alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-89,429-01

EX P ARTE ANTHONY JAMES CASE, App licant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1265680-A IN THE 179 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant wa s convicted of capital murder and sentenc ed to life imprisonment without parole

. The Four teenth Court of Appea ls a ffirme d his conviction. Case v. State , No. 14-11-00996- CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14 ] Oct. 4 , 2 0 1 2)(not t h desig nated f

or publication). Applicant contends that his trial counsel rende red ineffe ctive assistance by failing to object to medical rec ords, failing to object to an improper statement by the prosec utor, and admitting to the jury that he wa s g uilty

of murder

.2

Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson , 993 S.W .2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. The trial court shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim o f i n ef fec tive assistance of counsel. The trial court may

use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d)

. I f the trial c ourt elec ts to hold a hear ing, it shall determine whe ther Applica nt is indi g ent. I f Applicant is indige nt and wi s h es to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to repre sent Applicant at the hear ing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make fi n d i ng s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether the perf ormanc e of Appl i ca n t ’s trial counsel was defic ient and, if so, whether counsel’s defic ient perf ormanc e prejudice d Applicant. The trial court shall also make any other finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that it deems rele vant and appropr iate to the dispositi on of Applicant’s claim for habea s corpus re lief. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this order

. A sup p l em en t al t ranscript containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court within 120 day s of the date of this order. A ny extensions of ti me must be re quested by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court. Filed: Fe bruar

y 27, 2019 Do not publish3
§ 250.11 Thyroid-containing drug preparations intended for treatment of obesity in humans. ( a ) Investigation by the Food and Drug Administration has revealed that a large number of drug preparations containing thyroid or thyrogenic substances in combination with central nervous system stimulants, with or without one or more additional drug substances such as barbiturates or laxatives, are being marketed for or as adjuncts to the treatment, control, or management of obesity in humans. The Commissioner of Food and Drugs finds that the administration of such combinations for said purposes is without medical rationale except possibly in those relatively uncommon instances where the condition is directly related to hypothyroidism and there exists a concurrent need for appetite control (in such instances the safety and effectiveness of such combinations are not generally recognized). In particular, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs finds that neither the consensus of informed medical opinion nor clinical experience justifies any representation that such combinations are safe and effective in connection with the treatment, control, or management of obesity in patients having normal thyroid function.
( b ) Combinations of thyroid or other thyrogenic drugs with central nervous system stimulants with or without other drug substances when offered for or as adjuncts to the treatment, control, or management of obesity not related to hypothyroidism are regarded as misbranded. Such combinations when offered for obesity in humans directly attributable to established hypothyroidism are regarded as new drugs within the meaning of section 201(p) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Editorial Note on Part 184
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 184 appear at 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005; and 81 FR 49897, July 29, 2016.

§ 184.1854 Sucrose. ( a ) Sucrose (C12H22O11, CAS Reg. No. 57-50-11-1) sugar, cane sugar, or beet sugar is the chemical β-D-fructofuranosyl-α-D-glucopyranoside. Sucrose is obtained by crystallization from sugar cane or sugar beet juice that has been extracted by pressing or diffusion, then clarified and evaporated.
( b ) The ingredient must be of a purity suitable for its intended use.
( c ) In accordance with § 184.1(b)(1), the ingredient is used in food with no limitation other than current good manufacturing practice.
( d ) Prior sanctions for this ingredient different from the uses established in this section do not exist or have been waived.
[53 FR 44876, Nov. 7, 1988; 54 FR 228, Jan. 4, 1989, as amended at 73 FR 8608, Feb. 14, 2008]
38755.

#### ALMON v. R. H. MACY & COMPANY, INC.

Townsend, Presiding Judge.

1. A plea of lis pendens on the ground that there was pending at the commencement of the action another suit in another court between the same parties and on the same cause of action is a plea in abatement. *Code*§ 3-607.

2. Except as specially provided by law, a judgment sustaining or overruling a plea in abatement is not a final judgment, *373and a writ of error based solely thereon is premature. *City of Tallapoosa v. Brock,*143 Ga. 599 (2) (85 S. E. 755); *Pattison v. Davis,*56 Ga. App. 801 (1) (194 S. E. 222); *Cooper v. Vanhorn,*58 Ga. App. 446 (198 S. E. 794).

Decided March 16, 1961.

*Almon, Clien, McGregor & Payne, Everett L. Almon, J. B. Mc-Gregor,*for plaintiff in error.

*Schwall & Heuett, Emory A. Schwall,*contra.

