alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ND. P!>862-07 IN TOE CCURTCF CRIMINAL AFPEALS KERN, TEXAS

CHARLES CAMP

impellent VS S1KEE CF TEXAS appellee 

### Fran appeal tfc>. 02-13-O)247-CR/02-13-0Ce48-CR/ C2-13-C0248-CR/Ce-13-C0250-CR Cn Appeal frcm The Second District of Texas Tarrant County/ Texas Trial Court No. 13246^1324668RA324671R/1324677R
M3EKN ECR S1HREKN CF HIES THE H3SCRAEIE JUDGES OF THE CCURT CF CRMIML APPEALS: Ccmas now/ Charles Camp, impellent/ and respectfully requests the Honorable Court to acknow^- ledge Rale 2 of the Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure and use its authority under this pro 

### vision to suspend in this matter operation of Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure 9.3(b)/ 9.5/ and 68.11, and in support of said request/ Appellant would showthe following: I Appellant/ as a Texas prisoner/ does not have access to a ccnputer or copier to makethe re 

### quired copies to send to all parties involved. .Appellantis also indigent and void of anymeans to send sane. See Texas Rules of Apellate Procedure 20, et seq. WfEREKKE, impellent prays the Kfcnorable Court will grant this lVbtion and order the Clerk of the 

### Court to makeproper copies and distribute said copies to all parties involved.
Respectfully Submitted/ 

### ^Charles^Cangf Petitioner/ Pro Se TDCJ-ID#18579U Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division 

## RECEIVED IN FILED IN F'M- R3bertscnUnit 

# COURTOF-CRIMINALAPPEALS COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEAL* ^TMS[ JAN 21 2015 JAN 23 2015 AbelAcosta, Clerk AbelAcosta, ClerkLBEWCRN EKMRffTTCN 

### I, Charles T. Canp, TECJ-ID# 1857911, being presently incarcerated in the F.M. Rcbertscn Chit 

## of theTexas Dapartmsnt ofCriminalJustice inJcnes Cbunty, Texas,verify and declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct. Executed onthis 8th day ofJanurary, 2CQ.5.

TDCJ-ID# 1857911
#### 9904.411-61 Interpretation. [Reserved]
#### Esia Moosa, Respondent, v. Spencer S. Moosa, Appellant.

The appeals from the judgment in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $5,766.90, and the order entered December 17, 1963, denying defendant’s motion to resettle the judgment, are consolidated and the said judgment and order are unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to the extent of providing that the total amount received by plaintiff from the Sheriff under the warrant of attachment be applied in reduction of the judgment awarded to plaintiff, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Defendant is entitled to be credited with the amounts heretofore received by plaintiff. In the event the parties do not stipulate as to the amount thereof, the order to be entered may provide for a hearing thereon. Settle order on notice. Concur— McNally, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Staley, JJ.
#### LAU, Appellant, v. VOLKMANN et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 2, 1906.)

Action by William Lau against John H. Volkmann and others, doing business under the firm name and style of Volkmann, Stollwech & Co.

No opinion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer
of CNA Financial Corporation
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350
(As adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 filed on
the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Stephen W. LilienthalStephen W. LilienthalChief Executive Officer  121
#### Thomas Hassett, Appellant, v Celtic Holdings, LLC, et al., Respondents.

[775 NYS2d 855]

*365Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered April 23, 2003, which granted defendants’ motion and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In merely citing general safety standards, plaintiff has not sufficiently pleaded a violation of a specific provision of the Industrial Code (Labor Law § 241 [6]; *see Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co.,*81 NY2d 494 [1993]). Plaintiff cannot rely on the general provisions of 12 NYCRR 23-1.5 (c) (3), requiring an employer to keep equipment and safety devices in proper working order *(Williams v White Haven Mem. Park,*227 AD2d 923 [1996]; *see also Hawkins v City of New York,*275 AD2d 634, 635 [2000]); or 12 NYCRR 23-1.12 (c), which does not apply to the type of power tool that caused his accident; or 12 NYCRR 23-9.2 (a), which is a general requirement to maintain power equipment in good operating order *(Anarumo v Slattery Assoc.,*298 AD2d 339, 340 [2002]). His attempted reliance on rule 19.32, on the basis of its incorporation by reference into 12 NYCRR 23-1.12 (a) and 23-9.2 (d), is unavailing. Those portions of part 23 of the Industrial Code do not apply to the facts of this case, and in any event, part 19 was repealed after the cited sections of part 23 were promulgated. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Richard Shapiro, Respondent, v. Coca Cola Bottling, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The sole issue properly before us arises upon the board finding of causal relationship between a trauma to claimant’s chest, which disabled him from work for about two days, and a spontaneous left pneumothorax 18 months later. Appellants’ medical expert denied causality and the only proof thereof is to be found, if at all, in the testimony of a thoracic surgeon which we are constrained to find insufficient. This doctor said: “At first glance it would appear unlikely that trauma occasioned in March of 1959 could be responsible for a pneumothorax of September, 1960, however, there is a possibility that there could be some relationship ”; but after stating “ that almost ninety per cent of people who suffer spontaneous pneumothorax have small cysts or cystic disease of the lung”, he considered that “if” at the time of the trauma to his chest claimant had cystic disease of his lung — as to which the record is barren of proof — “it is possible” that the trauma was responsible for the pneumothorax 18 months later. Asked then if he could give that opinion of causality with “reasonable medical certainty”, he said that he would not be thus “ pigeonholed ” but continued: “ I would again repeat that there is a distinct possibility that this injury of ’59 did have a good bit to do with the pneumothorax of 1960 but, based on reasonable medical probability, *718the answer would be no.” The testimony concluded as follows: “ Q. There would be no causal relation? A. The answer would be no, that there would be no causal relationship in seventy-five per cent of the cases.” Looking to the “whole record” *(Matter of Ernest*v. *Boggs Lake Estates,*12 N Y 2d 414, 416), as we are bound to do, we find no substantial evidence of causal relation. The medical testimony was adduced under unfavorable conditions and it may be that the proof may be more fully developed upon remittal. Decision reversed and case remitted, with costs to appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
#### William Schukraft and Margaret J. Schukraft, appellees, v. John G. Krutzler and Rosie Krutzler, appellants.

