alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ben Wesley HICKS *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 98-353

962 S.W.2d 813

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered April 16, 1998

*Tamra Barrett,*for appellant.

No response.

Per Curiam.

Appellant Ben Wesley Hicks, by his attorneys, Tapp Law Offices, by Tamra Barrett, has filed a motion for rule on the clerk. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 37. His attorney admits that the record of the postconviction proceedings was tendered late due to a mistake on her part.

We find that such an error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. *See In re Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases,*265 Ark. 964 (1979) (per curiam). The motion is therefore granted. A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-06-00514-CR

Denise White, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 390TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-DC-06-202625, HONORABLE JULIE KOCUREK, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Denise White seeks to appeal an order deferring adjudication entered after she

pleaded guilty to aggravated assault. The trial court has certified that this is a plea bargain case and

White has no right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The appeal is dismissed. See id. rule

25.2(d).

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Puryear

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: November 3, 2006

Do Not Publish
Gibbon's

Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

# clap.
Saitta

cc: Hon. Joanna Kishner, District Judge Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Las Vegas Maier Gutierrez Ayon, PLLC Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 

### e 2
#### Victor MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-73975.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 6, 2007.

Filed Dec. 20, 2007.

Steven A. Ellis, Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Emily A. Radford, Esq., Susan K. Houser, Esq., Arthur L. Rabin, Esq., Vanessa O. Lefort, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

The BIA erred in holding that Martinez’s second degree burglary conviction under California Penal Code § 459 constituted an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G).1 A conviction under section 459 is not an aggravated felony under the categorical approach. *United States v. Velasco-Medina,*305 F.3d 839, 851 (9th Cir.2002). Nor did the government carry its burden of establishing Martinez’s conviction was an aggravated felony under the modified categorical approach. The record contains only the charging document and an abstract of judgment reflecting Martinez’s guilty plea, which are insufficient to prove that Martinez pleaded guilty to all the required elements for generic burglary. *See Shepard v. United States,*544 U.S. 13, 26, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005); *United States v. Vi*
      *29
      *dal,*504 F.8d 1072, 1087 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc). Because the BIA erred in determining Martinez was an aggravated felon, we remand to the BIA for further proceedings. *See INS v. Orlando Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

. Our August 16, 2004 order does not preclude Martinez’s challenge to this BIA determination because Martinez has shown a change in controlling law. *See Nunes v. Ashcroft,*375 F.3d 805, 807 (9th Cir.2004).
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 6D2 3

- 2316 Lower Tribunal No. 2020CA

- 002532

- 0000

- 00

_____________________________ C ARLOS G OFFI , Appellant ,

v. AP F OREST H ILLS , LLC and A NCHOR P OINT , LLC , Appellee s
.

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County

. William D. Sites , Judge. January 30, 2024
PER CURIAM

. AFFIRMED

. TRAVER , C

. J. , and STARGEL and BROWNLEE , JJ., c oncur.

Robin F. Hazel, of Hazel Law, P.A., Hollywood , and Thomas Allison , of Thomas C. Allison, P.A. , Orlando, for Appellant. Jamie Billotte Moses, David Cannella, Suzanne E. Gilbert, and Eric C. Reed , of Holland & Knight LLP , Orlando , for Appellee s
.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
#### In the Matter of: Jerrie L. VANDER HOUWEN, Debtor, Jerrie L. Vander Houwen, Appellant, v. Ford Elsaesser; et al., Appellees.

No. 07-35238.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 20, 2008.*

Filed May 28, 2008.

Jerrie L. Vander Houwen, Yakima, WA, pro se.

Bradford Anderson, Esq., Betts Patterson & Mines, PS, Seattle, WA, Nancy L. Isserlis, Esq., Winston *&*Cashatt, Rolf H. Tangvald, Esq., USSP-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Scott R. Smith, Esq., Stemper, Rubens, Stocker & Smith, Spokane, WA, John Casey Mills, Portland, OR, Paul Williams, Esq., Carlson Boyd *&*Bailey PLLC, Yakima, WA, for Appellees.

Gary J. Trepanier Excavating LLC, Tei-ton, WA, pro se.

Russell J. Mazzola, Yakima, WA, pro se.

Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jerrie L. Vander Houwen appeals pro se from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appel*307late Panel’s (“BAP”) orders dismissing his appeal for lack of prosecution and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We affirm.

The BAP did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Vander Houwen’s appeal after granting several extensions to file the opening brief and excerpts of record and warning Vander Houwen that failure to comply with court deadlines would result in dismissal. *See Greco v. Stubenberg,*859 F.2d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir.1988) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing an appeal from bankruptcy court based on appellant’s failure to follow court deadlines despite being warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal).

