alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 27, 2014

No. 04-14-00434-CV

IN RE Thomas D. BRACEY

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On June 20, 2014, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court has considered 

relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, 

the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). The court’s opinion 

will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on June 27th, 2014.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of June, 2014.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2014CI02996, styled Thomas D. Bracey v. Marc Y. Zadik Revocable Trust 

and Marc Y. Zadik, Individually, pending in the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable 

Michael E. Mery presiding.
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Julian A. Chetcuti

King, C. J., Alcorn, House, Thim and Ryan, Js.

Argued October 9

decided October 10, 1969

*618
      *David M. McHugh,*assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

*Arlen D. Nickowitz,*assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, was *Joseph T. Gormley,Jr.,*state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

Per Curiam.

The jury’s verdict was amply supported by the evidence.

There is no error.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**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 theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ebix, Inc. (the “Company”) for the periodended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard J. Baum, Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1. The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| By:                      | /s/ Richard  J. Baum |   |
|--------------------------|----------------------|--------|
|                     |                 |
| Name:                    | Richard J.  Baum     |   |
|                     |                 |
| Chief  Financial Officer |                 |
|                     |                 |
| May 12, 2005             |                 |
|                          |                      |        |  |

 

----
**Exhibit31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Robin Raina, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Ebix, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
| Date:  August 10, 2007 |   | /s/ Robin Raina          |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|                             |   | Robin Raina              |   |
|                             |   | Chief Executive  Officer |   |

 

 

----
Editorial Note on Part 73
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 73 appear at 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001.

§ 73.2110 Bismuth citrate. ( a ) *Identity.* The color additive bismuth citrate is the synthetically prepared crystalline salt of bismuth and citric acid, consisting principally of BiC6H5O7.
( b ) *Specifications.* The color additive bismuth citrate shall conform to the following specifications and shall be free from impurities other than those named to the extent that those impurities may be avoided by good manufacturing practice: Bismuth citrate, not less than 97 percent. Mercury (as Hg), not more than 1 part per million. Arsenic (as As), not more than 3 parts per million. Lead (as Pb), not more than 20 parts per million. Volatile matter, not more than 1 percent.
( c ) *Uses and restrictions.* The color additive bismuth citrate may be safely used in cosmetics intended for coloring hair on the scalp, subject to the following restrictions: ( 1 ) The amount of bismuth citrate in the cosmetic shall not be in excess of 2.0 percent (w/v).
( 2 ) The cosmetic may not be used for coloring eyelashes, eyebrows, or hair on parts of the body other than the scalp.
( d ) *Labeling.* ( 1 ) The label of the color additive bismuth citrate shall bear, in addition to any information required by law, labeling in accordance with the provisions of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( 2 ) The label of a cosmetic containing the color additive bismuth citrate shall bear, in addition to other information required by law, the following statement, conspicuously displayed thereon: Keep this product out of children's reach. Do not use on cut or abraded scalp. Do not use to color eyelashes, eyebrows, or hair on parts of the body other than the scalp. Wash hands thoroughly after each use.
( e ) *Exemption from certification.* Certification of this color additive for the prescribed use is not necessary for the protection of the public health, and, therefore, batches thereof are exempt from certification requirements of section 721(c) of the act.
[43 FR 44831, Sept. 29, 1978, as amended at 75 FR 14493, Mar. 26, 2010]
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. AL F ON Z O R OJ AS - T E NA , D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 10- 30291 D. C. No . 4 : 0 9 - c r - 0 0 1 5 4 - BL W ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

I daho B . L y nn W i nm i l l , C hi e f Judge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r9, 2012 ** B e f o r e : R A W L I N S O N , M U R G U I A , an dW A T F O R D , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . A lf o n z o R o ja s - T e n aap p e a ls f

r o m h is g u ilty - p le ac o n v ic tio n an d7 0 - m o n th se nt ence for c on spi ra cyt o d i stribu t e 50 g ram s or m ore of a ctual m etham ph et am i ne, i n vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) ( 1) and 846. P ur s uantt o A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 

# FI LED OC T 16 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 30291 2 386 U . S . 738 ( 1967) , R oj a s - T e na ’ s c ouns e l ha s f i l e d abr i e f

s t a t i ng the r e ar e no gr ounds f

orr e l i e f , a l ong w i th am ot i on t o w i thdr aw a s c ouns e l of r e c or d. W e ha ve p ro v i d edR o

j as-T en a th e o p p o rtu n i ty t o fi l e a p ro se sup p l em en t al b ri ef. N o p ro se s uppl e m e nt a l br i e f

orans w e r i ng br i e f

ha s be e n f

i l e d. O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o ar g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. W e d is m is s in lig h t o f

th e v a lidap p e a l w a iv e r . Se e U ni te d States v . W

at s on , 582 F . 3d 97 4, 98 8 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). C o u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED . D I SM I SSED .
1

This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2007-CR-3647 and 2008-CR-5359, styled The State of Texas v. Edler

Gilstrap, in the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, the Honorable Bert Richardson presiding.

iii i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00527-CR

IN RE Edler GILSTRAP

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 6, 2008

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On July 22, 2008, relator Edler Gilstrap filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to

compel the trial court to rule on his pro se Motion for Speedy Trial or to dismiss with prejudice the

underlying criminal case. We conclude trial counsel is also relator’s counsel for an original

proceeding on the issue presented. Relator is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Patrick v.

State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The absence of a right to hybrid representation

means relator’s pro se petition will be treated as presenting nothing for this court’s review. See id.;

see also Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig.

proceeding). Accordingly, relator’s petition is denied.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ISMAEL CESAR,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-233 

[June 4, 2020]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Bernard Bober, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 03-004449CF10A.

Ismael Cesar, Arcadia, pro se. 

No appearance required for appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, C.J., DAMOORGIAN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
### 5 E

- 1

APPENDIX 5E : INPUTS TO PM 2.5 

### COBENEFIT MODELING Overview This section presents inputs used in generating PM 2.5 

### cobenefits estimates including (a) benefit

- per - ton estimates for each sector (dimensioned by mortality study and simulation year) 1 

### (Table 5E

- 1) , and (b) NOx emissions reduction s by sector for both the 2025 and post

- 2025 scenarios (Table 5E

- 2). 2 

### For additional detail on the approach used to generate PM 2.5 

### cobenefits estimates and the role played by these two types of inputs, see Chapter 5, S ection 5.4.4.

1 Benefit

- per - ton estimates were generated for each of the long

- term exposure
- related mortality studies used in generating core benefits estimates for this RIA including K rewski et al., 2009 and Lepeule et al., 2012 (see Appendix 5D, section 5D.1). Estimates were available for 2025 and 2030, with those being used to model cobenefits for the 2025 scenario and post

- 2025 scenario, respectively. 2 Sector

- level NOx reductions ( for each alternative standard level) were generated using methods described in Chapter 4, section 4.2 and 4.3. As noted in section 5.4.4, NOx emissions reductions associated with alternative standard levels considered for this NAAQS review involved seven o f the 17 sectors for which we had benefit

per - ton values and consequently, the cobenefits PM 2.5 estimates are based on simulated benefits for those seven sectors.

### 5 E

- 2

Table 5E - 1 . Summary of Effect E stimates from Associated Sectors with Change in Long - Term Exposure to PM 2.5 

### in Recent

Cohort Studies in North America a

a B enefit

- per - ton estimates reflect application of the 20

- year segmented lag used in the core analysis (see section 5.6.4.1) together with either a 3% or 7% social discount rate as noted in the table. In addit ion, separate sets of benefit

- per - ton estimates were generate for 2025 and 2030, reflecting application of appropriate projected demographic and baseline incidence data (see section 5.4.4 for additional detail). b B enefit

- per - ton estimates for the non

- spec ified source category were generated as a weighted average of values for the 17 source categories, with weighting based on sector

- specific NOx emissions for 2005 obtained from Fann et al., 2012
.

### 5 E

- 3

Table 5E - 2. Sector - S pecific NOx Emissions Reductions for E ach Alternative Standard Level a

a All values are tons of NOx reductions (75ppb vs alternative standard). Results are presented both for “CA NO x ” (emissions in CA only

– used in post

- 2025 scenario PM 2.5 cobenefits modeling) and “nonCA NOx” (emission s reductions outside of CA

– used in 2025 scenario PM 2.5 cobenefits modeling).
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7649 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for the detention, 

inadmissibility, and removal of aliens who commit sexual assault. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 13, 2024 

Mr. BUCHANAN (for himself, Mr. ISSA, and Mr. DONALDS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide 

for the detention, inadmissibility, and removal of aliens 

who commit sexual assault. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting our Com5 munities from Sexual Predators Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DETENTION OF CERTAIN ALIENS WHO COMMIT SEX7 UAL ASSAULT. 

8 Section 236(c)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality 

9 Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(c)(1)) is amended— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7649 IH

1 (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘, or’’ and 

2 inserting a comma; 

3 (2) in subparagraph (D), by adding ‘‘or’’ at the 

4 end; and 

5 (3) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(E)(i) is inadmissible under section 

8 212(a)(6)(A) or (C) or under section 212(a)(7); 

9 and 

10 ‘‘(ii) is charged with, arrested for, con11 victed of, admits having committed, or admits 

12 committing acts which constitute the essential 

13 elements of, any offense involving sexual assault 

14 (as such term is defined in section 

15 214(d)(3)(A)),’’. 

