alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered February 3, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01411-CR

ANTHONY PHIFER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F14-75027-V

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On January 14, 2015 we granted the motion of Lori Ordiway to withdraw as appellant’s 

appointed counsel and ordered the trial court to appoint new counsel to represent appellant. We

have received the trial court’s order appointing Daniel Oliphant to represent appellant. We

DIRECT the Clerk to list Daniel Oliphant as appellant’s appointed attorney of record.

The clerk’s and reporter’s records have been filed. Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to

file his brief within FORTY-FIVE DAYS of the date of this order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Daniel 

Oliphant and the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
#### § 594.503 Exclusion from licenses and other authorizations.

The Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control reserves the right to exclude any person, property, or transaction from the operation of any license or from the privileges conferred by any license. The Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control also reserves the right to restrict the applicability of any license to particular persons, property, transactions, or classes thereof. Such actions are binding upon all persons receiving actual or constructive notice of the exclusions or restrictions.
§ 801.204 Critical technologies. The term *critical technologies* means the following: ( a ) Defense articles or defense services included on the United States Munitions List set forth in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR parts 120-130).
( b ) Items included on the Commerce Control List set forth in Supplement No. 1 to part 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR parts 730-774) and controlled: ( 1 ) Pursuant to multilateral regimes, including for reasons relating to national security, chemical and biological weapons proliferation, nuclear nonproliferation, or missile technology; or
( 2 ) For reasons relating to regional stability or surreptitious listening.
( c ) Specially designed and prepared nuclear equipment, parts and components, materials, software, and technology covered by 10 CFR part 810 (relating to assistance to foreign atomic energy activities).
( d ) Nuclear facilities, equipment, and material covered by 10 CFR part 110 (relating to export and import of nuclear equipment and material).
( e ) Select agents and toxins covered by 7 CFR part 331, 9 CFR part 121, or 42 CFR part 73.
( f ) Emerging and foundational technologies controlled pursuant to section 1758 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018.
#### § 35.50 Disposition of unsold effects.

The officer in charge shall dispose of effects offered for sale but remaining unsold in such manner as he considers to be proper, but, if practicable, such effects shall be used for the benefit of other patients of the Service.
§ 401.617 Suspension of collection action. ( a ) *General conditions.* CMS may temporarily suspend collection action on a claim if the following general conditions are met— ( 1 ) *Amount of future recovery.* CMS determines that future collection action may result in a recovery of an amount sufficient to justify periodic review and action on the claim by CMS during the period of suspension.
( 2 ) *Statute of limitations.* CMS determines that— ( i ) The applicable statute of limitations has been tolled, waived or has started running anew; or
( ii ) Future collections may be made by CMS through offset despite an applicable statute of limitations.
( b ) *Basis for suspension.* Bases on which CMS may suspend collection action on a particular claim include the following— ( 1 ) A debtor cannot be located; or
( 2 ) A debtor— ( i ) Owns no substantial equity in property;
( ii ) Is unable to make payment on CMS's claim or is unable to effect a compromise; and
( iii ) Has future prospects that justify retention of the claim.
( c ) *Locating debtors.* CMS will make every reasonable effort to locate missing debtors sufficiently in advance of the bar of an applicable statute of limitations to permit timely filing of a lawsuit to recover the amount of the claim.
( d ) *Effect of suspension on liquidation of security.* CMS will liquidate security, obtained in partial recovery of a claim, despite a decision under this section to suspend collection action against the debtor for the remainder of the claim.
#### David J. OGLE and Debra Ogle, his wife, Appellants, v. AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, a foreign corporation, licensed to do business in Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-1029.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 12, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Ex parte Patricia KILPATRICK. (Re Patricia Kilpatrick v. State of Alabama).

79-477.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 30, 1980.

JONES, Justice.

WRIT DENIED — NO OPINION.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
#### § 576.412 Entities owned by one or more persons whose property and interests in property are blocked.

Persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 576.201 have an interest in all property and interests in property of an entity in which such persons directly or indirectly own, whether individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest. The property and interests in property of such an entity, therefore, are blocked, and such an entity is a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 576.201, regardless of whether the name of the entity is incorporated into OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List).

[87 FR 78478, Dec. 21, 2022]
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Gerald Kent HOOD.

No. 64234.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 9, 1979.

In re Gerald Kent Hood, applying for supervisory writ of certiorari. Parish of Ascension. No. 18,200.

Writ denied.

DIXON, J., would grant the writ.
§ 405.2450 Clinical psychologist, clinical social worker, marriage and family therapist, and mental health counselor services. ( a ) For clinical psychologist, clinical social worker, marriage and family therapist, or mental health counselor professional services to be payable under this subpart, the services must be— ( 1 ) Furnished by an individual who owns, is employed by, or furnishes services under contract to the FQHC;
( 2 ) Of a type that the clinical psychologist, clinical social worker, marriage and family therapist, or mental health counselor who furnishes the services is legally permitted to perform by the State in which the service is furnished;
( 3 ) Performed by a clinical social worker, clinical psychologist, marriage and family therapist, or mental health counselor who is legally authorized to perform such services under State law or the State regulatory mechanism provided by the law of the State in which such services are performed; and
( 4 ) Covered if furnished by a physician.
( b ) If State law prescribes a physician supervision requirement, it is met if the conditions specified in § 491.8(b) of this chapter and any pertinent requirements of State law are satisfied.
( c ) The services of clinical psychologists, clinical social workers, marriage and family therapist, or mental health counselors are not covered if State law or regulations require that the services be performed under a physician's order and no such order was prepared.
[57 FR 24980, June 12, 1992, as amended at 61 FR 14657, Apr. 3, 1996; 88 FR 79524, Nov. 16, 2023]
40885.

#### FICKLING v. CITY COUNCIL OF AUGUSTA et al.

*331Decided September 23, 1964.

*Lanier, Powell, Cooper & Cooper, Jack L. Cooper, Oscar H. Allen,*for plaintiff in error.

*Cumming, Nixon, Eve, Waller & Capers, Samuel C. Waller, Fulcher, Fulcher, Hagler & Harper, Gould B. Hagler,*contra.

Hall, Judge.

The law imposes on owners and occupiers of land the duty not to expose persons to *unreasonable*risks of harm created' by conditions on the land. Prosser on Torts, *3322d Ed., 119, § 30; 2 Harper & James, The Law of Torts 1453, § 27.5; Restatement, Torts 925, § 339, Comment on Clause (d). Many decisions upon facts similar to those stated in this petition have held that owners and occupiers of land have no duty to take affirmative action to protect persons whom they do not invite on the land from the hazards of a pond. The reasoning of these decisions, some of which are cited infra, is that the maintenance of a pond does not expose persons not invited on the land to an *unreasonable*risk of harm; hence the owner or occupier does not have a duty to protect persons—even small children—not invited on the land, from hazards that may exist from the presence of a pond of water.

The attractive nuisance doctrine does not apply to ponds or other water hazards. *McCall v. McCallie,*48 Ga. App. 99 (171 SE 843); *Savannah F. & W. R. Co. v. Beavers,*113 Ga. 398 (39 SE 82, 54 LRA 313); *St. Clair v. City of Macon,*43 Ga. App. 598 (159 SE 758); *Crawford v. Pollard,*55 Ga. App. 702 (191 SE 162). This is true regardless of the location of the pond or water hazard with a traveled way or its general accessibility. *McCall v. McCallie,*48 Ga. App. 99, supra; *Crawford v. Pollard,*55 Ga. App. 702, supra. The artificial character of the water hazard has no bearing on liability or nonliability. *McCall v. McCallie,*48 Ga. App. 99, supra. A deep hole or ledge under water imposes no liability upon the landowner for the drowning of a child either under the attractive nuisance doctrine or on the theory of actual negligence. *McCall v. McCallie,*48 Ga. App. 99, supra. Neither does the fact that the water in which the child drowned was muddy. *Savannah, F. & W. R. Co. v. Beavers,*113 Ga. 398, supra. Even the fact that children are accustomed to play at the place of danger with knowledge of the owner gives rise to no implied invitation. *St. Clair v. City of Macon,*43 Ga. App. 598, supra; *McCall v. McCallie,*48 Ga. App. 99, supra; *Crawford v. Pollard,*55 Ga. App. 702, supra.

