alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1... See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NOS. 2-07-179-CR

 2-07-190-CR

JORGE CASTILLO ZULAYKA APPELLANT

A/K/A JORGE C. ZULAYKA

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------

FROM THE 415TH DISTRICT COURT OF PARKER COUNTY

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

------------

A jury convicted Appellant Jorge Castillo Zulayka a/k/a Jorge C. Zulayka

of aggravated assault on a public servant with a deadly weapon, and the trial

court sentenced him to forty years’ confinement. Zulayka also entered an open

plea of guilty to the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm. The trial court
2... 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).

2

found Zulayka guilty of that offense and sentenced him to twenty years’

confinement. Zulayka pleaded true to the enhancement paragraphs contained

in the indictments.

Zulayka’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to

withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and

motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a 2

professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no reversible

grounds on appeal and referencing any grounds that arguably might support the

appeal. Zulayka was given the opportunity to file a pro se brief, but he did not

do so.

As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of

the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the

appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). Because

Zulayka entered an open plea of guilty to the unlawful possession of a firearm

charge, our independent review for potential error is limited to potential
3

jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of Zulayka’s plea, error that is not

independent of and supports the judgment of guilt, and error occurring after

entry of the guilty plea. See Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 620 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2003); Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666–67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

Our independent review for potential error in Zulayka’s aggravated assault case

is broader. See Ford v. State, Nos. 02-06-00191-CR, 02-06-00192-CR, 2007

WL 3408622, at *3–5 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 15, 2007, no pet.) (mem.

op.) (not designated for publication) (reviewing jurisdiction, voir dire, evidentiary

sufficiency, effective assistance of counsel, jury charge, punishment, and

sentencing).

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree

with counsel that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. We find

nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals. See Bledsoe v.

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments.

PER CURIAM

PANEL F: HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

DELIVERED: July 3, 2008
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         [DELOITTE & TOUCHE LETTERHEAD]

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use in this Registration Statement of Pivotal Corporation
(formerly, Pivotal Software Inc.) on Form F-1 of our report dated July 9, 1999
appearing in the Prospectus, which is part of this Registration Statement.

We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such
Prospectus.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

Vancouver, British Columbia
July 28, 1999
#### Charlene F. Munford *v.*Morris Dubinsky et al.

Baldwin, O’Sullivan, Wynne, Daly and Phillips, Js.

Argued May 10

decided May 31, 1955

*414
      *Snow G. Munford,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Bernard Greenberg,*with whom, on the brief, was *Frederick L. Greenberg,*for the appellees (defendants).

Phillips, J.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover' for injuries suffered when a car she was driving southerly on Connecticut Boulevard, in Hartford, came in contact with a truck owned by the defendants. The trial court found the following facts: On the westerly side of the boulevard there was a long warehouse, consisting of a number of stalls, which was used by various persons; at the time of the accident, one Brudz was operating a pickup truck which belonged to the defendants and was to be unloaded at their stall; Brudz drove southerly on the boulevard in the west traffic lane until he was just past the driveway of the defendants’ stall; he then brought his truck to a stop and backed northerly and westerly until his rear wheels were at the curb line of the driveway; at that point he brought his vehicle to a complete stop to allow a truck which was proceeding southerly to pass; Brudz’s truck was then in an oblique position, with its rear pointing northwesterly, and it was wholly within the traveled portion of the boulevard; Brudz looked northerly, to his rear, to see if any other traffic was approaching; as he did so, the left end of his front bumper was hooked and pulled out by the plaintiff’s car, which was going southerly; at the time of the impact, Brudz was stopped and had been for at least the time it took the truck which was preceding the plaintiff to pass; Brudz was about to back into the areaway in front of the defendants’ stall but had not started to move backward when the accident happened; the plaintiff *415was traveling in a line of traffic about seven or eight feet easterly of tbe westerly curb line of the boulevard, with cars directly ahead, behind and to the left of her car; at the time of the accident she did not see or know what had happened, and the impact of the accident first attracted her attention to the fact that she had been in a collision; the left end of the front bumper of the defendants’ truck and the right rear of the plaintiff’s automobile were the places of contact of the vehicles.

No substantial change can he made in these findings, and from the facts so stated the trial court might reasonably have reached the conclusion, as it did, that the defendants’ driver committed no negligent acts in connection with the collision.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.
#### § 514.116 Notice of withdrawal of approval of application.

When an approval of an application submitted pursuant to section 512 of the act is withdrawn by the Commissioner, he will give appropriate public notice of such action by publication in the Federal Register.
[No. 39256-5-I.

