alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

CORRECTED JUDGMENT RENDERED

AUGUST 28, 2013

NO. 03-10-00710-CV

The University of Texas - Pan American and The University of Texas System, Appellants

v.

Howard Miller, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND DISMISSED IN PART --

OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the trial court’s judgment

EXCEPT for the portion of the trial court’s denial of the plea to the jurisdiction as to Miller’s 

hostile work environment claim: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that 

the portion of the trial court’s denial of the plea to the jurisdiction as to Miller’s hostile work 

environment claim is reversed, and judgment is rendered dismissing that claim for lack of 

jurisdiction. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects. It is FURTHER ordered 

that the parties each bear one-half the costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the 

court below; and that this decision be certified below for observance.
HomeReports – U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy...Public Diplomacy in the Pacific Century (1993)

# 									Public Diplomacy in the Pacific Century (1993)							

ACPD Special Report

July 1, 1993

Public Diplomacy in the Pacific Century (1993)

Tags

Advisory CommitteePublic DiplomacyU.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

Back to Top
Search For Partners  

----

  June 9, 1999
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### §§ 11.61-11.99 [Reserved]
§ 235.1 District court referrals. ( a ) *General.* This section governs circumstances where a district court has referred a proceeding to the Board under 17 U.S.C. 1509(b) and 28 U.S.C. 651, as well as the Copyright Claims Board's (Board's) authority to suspend or amend certain regulations under this chapter after such a referral.
( b ) *Amending or suspending procedural rules.* ( 1 ) When a district court has referred a proceeding to the Board, the Board may suspend or amend rules governing its proceedings in the interests of justice, fairness, and efficiency, except as identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
( 2 ) The Board may not suspend or amend the rules governing the following parts and sections: 37 CFR parts 227 through 232 and 234, 37 CFR 220.1 through 220.4, 37 CFR 222.1, 37 CFR 223.3, or 37 CFR 224.2.
( c ) *Requirement to contact the Board.* When a district court has referred a proceeding to the Board, the parties to that case should email the Board (at *asktheboard@ccb.gov*) as soon as possible for further instructions. The Board will issue the parties instructions on how to continue proceedings before the Board, including how to open a docket in eCCB without following the standard process to file a claim and pay a fee.
( d ) *Fees.* When a district court has referred a proceeding to the Board, a claimant is not required to pay the Board a fee to initiate a claim under 37 CFR 201.3(g)(1).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>  5
       
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                          NOV-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                                       2,414,667
<SECURITIES>                                                   996,159
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  567,238
<ALLOWANCES>                                                    82,754
<INVENTORY>                                                  1,208,471
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             5,232,160
<PP&E>                                                       2,146,505
<DEPRECIATION>                                               1,750,701
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               6,294,140
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        1,139,138
<BONDS>                                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0
<PREFERRED>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                         9,469
<OTHER-SE>                                                   6,284,671
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 6,294,140
<SALES>                                                      2,729,155
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             2,843,862
<CGS>                                                        1,085,306
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                3,494,334
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                11,286
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              27,956
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             (1,775,020)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      0
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                (1,775,020)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                    (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    (0.19)
        


</TABLE>
#### §§ 401.7-401.8 [Reserved]
§ 93.517 The hearing. ( a ) The ALJ will conduct an in-person hearing to decide if the respondent committed research misconduct and if the HHS administrative actions, including any debarment or suspension actions, are appropriate.
( b ) The ALJ provides an independent *de novo* review of the ORI findings of research misconduct and the proposed HHS administrative actions. The ALJ does not review the institution's procedures or misconduct findings or ORI's research misconduct proceedings.
( c ) A hearing under this subpart is not limited to specific findings and evidence set forth in the charge letter or the respondent's request for hearing. Additional evidence and information may be offered by either party during its case-in-chief unless the offered evidence is— ( 1 ) Privileged, including but not limited to those protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney-work product doctrine, or Federal law or regulation.
( 2 ) Otherwise inadmissible under §§ 93.515 or 93.519.
( 3 ) Not offered within the times or terms of §§ 93.512 and 93.513.
( d ) ORI proceeds first in its presentation of evidence at the hearing.
( e ) After both parties have presented their cases-in-chief, the parties may offer rebuttal evidence even if not exchanged earlier under §§ 93.512 and 93.513.
( f ) Except as provided in § 93.518(c), the parties may appear at the hearing in person or by an attorney of record in the proceeding.
( g ) The hearing must be open to the public, unless the ALJ orders otherwise for good cause shown. However, even if the hearing is closed to the public, the ALJ may not exclude a party or party representative, persons whose presence a party shows to be essential to the presentation of its case, or expert witnesses.
§ 1.487 Disclosure of information related to infection with the human immunodeficiency virus to the spouse or sexual partner of the patient. ( a ) Subject to paragraph (b) of this section, a physician or a professional counselor may disclose information or records indicating that a patient is infected with the HIV if the disclosure is made to the spouse of the patient, or to an individual whom the patient has, during the process of professional counseling or of testing to determine whether the patient is infected with such virus, identified as being a sexual partner of such patient.
( b ) A disclosure under this section may be made only if the physician or counselor, after making reasonable efforts to counsel and encourage the patient to provide the information to the spouse or sexual partner, reasonably believes that the patient will not provide the information to the spouse or sexual partner and that the disclosure is necessary to protect the health of the spouse or sexual partner.
( c ) A disclosure under this section may be made by a physician or counselor other than the physician or counselor referred to in paragraph (b) of this section if such physician or counselor is unavailable by reason of extended absence or termination of employment to make the disclosure.
[60 FR 63929, Dec. 13, 1995, as amended at 85 FR 64043, Oct. 9, 2020]
Exhibit 99.3