The facts of this petition do not show a duty of care owed by the defendants to the plaintiff’s decedent and therefore do not state a cause of action for negligence. The trial court did not err in sustaining the defendants’ general demurrers.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Bussell, J., concur.*
MO, 0(p-l5-600H3-CV FILED IW

The Court of Appeals

Sixth District

rtFotiVEDiN XN THE n

^sAW"1" COURT of APPEALS utilises

U-c 092015 S\ XTH A?PE LATE DV6TWCT o F Texarkana, Texas

TEXAS. TEXARKANA, TEXAS Debra K. Autrey, Clerk

Te::-:rkana, Texas i - Debrs Anfw Higrk .

IN THE XNTEfcEST OF

OTNU.P. AND M,b.A.P,CV\\LDREt4

M\CvUEL Don Po&oe,

APPELLANT

CKSSANDRA. BWEfcSCftC

ANt)

THE OFFICE oFTtXE ATTORN Q€NeR/\U

APPELLEES

FR6M APPEAL Nb. OG>-lS"-OOo43-dV

TRIAL C.OORT NO, PZ0030^<4G-2-

UTV\ t)\STR\CT COURT TOHM^OM CouNTV,

T9XA<>

hAtm&N TO FXTEND T^FAE To ~F\L^ NOTiOH

FoR REBEAR\HGc

COMCSNOW, M\CU/VEL OoM PO&U6, AppelWo V, under

TE*. K. APP. P. H^,<g arvi to.S* 0>\ aste, -Ae floor* +o ftknd

4irA€ 4o -ftW. <x Mo-WfN R>o ReWrw^. X<n SurpporvY o£ -V-WI 5

mo^oA +^e AppeUaM" sWi 4V. Cow*: 4-Vyl -ftjlW^S,

I

TY>e. de<\dW -&c -ftUY^ <x NUAvon For S^e^r^

- PNiE I -
IS due. T\\vr$A<k\) , Dec. \o, zovs".

rp:

Appe\\<xn+ requests cka e^-Ven-sv'bn ©£ 30 d^5 4o

-Pile ex TAoAioA Poo feetacunA^, majesty *+V\e doe date fer -ftUhj

Sa\<J cr>e>-KbA TAfcluA&y <*, 'Zfc|5%

in:

Appelant |5 KowkJ ih 4V\e TUunSte/ Unrt o-f T0C3" i^

PolK County, Texas, Appellant te l»Wit«J +00, One 2 Woor S^si'oa

<x Ao^j , s* days a tueefc v^ tW ftJoosfy Lcxu) Lil&oc^-

3K

Appellant Ka^ ancMver cAeadLUVve or\ Dec. \<\ Zo\s- \n

4a€ TersVV\ Court a* Appeals, UJgxjd ,Te*c*s -+0 -Gl< «. fet\&n

/Appellant requests 4V\n*6 €rtttr»su>A doe Ho +Wt l\W^«A

access +d lauj boo^s ar»d re6eaocK crvxterWl 4© adequacy

cevUu) 4-W cases aiW \n +\\e $\*U\ Court o£ Appeals OpvoA^n,

+6 prepare sUe^eo^ -&r *VHe Mvtio* for feWc^ , and Vhe

cWdluve A-to, Appellant W> va 4W T«a-U\ Court o* AppealsWUSRefbeF, App^AWt pc^/s 4-Wii Court uu»l\ <£t>a*t +Vtf