Division One.

December 1, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Michael W. Watkins, et al., *Defendants,*Sultan Muhammed, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 96-1-02255-8, Richard A. Jones, J., entered August 22, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
# C_2014175EN.01003101.xml

| 10.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 April 2014 — Alfredo Rendón Marín v Administración del Estado

(Case C-165/14)

2014/C 175/38

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Section: Tercera

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alfredo Rendón Marín

Applicant:

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is national legislation which excludes the possibility of granting a residence permit to the parent of a European Union citizen who is a child and dependent on that parent, because the parent has a criminal record in the country in which the request is made, compatible with Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, interpreted in the light of the decisions of 19 October 2004 (Case C-200/02 Zhu-Chen) (1) and 8 March 2011 (Case C-34/09 Ruiz Zambrano), (2) even if this results in the removal of the child from the territory of the European Union, as that child has to follow the parent?

Zhu-Chen

1

Ruiz Zambrano

2

---

(1)  EU:C:2004:639.

1

(2)  EU:C:2011:124.

2

---
§ 211.68 Automatic, mechanical, and electronic equipment. ( a ) Automatic, mechanical, or electronic equipment or other types of equipment, including computers, or related systems that will perform a function satisfactorily, may be used in the manufacture, processing, packing, and holding of a drug product. If such equipment is so used, it shall be routinely calibrated, inspected, or checked according to a written program designed to assure proper performance. Written records of those calibration checks and inspections shall be maintained.
( b ) Appropriate controls shall be exercised over computer or related systems to assure that changes in master production and control records or other records are instituted only by authorized personnel. Input to and output from the computer or related system of formulas or other records or data shall be checked for accuracy. The degree and frequency of input/output verification shall be based on the complexity and reliability of the computer or related system. A backup file of data entered into the computer or related system shall be maintained except where certain data, such as calculations performed in connection with laboratory analysis, are eliminated by computerization or other automated processes. In such instances a written record of the program shall be maintained along with appropriate validation data. Hard copy or alternative systems, such as duplicates, tapes, or microfilm, designed to assure that backup data are exact and complete and that it is secure from alteration, inadvertent erasures, or loss shall be maintained.
( c ) Such automated equipment used for performance of operations addressed by §§ 211.101(c) or (d), 211.103, 211.182, or 211.188(b)(11) can satisfy the requirements included in those sections relating to the performance of an operation by one person and checking by another person if such equipment is used in conformity with this section, and one person checks that the equipment properly performed the operation.
[43 FR 45077, Sept. 29, 1978, as amended at 60 FR 4091, Jan. 20, 1995; 73 FR 51932, Sept. 8, 2008]
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
Logical Software Solutions Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 33-63388 and 333-4558) on Form S-8 of INTERLINQ Software Corporation of
our report dated June 30, 1998, with respect to the balance sheet of Logical
Software Solutions Corporation as of December 31, 1997, and the related
statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the year then
ended, which report appears in the June 30, 1998, current report on Form 8-K/A
of INTERLINQ Software Corporation.

/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Seattle, Washington
September 11, 1998
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 24.1

                             SECRETARY'S CERTIFICATE


          I certify that I am the Secretary of Glacier Bancorp, Inc., located in
Kalispell, State of Montana ( "Glacier"), and that I have been duly elected and
am presently serving in that capacity in accordance with the Bylaws of Glacier.

          I further certify that the following is a true, correct and complete
copy of a resolution of the Board of Directors of Glacier, duly passed and
adopted by a majority of Glacier's Board of Directors at a meeting duly called
and convened on March 25, 1998:

                               [POWER OF ATTORNEY]

          Each of the officers of Glacier who may be required to sign and
          execute the Registration Statement or any amendment thereto or related
          documents, is authorized to execute a Power of Attorney, appointing
          the Proper Officers or any of them individually, to act as his/her
          true and lawful attorney or attorneys, to sign in his/her name, place
          and stead, in any such capacity, the Registration Statement and all
          amendments and other related documents, and to file the same with the
          SEC.

          The above resolution is in full force and effect and has not been
revoked or rescinded as of the date hereof.


          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my signature this 21st day of
April, 1998.



                                          /s/ Michael J. Blodnick
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          Michael J. Blodnick, Secretary
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

March 29, 2010

Mr. Paul James Koumjian

TDCJ #1039181, Hughes Unit

Rt. 2 Box 4400

Gatesville, TX 76597

Mr. Shane Dennis Neldner

Assistant Attorney General

Law Enforcement Defense Div.

