Nelson, Jr. appeals from his conviction for possession of marijuana in an 

amount less than two ounces, to which he pleaded “guilty” and received a sentence of 150 days in 

county jail with credit for time served. According to the trial court’s certification, Appellant 

“entered a plea of guilty or nolo contender to the criminal charge and the Court did not exceed the 

punishment recommendation between the states attorney and the defendant, therefore the defendant 

has NO right to appeal.” The certification further states that Appellant waived the right to appeal. 

The certification was signed by Appellant and his counsel. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). 

When the defendant is the appellant, the record must include the trial court’s certification of 

the defendant’s right of appeal. Id. This Court must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows 

the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” Id. Based on our review 

of the clerk’s record, the trial court’s certification appears to accurately state that Appellant does 

not have the right to appeal. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding 

that court of appeals should review clerk’s record to determine whether trial court’s certification is 

accurate). Because the trial court did not grant Appellant the right to appeal his conviction, we 

dismiss the appeal.

Opinion delivered January 9, 2019.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JANUARY 9, 2019

NO. 12-18-00332-CR

TIMOTHY ROBIN NELSON, JR.,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 002-82224-18)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being 

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that this 

appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court below 

for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
NUMBER S

13

- 15

- 00218

- CV

13

- 15

- 0 0237

- CV



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

CITY OF PORT ISABEL, TEXAS, Appellant s

, MARIA DE JESUS GARZA

, GUILLERMO TORRES AND JOE E. VEGA

,

v.

JUAN JOSE “ JJ ” ZAMORA, SR.

AND MARTIN C. CANTU

, Appellee s

.

On appeal from the 444th District Court

of Cameron County, Texas

.



### ORDER

Before Justices Garza, Benavides and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

Appellants, the City of Port Isabel, Texas, Maria de Jesus Garza, Guillermo Torres

and Joe E. Vega , have perfected two appeal s of order s rendered in trial court cause2

number 2015

- DCL

- 2342

- H . Attorney Humberto Silva, purporting to represent appellants,

has filed a “Motion to Show Authority to Act” in which he requests that we abate the

appeal s and remand to the trial court for determination as to whether attorneys Robert L.

Colllins, Audrey Guthrie and Christopher D. Lewis have authority to bring th e s e appeal s

on behalf of appellants. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 12.

Having reviewed the motion, we hereby ORDER that Robert L. Colllins, Audrey

Guthrie and Christopher D. Lewis f ile any response to the motion with this Court o n or

before Thursday , July 2 , 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the

25th day of June , 201 5

.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3463 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3463

 To amend chapter 303 of title 46, United States Code, to provide fair 
      treatment for the families of those killed on the high seas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 8, 2010

Mr. Leahy (for himself, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Whitehouse) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend chapter 303 of title 46, United States Code, to provide fair 
      treatment for the families of those killed on the high seas.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Survivors Equality Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. FAIR TREATMENT FOR THE FAMILIES OF THOSE KILLED ON THE HIGH 
              SEAS.

    Chapter 303 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by striking 
section 30303 and inserting the following:
``Sec. 30303. Amount and apportionment of recovery
    ``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `nonpecuniary loss' 
means loss of care, comfort, and companionship.
    ``(b) Recovery.--The recovery in an action under this chapter shall 
be a fair compensation for the pecuniary and nonpecuniary loss 
sustained by the individuals for whose benefit the action is brought. 
The individuals for whose benefit the action is brought may also 
recover damages for the decedent's pre-death pain and suffering.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by this Act shall take effect on the date of 
enactment of this Act and apply to any civil action filed on or after 
that date.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF REALMARK PROPERTY INVESTORS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VI-A FOR
THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0              
<SECURITIES>                                         0              
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,337        
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0             
<INVENTORY>                                          0             
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               232,053       
<PP&E>                                      19,842,432    
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,482,075              
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,009,593            
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,169,491     
<BONDS>                                      9,556,151     
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                     
<PREFERRED>                                          0             
<COMMON>                                             0 
<OTHER-SE>                                           0             
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,009,593            
<SALES>                                              0                     
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               973,925             
<CGS>                                                0             
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,228,646     
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,989        
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0             
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             230,091       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (278,710)              
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0             
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0             
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                     
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                     
<CHANGES>                                            0             
<NET-INCOME>                                  (278,710)     
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.72)         
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0             
                                                                    
                                           

</TABLE>
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 110 Media Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2004 (the
"Report"), I, Raymond Barton, Chief 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; and

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



/s/ Raymond Barton
----------------------------
Raymond Barton
Chief Executive Officer
November 22, 2004


A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Shenendehowa Central School District Board of Education, Appellant, and Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Local 864, et al., Respondents.

