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

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-17-00182-CR

RICHARD BRUCKER,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 19th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-538-C1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Richard Brucker appeals his conviction. However, the certification of defendant's 

right of appeal, which Brucker signed, indicates that he has waived his right to appeal. 

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); Monreal v. State, 99 

S.W.3d 615, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice
Brucker v. State Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed June 14, 2017

Do not publish 

[CR25]
# C_2014395EN.01002402.xml

| 10.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 25 August 2014 — ‘Vekos trade’ AD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’, Varna, pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-403/14)

(2014/C 395/30)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Vekos trade’ AD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’, Varna, pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the principles of fiscal neutrality, proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations violated by administrative practice and case-law according to which it is for the vendor — the consignor under the transport contract — to determine the authenticity of the acquirer’s signature and to establish whether it comes from a person representing the company (the acquirer), one of its employees in a corresponding position or an authorised person? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are the principles of fiscal neutrality, proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations violated by administrative practice and case-law according to which it is for the vendor — the consignor under the transport contract — to determine the authenticity of the acquirer’s signature and to establish whether it comes from a person representing the company (the acquirer), one of its employees in a corresponding position or an authorised person?

| 2. | In a case such as the present does Article 138(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax have direct effect, and can the national court directly apply the provision? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In a case such as the present does Article 138(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax have direct effect, and can the national court directly apply the provision?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---
§ 529.2620 Triptorelin. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter of gel contains 100 micrograms (mcg) triptorelin as triptorelin acetate.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 051233 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in swine* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Administer 200 mcg intravaginally approximately 96 hours after weaning.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For the synchronization of time of insemination in weaned sows to facilitate a single fixed-time artificial insemination.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Not approved for use in gilts. Safety and effectiveness have not been evaluated in these animals. Should not be used in sows with obvious reproductive tract abnormalities.
[77 FR 64717, Oct. 23, 2012]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Balance  Sheet and  Statement  of  Operations  as of and for the 13 weeks  ended
April 29, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements as included in the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0000813775
<NAME>                                         Factory 2-U Stores, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000


<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-03-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-29-2000
<CASH>                                         3,571
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,996
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                   52,447
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              62,182
<PP&E>                                        50,703
<DEPRECIATION>                                19,482
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               125,098
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         52,462
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                         124
<OTHER-SE>                                    48,621
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 125,098
<SALES>                                      108,375
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             108,375
<CGS>                                         70,150
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 70,150
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              35,133
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               350
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,742
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,140
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,602
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,602
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.12





</TABLE>
#### § 573.914 Salts of volatile fatty acids.

(a) *Identity.* The food additive is a blend containing the ammonium or calcium salt of isobutyric acid and the ammonium or calcium salts of a mixture of 5-carbon acids—isovaleric, 2-methylbutyric, and *n*-valeric.

(b) *Specifications.* The additive contains ammonium or calcium salts of volatile fatty acids and shall conform to the following specifications:

(1) Ammonium salts:

| Components | Amount |
| --- | --- |
| Ammonium salts of mixed 5-carbon acids (as identified in paragraph (a) of this section) | 48 to 54 percent. |
| Ammonium salt of isobutyric acid | 22 to 26 percent. |
| Water | 28 percent maximum. |
| Ammonia | 0.3 percent maximum. |
| Arsenic | 3 parts per million maximum. |
| Heavy metals such as lead | 10 parts per million maximum. |

(2) Calcium salts:

| Components | Amount |
| --- | --- |
| Calcium salts of mixed 5-carbon acids (as identified in paragraph (a) of this section) | 58 to 72 percent. |
| Calcium salt of isobutyric acid | 26 to 34 percent. |
| Calcium hydroxide | 3 percent maximum. |
| Water | 14 percent maximum. |
| Arsenic | 3 parts per million maximum. |
| Heavy metals such as lead | 10 parts per million maximum. |

(c) *Use.* The additive is used or intended for use as a source of energy in dairy cattle feed.

