alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# 1573-W ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA #14-13-00686-CR STYLE: Damon Kendrick Dove v The State ofTexas COA DISPOSITION: Affirmed 

### DATE: November 20, 2014 Publish: No OFFENSE: Sexual Assault COUNTY: Fort Bend 

## TRIALCOURT: 268th District Court TC CASE #:12-DCR-061181A

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS
STYLE: Damon Kendrick Dove v The State ofTexas CCA# 

# PRO SB. Petition 

# CCADisposition: Ij /O \§ FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: DATE: JUDGE: 

# DATE: (fVlOllwtr 

# JUDGE: ffJ^\IfoUAttU SIGNED: PC: PUBLISH: DNP:

MOTION FOR FOR REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: ELECTRONIC RECORD
Order entered September 10 , 2015

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 01599

- CR

PATRICK DEYONE LEE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 199

- 80455

- 2014



### O RDER

The Court GRANTS the State’s September 9, 2015 motion to extend time to file its brief.

We ORDER the State’s brief filed as the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 25, 2019

No. 04-19-00734-CR

Mark Rudolph DOMRES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR7177

Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Based on the clerk’s record filed in this appeal, it appears appellant is seeking to appeal 

the trial court’s dismissal of the charges filed against him. An order dismissing charges is not an 

order appealable by a defendant. See Bohannan v. State, No. 02-11-00105-CR, 2011 WL 

2119688, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 26, 2011, no pet.). It is therefore ORDERED that 

within ten (10) days of this order appellant show cause in writing why this appeal should not be 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending our 

resolution of the jurisdictional issue.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 25th day of October, 2019.

___________________________________

LUZ ESTRADA,

Chief Deputy Clerk
#### ROFIO GREENFIELD *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 32885)

Gruendel, Lavine and Espinosa, Js.

Submitted on briefs January 13

officially released January 31, 2012

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.
#### Satish DESHPANDE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MEDISYS HEALTH NETWORK, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-1973-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 23, 2011.

Satish Deshpande, Scarsdale, NY, pro se.

Celena R. Mayo, Esq., Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York, NY, for Appellees.

PRESENT: JOSEPH M. McLaughlin, rosemary s. POOLER, B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Satish Deshpande, proceeding *pro se,*appeals the district court’s decision granting Appellees’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing Appellant’s complaint brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e *et seq.,*(“Title VII”), New York Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 290*et seq.,*and New York City Human Rights Law, New York City Administrative Code § 8-107 *et seq.*We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case.

We review orders granting summary judgment *de novo*and focus on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. *See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P.,*321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003).

Having conducted an independent review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the district court’s order for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned decision.

We have considered Appellant’s other arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the order of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
#### HARRY T. CONSTAS *v.*JOSEPH RISOLI ET AL.

(AC 33129)

Lavine, Beach and Alvord, Js.

Argued November 18

officially released December 13, 2011

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Jose Morales et al., Appellants, v City of New York, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Adwell Audio Visual Co., Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[666 NYS2d 200]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), dated October 28, 1996, which (1) denied their motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to their cause of action based on Labor Law § 240 (1) and (2) granted the separate cross motions of the defendant and third-party defendant for *432partial summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ cause of action based on Labor Law § 240 (1).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to liability on their cause of action based on Labor Law § 240 (1) is granted, the cross motions are denied, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Kangs County, for further proceedings.

The plaintiff Jose Morales and a co-worker were engaged in the installation of a 10-foot by 10-foot wall video screen in a school auditorium. It was necessary to remove an old screen before installing the new one. A rope was looped over a rafter in order to hold the old screen up while it was being removed. When the final bolt was removed, or after it had been detached, the rope broke, causing the screen to fall into the ladder supporting Jose Morales, and he fell and was injured.

Labor Law § 240 (1) requires owners and contractors to furnish various devices, including ropes, to persons engaged in defined activities, including “the * * * altering * * * of a building or structure”. Such devices, including ropes, are to be “so constructed * * * as to give proper protection to a person so employed” (Labor Law § 240 [1]). The law imposes absolute liability on owners, contractors, and their agents for any breach of the statutory duty *(see, Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82*NY2d 555; *Jock v Fien,*80 NY2d 965; *Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co.,*78 NY2d 509).

