alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(N. R. No. 1243.

#### James Otis Mitchell, Petitioner, *vs.*The People of the State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Announcement made March 21, 1952.*

James Otis Mitchell, *pro se.*

Ivan A. Elliott, Attorney General, of Springfield, and J. Ado Whiteside, State’s Attorney, of Golconda, for the People.

Per Curiam :

Petitioner, imprisoned in the Illinois State Penitentiary, under a life sentence for the crime of murder, seeks release from that sentence under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1951, chap. 38, pars. 826-832.) He contends that his three counsel, who were selected and retained by him, were incompetent; wherefore, he conceives that he has been denied due process of law.

Ordinarily, a defendant who retains counsel of his own selection is responsible if that counsel does not faithfully serve his interest. Any other rule would put a premium *408upon pretended incompetence of counsel; for, if the rule were otherwise, a lawyer with a desperate case would have only to neglect it in order to ensure reversal or vacation of the conviction.

Moreover, in this case, the trial court granted petitioner a hearing on affidavits, which affidavits satisfied that court that petitioner’s claims were without merit in point of fact. Petitioner claims that he was not present at that hearing, nor was he permitted to call witnesses. He was, however, represented by counsel appointed by the court.

The Post-Conviction Hearing Act contemplates that the trial court may, if in the particular situation it is feasible to do so, try controverted issues of fact upon affidavits in lieu of oral testimony. The legislature has provided that mode of trial which we have held constitutional. *People*v. *Dale,*406 Ill. 238. See, also, *People*v. *Jennings,*411 Ill. 21.

Petitioner fails to demonstrate either that he was denied due process of law at the time of his original trial and conviction or that the record in this instant proceeding is infected with prejudicial error.

*Writ of error denied.*
MEMORANDUM

TO:
 
 Deborah Jordan, USEPA Region 9


 
 Colleen McKaughan, USEPA Region 9

FROM: Bill Auberle, EN3 Professionals

DATE: July 5, 2011

SUBJECT: Navajo Generating Station

As you are aware EN3 Professionals began facilitating discussions in January 

among many interests regarding emissions and emissions reduction strategies 

for the Navajo Generating Station (NGS). These discussions have been 

informative, often intense, and ultimately quite productive. Per our commitment 

to you, the many participants, and a wide range of interested parties and 

individuals, all meeting notes, presentations, resource materials, etc. have been 

posted continuously on the project Web site www.en3pro.com/projects/ngsproject/. This memorandum provides the current status of these discussions, 

progress-to-date, and planned next steps.

Beginning with the fourth meeting of all interested parties, participants have 

focused on developing a written agreement that can be supported by a broad 

population. The process of developing this agreement continues. Although no 

individual participating entity has endorsed this working document, many have 

been engaged in its development. The March 25 version of the “Strawman” was 

the focus of discussions at our large meeting in Phoenix on that date and is 

included in the corresponding meeting notes posted on the project Web site. 

The process of developing this agreement continues, yet several important 

emissions management elements are reflected in the current, albeit incomplete, 

draft document. 

A complementary project is the planned study by USDOE’s National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory (NREL) entitled “Navajo Generating Station Study.” This 

important work will inform our process, but is not intended to impede or delay 

125 East Elm Avenue, Suite 101 

Flagstaff, AZ 86001 

!"#

PROFESSIONALS, LLC

energy

environment 

engineering 
on-going deliberations. The latest version of the proposed Statement of Work 

by NREL is attached.

Virtually all participants in the NGS discussions are quite mindful of your 

agency’s regulatory responsibilities for limiting air pollutant emissions from the 

plant. In turn, you certainly are aware of the complex issues related to 

identifying an appropriate emissions management plan for NGS. We will 

continue to build on the good work to date through continued deliberations. 

Many of the participants in our process are actively engaged to identify a 

consensus set of recommendations for your consideration and for multiple 

resource management plans. We believe that continued and continuous 

engagement by a broad range of interests is essential, and we plan to build on 

the participants’ good work through continued deliberations. If you have any 

questions about any aspect of this important endeavor, please call on me.

Bill Auberle, Principal

wauberle@en3pro.com

(928) 380-4780

Attachment 

125 East Elm Avenue, Suite 101 

Flagstaff, AZ 86001 

!"#

PROFESSIONALS, LLC

energy

environment 

engineering 

2
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated September 30, 2004, except for the matters
discussed in 2 (a)(1), for which the date is February 5,2004, accompanying the
consolidated financial statements in the Annual Report of Gilman + Ciocia, Inc.
on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2004. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of
Gilman + Ciocia on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-50089, effective April 14, 1998 and
file No. 333-14915, effective October 28, 1996).