Submitted December 3, 2012;

decided December 11, 2012

Motion by New York State United Teachers for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 19 copies filed within seven days.
*Tuesday, April 15, 1997*

MOTION DOCKET

96-84.

#### Goldberg Companies, Inc. v. Richmond Hts. City Council.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 68291 and 68292. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County. Upon consideration of appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal of appellant, Goldberg Companies, Inc.,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion to dismiss the appeal be, and hereby is, denied.

Moyer, C.J., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mike Hawley, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 391]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Carroll, J.), rendered August 18, 2010, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the admission of testimony by an eyewitness to the effect that the eyewitness did not testify before the grand jury because he was afraid for his life and the lives of his family members is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *see generally People v O’Keefe,*105 AD3d 1062 [2013]). In *969any event, this contention is without merit, since this testimony was directed at the eyewitness’s testimonial role, rather than any implication that the defendant had threatened him, and the trial court gave a limiting instruction to the jury that the estimony was only to be considered as it related to the eyewitness’s state of mind (see *People v Howard,*7 AD3d 314, 314 [2004]).

The defendant’s contention that the prosecutor’s summation remark that it took the eyewitness great courage to testify at trial, and certain additional comments made by the prosecutor during summation, deprived him of a fair trial is also unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the comments were either fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom or responsive to defense counsel’s summation, or otherwise did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial *(see People v Ashwal,*39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; *People v Hoke,*111 AD3d 959 [2013]; *People v McGowan,*111 AD3d 850 [2013]; *People v O’Keefe,*105 AD3d at 1063-1064; *People v Cromwell,*99 AD3d 1017, 1017-1018 [2012]).

The defendant’s claim that defense counsel’s failure to object to the challenged summation comments deprived him of his right to the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. Viewing defense counsel’s performance as a whole, the defendant was provided with meaningful representation. Furthermore, the majority of the challenged summation comments were either responsive to defense counsel’s summation or fair comment on the evidence or the rational inferences to be drawn therefrom, and to the extent that certain remarks were improper, defense counsel’s failure to object to those remarks did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel *(see generally People v Hanson,*100 AD3d 771 [2012], *lv granted*21 NY3d 1016 [2013]). Angiolillo, J.P, Dickerson, Austin and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
*Wednesday, May 28, 1997*

MERIT DOCKET

97-336.

#### State ex rel. Kouzelos v. State.

In Mandamus. On motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
#### Kay SIEVERDING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WORLDWEST LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-3178.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Oct. 31, 2006.

*744Kay Sieverding, Verona, WI, pro se.

Before BARRETT, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

BOBBY R. BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.

Kay Sieverding, proceeding pro se, appeals from the dismissal of her suit against Worldwest LLC. The district court dismissed Ms. Sieverding’s suit by granting a motion filed by Ms. Sieverding to dismiss the case without prejudice. As a general rule, an order granting a motion to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice is not appealable. *See Bryan v. Office of Personnel Management,*165 F.3d 1315, 1321 (10th Cir.1999) (“Because [the plaintiff] voluntarily moved to dismiss, she could not appeal the district court’s order”).

Ms. Sieverding claims on appeal that her dismissal was not voluntary because she stated in her motion that she was moving to dismiss the suit under duress of jail. While it is true that Ms. Sieverding’s motion states that she is moving to dismiss under duress of jail, that does not change the fact that she herself filed the motion and asked the court to dismiss the suit. The district court then granted the requested relief. Because the district court was acting on Ms. Sieverding’s own request to dismiss the suit without prejudice, she may not now appeal the district court’s decision to grant the requested relief. *See Coffey v. Whirlpool Corp.,*591 F.2d 618, 620 (10th Cir.1979) (“[W]here the dismissal is upon motion of the plaintiffs themselves, as here, we will not permit those plaintiffs to appeal, saying that the court should not have granted their own motion.”). The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. All outstanding motions are DENIED.