The removal of the old video screen, prior to the installation of the new one, constituted the alteration of the auditorium structure. It has been held that the installation of a sign on a building falls within the ambit of Labor Law § 240 (1) *(see, Izrailev v Ficarra Furniture,*70 NY2d 813; *Buckley v Radovich,*211 AJD2d 652; *Lawyer v Rotterdam Ventures, 204*AD2d 878; *Neville v Deters,*175 AD2d 597), and we see no basis to distinguish the facts of the present case *(see also, Lewis-Moors v Contel of N. Y.,*78 NY2d 942; *Martin v Back O’Beyond,*198 AD2d 479; *Purdie v Crestwood Lake Hgts. Section 4 Corp.,*229 AD2d 523; *Weininger v Hagedorn & Co.,*241 AD2d 363). Contrary to the defendant’s and the third-party-defendant’s contention, there is no issue of fact concerning proximate causation. There is no competent evidence to rebut the injured plaintiffs assertion that the accident was caused by the detachment of the last bolt which had been holding the screen to the auditorium ceiling, coupled with the breaking of the rope. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and Luciano, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
 
                             CONTROL DEVICES, INC.
                       CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE              Exhibit 11
               (Amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                                        Year Ended           Year Ended       Five Months Ended 
                                                                     December 31, 1996    December 31, 1995   December 31, 1994   
                                                                     -----------------    -----------------   -----------------
<S>                                                                   <C>                  <C>                 <C> 
Primary:

Net income applicable to common shareholders                               $4,066               $3,194               $1,466 

Weighted average number of Common Shares outstanding:                       3,151                2,564                2,564 
Weighted average number of common shares equivalents options                   12                  -                    -

                                                                           ------               ------               ------
Weighted average number of common shares and equivalents options            3,163                2,564                2,564
                                                                           ======               ======               ======

Earnings per share - Primary                                                $1.29                $1.25                $0.57



Fully Diluted:

Net income applicable to common shareholders                               $4,066               $3,194               $1,466 

Weighted average number of common shares and equivalents options            3,163                2,564                2,564
Additional common shares issuable assuming full dilution                       19                  -                    -

                                                                           ------               ------               ------
Weighted average number of common shares and equivalents options
assuming full dilution                                                      3,182                2,564                2,564
                                                                           ======               ======               ======

Earnings per share - Fully diluted                                          $1.28                $1.25                $0.57

</TABLE>
Exhibit Number 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 Great Western Bancorporation, Inc. (Great Western) on Form 10-Q/A for the three month period ended
September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Deryl F. Hamann, Chief Executive Officer of Great Western, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (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 operations of Great Western.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |  |  |                                                      
|---------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|                 |  | 
|January 30, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Deryl F. Hamann                                  
|                 |  |  |  | Deryl F. Hamann, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer



17
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification

Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, David Szostak, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of PetroAlgae Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of PetroAlgae Inc.



| |  |                   |  |                                                      
| |  | ----------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ David Szostak
| |  | Name:   Title:    |  | David Szostak President (Principal Executive Officer)

Date: August 5, 2010

This certification
accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company
specifically incorporates it by reference.
exv4w1



 




EXHIBIT 4.1







 









 






METROPCS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.



THE ISSUER IS AUTHORIZED BY ITS CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION TO ISSUE SHARES OF MORE THAN ONE
CLASS, THE ISSUER WILL FURNISH WITHOUT CHARGE TO ANY STOCKHOLDER, ON WRITTEN REQUEST, A STATEMENT
OF THE DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES, LIMITATIONS AND RELATIVE RIGHTS OF THE SHARES OF EACH CLASS OF
SHARES WHICH THE ISSUER IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE AND, IN ADDITION, SUCH A STATEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE ISSUER’S STATE OF INCORPORATION.




