alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 3, 2014

No. 04-14-00567-CV

EX PARTE Tad Dana PERRY

Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding1

ORDER

On August 8, 2014, relator filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court has 

considered relator’s petition and the record submitted to this court and is of the opinion that the 

requested relief should be granted in part. Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is 

GRANTED IN PART. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(c). The Order Committing Respondent to the 

Medina County Jail rendered by the County Court at Law, Medina County, Texas on July 28, 2014 

in Cause No. 07-06-4710-CCL, styled In the Interest of T.S.P., A Child is modified as follows: 

The provision on page 4 of 5, “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent not 

be given good conduct time credit for time spent in the county jail” is STRICKEN.

All other relief requested in relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on September 3, 2014.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

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

court on this 3rd day of September, 2014.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 07-06-4710-CCL, styled In the Interest of T.S.P., A Child, pending in the 

County Court at Law, Medina County, Texas, the Honorable Vivian Torres presiding.
EXHIBIT 32.1



                                  Cardima, Inc.
    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 Cardima,  Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended  September 30, 2005 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the Report),  I, Gabriel B. Vegh, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C.  ss.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.

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


                                              CARDIMA, INC.
Date: November 21, 2005                       By: /s/ Gabriel B. Vegh
                                              ------------------------
                                              Gabriel B. Vegh
                                              Chief Executive Officer,
                                              Chief Financial Officer
#### Henry B. Eastman *v.*Lydia M. Littlefield, Exrx. *et al.*

*Filed at Springfield November 10, 1896.*

Appeals and *errors—when Appellate Court has no jurisdiction.*When a case necessarily involves title to a freehold the Appellate Court cannot do otherwise than dismiss the appeal to that court, and its action in so doing will be affirmed.

*255Appeal from the Appellate Court for the Third District;—-heard in that court on writ of error to the Circuit Court of Adams county; the Hon. Oscar P, Bonney, Judge, presiding.

Govert & Pape, for appellant.

J. P. Carrott, for appellees.

Per Curiam:

As the question between the appellant, Eastman, and the appellees was one involving title to lands a freehold was necessarily involved, and the Appellate Court could not do otherwise than dismiss the writ of error taken by the appellant to that court. The judgment of the Appellate Court dismissing the writ of error will be affirmed.

„ , *Judgment affirmed.*
#### § 57.12022 Authorized persons at major electrical installations.

Areas containing major electrical installations shall be entered only by authorized persons.
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 Justice Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-752]
 AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
 ACTION: Notice of application.
 SUMMARY: Johnson Matthey, Inc., has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to Supplemental Information listed below for further drug information.
 DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before February 9, 2021. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before February 9, 2021.
 ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA 
                        **Federal Register**
                         Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on November 2, 2020, Johnson Matthey, Inc., 2003 Nolte Drive West Deptford, New Jersey 08066-1742, applied to be registered as an bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s): Controlled substance
Drug code
ScheduleGamma Hydroxybutyric Acid
2010
IMarihuana
7360
ITetrahydrocannabinols
7370
IDihyromorphine
9145
IDifenoxin
9168
IAmphetamine
1100
IIMethamphetamine
1105
IILisdexamfetamine
1205
IIMethylphenidate
1724
IINabilone
7379
IINorfentanyl
8366
IICocaine
9041
IICodeine
9050
IIDihydrocodeine
9120
IIOxycodone
9143
IIHydromorphone
9150
IIDiphenoxylate
9170
IIEcgonine
9180
IIHydrocodone
9193
IILevorphanol
9220
IIMeperidine
9230
IIMethadone
9250
IIMethadone intermediate
9254
IIMorphine
9300
IIThebaine
9333
IIOpium tincture
9630
IIOxymorphone
9652
IINoroxymorphone
9668
IIAlfentanil
9737
IIRemifentanil
9739
IISufentanil
9740
IITapentadol
9780
IIFentanyl
9801
II
 The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances for the internal use intermediates or for sale to its customers. In reference to drug codes 7360 (Marihuana), and 7370 (Tetrahydrocannabinols), the company plans to bulk manufacture these drugs as synthetic. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration. William T. McDermott, Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2020-27241 Filed 12-10-20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                            2187
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      949
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      22654
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                             497
<DEPRECIATION>                                     348
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   31757
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                          18767
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            29
<OTHER-SE>                                        7105
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     31757
<SALES>                                          66156
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 66773
<CGS>                                            57712
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    65843
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    930
<INCOME-TAX>                                       280
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                650
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       650
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24
<FN>
<F1>the Company does not present a classified balance sheet
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Leon S. Harris, Appellant-Respondent, v Harriet Harris, Respondent-Appellant.

