alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

NUMBER 13-15-00277-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

PATRICIA ANN CACERES, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the County Court at Law No 1

of Victoria County, Texas.

O R D E R

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

Appellant, Patricia Ann Caceres, has filed a notice of appeal with this Court from 

his conviction in trial court cause number 2-103049. The trial court’s certification of the 

defendant’s right to appeal shows that the defendant does not have the right to appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an 

appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that a defendant has a right of 
2

appeal is not made a part of the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); see TEX. R. APP. P. 

37.1, 44.3, 44.4.

Within thirty days of this notice, appellant’s lead appellate counsel, W.A. 'Bill' 

White, is hereby ORDERED to: 1) review the record; 2) determine whether appellant 

has a right to appeal; and 3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings as to 

whether appellant has a right to appeal and/or advise this Court as to the existence of 

any amended certification. 

If appellant’s counsel determines that appellant has a right to appeal, counsel is 

further ORDERED to file a motion with this Court within thirty days of this notice, 

identifying and explaining substantive reasons why appellant has a right to appeal. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3, 44.4; see also, e.g., Carroll v. State, No. 04-03-00473-CR, 2003 

Tex. App. LEXIS 7317 (San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (designated for publication) 

(certification form provided in appendix to appellate rules may be modified to reflect that 

defendant has right of appeal under circumstances not addressed by the form). The 

motion must include an analysis of the applicable case law, and any factual allegations 

therein must be true and supported by the record. Cf. Woods v. State, 108 S.W.3d 314, 

316 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (construing former appellate rule 25.2(b)(3) and holding that 

recitations in the notice of appeal must be true and supported by the record). Copies of 

record documents necessary to evaluate the alleged error in the certification affecting 

appellant’s right to appeal shall be attached to the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1,

10.2.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 

26th day of June 2015.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 235 (Monday, December 8, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72653-72654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28800]

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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE: Friday, December 12, 2014, 9:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m.

PLACE: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, MD.

STATUS: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public.

Matter To Be Considered: Decisional Matter: Fiscal Year 2015 Operating 
Plan.
    A live Webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at www.cpsc.gov/live.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West

[[Page 72654]]

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: December 4, 2014.
Alberta E. Mills,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-28800 Filed 12-4-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
§ 26.66 Designation and listing procedures. The following procedures shall apply with regard to the designation of conformity assessment bodies (CAB's) and the inclusion of such bodies in the list of CAB's in subpart B of this part: ( a ) The designating authority identified in subpart B of this part shall designate CAB's in accordance with the procedures and criteria set forth in subpart B of this part;
( b ) A party proposing to add a CAB to the list of such bodies in subpart B of this part shall forward its proposal of one or more designated CAB's in writing to the other party with a view to a decision by the Joint Committee;
( c ) Within 60 days following receipt of the proposal, the other party shall indicate its position regarding either its confirmation or its opposition. Upon confirmation, the inclusion in subpart B of this part of the proposed CAB or CAB's shall take effect; and
( d ) In the event that the other party contests on the basis of documented evidence the technical competence or compliance of a proposed CAB, or indicates in writing that it requires an additional 30 days to more fully verify such evidence, such CAB shall not be included on the list of CAB's in subpart B of this part. In this instance, the Joint Committee may decide that the body concerned be verified. After the completion of such verification, the proposal to list the CAB in subpart B may be resubmitted to the other party.
(logo)EDS    



April 25,1997



                       Consumer Asset Management Division
                     of Electronic Data Systems Corporation
                        Annual Statement as to Compliance



The  management of the Consumer  Asset  Management  Division of Electronic  Data
Systems  Corporation has reviewed the activities of the Division during the year
ended  December 31, 1996 and of the  performance  under the Servicing  Agreement
relating to Equicon Mortgage Loan Trust 1995-1,  dated May 1, 1995 has been made
under my supervision, and to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the
Consumer Asset  Management  Division of Electronic Data Systems  Corporation has
fulfilled all its obligations under the Servicing  Agreement relating to Equicon
Mortgage  Loan Trust 1995-1,  dated May 1, 1995 for the year ended  December 31,
1996.



/s/Mark S. O'Bryan
Mark S. O'Bryan
Chief Operating Officer
Consumer Asset Management Division




                                              Consumer Asset Management Division
                                              190 South Warner Road
                                              Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087-2127
                                              (610) 989-1000
                                              Fax: (610) 975-3665
§ 203.23 Returns. The return of a prescription drug purchased by a hospital or health care entity or acquired at a reduced price by or donated to a charitable institution is exempt from the prohibitions in § 203.20, provided that: ( a ) The hospital, health care entity, or charitable institution documents the return by filling out a credit memo specifying: ( 1 ) The name and address of the hospital, health care entity, or charitable institution;
( 2 ) The name and address of the manufacturer or wholesale distributor from which it was acquired;
( 3 ) The product name and lot or control number;
( 4 ) The quantity returned; and
( 5 ) The date of the return.
( b ) The hospital, health care entity, or charitable institution forwards a copy of each credit memo to the manufacturer and retains a copy of each credit memo for its records;
( c ) Any drugs returned to a manufacturer or wholesale distributor are kept under proper conditions for storage, handling, and shipping, and written documentation showing that proper conditions were maintained is provided to the manufacturer or wholesale distributor to which the drugs are returned.
#### ROSE FOLK ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. HACKENSACK WATER COMPANY, RESPONDENT.