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Order entered February 25, 2013

In The



## Court of Appeals

**Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 12

- 00848

- CV

LUCKY MERK, LLC D/B/ A GREENVILLE BAR & G RILL, ET AL, Appellant s

V.

GREENVILLE LANDMARK VENTURE, ET AL, Appellee s

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10

- 02411

- D



### O RDER

We GRANT appellants’ February 15, 2013 agreed motion for an extension of time to file

a brief. Appellants shall file their brief on or before March 11, 2013.

/s/ CAROLYN WR IGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
For Immediate Release Contact: Paxton Myers

(202) 632-7003

 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

Announces January Public Commission Meeting 

 

Washington, D.C., January 3, 2012 – Today, the National Indian Gaming Commission 

(NIGC/Commission) announced its first public meeting of 2012. The open meeting is 

scheduled in conjunction with the NIGC’s tribal consultation on Regulatory Review in 

Hollywood, FL on January 25, 2012. Anticipated topics of discussion during the meeting 

include NIGC’s consultation policy, agency operations, training and technical assistance, 

and regulatory review progress. 

Location: Seminole Hard Rock Hotel 

 1 Seminole Way 

 Hollywood, FL 

Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 

Time: 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. 

 

It should be noted that this meeting is separate from the NIGC tribal leaders 

Consultation being held the same day from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The agenda for the 

public meeting will be posted in advance on the NIGC website at www.nigc.gov. 

For planning purposes, please RSVP to Rita Homa, Executive Secretary, at (202) 418-

9807 or by e-mail at rita_homa@nigc.gov. 

The NIGC is an independent regulatory agency established within the Department of the Interior pursuant to the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988.

###
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 21

- 00269

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF W.C.S. , a Child

From the 452nd District Court

, Mason County, Texas

Trial Court No. 175751

Honorable Robert Rey Hofmann , Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED. It is ORERED that Appellee Candice Hafley recover her costs on appeal from

Appellant Will Simpson.

SIGNED July 20, 2022.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Exhibit
10.88


 


Termination
Agreement


 


Further
and pursuant to the Material Transfer and Research Agreement signed on April 1, 2020 and the Supplemental Extension agreement signed
on May 21, 2021 due to expire on May 31, 2023, the Parties agreed pursuant to our last email communication to terminate the Agreement
as of August 10, 2022.


 


AIM
IMMUNOTECH, INC.


 


	By:	/s/Peter
    W. Rodino	 
	 	 	 
	Date : 	August 10, 2022	 
	 	 	 
	Name:  	Peter W. Rodino	 
	 	 	 
	Title : 	General Counsel	 


 


SHENZHEN
SMOORE TECHNOLOGY LIMITED


 


	By: 	/s/Zhiqiang
    Shi	 
	 	 	 
	Date:	August 10, 2022	 
	 	 	 
	Name:  	Zhiqiang Shi	 
	 	 	 
	Title :	Global R&D Director (Smoore International)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         340,618
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  26,137
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    59,913
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               783,118
<PP&E>                                         21,525
<DEPRECIATION>                                 16,375
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 833,086
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,161,526
<BONDS>                                        66,150
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,197
<OTHER-SE>                                     (331,637)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   833,086
<SALES>                                        1,308,520
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,308,520
<CGS>                                          252,247
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  252,247
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,547,154
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             69,525
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (557,939)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (557,939)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (557,939)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.01)
        


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,331]

In accordance with Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 27, 2009, in response to a petition filed by on behalf of workers of Truseal Technologies, Barbourville, Kentucky.

The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC, this 5th day of May, 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-13443 Filed 6-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### In *the*Matter of Michael A. Cunningham, Appellant, v New York State Department of Labor, Respondent.

Submitted May 14, 2012;

decided May 31, 2012

Motion by New York State United Teachers for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 19 copies filed within seven days.