(d) *Labeling.* The label and labeling of the additive in any feed, feed supplement, feed concentrate, feed premix, or liquid feed supplement prepared therefrom shall bear, in addition to other information required by the act, the following:

(1) The name of the additive.

(2) Adequate directions for use, including statements expressing maximum use levels. For ammonium salts of volatile fatty acids, the statements: “Not to exceed 160 grams per head per day thoroughly mixed in dairy cattle feed as a source of energy.” For calcium salts of volatile fatty acids, the statement: “Not to exceed 135 grams per head per day thoroughly mixed in dairy cattle feed as a source of energy.”

[49 FR 45125, Nov. 15, 1984; 50 FR 8606, Mar. 4, 1985, as amended at 70 FR 13100, Mar. 18, 2005]
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                            A-FEM MEDICAL CORPORATION
                   CALCULATIONS OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   FOR THE THREE MONTHS                          FOR THE NINE MONTHS 
                                                    ENDED SEPTEMBER 30                               SEPTEMBER 30,
                                           ------------------------------------          ------------------------------------
                                               1998                    1997                  1998                   1997
                                           -------------          -------------          -------------          -------------
<S>                                        <C>                    <C>                    <C>                    <C>       
Actual weighted average
   shares outstanding                         12,566,644             12,345,115             13,093,071             11,325,314
Dilutive common stock,
   options and warrants using the
   treasury stock method(1)                           --                     --                     --                     --
                                           -------------          -------------          -------------          -------------

Total shares used in per
   share calculations                         12,566,644             12,345,115             13,093,071             11,325,314
                                           -------------          -------------          -------------          -------------

Net loss                                   $  (1,216,215)         $    (746,588)         $  (3,335,707)         $    (335,555)
                                           -------------          -------------          -------------          -------------

Net loss per share                         $       (0.10)         $       (0.06)         $       (0.25)         $       (0.03)
                                           =============          =============          =============          =============
</TABLE>


(1) Warrants and options outstanding are not included where the effect would be
    anti-dilutive.


                                                                          Page 1
**Exhibit
      32(a)**





**Certification
      of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350**


**(Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Republic Bancorp Inc. (the
“Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006
      (the
“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date:
                August 7, 2006
            /s/
                Dana M. CluckeyName:
                Dana M. CluckeyTitle:
                President and Chief Executive
                Officer





The
      foregoing certification (i) accompanies the filing and is being furnished solely
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, (ii) will not be deemed “filed” for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to
      the
      liability of that section, and (iii) will not be deemed to be incorporated
      by
      reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange
      Act,
      except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by
      reference.








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Republic Bancorp Inc. and will be retained
      by Republic Bancorp Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.
FILED

January 13, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

STATE OF TENNESSEE, )

)

Appellee, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9707-CC-00241

)

 vs. ) CROCKETT COUNTY

)

DANNY D. ANDERSON, ) Nos. 1932-34

)

Appellant. )

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion, pursuant to Rule

20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, to affirm the judgment of the trial court by

order rather than formal opinion. The appellant pled guilty on October 9, 1984, to

forgery and passing forged papers, third degree burglary and grand larceny, and grand

larceny and receiving and concealing stolen property. The appellant received an

effective sentence of four years. The appellant did not appeal these convictions. On

April 28, 1997, the appellant filed motions in the trial court to expunge the record of

these convictions. The trial court dismissed the motions without a hearing.

On appeal, the appellant argues that the expungement of these

convictions is required because this Court previously held that these convictions were

improperly used to enhance subsequent convictions when the record on appeal was

inadequate to determine whether counsel was present at the time the appellant entered

these prior guilty pleas. State v. Danny Anderson, No. 1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson,

Aug. 27, 1986). Contrary to the appellant’s argument, however, the Court did not hold

that these prior convictions were invalid. The appellant is apparently concerned that

these prior convictions may improperly be used for future enhancement purposes.