Gen. No. 34,641.

Opinion filed May 13, 1931.

Eller, Herr & Callahan, for appellants; Arthur J. Goldberg, of counsel.

Norval P. Trimborn and Evart O. Ostberg, for appellees.

Mr. Presiding Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### 970.5226-3 Community commitment.

As prescribed in 970.2673-2, insert the following clause:

# Community Commitment (DEC 2000)

It is the policy of the DOE to be a constructive partner in the geographic region in which DOE conducts its business. The basic elements of this policy include: (1) Recognizing the diverse interests of the region and its stakeholders, (2) engaging regional stakeholders in issues and concerns of mutual interest, and (3) recognizing that giving back to the community is a worthwhile business practice. Accordingly, the Contractor agrees that its business operations and performance under the Contract will be consistent with the intent of the policy and elements set forth above.

(End of clause)

[65 FR 81009, Dec. 22, 2000, as amended at 75 FR 68221, Nov. 5, 2010]
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 6
EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 6
EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 6
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 6
EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 6
EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT 15








November 13, 1998









Ohio Edison Company
76 South Main Street
Akron, OH  44308

Gentlemen:

We are aware that Ohio Edison Company has incorporated by 
reference in its Registration Statements No. 33-49135, No. 33-
49259, No. 33-49413, No. 33-51139, No. 333-01489 and No. 333-05277 
its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1998, which 
includes our report dated November 13, 1998 covering the unaudited 
interim financial information contained therein. Pursuant to 
Regulation C of the Securities Act of 1933, that report is not 
considered a part of the registration statements prepared or 
certified by our firm or a report prepared or certified by our 
firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

                                   Very truly yours,




                                   ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Adolescent Mental Health Fact Sheets      

# Adolescent Mental Health Fact Sheets

OAH produced these updated summary fact sheets that report on adolescent mental health by state, featuring information on positive social skills, depressive symptoms, depressive episodes, and suicidal thoughts, attempts, and resulting injuries.

http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/mental-health/fact-sheets/
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Edward Wong, President and Chief Executive Officer of Bluestone
Ventures Inc., certify that:

1.    I  have  reviewed  this  annual report  on  Form  10-KSB  of
Bluestone Ventures Inc.;

2.    Based  on my knowledge, this annual report does not  contain
any untrue statement of material fact or
omit  to  state  a  material fact  necessary  to  make  the
statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading  with
respect to the period covered by this
annual report;

3.    Based  on my knowledge, the financial statements, and  other
financial information included in this
annual report, fairly present in all material respects  the
financial condition, results of operations and
cash  flows  of the registrant as of, and for, the  periods
presented in this annual report;

4.    The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and   I   are
responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in  Exchange
Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and have:

      a)   designed  such  disclosure controls and  procedures  to
ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which  this
quarterly report is being prepared;

       b)    evaluated  the  effectiveness  of  the   registrant's
disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within
90  days prior to the filing date of this annual report
(the "Evaluation Date"); and

      c)  presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and  procedures  based  on our  evaluation  as  of  the
Evaluation Date;

5.    The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and  I   have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to
the  registrant's auditors and the audit  committee  of  the
registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent function):

      a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation
of internal controls which could adversely
affect  the  registrant's ability to  record,  process,
summarize and report financial data and have
identified  for the registrant's auditors any  material
weaknesses in internal controls; and

      b)   any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves
management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrant's internal controls;
and

6.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated
in this annual report whether or not there
were  significant changes in internal controls or  in  other
factors that could significantly affect internal
controls  subsequent  to  the  date  of  our  most   recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: April 7, 2004              /s/ Edward Wong
#### § 1033.72 Payments from the producer-settlement fund.