     The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Certificate,
shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or
regulations:



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	TEN COM

	 	–
	 	as tenants in common
	 	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT–
	 	 	 	Custodian	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	TEN ENT

	 	–
	 	as tenants by the entireties
	 	 	 	(Cust)
	 	 	 	(Minor)
	JT
TEN
	 	–	 	as joint tenants with right	 	 	 	under Uniform Gifts to Minors
	 	 	 	 	of survivorship and not as tenants	 	 	 	Act                                         
	 

	 	 	 	in common
	 	 	 	 	 	(State)	 	 






Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.




     For value received,                                                              
  
         hereby sell, assign and transfer unto



	 	 	 
	PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
	 	 
	IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
	 	 
	 

	 	 





 



(PLEASE PRIWT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE)



 



 




	 	 	 
	 

	 	shares
	 	 	 
	of the common stock evidenced by this Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	Attorney
	 	 	 
	to transfer the said shares on the books of the within-named Corporation with full power of substitution.
	 	 






Dated                                                             




	 	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 

	 	Signature
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 

	 	Signature






	 	 	 
	
NOTICE:

	 	THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMEMT MUST CORRESPOND
WITH THE NAME 0FTHE STOCKHOLDER(S) AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE
OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR WITHOUT ALTERATION OR
ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.






Signature(s) Guaranteed:




	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 
	THE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE
GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN
ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED
SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C RULE
17Ad-15.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Annual Report of Featherlite, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Jeffery A. Mason, 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; and

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

          Dated: April 15, 2003


                                                /s/ Jeffery A. Mason
                                                Jeffery A. Mason
                                                Chief Financial
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reynold George SAMUELS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7636.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 6, 2011.

Dana Roger Cormier, Dana R. Cormier, PLC, Staunton, Virginia, for Appellant. Ronald Mitchell Huber, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Reynold George Samuels, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certifícate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Samuels has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Samuels’ motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit 23.1CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos.333-138526, 333-136418, 333-136410, 333-129434, 333-129433, 333-129200, 333-127373, 333-124726,333-116870, 333-116869, 333-115478, 333-111090, 333-111089, 333-109278, 333-109275, 333-101105,333-101104, 333-69374, 333-69376, 333-42670, 333-84341, 333-84331, 333-65571, 333-65549,333-65551, 333-42059, 333-42061, and 333-42063) pertaining to the amended and restated 2001 StockIncentive Plan, Infommersion, Inc. 2002 Stock Incentive Plan, SRC Software, Inc. 2003 StockIncentive Plan, French Employee Savings Plan, 2004 International Employee Stock Purchase Plan,Stock Subscription Warrants, Business Objects Americas Deferred Compensation Plan, 1995International Employee Stock Purchase Plan, Crystal Decisions, Inc. 1999 Stock Option Plan, 2001Stock Option Plan, 1999 Stock Option Plan, 1994 Stock Option Plan, 2006 Stock Plan, and in theRegistration Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-126082 and 333-136449) of Business Objects S.A. of ourreports dated February 27, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and scheduleof Business Objects S.A., Business Objects S.A. management’s assessment of the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting of Business Objects S.A., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2006./s/ Ernst & Young LLPSan Jose, CaliforniaFebruary 27, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48533-48534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22549]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice: 17-076]


International Space Station National Laboratory Advisory 
Committee; Charter Renewal

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Notice of renewal of the charter of the International Space 
Station

[[Page 48534]]

National Laboratory Advisory Committee.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Sections 14(b)(1) and 9(c) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, as amended (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App.), and after 
consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General 
Services Administration, the NASA Acting Administrator has determined 
that renewal of the charter of the International Space Station National 
Laboratory Advisory Committee is in the public interest in connection 
with the performance of duties imposed on NASA by law. This committee 
is established under Section 602 of the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 
(Pub. L. 110-422, 51 U.S.C. Section 70906). The renewed charter is for 
a two-year period ending October 6, 2019. For further information, 
contact Ms. Marla K. King, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20456, phone: (202) 358-1148; email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fa979b88969bd491d49193949dba949b899bd49d958c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ec818d9e808dc287c28785828bac828d9f8dc28b839a">[email protected]</span></a>.

Patricia D. Rausch,
Advisory Committee Management Division, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2017-22549 Filed 10-17-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P


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