                                                     RADIN, GLASS & CO, LLP

New York, New York
June 14, 2006
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





Date of
Report (Date of earliest event reported) November 9, 2009





Progenics
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


(Exact
name of registrant as specified in its charter)





Delaware
            
            000-23143
            
            13-3379479(State
      or other jurisdiction
              of
      incorporation)
            
            (Commission
              File
      Number)
            
            (IRS
      Employer
              Identification
      No.)777
      Old Saw Mill River Road, Tarrytown, New York
            
            10591(Address
      of principal executive offices)
            
            (Zip
      Code)Registrant's
      telephone number, including area code (914)
      789-2800





Check the
appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously
satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following
provisions (seeGeneral
Instruction A.2. below):








oWritten communications
pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)





oSoliciting material
pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)




oPre-commencement
communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.14d-2(b))




oPre-commencement
communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.13e-4(c))












Item
2.02.                      Results
of Operations and Financial Condition.




Progenics
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: PGNX) today announced its operational results for
the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2009.  A copy of its
press release is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1.




The
information furnished pursuant to Item 2.02 in this Form 8-K shall not be deemed
to be “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section, unless we specifically
incorporate it by reference in a document filed under the Exchange Act or the
Securities Act of 1933. We undertake no duty or obligation to publicly update or
revise the information so furnished.




Item
9.01.                      Financial Statements and
Exhibits.





(d)
Exhibits





Exhibit
No.                      Description





99.1                      Press
Release dated November 9, 2009.








SIGNATURES








Pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has
duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto
duly authorized.





PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.


By:/s/ ROBERT A.
MCKINNEY


Robert A.
McKinney


Chief Financial Officer,
Senior Vice President,


Finance & Operations
and Treasurer











Date:
November 9, 2009
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 14, 2022

No. 04-22-00329-CR

John Anthony GARCIA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR2058

Honorable Jennifer Pena, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s motion for extension of time is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due 

November 16, 2022.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

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

court on this 14th day of November, 2022.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Senior Judge Bumgardner

RICHARD ROBINSON

MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1839-11-2 PER CURIAM

FEBRUARY 14, 2012

DAVID EVERETT, INC. AND

 STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

(Richard Robinson, pro se, on briefs).

(Kathryn Spruill Lingle; Midkiff, Muncie & Ross, P.C., on brief), for 

appellees.

Richard Robinson appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission. On

appeal, he contends the commission (1) abused its discretion in refusing to consider new medical 

evidence not presented to the deputy commissioner and finding such evidence did not constitute 

newly discovered evidence, (2) erred in finding he unjustifiably refused light-duty work, 

(3) erred in finding he unjustifiably failed to market his residual work capacity, and (4) erred in 

finding that Robinson was not denied due process.1

We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is 

without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final 

opinion. See Robinson v. David Everett, Inc., VWC File No. VA020-0000-3764 (Aug. 12, 

2011). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal 

 * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

1 Although Robinson listed eight numbered assignments of error, they all relate to one of 

the four numbered assignments referenced in the first paragraph of this opinion.
- 2 -

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this Court and argument would not 

aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.
128 STAT. 2858 PUBLIC LAW 113–241—DEC. 18, 2014 

Public Law 113–241 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the United States Federal Judicial Center located at 333 West Broadway in San Diego, California, as the ‘‘John Rhoades Federal Judicial Center’’ 

and to designate the United States courthouse located at 333 West Broadway 

in San Diego, California, as the ‘‘James M. Carter and Judith N. Keep United 

States Courthouse’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. JUDICIAL CENTER DESIGNATION. 

The United States Federal Judicial Center located at 333 West 

Broadway in San Diego, California, shall be known and designated 

as the ‘‘John Rhoades Federal Judicial Center’’. The Judicial Center 

includes the Federal property located at 221 West Broadway, 333 

West Broadway, 880 Front Street, 325 West F Street, 808 Union 

Street, and the adjoining plaza. 

SEC. 2. COURTHOUSE BUILDING DESIGNATION. 

The United States courthouse located at 333 West Broadway 

in San Diego, California, shall be known and designated as the 

‘‘James M. Carter and Judith N. Keep United States Courthouse’’. 

SEC. 3. REFERENCES. 

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 

or other record of the United States to the United States Federal 

Judicial Center referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be 

a reference to the ‘‘John Rhoades Federal Judicial Center’’. Any 

reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 

record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred 

Dec. 18, 2014 

[H.R. 1378] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
PUBLIC LAW 113–241—DEC. 18, 2014 128 STAT. 2859 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1378: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 113–406 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014): 

Dec. 9, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 15, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

to in section 2 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘James 

M. Carter and Judith N. Keep United States Courthouse’’. 

Approved December 18, 2014. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Aurizon Mines Ltd. (the Company) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, an amendment to its annual report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report).