The BAP did not abuse its discretion by denying Vander Houwen’s motion for reconsideration because the motion failed to present new facts or legal issues. *See In re Agricultural Research & Tech. Group, Inc.,*916 F.2d 528, 533, 542 (9th Cir.1990) (reviewing denial of motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion and stating that “reconsideration may properly be denied where the motion fails to state new law or facts”).

Because the appeal was properly dismissed, we do not reach Vander Houwen’s contentions regarding the merits of the bankruptcy court order from which he appealed.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 4.1


See Legends
on Reverse 


Incorporated Under the Laws of the
State of Delaware


 


 


	*******	*******


 


 


 


 


NOVADEL PHARMA INC.


SERIES A CONVERTIBLE
PREFERRED STOCK $0.001PAR VALUE


 


THIS
IS TO CERTIFY THAT _______________ is the owner of __________(_______)
Shares of the SERIES A CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK OF 


NOVADEL PHARMA INC.




  transferable only on the books
of the Corporation by the holder hereof, in person or by attorney, upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.


This certificate and the shares
represented hereby are issued and shall have the rights specified in and be held subject to all the provisions of the Certificate
of Incorporation and the Bylaws of said corporation and any amendments thereof, to all of which the holder of this certificate,
by acceptance hereof, assents.


The shares represented by this
Certificate are convertible into shares of Common Stock at the election of the holder thereof and shall be so converted upon the
occurrence of certain events as set forth in the Charter.


The Corporation is authorized to
issue more than one class or series of stock. Upon written request, the Corporation will furnish without charge to each stockholder
a copy of powers, designations, preferences and relative, participating, optional or other special rights of each class of stock
or series thereof and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of such preferences and/or rights.


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Corporation has caused this certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers this _____ day
of _________, 20 ____.


 


	 	 	 	 
	Secretary
	 	President
	 


 



 


 


ANY TRANSFEREE OR ASSIGNEE OF THIS CERTIFICATE SHOULD CAREFULLY
REVIEW THE TERMS OF THE CORPORATION’S CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATIONS RELATING TO THE SHARES OF SERIES A PREFERRED STOCK REPRESENTED
BY THIS CERTIFICATE, INCLUDING SECTION 4(c)(vi) THEREOF. THE NUMBER OF SHARES OF SERIES A PREFERRED STOCK REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE
MAY BE LESS THAN THE NUMBER OF SHARES OF SERIES A PREFERRED STOCK STATED ON THE FACE HEREOF PURSUANT TO SECTION 4(c)(vi) OF THE
CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATIONS RELATING TO THE SHARES OF SERIES A PREFERRED STOCK REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE.
Asia Leechdom Holding Corp.: Exhibit 10.9 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.9

Supply Agreement  

	Party A: Tianjin Boai Pharmaceutical Co,
      Ltd. 
                (hereinafter referred to as “Party A”)
    Party B: Tianjin
      Pengda Printing Adhesive Products Factory 
                (hereinafter referred to as
      “Party B”) 



Tianjin Boai Pharmaceutical
Co, Ltd. have entrusted Tianjin Pengda Printing Adhesive Products
Factory with supplies of the goods needed for production. To ensure the
smooth progress of providing supplies, the parties hereby agree on and sign this
agreement as follows: 

	1. 	
      Party A should provide the Plan Supply needed for
      production which includes supply time and supply amount to Party B on
      time. If any exceptional case exists, Party A should notice Party B in the
      manner of plan provided or telephone notification 2 days ahead of the due
      time.

	 	 
	2. 	
      Party B should provide supplies to Party A according to
      the supply time, supply amount appointed by Party A, moreover Party B
      should ensure timely supplies and the quality and quantities of their
      supplies.

	 	 
	3. 	
      With regard to the quality of materials, please refer to
      “Quality Assurance Agreement”.

	 	 
	4. 	
      This agreement takes effect after the signatures and
      seals by the parties.




	Party A: Tianjin Boai Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd. 	Party B: Tianjin Pengda Printing Adhesive
      Products Factory 
	 	 
	Legal person or legal representative: 	Legal person or legal representative:
  
	 	 
	Seal of Tianjin Boai Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd. 	Seal of Tianjin Pengda Printing Adhesive
      Products Factory 
	 	 
	Date of Signature (Seal): Jan. 6, 2010 	Date of Signature (Seal): Jan. 6, 2010
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7400

MCKINDLEY TRAVIS,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

PATRICIA WATSON,

 Respondent – Appellee,

and

NELSON H. C. FISHER,

 Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior

District Judge. (1:10-cv-01006-TSE-IDD)

Submitted: February 16, 2017 Decided: February 22, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and 

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

McKindley Travis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

McKindley Travis seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying his motion for appointment of counsel. This court may 

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 

(2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 

U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial 

Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order 

Travis seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an 

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we 

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal 

for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Virgil Lee BLACK, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-10578.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 2007 *.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Linda C. Boone, Esq., Dyanne C. Greer, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Donna Lee Elm, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Virgil Lee Black appeals from the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for simple assault on a child under sixteen, in violation of 18 U.S.C. *945§§ 113(a)(5) and 1153. Black contends that the district court improperly imposed a condition of probation requiring him to register as a sex offender.

We dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. *See United States v. Nguyen,*235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1   Certification of Chief Executive & Chief Financial Officer 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 Sweegen, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Steven Chen, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, 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.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.  /s/ Steven ChenSteven Chen
Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Treasurer and Director
(Principal Financial Officer)

October 12, 2016
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited balance sheet at March 31,1997 and the unaudited statement of
operations for the three months ended March 31, 1997 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         359,982
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  329,598
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               753,929
<PP&E>                                       2,865,558
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,163,596
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,496,316
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,388,988
<BONDS>                                      1,683,715
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     94,034
<COMMON>                                         4,551
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,674,972)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,496,316
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                74,844
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,402,936
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,434,800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,188
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,772,249)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,772,249)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,772,249)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (12.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

August 23, 2021

No. 04

- 20

- 00333

- CR

Zohair AHMED

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 290t h Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR2128A

The Honorable Jennifer Pena , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

C ourt

- appointed co unsel for appellant has filed a brief stating there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). However, the

brief does not meet all of the Anders requirements. An Anders brief must include a (1) mo tion to withdraw as counsel, and (2) a certificate stating counsel has served copies of the brief and motion on appellant, informed appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, and explained to appellant the procedure for obtaining t he record. See Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.

— San Anto nio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.); see also Kelly v. State

, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

It is therefore OR DERED that the appellant’s brief is STRICKEN and counsel is

instructed to file an appellant’s b rief in compliance with the Anders requirements set forth in this

order. The a ppellant’s brief must be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of this ord er.

_________________ ________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 23rd day of August, 2021

.

_____________ ______________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Otto Davion THOMPSON, a.k.a. Ot, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-11613

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 8, 2008.

David Andrew Sigler, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Mobile, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

F. Luke Coley, Jr., Mobile, AL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before CARNES, BARKETT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

F. Luke Coley, Jr., appointed counsel for Otto Davion Thompson, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal supported by a brief prepared pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the record confirms counsel’s assessment of the relative merits of any potential issues for appeal. Because the record reveals no issues of arguable merit, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and AFFIRM Thompson’s conviction and sentence.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 43068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19357]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 10125]


U.S. Department of State Advisory Committee on Private 
International Law (ACPIL): Public Meeting on Arbitration and 
Conciliation

    The Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International 
Law, Department of State, gives notice of a public meeting to discuss 
possible topics for future work related to arbitration or conciliation 
in the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). 
The public meeting will take place on Tuesday, October 17, 2017 from 
10:00 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. EDT. This is not a meeting of the full 
Advisory Committee.
    UNCITRAL's Working Group II (Dispute Settlement) is currently 
working on the development of a convention and model legislative 
provisions on conciliated settlements that resolve international, 
commercial disputes. Once this negotiation is completed, however, it is 
unclear whether UNCITRAL should pursue additional work in the area of 
dispute settlement, and if so, what the new project should be. One 
topic that has been proposed by the International Academy of 
Construction Lawyers relates to the use of adjudication procedures in 
construction disputes. The purpose of the public meeting is to obtain 
the views of concerned stakeholders on (1) whether the Working Group 
should address construction contract adjudication, and (2) what, if 
any, other possible topics related to arbitration, conciliation, or 
other forms of dispute settlement merit attention by the Working Group.
    Time and Place: The meeting will take place on October 17, 2017, 
from 10:00 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. via a teleconference. Those who cannot 
participate but wish to comment are welcome to do so by phone or email 
to Tim Schnabel at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6c3f0f04020d0e0900383e2c1f180d1809420b031a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f2a1919a9c9390979ea6a0b28186938697dc959d84">[email protected]</span></a> or 202-776-8781.
    Public Participation: This meeting is open to the public. If you 
would like to participate by telephone, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9dedf4f1ddeee9fce9f8b3faf2eb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="54243d381427203520317a333b22">[email protected]</span></a> to 
obtain the call-in number and other information.

 Timothy R. Schnabel,
Attorney-Adviser, Office of Private International Law, Office of Legal 
Adviser, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2017-19357 Filed 9-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-08-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>