alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-08-251-CR

EX PARTE	

RAMONE HERNANDEZ JR.	

	----------

	FROM THE 89TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

						----------

	We have considered “Appellant’s Motion To Dismiss.”  The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure.   Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f). 								 									PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: January 29, 2009
EXHIBIT 13.1

                            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 Annual Report of RADA Electronic Industries Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Adar Azancot , Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, aS adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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


/S/ Adar Azancot
----------------
Adar Azancot
------------
Chief Executive Officer

March 31, 2005


     * The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at
the Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . A P - 75, 914
EX PA R TE W A LL A C E A BR EG O SC H O D TS, JR. , A ppl i c ant
ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. 3 4 0 9 - B I N T HE 3 9 4 TH DI S TR I CT COURT

FROM BREW S TER CO UNTY
P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crimi n al P ro ce dure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habea s corpus. Ex pa rte Y oung , 4 18 S.W. 2d

82 4, 82 6 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 67 ). Ap pli c ant wa s convic te d of po sse ssi on of le ss th an on e g ra

m of c oc a ine and

se nte nc e d to thr e e y e ars ’ i mpriso nme nt. He did no t a pp e a l his conviction. The trial court has found that Applicant wa s convicted of a state ja il felony

but was asse ssed an unauthor ized sentence of three y ear s when his communi ty supervision was r evoked. A pplicant is entitled to relief. Ex parte Ric h , 194 S.W .3d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).SCHODTS - 2

Relief is g rante d. The judgment in Ca use No. 3409 in the 394thJ udicial District Court of Br ewster County is set aside, and Applicant is rema nded to the custody of t he S heriff of Br ewster County to a ns we r t he c ha rg e a g a ins t him
. Copies of this o p i n i o ns h al l b e s en tt o th e T ex as De p artm en to f C ri m i n al J u s t i ce
– Correc tional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: May

7, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh
### §41302. Permits of foreign air carriers

The Secretary of Transportation may issue a permit to a person (except a citizen of the United States) authorizing the person to provide foreign air transportation as a foreign air carrier if the Secretary finds that—

(1) the person is fit, willing, and able to provide the foreign air transportation to be authorized by the permit and to comply with this part and regulations of the Secretary; and

(2)(A) the person is qualified, and has been designated by the government of its country, to provide the foreign air transportation under an agreement with the United States Government; or

(B) the foreign air transportation to be provided under the permit will be in the public interest.

(Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1126.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 41302 | 49 App.:1372(b). | Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85–726, §402(b), 72 Stat. 758; restated Feb. 15, 1980, Pub. L. 96–192, §7, 94 Stat. 38. |
| | 49 App.:1551(b)(1)(E). | Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85–726, 72 Stat. 731, §1601(b)(1)(E); added Oct. 4, 1984, Pub. L. 98–443, §3(e), 98 Stat. 1704. |

Section

In this section, before clause (1), the words "person (except a citizen of the United States)" and "person" are substituted for "applicant" for clarity and consistency because only a person other than a United States citizen may be a "foreign air carrier" as defined in section 40102(a) of the revised title. In clauses (1) and (2), the word "provide" is substituted for "perform" for consistency in the revised title. In clause (1), the word "properly" is omitted as surplus. The word "comply" is substituted for "conform" for consistency in the revised title. The word "rules" is omitted as being synonymous with "regulations". The word "requirements" is omitted as surplus. In clause (2)(A), the words "government of its country" are substituted for "its government" for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code.
Appeal No. 75-69.

#### James M. O’Donnell *et ux. v.*State.

*Paul P. Baillargeon,*for plaintiff.

*Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, *Stephen F. Mullen,*Office of Special Counsel, for defendant.

The plaintiffs’ petition for reargument is denied.
#### Elizabeth Reider et al., Appellants, v. Whitebrook Realty Corp., Respondent.