3. The amendment to *Code*§ 6-701 (Ga. L. 1957, pp. 224, 230) especially provided for bills of exceptions in the additional cases relating to pleas to the jurisdiction, pleas of res judicata and general demurrers to caveats to the probate of a will. It did not broaden the general law as to a plea in abatement on the ground of another suit pending. Since this writ of error deals only with rulings on the plea, it is premature and must be

*Dismissed.*

*Carlisle, Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,908
<SECURITIES>                                     4,481
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,087
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (73)
<INVENTORY>                                      4,691
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,196
<PP&E>                                           2,563
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,774)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,868
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,372
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           24,871
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (10,375)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,868
<SALES>                                          4,347
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,347
<CGS>                                            2,103
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,242
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    180
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                180
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       180
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF INTIMATE BRANDS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FOR
THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
THE COMPANY CHANGED ITS ACCOUNTING POLICY FOR GIFT CERTIFICATES, STORE CREDITS
AND LAYAWAY SALES (SEE NOTE 2 TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS). THE
COMPANY HAS GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT TO THIS NEW ACCOUNTING POLICY BY
RESTATING ITS PREVIOUSLY ISSUED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BEGINNING WITH FISCAL
1996.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         387,774
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,627
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    479,896
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               965,936
<PP&E>                                         821,061
<DEPRECIATION>                                 422,592
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,448,077
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          573,068
<BONDS>                                        250,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,527
<OTHER-SE>                                     606,216
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,448,077
<SALES>                                      3,885,753
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,885,753
<CGS>                                        2,317,062
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,317,062
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               897,842
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,050
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                657,199
<INCOME-TAX>                                   263,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            394,199
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   394,199
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.49



</TABLE>
#### Chicago Packing Co. v. Skirchak, etc.

*Robert J. Doran,*for plaintiff.

*Stanley B. Jones,*for defendant.

March 8, 1951.

Aponick, J.,

This is on defendant’s preliminary objections in the nature of a petition raising the defenses of lack of capacity to sue and nonjoinder of a necessary party under Rule 1017(6) (5) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action is in assumpsit for $44.80 for goods sold and delivered. The complaint is- captioned: “Chicago Packing Company v. John Skirchak, individually and trading as Skirchak Sons.” The first paragraph of the complaint reads:

> “I. The plaintiff, Chicago Packing Company, is a partnership consisting of Alexander Aloff and Irene *136Aloff, doing business at 739 W. Van Burén street, Chicago 7, Illinois.”

Rule 2127 (a) reads:

> “A partnership having a right of action shall prosecute such right in the names of the then partners trading in the firm name, in the following manner: ‘A, B and C trading as X & Co.’ ”

Obviously plaintiff has violated rule 2127(a). The caption should contain the names of the individual partners as parties. Indeed, rule 1018 provides, inter alia:

> “. . . The caption of a complaint shall set forth the form of the action and the names of all the parties, but in other pleadings it is sufficient to state the name of the first party on each side in the complaint with an appropriate indication of other parties.”

Had defendant in his preliminary objections included a motion to strike off the complaint because of nonconformity to rules 2127 (a) and 1018, we would have been compelled to strike off the offending pleading. However, under rule 1032, he has waived the right to have the complaint stricken off by failing to request it.

Nevertheless, the individual partners should be joined as plaintiffs. To this, plaintiff’s counsel has no objection; indeed, in his brief he argues that the partners are joined for he insists that the first paragraph of the complaint “is in *(sic)*strict conformity with rule 2127. . . .”

Rule 2232 *(c)*gives us the power to add these partners as plaintiffs on our own motion (see 4 Anderson Pa. Civ. Pract. 382, footnote 5 ,citing Varlan v. Hires, 36 Del. Co. 61, 65, in turn citing Goodrich-Amram, sec. 2127(a) (2).

Accordingly, defendant’s preliminary objections are sustained; Alexander Aloff and Irene Aloff are joined as plaintiffs, the record amended and defendant given 20 days within which to file an answer on the merits.
**Exhibit31.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONS

 

I, John Low, certifythat:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Spescom Software Inc.;

 

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

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:

 

a) designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis quarterly report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) disclosed in this quarterlyreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

a) all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b) any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting

 

 
| Dated:  February 14,  2006 |
|--------------------------------------|
|                                 |
| /s/ John W. Low                      |   |
| John W. Low                          |
|                                 |
| Chief Financial Officer              |

 

----
#### § 516.14 Submission of requests for designation.

All correspondence relating to a request for designation of a MUMS drug must be addressed to the Director of the Office of Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Drug Development. Submissions not including all elements specified in § 516.20 will be returned to the sponsor without review.
<PAGE>

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                        PAPERCLIP IMAGING SOFTWARE, INC.



           ---------------------------------------------------------
                  Adopted in accordance with the provisions of
                     Section 242 of the General Corporation
                          Law of the State of Delaware
           ---------------------------------------------------------

         We, William Weiss, Chief Executive Officer, and Michael Suleski,
Secretary, of PAPERCLIP IMAGING SOFTWARE, INC., hereby certify as follows:

         FIRST: That the Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation is
hereby amended as follows:

         By striking out the whole of Articles FIRST and FOURTH thereof as they
now exist and inserting in their place the following:

         "FIRST": The name of the corporation is: PAPERCLIP SOFTWARE, INC.

         "FOURTH: The total number of shares of stock which the corporation
         shall have authority to issue is 30,000,000 shares of Common Stock,
         par value $.01 per share."

         SECOND: That such amendment has been duly adopted in accordance with
the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware by the vote

<PAGE>

of the holders of note less than a majority of the outstanding stock entitled
to vote thereon at the annual meeting of shareholders.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have signed this certificate this 29th day of
August, 1996.


                                       /s/ William Weiss
                                       William Weiss, Chief Executive Officer


                                       /s/ Michael Suleski
                                       Michael Suleski, Secretary


                                       2
ODP Information Bulletin

No. 54 April 24, 2002

TO: All State Administrative Agency Heads

All State Administrative Agency Points of Contact

FROM: C.H. “Butch” Straub, II

Director

SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2002 State Domestic Preparedness Grant Program Update

The Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) has completed

the development of the application kit and program guidelines for the Fiscal Year 2002 State

Domestic Preparedness Grant Program. The FY 2002 Program has been significantly enhanced in

response to needs identified through the ODP assessment and strategy development process.

Highlights of the FY 2002 Program include:

• An exercise allocation for costs associated with the conduct of weapons of mass

destruction (WMD) exercises (including hiring of full or part-time staff or contractors,

overtime, travel and supplies); 

• An equipment allocation for the purchase of advanced levels of responder equipment

(including bomb mitigation and remediation gear, remote sensing devices and mass

casualty decontamination equipment) and for equipment designed to protect critical

infrastructure from terrorist attacks; and, 

• The ability to use up to $150,000 or up to 2.5 percent (whichever is greater) of the total

funds awarded through this program for administrative costs associated with implementing

the state strategies.

The application kit will be provided to each state administrative agency (SAA) shortly. However,

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has requested an opportunity to review the

application kit before it is released. OMB has promised an expedited review process. In the

interim, a table containing Fiscal Year 2002 allocations for equipment and exercises for the fifty

states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Territories is

attached for planning purposes. States are encouraged to apply for this extremely important

funding as soon as the application kit becomes available. 

Attachment
§ 331.80 Professional labeling. ( a ) The labeling of the product provided to health professionals (but not to the general public): ( 1 ) Shall contain the neutralizing capacity of the product as calculated using the procedure set forth in United States Pharmacopeia 23/National Formulary 18 expressed in terms of the dosage recommended per minimum time interval or, if the labeling recommends more than one dosage, in terms of the minimum dosage recommended per minimum time interval.
( 2 ) May contain an indication for the symptomatic relief of hyperacidity associated with the diagnosis of peptic ulcer, gastritis, peptic esophagitis, gastric hyperacidity, and hiatal hernia.
( 3 ) *For products containing basic aluminum carbonate gel identified in § 331.11(a)(1) —Indication.* “For the treatment, control, or management of hyperphosphatemia, or for use with a low phosphate diet to prevent formation of phosphate urinary stones, through the reduction of phosphates in the serum and urine.”
( 4 ) *For products containing aluminum identified in § 331.11(a)* —*Warnings.* ( i ) Prolonged use of aluminum-containing antacids in patients with renal failure may result in or worsen dialysis osteomalacia. Elevated tissue aluminum levels contribute to the development of the dialysis encephalopathy and osteomalacia syndromes. Small amounts of aluminum are absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract and renal excretion of aluminum is impaired in renal failure. Aluminum is not well removed by dialysis because it is bound to albumin and transferrin, which do not cross dialysis membranes. As a result, aluminum is deposited in bone, and dialysis osteomalacia may develop when large amounts of aluminum are ingested orally by patients with impaired renal function.
( ii ) Aluminum forms insoluble complexes with phosphate in the gastrointestinal tract, thus decreasing phosphate absorption. Prolonged use of aluminum-containing antacids by normophosphatemic patients may result in hypophosphatemia if phosphate intake is not adequate. In its more severe forms, hypophosphatemia can lead to anorexia, malaise, muscle weakness, and osteomalacia.
( b ) Professional labeling for an antacid-antiflatulent combination may contain the information allowed for health professionals for antacids and antiflatulents.
[39 FR 19874, June 4, 1974. Redesignated and amended at 55 FR 19859, May 11, 1990]