16 SEC. 3. INADMISSILIBITY AND DEPORTABILITY RELATED 

17 TO SEXUAL ASSAULT. 

18 (a) INADMISSIBILITY.— Section 212(a)(2) of the Im19 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)) is 

20 amended by adding at the end the following: 

21 ‘‘(J) SEXUAL ASSAULT.—Any alien who 

22 has been convicted of, who admits having com23 mitted, or who admits committing acts which 

24 constitute the essential elements of, any offense 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7649 IH

1 involving sexual assault (as such term is defined 

2 in section 214(d)(3)(A)), is inadmissible.’’. 

3 (b) DEPORTABILITY.—Section 237(a)(2) of the Im4 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)) is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(G) SEXUAL ASSAULT.—Any alien who 

7 has been convicted of, who admits having com8 mitted, or who admits committing acts which 

9 constitute the essential elements of, any offense 

10 involving sexual assault (as such term is defined 

11 in section 214(d)(3)(A)), is deportable.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### § 807.97 Misbranding by reference to premarket notification.

Submission of a premarket notification in accordance with this subpart, and a subsequent determination by the Commissioner that the device intended for introduction into commercial distribution is substantially equivalent to a device in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or is substantially equivalent to a device introduced into commercial distribution after May 28, 1976, that has subsequently been reclassified into class I or II, does not in any way denote official approval of the device. Any representation that creates an impression of official approval of a device because of complying with the premarket notification regulations is misleading and constitutes misbranding.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1704-1705]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-432]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 27

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0891]
RIN 1625-AB40

Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act--2009 
Implementation

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is correcting a final rule that appeared in 
the Federal Register of December 23, 2009 (74 FR 68150). The document 
concerned the adjustment of fines and other civil monetary penalties.

DATES: Effective January 13, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Heather Young, CG-5232, Coast 
Guard; telephone 202-372-1022.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. E9-30493 appearing on page 68150 
in the second column under DATES, correct ``This final rule is 
effective 30 days after December 23, 2009'' to read ``This final rule 
is effective January 22, 2010''.

[[Page 1705]]

    Dated: January 6, 2010.
Mark W. Skolnicki,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Chief, Office of Regulations and 
Administrative Law.
[FR Doc. 2010-432 Filed 1-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
```
38888.

#### KING SALES COMPANY, INC. v. BUSTER *et al.*

Nichols, Judge.

1. The defendant, plaintiff in error, has only argued the general demurrer filed to the petition of the plaintiffs, the defendants in error. Accordingly, no question for decision is presented by special demurrers, or by the motion to require the plaintiffs to redraft their petition.

2. The allegations of the petition in this case are very similar to the allegations of the petition dealt with in the second division of the opinion in the case of *King Sales Co. v. McKey,*104 Ga. App. 63 (121 SE2d 48), except that in the case sub judice it was alleged: “Immediately upon the plaintiffs discovering that they had been deceived by the false representations as to cancer and ulcers, as hereinbefore alleged, the plaintiffs offered to return the stainless steel cook ware, but the defendants refused to accept the same, with the statement that even if it were returned, they would still have to pay for it.” Under the decision in the second division of *King Sales Co. v. McKey,*104 Ga. App. 63, 68, supra, the judgment overruling the defendant’s general demurrer was not error.

*308Decided September 5, 1961.

*Bruce B. Edwards,*for plaintiff in error.

*Bulloch, Yancey •& Mitchell, Kyle Yancey,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carlisle, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*
§ 556.640 Sulfadimethoxine. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) *Tolerances.* The tolerances for sulfadimethoxine are: ( 1 ) *Catfish and salmonids.* Edible tissues: 0.1 ppm.
( 2 ) *Cattle.* ( i ) Edible tissues (excluding milk): 0.1 ppm.
( ii ) Milk: 0.01 ppm.
( 3 ) *Chickens, turkeys, ducks, and chukar partridges.* Edible tissues (excluding eggs): 0.1 ppm.
( c ) *Related conditions of use.* See §§ 520.2220a, 520.2220d, 520.2220e, 522.2220, and 558.575 of this chapter.
# C_2015073EN.01003601.xml

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/36

---

Order of the General Court of 7 January 2015 — Freitas v Parliament and Council

(Case T-185/14) (1)

(Action for annulment - Directive 2013/55/EU - Directive 2005/36/EC - Recognition of professional qualifications - Exclusion of notaries appointed by official act of the public authorities from the scope of application of Directive 2005/36 - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)

(2015/C 073/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: José Freitas (Porto, Portugal) (represented by: J.-P. Hordies, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and A. Tamás, Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Mahnič Bruni and M. Moore, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2013/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 amending Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (‘the IMI Regulation’) (OJ L 354, p. 132).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications of the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the European Commission, the Ordem dos Notários (Portuguese notarial professional body) and of the Conseil national des barreaux (French National Bar Council) to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications of the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the European Commission, the Ordem dos Notários (Portuguese notarial professional body) and of the Conseil national des barreaux (French National Bar Council) to intervene.

| 3. | Mr Freitas shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Freitas shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.

---