In a matrimonial action, the parties cross-appeal from a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered April 15, 1977. By order dated December 27, 1977, this court remanded the action to the Trial Justice for the making of findings of fact and conclusions of law and the appeal has been held in abeyance in the interim *(Harris v Harris,*60 AD2d 644). The Trial Justice has complied and the findings of fact and conclusions of law have been received. Judgment affirmed, with costs to the defendant payable by the plaintiff. No opinion. Moflen, P. J., Suozzi, Shapiro and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
# V.s. P,nvironmenta{ Protection .Jlgency Presents

Samuel Co(e7tU1n, !P.'E lJ)ate IJ)irector, Superfutul IJ)ivision, 'E!P)!. 'Rfgion 6 

## Certificate of Comp{etion % 

### Cfinton gregg Investments) L. P. Por Comp(etion of Soi( CJ<fmedia( ;zLction for Opera6(e Vnit 1 9vtanl CDive "S. oedInterests, Inc. SupeifundSite 9/19/02
§ 884.116 Establishment of income limit schedules; 30 percent occupancy by very-low income families. ( a ) HUD will establish schedules of Income limits for determining whether families qualify as Low-Income Families and Very Low-Income Families.
( b ) In the leasing of units, the Owner shall comply with HUD requirements concerning the permissible income levels of families, as prescribed in part 5 of this title.
[41 FR 47168, Oct. 27, 1976. Redesignated at 45 FR 6909, Jan. 30, 1980, and amended at 49 FR 19947, May 10, 1984; 65 FR 16723, Mar. 29, 2000]
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


Report of Independent Auditors

Board of Trustees
of Variable Investors Series Trust

In planning and performing our audits of the financial statements of Small Cap Growth Portfolio,
World Equity Portfolio, Growth Portfolio, Matrix Equity Portfolio, Growth & Income Portfolio,
Multiple Strategies Portfolio, High Income Bond Portfolio and U.S. Government Portfolio,
comprising Variable Investors Series Trust (the "Trust") for the year ended December 31, 2000,
we considered their internal control, including control activities for safeguarding securities, to
determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial
statements and to comply with the requirements of Form N-SAR, and not to provide assurance
on internal control.

The management of the Trust is responsible for establishing and maintaining internal control.  In
fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the
expected benefits and related costs of internal control. Generally, internal controls that are
relevant to an audit pertain to the Trust's objective of preparing financial statements for external
purposes that are fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.
Those internal controls include the safeguarding of assets against unauthorized acquisition, use,
or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in any internal control, misstatements due to errors or fraud may
occur and not be detected.  Also, projections of any evaluation of internal control to future
periods are subject to the risk that internal control may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in internal control that might be material
weaknesses under standards established by the American Institute
of Certified Public Accountants. A material weakness is a
condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the
specific internal control components does not reduce to a
relatively low level the risk that errors or fraud in amounts
that would be material in relation to the consolidated financial
statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a
timely period by employees in the normal course of performing
their assigned functions. However, we noted no matters involving
internal control, including control activities for safeguarding
securities, and its operation that we consider to be material
weaknesses as defined above as of December 31, 2000.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
the board of trustees and management of Variable Investors Series
Trust and the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not
intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these
specified parties.




Ernst & Young LLP
February 9, 2001




</TABLE>
§ 49.7 Physical requirements for mine rescue team. ( a ) Each member of a mine rescue team shall be examined annually by a physician who shall certify that each person is physically fit to perform mine rescue and recovery work for prolonged periods under strenuous conditions. The first such physical examination shall be completed within 60 days prior to scheduled initial training. A team member requiring corrective eyeglasses will not be disqualified provided the eyeglasses can be worn securely within an approved facepiece.
( b ) In determining whether a miner is physically capable of performing mine rescue duties, the physician shall take the following conditions into consideration: ( 1 ) Seizure disorder;
( 2 ) Perforated eardrum;
( 3 ) Hearing loss without a hearing aid greater than 40 decibels at 400, 1,000 and 2,000 Hz;
( 4 ) Repeated blood pressure (controlled or uncontrolled by medication) reading which exceeds 160 systolic, or 100 diastolic, or which is less than 105 systolic, or 60 diastolic;
( 5 ) Distant visual acuity (without glasses) less than 20/50 Snellen scale in one eye, and 20/70 in the other;
( 6 ) Heart disease;
( 7 ) Hernia;
( 8 ) Absence of a limb or hand; or
( 9 ) Any other condition which the examining physician determines is relevant to the question of whether the miner is fit for rescue team service;
( c ) The operator shall have MSHA Form 5000-3 certifying medical fitness completed and signed by the examining physician for each member of a mine rescue team. These forms shall be kept on file at the mine rescue station for a period of one year.
#### PHOEBUS v. WEBSTER et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

February 11, 1903.)

1. Harmless Error.

Where evidence erroneously received was so remote in its application to the case that it could hardly have influenced the jury, and no reference was made to it in the charge, the error was not prejudicial.

Appeal from municipal court of New York.

Action by John A. Phoebus against David Webster, impleaded with others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant Webster appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before GOODRICH, P. J., and BARTLETT, WOODWARD, and HIRSCHBERG, JJ.

Charles N. Morgan (George E. Morgan, on the brief), for appellant.

Paul Armitage, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The main purpose of this suit is to enforce the liability of the defendant David Webster as a general partner in the firm of Seymour, Johnson & Co. The evidence offered for that purpose was to a great extent substantially the same as that which was deemed by this court sufficient in the case of Chambers v. Webster, 69 App. Div. 546, 75 N. Y. Supp. 31. The appellant argues that there is additional proof in this record, which should change our conclusion; but it seems to us to amount to nothing more than an amplification of the testimony in the former case, not calling for any different result. Certainly, we cannot condemn the verdict as being against the weight of evidence, or without sufficient evidence *293to support it. If any error was committed in receiving testimony tending to show that Ammon & Goslin participated in the firm profits, we do not see how it could have had any harmful effect upon the appellant. No reference was made to this testimony in the charge, and its application to the issues was so remote in any view that we think it extremely improbable that it had any influence upon the jury. The judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment of municipal court affirmed, with costs.
#### In the Matter of Arthur L. Nelson, an Attorney.

Fourth Department,

June 27, 1963.

*Per Curiam.*

The applicant has applied for admission to the Bar of this State pursuant to rule VII of the Buies for Admission of Attorneys and Counselors-at-Law of the Court of Appeals. That rule provides that" the Appellate Division in its discretion may admit to the Bar without examination a person who has been admitted to practice as an attorney in the highest law court in any other State and who while in residence in such other State “has actually practiced for a period of at least five years in its highest law court or highest court of original jurisdiction ’ ’.

The applicant was admitted to practice in the State of Wisconsin on June 20, 1952. His application indicates that immediately thereafter and in August, 1952 the applicant resided in Flint, Michigan where he was employed by General Motors Corp. as an engineer and foreman until February of 1956. Thereafter the applicant was transferred by his employer to Washington, D. C., where he apparently worked in the Patent Department of General Motors Corp. On June 15, 1956 he was admitted to practice in the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and on October 17, 1956, his application indicates^ he was admitted to practice in the Supreme Court of the United States. In September of 1957 the applicant was again transferred by his employer to Dayton, Ohio, where he worked as a patent attorney for his employer until May, 1961 when he moved to Bochester, New York, to enter the employ of Bausch & Lomb, Inc., as a patent attorney, by which corporation he is still employed.