The statutes of this state provide for the expungement of criminal records

only in limited circumstances. See e.g. T.C.A. §§ 40-15-105 (relating to pretrial
2

diversion), 40-32-101 (relating to dismissal or acquittal), and 40-35-313 (relating to

probation). We have failed to find any authority allowing the courts of this state to

expunge the record of a valid criminal conviction. Nor has the appellant cited to any

authority to support his position. See Rule 10, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Having reviewed the record on appeal, including the appellant’s brief, we

find that the trial court properly dismissed the appellant’s motions to expunge the record

of his prior convictions. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the judgment of the

trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal

Appeals.

Enter, this the ___ day of January, 1998.

______________________________

PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE

______________________________

JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE

______________________________

DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
Exhibit 32.1

                     CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE 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  Momentum  BioFuels,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  September 30, 2009 as filed with
the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report") I,
Gregory A. Enders,  President,  Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge and belief:

         (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 results of operations of the
Company.


Dated: November 23, 2009


/s/Gregory A. Enders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gregory A. Enders, ( President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer)


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 09, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, April 09, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19D0380. CHRISTINE WILLIAMS v. CITY OF DOUGLASVILLE et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

18CV01865
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING,

Petitioner

v.

QUINN TAYLOR,

Respondent

. :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 7 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 1st day of March, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<PAGE>   1


                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                      CONSENT OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

                We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this
Registration Statement on Form S-8 of our reports dated May 19, 1999, except for
the last paragraph of Note 8 which is as of June 22, 1999, and the first
paragraph of Note 12 which is as of August 27, 1999, relating to the financial
statements and financial statement schedule of Vixel Corporation, which appear
in Vixel Corporation's Registration Statement on Form S-1.




PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Seattle, Washington
September 28, 1999
### Availability of ground water in the Bear River valley, Wyoming, with a section on the chemical quality of the water

By: Charles Joseph RobinoveDelmar W. BerryJohn G. Connor

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1539V

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
§ 516.1760 Phenobarbital. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each tablet contains 16.2, 32.4, 64.8, or 97.2 milligrams (mg) phenobarbital.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 064950 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Administer phenobarbital as tablets given orally twice a day at the minimum dosage of 2.5 mg per kilogram of body weight (mg/kg) and may be titrated to effect to a maximum dosage of 5 mg/kg. The dosage of phenobarbital tablets should be adjusted based on monitoring the clinical response of the individual patient.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For the control of seizures associated with idiopathic epilepsy in dogs.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian. It is a violation of Federal law to use this product other than as directed in the labeling.
[88 FR 84699, Dec. 6, 2023]
38724.

#### SEWELL *et al.*v. GOULD.

Decided April 4, 1961.

*Freeman D. Mitchell,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Samuel L. Eplan,*contra.

*457Felton, Chief Judge.

Harry Gould sued Mary Louise Sewell and S. J. Sewell to recover penalties because of an alleged breach of a home improvement contract, alleged to have been executed on April 5, 1959. Attached to the petition was an alleged copy of the contract referred to in the petition which shows that it was executed by the defendants and the plaintiff on April 5, 1959. The plaintiff amended the petition by changing the date “April 5, 1959,” as it appeared in the first line of paragraph 2 of the petition, to read “April 4, 1959”; and further amended the petition by changing the date of “April 5, 1959” to “April 4, 1959” wherever the former date appeared in the petition. The date on the copy of the contract attached to the petition was not amended and the date thereon remained April 5, 1959. The defendants made a motion to dismiss the action in the nature of a general demurrer on the ground that the petition showed on the face of the contract, a copy of which was attached to the petition, that the contract was void and unenforceable because it was dated on “a Sunday.” A contract, such as the one sued on, dated on Sunday, is unenforceable. *Code*§§ 26-6905, 38-112; *Browne v. Snipes,*97 Ga. App. 149 (102 S. E. 2d 634). If the amendment had sought to' correct the date of the contract involved by showing that the copy attached to the petition bore an incorrect date because of a typographical error, our conclusion would be different. So long as the date of the contract sued on is April 5, 1959, the only recourse the plaintiff would have to correct a mistake in the date, if there actually was one, would be to reform the contract in equity.

The court erred in overruling the motion to dismiss the action, and all further proceedings were nugatory.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols and Bell, JJ., concur.*