No later than the 16th day after the end of each month (except as provided in § 1000.90), the market administrator shall pay to each handler the amount, if any, by which the amount computed pursuant to § 1033.71(b) exceeds the amount computed pursuant to § 1033.71(a). If, at such time, the balance in the producer-settlement fund is insufficient to make all payments pursuant to this section, the market administrator shall reduce uniformly such payments and shall complete the payments as soon as the funds are available.
#### Wilbur N. Creswell, as Administrator of the Estate of James J. Stiehle, Deceased, Appellant, v. John Doe et al., Defendants, and Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injury and for wrongful death, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated November 30, 1962, which granted the defendant MVAIC’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by the two-year Statute of Limitations imposed by section 130 of the Decedent Estate Law. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements; and motion to dismiss the complaint denied. The time of) the defendant MVAIC to answerl the complaint is extended until 30 days after entry of the order hereon. On June 26, 1959 plaintiff’s intestate was allegedly struck and killed by a hit-and-run driver. On October 31, 1961 an order was made granting plaintiff leave to sue the defendant MVAIC; and on April 30, 1962 that order was affirmed by this court (16 A D 2d 697). On September 18, 1962 plaintiff instituted this action. In our opinion: (1) no action could be instituted or enforced against MVAIC without first obtaining leave to sue (Insurance Law, § 618, subd. [a]); (2) this condition precedent was in effect a statutory prohibition which in this case stayed the commencement of the action from June 26,1959 — the date of the accident and death, until October 31,1961 — the date when leave to sue was first obtained; (3) the time which elapsed during the continuance of such prohibition or stay was not part of the two-year period limited for the commencement of the 'wrongful death action, nor of the three-year period limited for the commencement of the personal injury action (former Civ. Prae. Act, § 24; now CPLR 204, subd. [a]). Hence, under the circumstances here, the commencement of the action on September 18, 1962 was timely. Beldock, P. J., Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur; Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm the order, with the following memorandum: In precise language, the statute (Decedent Estate Law, § 130) measures the two-year limitation from the date of death. Plaintiff does not argue to the contrary, and there) is nothing upon which to base extension of the two-year period. *“*A Statute of Limitations is not open to discretionary change by the courts, no matter how compelling the circumstances ” *(Arnold*v. *Mayal Realty Co.,*299 N. Y. 57, 60).
EXHIBIT 32.2


                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 Amended Annual Report of VillageEDOCS (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned
certifies, 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


                    Date: September 7, 2006     /s/ Michael A. Richard
                          -----------------     ------------------------------
                                                Chief Financial Officer


A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER
DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT
APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO VILLAGEEDOCS AND WILL BE RETAINED
BY VILLAGEEDOCS AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS
STAFF UPON REQUEST.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                         5
<LEGEND>      THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY
              FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
              FROM 10Q DATED SEPTEMBER 30,
              1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
              ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
              FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
<MULTIPLIER>                      1000
       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                      SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                            193487
<SECURITIES>                      1331028
<RECEIVABLES>                     86207
<ALLOWANCES>                      5835
<INVENTORY>                       3211
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  1793047
<PP&E>                            149184
<DEPRECIATION>                    100888
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    2287553
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             313503
<BONDS>                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0
<PREFERRED>                       5907
<COMMON>                          16724
<OTHER-SE>                        1355693
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      2287553
<SALES>                           15387
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  341338
<CGS>                             10539
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     275258
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   224640
<INCOME-TAX>                      92100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               89714
<DISCONTINUED>                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   0
<CHANGES>                         0
<NET-INCOME>                      89714
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     2.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                     2.22
        


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Sanders, Appellant.

[776 NYS2d 798]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert L. Cohen, J.), rendered November 19, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of *41⁄2*to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility and identification. The reliable identification testimony of both the purchasing and “ghost” undercover officers was corroborated by testimony that upon the arresting officer’s approach, defendant discarded prerecorded buy money and additional drugs. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin and Friedman, JJ.
#### Marcus Substructure Corp., Appellant, v. 926 Park Avenue Corporation, Respondent.

Order entered August 22, 1966, granting motion for reargument, and, upon reargument, vacating judgment entered June 24, 1966, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, and judgment reinstated. Judgment was entered pursuant to a stipulation settling an action. The stipulation provided for the entry of judgment if any of its terms was- not complied with. Concededly, a confession of judgment by the guarantors of certain notes, one of the terms of the stipulation, was not delivered. Defendant had ample notice and opportunity to make *654delivery and the failure must be deemed deliberate. Concur —■ Stevens, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli and Rabin, JJ.
#### David Aboff, Appellant, v. Peppercorn International, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Order entered April 27, 1966 dismissing the second cause of action alleged in the plaintiff’s second amended complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant, and the motion therefor denied. Fairly read, a majority of the court hold that the amended pleading alleges that the corporate defendants are instrumentalities of the same enterprise; that plaintiff rendered services to the enterprise and it is the purpose of the defendant E. A. Peppercorn, Ltd., to avoid payment of plaintiff’s compensation therefor. *(Walkovszky*v. *Carlton,*18 N Y 2d 414.) Some of us feel that the prior approval of the amended complaint by the Justice who granted leave to serve it is an adjudication of the sufficiency thereof and the law of the ease. (See, however, *Donato*v. *American Locomotive Co.,*283 App. Div. 410, 413, affd. 306 N. Y. 966.) Concur — Steuer, J. P., Capozzoli, Rabin and McNally, JJ.