I, Ian S. Walton, Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

(i)

the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)

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



/s/ Ian S. Walton_____________________________
Ian S. Walton 
Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer

April 8, 2009



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Aurizon Mines Ltd. and will be retained by Aurizon Mines Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IV

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 579

Providing for the concurrence by the House with an amendment in the

Senate amendment to H.R. 1651.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 18, 2000

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska submitted the following resolution; which was considered

and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Providing for the concurrence by the House with an

amendment in the Senate amendment to H.R. 1651.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution

2 the House shall be considered to have taken from the

3 Speaker’s table the bill H.R. 1651, with the Senate

4 amendment thereto, and to have concurred in the Senate

5 amendment with the following amendment:

6 Page 1, line 4, strike ‘‘SEC. 401. USE OF AIRCRAFT

7 PROHIBITED.’’ and all that follows through ‘‘SEC. 402.’’,

8 and insert ‘‘SEC. 401.’’.

Æ
#### § 98.8 Inspection.

Any embryo offered for entry into the United States in accordance with this subpart and documents accompanying the embryo shall be subject to inspection by an inspector at the time the embryo is offered for entry in order to determine whether the embryo is eligible for entry. The import permit and the health certificate shall be given to the inspector.

[50 FR 43563, Oct. 25, 1985, as amended at 56 FR 55809, Oct. 30, 1991]
TALK, THEY HEAR YOU

If you talkin’ they will hear you

Every single time

Allow the words to break through

By seeing eye to eye

We all mean something special

To each others lives

So Talk. They hear you!

You can do it if you try

It’s an entire ocean

That separates this point of view

But let’s keep our minds open

To what is said, sayin’ the truth

And if you're feelin’ broken

Don’t go down make an excuse

Remember all thats been spoken

Ey...

If you talkin’ they will hear you

Every single time

Allow the words to break through

By seeing eye to eye

We all mean something special

To each others lives

So Talk. They hear you!

You can do it if you try

Oh...

So talk, They Hear You...

Yea it’s far from over

This advice stays through and through

Like a four leaf clover

The luck, oh lucky you

How bout this for closure

Now you have knowledge to use

And let your mind take over

Ey...

If you talkin’ they will hear you

 

Every single time

Allow the words to break through

By seeing eye to eye

We all mean something special

To each others lives

So Talk. They hear you!

You can do it if you try

Oh...

So talk, They Hear You...

Oh...

So talk, They Hear You...

Oh... 

So talk, They Hear You... 

If you talkin' they will hear you 

If you talkin' they will hear you 

So talk, They Hear You... 

If you talkin' they will hear you 

If you talkin' they will hear you 

So talk, They Hear You...
Order entered November 28, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00901-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.M., A CHILD

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Kaufman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 97410CC

ORDER

Before the Court is the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services November 

27, 2018 motion for extension of time to file brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the 

brief be filed no later than December 18, 2018. We caution that further extension requests will 

be disfavored.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
# C_2012109EN.01000402.xml

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/4

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Purple Parking Ltd, Airparks Services Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-117/11) (1)

1

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Taxation - VAT - Sixth Directive - Article 28(2)(a) - Article 28(3)(b) - Exemption of certain transport services - Transaction combining car parking services and the transport of travellers between the car park and an airport - Existence of two separate supplies of services or of a single supply - Principle of fiscal neutrality)

2012/C 109/07

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Purple Parking Ltd, Airparks Services Ltd

Applicants:

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — Interpretation of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Right of the Member States to maintain exemptions with refund of the tax paid at the preceding stage — Maintenance, under national legislation, of an exemption with refund of the tax paid in respect of the supply of certain transport services — Operator supplying, to air travellers, a car parking service together with transport between the car park and the airport — Transaction to be regarded, for VAT purposes, as a single supply or several distinct supplies?

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of determining the rate of value added tax applicable, services for the parking of a vehicle in an ‘off-airport’ car park and for the transport of the passengers of that vehicle between that car park and the airport terminal concerned must, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, be regarded as a single complex supply of services in which the parking service is predominant.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.

1

---
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 GoAmerica, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission (the "Report"),  I, Daniel R. Luis, Chief Executive 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) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects,  the consolidated  financial  condition of the Company as of the dates
presented and consolidated  results of operations of the Company for the periods
presented.

Dated: August 14, 2007

                                 /s/ Daniel R. Luis
                                 ------------------
                                 Daniel R. Luis
                                 Chief Executive Officer


This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
# C_2011211EN.01001102.xml

| 16.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Treviso (Italy) lodged on 20 April 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Elena Vermisheva

(Case C-187/11)

2011/C 211/21

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale di Treviso

Defendant in the criminal proceedings

Defendant in the criminal proceedings

Elena Vermisheva.

Question referred

Question referred

In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and of the effectiveness of directives, do Articles 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) preclude the possibility that a third country national illegally staying in a Member State may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of up to four years where he fails to comply with the first order issued by the Questore and a term of imprisonment of up to five years for failure to comply with subsequent orders (with the corresponding obligation for the police authorities to arrest those engaged in the commission of this offence) simply on account of his lack of cooperation in the deportation procedure, in particular his simple failure to comply with a removal order issued by the administrative authorities?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.

1

---