It is clear from this history that the applicant never practiced law in the State of Wisconsin, the only jurisdiction in which he was admitted to practice. In fact, the applicant did not engage in the practice of any law whatsoever until he was admitted to practice before the Customs' and Patent Appeals Court in 1956 and continued patent practice in the District of Columbia for a, period of about 15 months. It is abundantly clear from a recitation of these facts that the applicant fails completely to meet the requirements of rule VII.

*88No interpretation or construction of this section, no matter how broadly given, confers any authority on this court to admit applicant to be licensed in the State of New York. The legal principles and authorities which control this application are fully set forth' in our decision in *Matter of Brown*(4 A D 2d 157). The applicant has not shown that he meets the requirements of the Court of Appeals and his application therefore should be denied.

Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, MgClusky and Henry, JJ., concur.

Application denied.
### §48113. Reprogramming notification requirement

Before reprogramming any amounts appropriated under section 106(k), 48101(a), or 48103, for which notification of the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives is required, the Secretary of Transportation shall transmit a written explanation of the proposed reprogramming to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.

(Added Pub. L. 106–181, title I, §108(a), Apr. 5, 2000, 114 Stat. 73.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section applicable only to fiscal years beginning after Sept. 30, 1999, see section 3 of Pub. L. 106–181, set out as an Effective Date of 2000 Amendments note under section 106 of this title.
### N U M B ER 13- 10- 00084- C V 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E XAS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____________________________________________________________ AL L S TA TE C O U N TY M U TU AL AP P E L L AN T, IN S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y , v . P AY N E B R O W N S V IL L E , IN C ., D /B /AP AY N E L IN C O L N M E R C U R Y A P P E L L E E .

____________________________________________________________

O n a p p e a l f r o m t h e C o u n t yC o u rt a t L a w N o . 1

of C am er on C ount y , T exas.

____________________________________________________________



## ME MO RA N D U M OP I N I ON B ef or e C hi ef

Just i ce Val dez and Just i ces B enav i des and V el a M em or andu m O pi ni on P erC ur i am Appel lan t, Al ls tate Cou nty M utual Ins urance Compan y , per fected an appeal from a judgme nt en tere d b y t h e C o unt y Court at La w

No. 1 of

Came ron Coun ty, T exas, in caus e num b e r 2 0 0 4 -CC L- 145-A. This appeal was abated by thi s C our

t on Ma rc h 12,2

2010, and t he par

ti es w ere ordered to medi ati on. The par ti es hav e fil ed a joi nt motion to dis mis s w it h preju dic e on g ro unds that the partie s have reache d a com prom ise settle me nt agreem entthatresolv es all di s p u t e s in thi s m a tt e r . T h e p a rt i e s re q u e s tt h a tt h i s C o u rtd i s mi s s t h i s c a s e w i t h p reju dic e. Accordin gly , w e REINST AT E the app eal. The Co u rt , hav ing co nsi dered th e doc uments on fil e and the j oin t moti on to dis mis s with p rejudic e, i s o f the opi nio n tha t t he moti on s houl d be g ra nted. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 4 2.1( a)
. The jo intmoti on t o d ism is s i s g ra nted, and the a ppeal i s h ereby DISMISSE D W IT H PREJUDICE. In accorda nce wi th th e agreem entof the pa rties, cos ts are ta xed ag ain st the p arty i ncur ri ng sa me. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 4 2.1( d) ( "Abse nt ag re ement of the par ti es, the cour

t w il l tax

co stsag ain st the a ppel la nt.")
. Hav ing dis mi s s e d t h e a p p e a l a ta p p e l l a n t ' s re q u e s t , n o m o t i o n fo r re h e a r i n g w i l l b e e n t e rt a i n ed, and our mandate w il l is sue forthw it h.
PERC UR IAM Del iv ered and filed the 6th day of Ma y , 201 0.