PO Box 12548

Austin, TX 78711-2548

RE:Case Number:  10-0109

Court of Appeals Number:  10-08-00141-CV

Trial Court Number:  24058

Style:PAUL JAMES KOUMJIAN

v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION DIVISION AND UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH, CORRECTIONAL MANAGED CARE

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued the enclosed abatement order in the above-referenced case.

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

**Case No. 10-0109Page 1**
132 STAT. 4378 PUBLIC LAW 115–294—DEC. 6, 2018 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5784: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018): 

Sept. 13, considered and passed House. 

Nov. 15, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–294 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2650 North 

Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. Drive in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, shall be known 

and designated as the ‘‘Vel R. Phillips Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. VEL R. PHILLIPS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 2650 North Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. Drive 

in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, shall be known and designated as the 

‘‘Vel R. Phillips Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Vel R. Phillips Post Office Building’’. 

Approved December 6, 2018. 

Dec. 6, 2018 

[H.R. 5784] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with PUB LAWS PDF
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1997
<CASH>                                          31,878
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  557,566
<ALLOWANCES>                                    39,115
<INVENTORY>                                    577,140
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,173,946
<PP&E>                                         902,084
<DEPRECIATION>                                 313,571
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,506,848
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          618,444
<BONDS>                                      1,250,318
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           213
<OTHER-SE>                                     337,751
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,506,848
<SALES>                                      1,042,754
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,042,754
<CGS>                                          770,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  770,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,685
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              57,098
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,726
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,526
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                709
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  8,758
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,049)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.38)
        

</TABLE>
================================================================================

EXHIBIT 32

                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 CirTran  Corporation on Form 10-QSB
for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the  Securities and Exchange
Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  Iehab  Hawatmeh,  President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

May 19, 2006
                                         /s/ Iehab J. Hawatmeh
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         Iehab J. Hawatmeh
                                         President and Chief Financial Officer


























--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>   1
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             Washington, D.C. 20549


                                 ---------------


                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT


                     Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the

                         Securities Exchange Act of 1934


Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported) DECEMBER 10, 1998 
                                                 

                             CELLPRO, INCORPORATED
               --------------------------------------------------
               (Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)


<TABLE>
<S>                                  <C>                   <C>
        DELAWARE                        0-19472                 94-3087971
-----------------------------        -------------         ---------------------
(State or other jurisdiction         (Commission              (IRS Employer
of incorporation)                    File Number)          Identification No.)
</TABLE>



      22215 26TH AVENUE S.E., BOTHELL, WA                98021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Address of principal executive offices)               (Zip Code)



Registrant's telephone number, including area code (425) 485-7644
                                                   
    
                                       N/A
         --------------------------------------------------------------
         (Former name or former address, if changed since last report.)



<PAGE>   2

Item 3. Bankruptcy or Receivership.

               On October 28, 1998, CellPro, Incorporated ("CellPro") filed a
voluntary petition as debtor and debtor in possession under Chapter 11 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code, Case No. 98-13604 in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Western District of Washington, Judge Karen Overstreet presiding.
On December 10, 1998, the Bankruptcy Court approved an Asset Purchase Agreement
dated October 28, 1998, between CellPro and Nexell Therapeutics Inc. that
provided for the sale of substantially all of CellPro's intellectual property
assets.







<PAGE>   3

                                   SIGNATURES

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


                                        CellPro, Incorporated
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                                   (Registrant)


Date: December 17, 1998                 /s/ Mark J. Handfelt
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name:  Mark J. Handfelt
                                        Title: Executive Vice President, General
                                               Counsel and Acting Chief 
                                               Operating Officer
§ 556.316 Hetacillin. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) *Tolerances.* The tolerances for ampicillin (marker residue for hetacillin) are: ( 1 ) *Cattle. Edible tissues:* 0.01 ppm.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Related conditions of use.* See § 526.1130 of this chapter.
[84 FR 53311, Oct. 7, 2019]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1387

JEFFREY MICHAEL STEINGOLD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 98-19841)

Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 19, 2001

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Michael Steingold, Petitioner Pro Se. Richard Farber, Paula

Marie Junghans, Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Stuart L. Brown, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Michael Steingold appeals from the tax court’s order

determining a deficiency and penalty with respect to his 1994

federal income tax liability. Our review of the record and the tax

court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the tax court. Steingold v. Commissioner,

No. 98-19841 (U.S. Tax Ct. Dec. 15, 2000). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED