alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
38781.

#### RUCKER v. ANDERSON *et al.*

Decided April 24, 1961

Rehearing denied May 9, 1961.

*William O. Carter,*for plaintiff in error.

*Harris, Russell & Watkins, John B. Harris,*contra.

Bell, Judge.

The present claimant made a prior claim for death benefits against the Anderson Plumbing Co. and its alleged insurer. At that hearing the claimant agreed to stipulate that possibly she could not carry the burden of proof, and agreed that the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation write an award denying compensation. The award denying compensation was entered, unappealed, and became final. Later this same claimant filed the same claim against W. H. and J. T. Anderson, doing business as the Anderson Plumbing & Heating CoJ, with the same insurer named in the prior case. In the hearing on the second claim no evidence was taken, but the botírd ruled that the award upon the first hearing was res adjudicata as to the second claim, as the employer was the same. There is no evidence in the record to support the finding of fact that the claim in the second hearing was against the same employer. It is, of course, elementary that the findings of fact by the board must be supported by competent evidence. Otherwise, the findings are reversible.

*The judgment is reversed with directions to the superior court to remand the case to the board for the taking of further evidence upon the issue as to whether the employers named in the two claims were the same, and for the taking of any other ■evidence on the validity of the claim.*

*Felton, C. J., and Nichols, J., concur.*
Exhibit 99.1

 

 

**ANNUAL SERVICER’S CERTIFICATERETAILERS NATIONAL BANKTARGET CREDIT CARD MASTER TRUST**

 

 

Theundersigned, a duly authorized representative of  Retailers National Bank, as Servicer (“RNB”),pursuant to the Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated asof April 28, 2000, as supplemented by the Series 1996-1 Supplement, the Series1998-1 Supplement, the Series 2001-1 Supplement, and the Series 2002-1Supplement (as may be amended and supplemented from time to time, the “Agreement”),among Target Receivables Corporation, as Transferor, RNB, as Servicer, andWells Fargo Bank Minnesota, National Association, as Trustee, does herebycertify that:

 

1.               RNB is, as of the date hereof, theServicer under the Agreement. Capitalized terms used in this Certificate have their respectivemeanings as set forth in the Agreement.

 

2.               The undersigned is a Servicing Officerwho is duly authorized pursuant to the Agreement to execute and deliver thiscertificate to the Trustee.

 

3.               A review of the activities of theServicer during the fiscal year ended January 3, 2004, and of its performanceunder the Agreement was  conducted undermy supervision.

 

4.               Based on such review, the Servicer has,to the best of my knowledge, performed in all material respects its obligationsunder the Agreement throughout such year and no default in the performance ofsuch obligations has occurred or is continuing except as set forth in paragraph5 below.

 

5.               The following is a description of eachdefault in the performance of the Servicer’s obligations under the provisionsof the Agreement known to me to have been made by the Servicer during thefiscal year ended January 3, 2004 which sets forth in detail (i) the nature ofeach default, (ii) the action taken by the Servicer, if any, to remedy each suchdefault and (iii) the current status of each such default: None.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificateas of the 22nd day of March, 2004.

 
|       | **RETAILERS  NATIONAL BANK,**       |
|------------|-------------------------------------|
|       | **as  Servicer,**                   |
|       |                                |
|       |                                |
| ** ** | **By:**                             | /s/ Thomas A. Swanson |   |
|       | Name: Thomas A. Swanson             |
|       | Title: Vice President & Cashier |
|            |                                     |  |  |
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 23(a)


                                  May 17, 1999





Aristar, Inc.
Hidden River Corporate Park
8900 Grand Oak Circle
Tampa, FL 33637-1050

         ARISTAR, INC. $150,000,000 SENIOR NOTES DUE MAY 15, 2002

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:

         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of this letter as
an exhibit to the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File No.
333-29049) (the "Registration Statement"). We consent further to the reference
to our firm under the heading "Legal Opinions" in the Prospectus Supplement
dated May 12, 1999, to the Prospectus dated June 23, 1997, which forms a part of
the Registration Statement.

                                       Very truly yours,

                                       HELLER EHRMAN WHITE & MCAULIFFE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements as of and for the period ended December 31, 1998
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          17,193
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           7,246
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    187,697
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           5,502
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             5,547
<LOANS>                                        242,725
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,676
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 497,487
<DEPOSITS>                                     262,311
<SHORT-TERM>                                    56,164
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,074
<LONG-TERM>                                    125,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     21,450
<COMMON>                                           158
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,330
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 497,487
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 18,165
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                8,156
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                26,321
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               9,081
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,299
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           12,022
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,212
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 738
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,673
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    160
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         160
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,123
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.68
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,520
<LOANS-PAST>                                       126
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,614
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      181
<RECOVERIES>                                        31
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,676
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,763
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            913
        

</TABLE>
1 July 29th , 2016

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Amendment to Exemption #11305, Docket ID FAA

- 2014

- 1017

Dear Sir or Madam:

Flying Cross Aerial Productions was issued Exemption #11305 for the purpose of

operating UAS for filming and photography. We are requesting that an additional aircraft

be added to the Exemption, which is not curr ently in the blanket list of approved aircraft.

The additional aircraft has similar flight and operating characteristics as the originally

exempted models, and shall be operated under t he same terms and conditions contained

in the Exemption. We therefore believe good cause exists n ot to publish this amendment

request in the Federal Register.

The additional aircraft is : Hexacrafter HX S

- 9 00 (hexacopter)

.

Flying Cross Aerial Production’s Operations Manual(s) will be updated to reflect

operation and maintenance of the new aircraft.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Scott Hess, Owner

Flying Cross Aerial Productions

P.O. Box 26203

Austin, TX 78755
The State of



# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

June 10, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00883

- CR

Santos GUEVARA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas Trial Court No. 4704 Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant is represented on appeal by retained counsel, Mr. James R. Chapman . Mr. Chapman has already been granted one thirty

- five day extension of time in which to file appellant’s brief, which was due June 9, 2014. Mr. Chapman has filed a second motion asking for an extension of time until August 9, 2014. In his motion, Mr. Chapman states there are three appeals , including this one, pending before this court that are all inter

- related, and he intends to file a motion to consolidate at a future date if it is determined that appellant is indigent in the third appeal (04

- 14

- 00303

- CR)

. Mr. Chapman also st ates that a hearing on whether appellant is indigent is set for June 12, 2014

, in that appeal.

Accordingly, w e ORDER the motion for an extension of t ime held in abeyance until further order of this court. We further ORDER Mr. Chapman to f ile in this court on or before June 19, 2014

, a letter stating : (1) the outcome of the indigency hearing in appellate cause number 04

- 14

- 00303

- CR , and (2) whether app ellant intends to pursue his appeal in appellate cause number 04

- 13

- 008 83

- CR

.

We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on Mr. Chapman by certified mail, return receipt requested, and by regular United States mail. The clerk is also ordered to serve a copy of this order by facsimile to the Honorable N. Keith Williams, Presiding Judge, 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas._________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 10th day of June, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
§ 606.3 Definitions. As used in this part: ( a ) *Blood* means a product that is a fluid containing dissolved and suspended elements which was collected from the vascular system of a human.
( b ) *Unit* means the volume of blood or one of its components in a suitable volume of anticoagulant obtained from a single collection of blood from one donor.
( c ) *Blood component* means a product containing a part of human blood separated by physical or mechanical means.
( d ) *Plasma for further manufacturing* means that liquid portion of blood separated and used as material to prepare another product.
( e ) *Plasmapheresis* means the procedure in which blood is removed from the donor, the plasma is separated from the formed elements and at least the red blood cells are returned to the donor.
( f ) *Plateletpheresis* means the procedure in which blood is removed from a donor, a platelet concentrate is separated, and the remaining formed elements are returned to the donor along with a portion of the residual plasma.
( g ) *Leukapheresis* means the procedure in which blood is removed from the donor, a leukocyte concentrate is separated, and the remaining formed elements and residual plasma are returned to the donor.
( h ) *Facilities* means any area used for the collection, processing, compatibility testing, storage or distribution of blood and blood components.
( i ) *Processing* means any procedure employed after collection, and before or after compatibility testing of blood, and includes the identification of a unit of donor blood, the preparation of components from such unit of donor blood, serological testing, labeling and associated recordkeeping.
( j ) *Compatibility testing* means the procedures performed to establish the matching of a donor's blood or blood components with that of a potential recipient.
( k ) *Distributed* means: ( 1 ) The blood or blood components have left the control of the licensed manufacturer, unlicensed registered blood establishment, or transfusion service; or
( 2 ) The licensed manufacturer has provided Source Plasma or any other blood component for use in the manufacture of a licensed biological product.
( l ) *Control* means having responsibility for maintaining the continued safety, purity, and potency of the product and for compliance with applicable product and establishment standards, and for compliance with current good manufacturing practices.
[40 FR 53532, Nov. 18, 1975, as amended at 64 FR 45370, Aug. 19, 1999; 65 FR 66635, Nov. 7, 2000; 66 FR 1835, Jan. 10, 2001; 66 FR 40889, Aug. 6, 2001; 72 FR 45886, Aug. 16, 2007; 80 FR 29894, May 22, 2015]
§ 556.68 Azaperone. ( a ) *Acceptable daily intake (ADI).* The ADI for total residue of azaperone is 0.63 μg/kg of body weight per day.
( b ) *Tolerances.* The tolerance for azaperone is: ( 1 ) *Swine.* Edible tissues: Not required.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Related conditions of use.* See § 522.150 of this chapter.
#### § 120.9 Legal basis.