In a negligence action by a husband and wife to recover damages for personal injury, loss of services and medical expenses, allegedly arising out of the wife’s fall on a fire stairway in the defendant’s premises, in which action the defendant pleaded as a separate defense that the wife’s remedy, if any, was exclusively under the Workmen’s Compensation Law (§ 29, subd. 6), the plaintiffs appeal: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated May 14, 1962, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 113); and (2) from the judgment entered May 24, 1962 upon said order, dismissing the complaint. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements; defendant’s motion for summary judgment denied; and the judgment in defendant’s favor vacated, without costs. In our opinion, *Naso*v. *Lafata*(4 N Y 2d 585) and *Bauch*v. *Jones*(4 if Y 2d 592) are not applicable to the facts of this case. The statutory obligation imposed upon an owner by section 109 of the Multiple Residence Law differs substantially from the derivative and vicarious liability (created by former § 59 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law) of the owner of a motor vehicle operated by another with the owner’s permission. The facts contained in the instant record are insufficient to enable the court to determine the precise relationship between the persons and corporations involved. Accordingly, a plenary trial, upon which all the facts may be fully developed, is required. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### § 56.9201 Loading, hauling, and unloading of equipment or supplies.

Equipment and supplies shall be loaded, transported, and unloaded in a manner which does not create a hazard to persons from falling or shifting equipment or supplies.
#### FISCHER & PORTER CO. v. BROOKS ROTAMETER CO.

No. 11012.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Feb. 16, 1954.

Decided April 7, 1954.

Leonard L. Kalish, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Ralph L Chappell) New York City (J< Edward Shinn Philadelphia, Pa., on the for appellee.

Before MARIS, KALODNER and STALEY, Circuit Judges.

*401PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment for the defendant entered by the district court n. o. v. in an action for damages for infringement of plaintiff’s Fischer patent No. 2,441,350 for a rotameter and metering tube therefor. The case was tried to a jury to which three issues only were submitted, all other issues being reserved by stipulation of the parties for the court. The three issues submitted to the jury were whether the patent involved invention, whether Fischer was the first and original inventor and the amount of damages, in the event of a verdict for plaintiff. The jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $14,177.36.

Thereafter the district court, upon motion of the defendant, entered the judgment in its favor from which the present appeal was taken. The court did so pursuant to its conclusion that the evidence, taken in its most favorable light for the plaintiff, failed to support a finding of invention and that in any event the claims of the patent were invalid for want of definiteness. These conclusions are set forth in a comprehensive opinion filed by Chief Judge Kirkpatrick, 107 F.Supp. 1010. We find ourselves in complete accord with his reasoning and conclusions and need add nothing thereto. They fully support the judgment appealed from.

The plaintiff urges that the district court erred in denying its subsequent motion for reargument or a new trial, in support of which it offered 25 documents as additional evidence which it alleged contradicted certain of the defendant’s evidence. The judgment n. o. v. was entered because of the insufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence, however. Moreover the documents did not in any event qualify as after discovered evidence. We find no error in the denial of the motion.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
#### § 7.42 Definitions.

The following definitions apply in this subpart:

*Battery assembly.* A unit or units consisting of cells and their electrical connections, assembled in a battery box or boxes with covers.

*Battery box.* The exterior sides, bottom, and connector receptacle compartment, if any, of a battery assembly, excluding internal partitions.
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 07-2603

JAMES H. REYELT

v.

WILLIAM B. DANZELL and LOUISE BEENKER DANZELL.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on July 14, 2008 is amended

as follows:

On page 9, line 3: Assocs. should be changed to Associates
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 23
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the reference to our firm under "Item 6. Selected Financial
Data" and to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-17642, Form S-8 No. 33-45131, Form S-8 No. 33-45132, Form S-8
No. 33-62863, Form S-8 No. 33-64860, Form S-8 No. 33-72494, Form S-8 No.
33-77586, Form S-8 No. 33-77590 and Form S-3 No. 33-85898) of InterVoice, Inc.
and subsidiaries of our report dated April 2, 1997, except for Note F, for which
the date is April 9, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of InterVoice, Inc. and subsidiaries included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended February 28, 1997.