Submitted February 17, 1939

Decided April 21, 1939.

For the appellant, *Nathan Baker.*

For the respondent, *Samuel*W. *Zerman.*

*382Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered *per curiam*in Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Hague, JJ. 14.

*For reversal*— None.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 562 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 562

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      October 11, 2017.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (S. 585) to provide greater whistleblower 
protections for Federal employees, increased awareness of Federal whistleblower 
protections, and increased accountability and required discipline for Federal 
supervisors who retaliate against whistleblowers, and for other purposes. All 
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 
one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; and (2) one 
motion to recommit.
    Sec. 2.  On any legislative day during the period from October 16, 2017, 
through October 20, 2017--
     (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered 
as approved; and
    (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned to meet at a date 
and time, within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article I of the 
Constitution, to be announced by the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
    Sec. 3.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the duties of the Chair 
for the duration of the period addressed by section 2 of this resolution as 
though under clause 8(a) of rule I.
    Sec. 4.  It shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of October 
12, 2017, or October 13, 2017, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the 
House suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his 
designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the 
designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this section.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
[Nos. 15679-6-III; 15680-0-III.

Division Three.

December 4, 1997.]

#### Spokane Arcade, Inc., *Appellant,*v. The City of Spokane, et al., *Respondents.*World Wide Video of Washington, Inc., *Appellant,*v. The City of Spokane, et al., *Respondents.*

The unpublished opinion in this cause was *withdrawn*by order of the Court of Appeals dated August 18, 1998. Substitute opinion filed. See 92 Wn. App. 1004.
[No. 39386-3-I.

Division One.

December 1, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. T.B., *Appellant.*

Appeal from, a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 96-8-03716-0, Bobbe J. Bridge, J., entered September 19, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ASADOPTED**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

Thecertifications set forth below are hereby submitted to the Securities andExchange Commission pursuant to, and solely for the purpose of complying with, Section 1350of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code in connection with thefiling on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission of theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30,2009.

 

Eachof the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of CitizensBancshares Corporation and subsidiary (the “Company”) that, to his knowledge onthe date of this certification, the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of suchperiod and the results of operations of the Company for such period.

 

 
| Date:  August 14, 2009 | By:                                   |  /s/ James E. Young |
|----------------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------------------------|
|                             | James E. Young                        |
|                             | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                             |                                  |                     |
|                             |                                  |                     |
| Date:  August 14, 2009 | By:                                   |  /s/ Cynthia N. Day |
|                             | Cynthia N. Day                        |
|                             | Senior Executive Vice President and   |
|                             | Chief Operating Officer               |
|                             |                                  |                     |
|                             |                                  |                     |
| Date:  August 14, 2009 | By:                                   |  /s/ Samuel J. Cox  |
|                             | Samuel J. Cox                         |
|                             | Executive Vice President and          |
|                             | Chief Financial Officer               |

 

----
§ 135.115 Goat's milk ice cream. ( a ) *Description.* Goat's milk ice cream is the food prepared in the same manner prescribed in § 135.110 for ice cream, and complies with all the provisions of § 135.110, except that the only optional dairy ingredients that may be used are those in paragraph (b) of this section; caseinates and hydrolyzed milk proteins may not be used; and paragraphs (f)(1) and (g) of § 135.110 shall not apply.
( b ) *Optional dairy ingredients.* The optional dairy ingredients referred to in paragraph (a) of this section are goat's skim milk, goat's milk, and goat's cream. These optional dairy ingredients may be used in liquid, concentrated, and/or dry form.
( c ) *Nomenclature.* ( 1 ) The name of the food is “goat's milk ice cream” or, alternatively, “ice cream made with goat's milk”, except that when the egg yolk solids content of the food is in excess of that specified for ice cream in paragraph (a) of § 135.110, the name of the food is “goat's milk frozen custard” or, alternatively, “frozen custard made with goat's milk”, or “goat's milk french ice cream”, or, alternatively, “french ice cream made with goat's milk”, or “goat's milk french custard ice cream”, or, alternatively, “french custard ice cream made with goat's milk”.
( 2 ) Until September 14, 1998, when safe and suitable sweeteners other than nutritive carbohydrate sweeteners are used in the food, their presence shall be declared by their common or usual name on the principal display panel of the label as part of the statement of identity in letters that shall be no less than one-half the size of the type used in the term “goat's milk ice cream” but in any case no smaller than one-sixteenth of an inch. If the food purports to be or is represented for special dietary use, it shall bear labeling in accordance with the requirements of part 105 of this chapter.
( d ) *Label declaration.* Each of the ingredients used in the food shall be declared on the label as required by the applicable sections of parts 101 and 130 of this chapter.
[47 FR 41526, Sept. 21, 1982, as amended at 58 FR 2896, Jan. 6, 1993; 59 FR 47080, Sept. 14, 1994]
<PAGE>
Exhibit 99.1
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT  
Board of Directors of First Security Bank, N.A.:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying 
representation letter dated March 5, 1997 about the compliance of First 
Security Bank, N.A. (the "Company") with the minimum servicing standards 
identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America "Uniform Single 
Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers" ("USAP"), to the extent such 
procedures were applicable, as of and for the year ended December 31, 1996, as
it relates to its responsibilities as servicer for the First Security Auto 
Grantor Trust 1995-A.  As discussed in that representation letter, management 
is responsible for the Company's compliance with those requirements.  Our 
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the 
Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the 
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included 
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the 
minimum servicing standards and performing such procedures as we considered 
necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a 
reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal 
determination on the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing 
standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the 
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended 
December 31, 1996 is fairly stated, in all material respects.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Salt Lake City, Utah
March 5, 1997
38516.