Failure of a processor to have and to implement a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system that complies with §§ 120.6, 120.7, and 120.8, or otherwise to operate in accordance with the requirements of this part, shall render the juice products of that processor adulterated under section 402(a)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Whether a processor's actions are consistent with ensuring the safety of juice will be determined through an evaluation of the processor's overall implementation of its HACCP system.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 26 52

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Ja so n P ric e
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
St ev e Lark in s, Warde n, ERDCC , Ind iv id ua ll y ; Larry Sh or t, Fu nc ti on al Uni t Man ag er, ERDCC, In di vi du al ly; Unk no wn Wesco tt , Serg ean t, Co rrec ti on al Offi cer I I, ERDCC, In di vi du al ly; Unk no wn M il le r, Co rrec ti on al Offic er I, ERDCC, In di vi du al ly; Unk no wn Ho li fie ld , Correct io na l Offi cer I , ERDCC, In di vi du al ly; Mi ch el le W il li fo rd , Correct io na l Offi cer I , ERDCC, In di vi du al ly

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ctof M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Jan ua ry

29 , 20 13 Fi le d: Feb ru ary 27 , 20 13 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re BYE, ARNOLD, andSHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.I n mate Ja so n Pri ce ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s ad ve rs e gr an t of su mm a r y 1 jud gm en t in hi s 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 act io n. Upo n de no vo rev ie w, se e Whi ts on v. St on e Co un ty Jail , 60 2 F.3d 92 0, 92 3 (8t h Cir. 20 10 ), we ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco ur t t ha t th e reco rd do es no t crea te a jury is su e o n w h e t h e r de fen da nt s vi ol at ed th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t by fai li ng to av ert an at ta ck th at Pri ce su ffer edat t he ha nd s o f a fel lo w in m at e, s e e You ng v. Sel k, 50 8 F.3 d 86 8, 87 1- 72 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (u nd er Eig ht h Am en dm en t’s pr ohi bit ion ag ai nst cr ue l an d unusua l pu ni sh m en t, pr is on of fic ia ls m us t ta ke reas on ab le st ep s to gu aran te e in m at e sa fet y by pr ot ect in g th em fro m at ta ck s by ot he r in m at es ). Bec au se we ag ree wit h th e co urt th at th e reco rd do es no t es tabl is h an Eig ht h Am en dm en t v io la ti on , we nee d n ot ad dr es s t he is su e o f qu al ifi ed imm un it y
. See Sch m id t v. Ci ty of Bel la Vil la , 55 7 F.3 d 56 4, 57 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). The jud gm en t of th e d is tri ctco ur t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Aud rey G

. F l e i ss ig , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 East ern Dis tri ctof M is so ur i.
-2

-
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30990

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERT PINSINCE, also known

as Lenes Jackson,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. CR-94-50077-01

- - - - - - - - - -

July 2, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Pinsince appeals his guilty plea conviction and

sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). (His motion to file an out-oftime reply brief is GRANTED.)

Pinsince contends that the district court erred in denying his

motion to suppress statements and physical evidence seized at the
- 2 -

time of his arrest. But, as the Government notes, a valid and

unconditional guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects in

the proceedings leading to the conviction, including a Fourth

Amendment claim. See United States v. Smallwood, 920 F.2d 1231,

1240 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1238 (1991). 

In light of this, Pinsince asserts, for the first time in his

reply brief, that his guilty plea was unknowing because counsel

inadvertently overlooked the fact that the plea agreement did not

contain a reservation of Pinsince's right to review the denial of

his motion to suppress. Pursuant to our usual practice, we will

not consider on this direct appeal an ineffective-assistance-ofcounsel claim. See United States v. Bounds, 943 F.2d 541, 544 (5th

Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 135 (1993). 

Finally, Pinsince claims that the district court erred in

awarding a two-level enhancement to his base offense level,

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), based on its finding that he

possessed a dangerous weapon during the commission of the offense

of conviction. The court did not clearly err in awarding this

enhancement. See United States v. Aguilera-Zapata, 901 F.2d 1209,

1215 (5th Cir. 1990). 

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 39 (Monday, March 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 9231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4181]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Noninvasive Imaging of 
Beta Cells.
    Date: March 24, 2010.
    Time: 3 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Paul A. Rushing, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 747, 
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-8895, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2a585f594243444d5a6a4f525e584b0444434e4e4104444342044d455c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="453730362d2c2b223505203d3137246b2b2c21212e6b2b2c2d6b222a33">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 23, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-4181 Filed 2-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Editorial Note on Part 60
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 60 appear at 68 FR 24879, May 9, 2003, and at 88 FR 45065, July 14, 2023.

§ 60.34 FDA action on petitions. ( a ) Within 90 days after FDA receives a petition filed under § 60.30(a), the agency will either deny the petition under paragraph (b) or (c) of this section or investigate and determine under § 60.36 whether the applicant acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. FDA will publish its due diligence determination in the Federal Register, notify PTO of the due diligence determination in writing, and send copies of the notice to PTO, the applicant, and the petitioner.
( b ) FDA may deny a due diligence petition without considering the merits of the petition if: ( 1 ) The petition is not filed in accordance with § 60.30;
( 2 ) The petition is not filed in accordance with § 10.20;
( 3 ) The petition does not contain the information required by § 10.30;
( 4 ) The petition fails to contain information or allegations upon which it may reasonably be determined that the applicant did not act with due diligence during the applicable regulatory review period; or
( 5 ) The petition fails to allege a sufficient total amount of time during which the applicant did not exercise due diligence such that, even if the petition were granted, the petition would not affect the maximum patent extension the applicant sought in the application.