                                                        ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Dallas, Texas
May 29, 1997
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.5


              FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONFIDENTIAL LICENSE AGREEMENT
                FOR GAME BOY, GAME BOY COLOR AND GAME BOY POCKET
                           HANDHELD VIDEO GAME SYSTEMS



THIS FIRST AMENDMENT ("First Amendment") amends that certain Confidential
License Agreement for Nintendo Game Boy, Game Boy Color and Game Boy Pocket
Handheld Video Game Systems dated March 9, 1999 between Nintendo of America Inc.
("Nintendo") and THQ Inc. ("Licensee") ("Original Agreement").

RECITALS

The Original Agreement expires on March 8, 2002, and the parties desire to
extend the Term of the Original Agreement for an additional two (2) years.

The definitions in the Original Agreement are incorporated by reference into
this First Amendment and shall be deemed to have the same meanings and those
ascribed to them in the Original Agreement unless otherwise set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

1.      The definition of "Term" as set forth in Section 2.19 of the Original
        Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
        following:

        "'Term' shall mean five (5) years from the Effective Date."

2.      All other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement shall remain in
        full force and effect. This First Amendment may be signed in
        counterparts and by facsimile, which together shall constitute one
        original First Amendment. This First Amendment shall be effective as of
        March 8, 2002.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this First Amendment.


NINTENDO:                                   LICENSEE:

Nintendo of America Inc.                    THQ Inc.



By: /S/ JOHN BAUER                          By: /s/ BRIAN J. FARRELL
    -------------------------------            --------------------------------
    JOHN BAUER

Its: Evp; Administration                    Its: Pres & CEO
     ------------------------------              ------------------------------

Date: 02/27/02                              Date: 2-25-02
      -----------------------------               -----------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Condensed Statement of Financial Position and Condensed Statement of Income and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          82,356
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  189,515
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,489
<INVENTORY>                                    143,031
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               457,815
<PP&E>                                         655,272
<DEPRECIATION>                                 333,360
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 938,107
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          210,197
<BONDS>                                        208,839
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,984
<OTHER-SE>                                     344,793
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   938,107
<SALES>                                        832,421
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               840,800
<CGS>                                          547,278
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  547,278
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,671
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 74,933
<INCOME-TAX>                                    26,601
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             37,282
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    37,282
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### §3049. Non-reimbursable detail of other personnel

An officer or employee of the United States or member of the Armed Forces may be detailed to the staff of an element of the intelligence community funded through the National Intelligence Program from another element of the intelligence community or from another element of the United States Government on a non-reimbursable basis, as jointly agreed to by the heads of the receiving and detailing elements, for a period not to exceed three years. This section does not limit any other source of authority for reimbursable or non-reimbursable details. A non-reimbursable detail made under this section shall not be considered an augmentation of the appropriations of the receiving element of the intelligence community.

(July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title I, §113A, as added Pub. L. 111–259, title III, §302(a), Oct. 7, 2010, 124 Stat. 2658; amended Pub. L. 112–18, title III, §303(a), June 8, 2011, 125 Stat. 226; Pub. L. 112–277, title III, §303, Jan. 14, 2013, 126 Stat. 2471.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 404h–1 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section. Some section numbers of this title referenced in amendment notes below reflect the classification of such sections prior to their editorial reclassification.

#### Amendments

2013—Pub. L. 112–277 substituted "three years." for "two years." and inserted at end "A non-reimbursable detail made under this section shall not be considered an augmentation of the appropriations of the receiving element of the intelligence community."