#### LANE *et al.*v. STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT.

Decided November 17, 1960.

*703
      *Maxwell A. Hines, Bob Reinhardt,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Eugene Cook, Attorney-General, Carter Goode, Paul Miller, Assistant Attomeys-General, J. Willis Conger,*contra.

Frankum, Judge.

Where it appears that an order setting a hearing on a motion for a new trial provides that the movants have until the hearing, whenever it may be; to prepare and present for approval a brief of the evidence, and where it appears that five appropriate orders of continuance were granted with each order preserving the rights of the parties contained under the motion, the movants have a right to present and tender a brief of the evidence and an amendment to the motion, on the last date set for a hearing thereon, without having their motion dismissed for the reason of laches. Each order of continuance shows that, on satisfactory cause shown to the court, and by consent of counsel for the respective parties, a continuance was granted. It affirmatively appears from the record that the condemnor obtained the last order of continuance. It cannot be said that the movants were guilty of laches for failing to tender, for approval, a brief of evidence to the trial judge *before*the time specified for such by the court. Particularly is this true when it affirmatively appears by the recital of facts in the bill of exceptions, certified as true by the trial judge and as shown *704by the record, that the movants did tender a brief of the evidence and present an amendment to the motion for a new trial on the date specified for hearing the motion, which were approved and allowed on the same date the court dismissed the motion only upon the specified ground of laches. The equitable doctrine of laches is not applicable for a purely legal right and is not applicable to the facts of this case. See *Hadaway v. Hadaway, 192*Ga. 265 (14 S. E. 2d 874); *Steele v. City of Waycross,*190 Ga. 816 (10 S. E. 2d 867); *City of Albany v. Mitchell,*81 Ga. App. 408 (59 S. E. 2d 37). Even if the doctrine of laches could be used as a method or a means of dismissal of the plaintiffs’ motion, it would be inequitable to apply it to the facts and circumstances as disclosed by the record of this case, because it appears without dispute that the attorneys for the condemnor not only consented to all the orders of continuance, but, by their own motion, actually obtained the last order continuing the hearing to the very date on which the motion was dismissed for laches. The erroneous “dismissal of the motion before it was perfected precluded a judicial consideration of the completed motion and deprived the movant of the exercise of a judicial discretion to which he was entitled.” *Wallace v. State,*17 Ga. App. 434 (87 S. E. 681).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Townsend, P. J., and Carlisle, J., concur. Jordan, J., not participating.*
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

July 8, 2014

No. 04

- 14

- 00254

- CV

IN RE LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Ju stice

Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

On July 2, 2014, this court conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus filed

by relator Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company and ordered the trial court to vacate the

challenged order and enter an order o f dismissal within ten days from the date of this court’s

order.

On July 8, 2014, real party in interest Julian Morales filed an unopposed motion

requesting that this court abate its prior order to allow for the filing of a motion for rehearing.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.9. The real party in interest’s motion is GRANTED.

This court’s order of July 2, 2 014 requiring the trial court to act as directed is

TEMPORARILY ABATED until further order of this court.

It is so ORDERED on July 8 th , 2014. PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 09

- 03

- 11925

- ZCV , styled Julian T. Morales v. Liberty Mutual Fire

Insurance Company , pending in the 365th Judicial Dis trict Court

, Zavala County, Texas, the Honorable Amado J.

Abascal III presiding.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 72 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 72

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to maintain or collect information 
that can be used to identify any individual to whom a COVID-19 vaccine 
                is administered, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2023

  Mr. Biggs introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the use of Federal funds to maintain or collect information 
that can be used to identify any individual to whom a COVID-19 vaccine 
                is administered, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITING MAINTENANCE OR COLLECTION OF INFORMATION 
              IDENTIFYING COVID-19 VACCINE RECIPIENTS.

    No funds may be obligated or expended by the Federal Government, 
including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to maintain a 
database of, or collect, information that can be used to identify an 
individual to whom is administered a vaccine that is intended to 
prevent, mitigate, or treat the virus that causes COVID-19.
                                 <all>
```