fAerVio* T£> £*Wl T^tm> To Fr\e ^ Mo*Uo<\ *br K^VWio^ +<> Tm4

-Pa^e 7r

Re^pecUoUy,

N^cha^l Po§ue, poo 3e

T<>Xas Oepwttvwt- C>CCrvivurwaJ Tu^tvc^-

Lwi%tf+on,Ty 7735"!
CERTIFICATE OF SERxJ\CC

X, rAicttAfu Pos^e, AppelWt, do hen^ Cert^sj 4Wt <x troe

cxr\d C6rrec+ cofv^ o£- tVve alocfv/e a,nd 4or«goi<\a Motion "TO Extend

Time -Vo t\k rAotioA for ReKearinc*, nc^- beerv -6>rujaodjed bv/ U,5.

Wai^pos-fa^e paid ,4Wt Cks$/ t& Attorney o-P Kea>rd/MicVd A, Mon^-z.

\Moo ti»ll<Lrest Or. ArU^DA/TX TUOIO, atvA 4o Cassanc^ BouJecse^ (X^

2c>z R«s-v ~rK*M St. CWJborne,TX 76D3l,andl+o Raodc K, bterndl ^^d

OeterreaA 5, GxwwUe ot -VVe Attorney fcevetttUr 6#ic* at &0- BOX

I"2OH fAC OSfl-l, Au6"twvTX 7*711-2017, «.md +° Toaa B. Wocley,

A55i5-Ua+ AUorney (Wnd, P.O. -BOX \ZOfl (Y\C 03S"I , Av6\r\<\t7t "7*711

oa thJi +Y\e 2nd d^ o-? bee, 2o»5~.

Appellant, pro ^e

X, MkWJ Po^, TbtT *fc 1932517/ bem^ vAaxraef^-t^d in

•+Ve Polo^ky OnH: o£ +W. THX/b JtepartmeftV ot Crwwwtl "3\Mice,

in ft>lk &u«xty ,TejlAS, \fcnf\J Good dkdace under +l\e pet\e|ty„ of

pocAor^ 4Wxt +V\e ~6>cej3f>i'<v\ statements oice -troe. aM Correct,

Executed on 4-Ws +h«: 2nd cUy <?£ Oeo 20IS"

-P<^e3-

M\ckic/ Pogue

Tt>tT4t l<??2^7
# EXHIBIT 32.2

# CERTIFICATION

I, Gregory A. Wells, Chief Financial Officer of NTS
Capital Corporation, the general partner of NTS-Properties Associates, the general partner
of NTS-Properties III (the Partnership), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

| | 1. | The
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Partnership for the annual period ended
          December 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements
          of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material           respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 26, 2004

/s/ Gregory A. Wells

---

Chief Financial Officer of NTS Capital
Corporation,
General Partner of NTS-Properties Associates,
General Partner of NTS-Properties III

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and will be
retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Editorial Note on Part 409
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 409 appear at 62 FR 46037, Aug. 29, 1997.

§ 409.35 Criteria for “practical matter”. ( a ) *General considerations.* In making a “practical matter” determination, as required by § 409.31(b)(3), consideration must be given to the patient's condition and to the availability and feasibility of using more economical alternative facilities and services. However, in making that determination, the availability of Medicare payment for those services may not be a factor. For example, if a beneficiary can obtain daily physical therapy services on an outpatient basis, the unavailability of Medicare payment for those alternative services due to the beneficiary's non-enrollment in Part B may not be a basis for finding that the needed care can only be provided in a SNF.
( b ) *Examples of circumstances that meet practical matter criteria* — ( 1 ) *Beneficiary's condition.* Inpatient care would be required “as a practical matter” if transporting the beneficiary to and from the nearest facility that furnishes the required daily skilled services would be an excessive physical hardship.
( 2 ) *Economy and efficiency.* Even if the beneficiary's condition does not preclude transportation, inpatient care might be more efficient and less costly if, for instance, the only alternative is daily transportation by ambulance.
[48 FR 12541, Mar. 25, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 33033, Aug. 16, 1985; 85 FR 47632, Aug. 5, 2020]
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2
                                  ------------

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Robert Y. Lee, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of Hydromer, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Hydromer, Inc.


Date: September 15, 2005                By: /s/ Robert Y. Lee
                                            -----------------
                                        Robert Y. Lee
                                        Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
§ 405.929 Post-payment review. ( a ) A contractor may select a claim(s) for post-payment review, which is conducted under the reopening authority in § 405.980.
( b ) In conducting a post-payment review, a contractor may issue an additional documentation request to a provider or supplier. ( 1 ) A provider or supplier will be provided 45 calendar days to submit additional documentation in response to a contractor's request, except as stated in paragraph (b)(2) and (c) of this section.
( 2 ) A contractor may accept documentation received after 45 calendar days for good cause. Good cause means situations such as natural disasters, interruptions in business practices, or other extenuating circumstances that the contractor deems good cause in accepting the documentation.
( c ) A provider or supplier will be provided 30 calendar days to submit additional documentation in response to a UPIC's request for additional documentation. A UPIC may accept documentation received after 30 calendar days for good cause. Good cause means situations such as natural disasters, interruptions in business practices, or other extenuating circumstances that the UPIC deems good cause in accepting the documentation.
( d ) The outcome of a contractor's review will result in either no change to the initial determination or a revised determination under § 405.984.
[86 FR 65660, Nov. 19, 2021]
#### § 137.160 Are Self-Governance Tribes required to address potential conflicts of interest?

Yes, self-Governance Tribes participating in self-governance under Title V must ensure that internal measures are in place to address conflicts of interest in the administration of self-governance PSFAs.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 46229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21537]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated April 17, 2009, and published in the Federal 
Register on April 29, 2009 (74 FR 19594), Meridian Medical 
Technologies, 2555 Hermelin Drive, St. Louis, Missouri 63144, made 
application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to 
be registered as an importer of Morphine (9300), a basic class of 
controlled substance listed in schedule II.
    The company plans to import products for research experimentation 
or clinical use and analytical testing.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a), and determined that the 
registration of Meridian Medical Technologies to import the basic class 
of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest, and 
with United States obligations under international treaties, 
conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA 
has investigated Meridian Medical Technologies to ensure that the 
company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The 
investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's 
physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance 
with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and 
history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and Sec.  958(a), and 
in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted 
registration as an importer of the basic class of controlled substance 
listed.

    Dated: August 21, 2009.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-21537 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
# C_2005243EN.01000901.xml

| 1.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/9

---

Action brought on 26 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the European Parliament and the Council

(Case C-299/05)

(2005/C 243/13)

Language of the case: French

An action against the European Parliament and the Council was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Denis Martin and Marie-José Jonczy, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul the provisions of Annex I, point 2, of Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of 13 April 2005 amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) relating to headings W. Finland (b), X. Sweden (c) and Y. United Kingdom (d), (e) and (f); |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul the provisions of Annex I, point 2, of Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of 13 April 2005 amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) relating to headings W. Finland (b), X. Sweden (c) and Y. United Kingdom (d), (e) and (f);

1

| 2. | order the defendants to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the Commission, by adopting Regulation No 647/05, the legislature accepted the criteria previously laid down by the Court of Justice for the coordination of special and non-contributory benefits. However, the legislature failed to draw all the consequences of those criteria when it included in the list of permitted benefits set out in Annex IIa of Regulation No 1408/71 those under the headings W. Finland (b), X. Sweden (c) and Y. United Kingdom (d), (e) and (f), which, in the Commission's view, do not satisfy the criteria of ‘special’ benefits within the meaning of Article 4(2a) of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ L 117, 04.05.2005, p. 1

1

---