2011—Pub. L. 112–18 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "Except as provided in section 402c(g)(2) of this title and section 404h of this title, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, an officer or employee of the United States or member of the Armed Forces may be detailed to the staff of an element of the intelligence community funded through the National Intelligence Program from another element of the intelligence community or from another element of the United States Government on a reimbursable or nonreimbursable basis, as jointly agreed to by the head of the receiving element and the head of the detailing element, for a period not to exceed 2 years."
### §§487 to 487b. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 487, act Aug. 9, 1955, ch. 682, §1, 69 Stat. 618, which authorized Secretary to make investigations of projects for conservation, development, and utilization of water resources of Alaska, was transferred to section 1962d–12 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

Section 487a, act Aug. 9, 1955, ch. 682, §2, 69 Stat. 618, which provided for solicitation of views and recommendations by Governor of Alaska or his representative, to Secretary and for transmittal of Secretary's report to Congress, was transferred to section 1962d–13 of Title 42.

Section 487b, act Aug. 9, 1955, ch. 682, §3, 69 Stat. 618, which authorized appropriation up to $250,000 in any one year, was transferred to section 1962d–14 of Title 42.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-17-00077-CR

EVICKES VANZELL SMITH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 188th District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 45696-A

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Evickes Vanzell Smith has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion was signed 

by both Smith and his appellate counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). As authorized by Rule 42.2(a), we grant the 

motion. See id.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: July 17, 2017

Date Decided: July 18, 2017

Do Not Publish
J. 

conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2 

J. 

Hardesty 

J. 

Douglas 

cc: Hon. Robert W. Lane, District Judge 

Frederick William Adkins 

Nye County District Attorney 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Nye County Clerk 

2We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in 

proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude 

that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent 

that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those 

submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings 

below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) I947A e
<PAGE>   1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                     EXHIBIT 11


                             COMPUTATION OF INCOME
                     PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
                    (In thousands, except per share amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Three Months Ended
                                                         October 31,
                                                 --------------------------
                                                    1995            1996
                                                 ----------      ----------
<S>                                              <C>             <C>       
   PRIMARY INCOME PER SHARE:

   Weighted average shares of common stock
      outstanding (1)                                17,399          18,382
                                                 ==========      ==========

   Primary income per share                      $      .10      $      .28
                                                 ==========      ==========

   FULLY DILUTED INCOME PER SHARE:

   Weighted average shares of common stock
      outstanding (1)                                17,399          18,382

   Shares issuable from assumed conversion of:
      Warrants                                           13             174
      Stock options                                       4             394
                                                 ----------      ----------

   Weighted average shares of common
      stock outstanding, as adjusted                 17,416          18,950
                                                 ==========      ==========

   Fully diluted income per share                $      .10(2)   $      .27
                                                 ==========      ==========

   NET INCOME FOR PRIMARY AND
      FULLY DILUTED COMPUTATION:

   Net income                                    $    1,690      $    5,168
                                                 ==========      ==========
</TABLE>


---------------
(1)    Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding for all periods have
       been restated to include Exchangeable Stock (See Note 2 of Notes to the
       Consolidated Financial Statements) on an equivalent share basis.
(2)    This calculation is submitted in accordance with Item 601(b)11 of
       Regulation S-K although not required by footnote 2 to paragraph 14 of
       APB Opinion No. 15 because warrants and options result in dilution of
       less than 3%.
§ 50.30 Preparation and submission of MSHA Form 7000-2—Quarterly Employment and Coal Production Report. ( a ) Each operator of a mine in which an individual worked during any day of a calendar quarter shall complete a MSHA Form 7000-2 in accordance with the instructions and criteria in § 50.30-1 and submit the original to the MSHA Office of Injury and Employment Information, P.O. Box 25367, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colo. 80225, within 15 days after the end of each calendar quarter. These forms may be obtained from the MSHA District Office. Each operator shall retain an operator's copy at the mine office nearest the mine for 5 years after the submission date. You may also submit reports by facsimile, 888-231-5515. To file electronically, follow the instructions on MSHA Internet site, *http://www.msha.gov .* For assistance in electronic filing, contact the MSHA help desk at 877-778-6055.
( b ) Each operator of a coal mine in which an individual worked during any day of a calendar quarter shall report coal production on Form 7000-2.
[42 FR 65535, Dec. 30, 1977, as amended at 60 FR 35695, July 11, 1995; 69 FR 26499, May 13, 2004]