                            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 the Quarterly Report of Tofutti Brands Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 29, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Mintz, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

        (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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/David Mintz*
---------------
David Mintz
Chief Executive Officer
May 13, 2003


* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
EXHIBIT 31.1








RULE 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) CERTIFICATION (SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION)











I, Andrew J. McMonigle, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2020-4 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");





2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;





3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and





5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.








Date: May 26, 2023








/s/ Andrew J. McMonigle


Name: Andrew J. McMonigle


Title: Vice President and Treasurer


(Senior officer in charge of securitization)


Company: CarMax Auto Funding LLC


as Depositor on behalf of CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2020-4
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 368/2005

of 3 March 2005         

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 1757/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 25 February to 3 March 2005 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 1757/2004.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 4 March 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 3 March 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78.

(2)OJ L 313, 12.10.2004, p. 10.

(3)OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last modified by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

----
June 11, 2012
To Whom It May Concern, AndrewW. Bonney Vice President of Planning 66o Barnstable Rd., Hyannis, MA02601 Direct: 508 862-9719 Fax: 508 862
-9791

Email: andrew.bonney@capeair.com

Cape Air hereby supports the proposal ofa consortium consisting ofBlock Island and Culebraadvocates for a Small Community Air Service Development Grant for new air service that will connect both ofthese outstanding destinations with the national air transportation system. Cape Airnow serves 40 airports

. with niche airline service, providing connections to the national air transportation system through our global distribution system participation, interline agreements, codeshares and reliable service. Both Block Island and Culebra appear highly suited to Cape Air's type ofservice, but heretofore we have not had a suitable type ofaircraft to serve their short runways. However, Cape Air is now poised to acquire short-field capable aircraft, which would allow service to Block Island and Culebra

. Therefore, we ardently support the consortium's proposal for support ofnew connectable service to Block Island and Culebra. Sincerely,

Andrew W. Bonney
- Office Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Remarks and Releases
- Key Topics
- Reports
- Contact Us
- Public Meetings

HomeU.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy...Reports – U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

# 						Reports – U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy					

							The President, Secretary of State, the Congress, and the American public merit informed, serious, and timely appraisals and recommendations of government activities that intend to understand, inform, and influence global audiences. The ACPD will provide frequent and in-depth information to better serve and empower those that formulate, authorize, fund, and engage in these activities.						

133 items
Clear All Filters

## View collection by:

Select a Year202320222021202020192018201720162015201420132011201020082005200420032002200019981996199519931992199119901989198819871986198519831982198019781977197619751974197319711970196919681967196619651964196319621961196019591958195719561955195419531952195119501949

Select a MonthJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

Select a Release TypeACPD Annual ReportACPD Special Report

Select a Bureau/OfficeU.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

          -    ACPD Special Report  		Reflections on the 75th Anniversary of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy	  December 19, 2023 
          -    ACPD Annual Report  		2023 Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting	  December 19, 2023 
          -    ACPD Special Report  		Public Diplomacy and DEIA Promotion: Telling America’s Story to the World (2023)	  November 21, 2023 
          -    ACPD Annual Report  		2022 Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting	  December 9, 2022 
          -    ACPD Special Report  		Exploring U.S. Public Diplomacy’s Domestic Dimensions: Purviews, Publics, and Policies (2022)	  April 25, 2022 
          -    ACPD Annual Report  		2021 Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting	  February 20, 2022 
          -    ACPD Special Report  		Putting Policy & Audience First: A Public Diplomacy Paradigm Shift (2021)	  December 30, 2021 
          -    ACPD Annual Report  		2020 Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting	  February 5, 2021 
          -    ACPD Special Report  		Public Diplomacy and the New “Old” War: Countering State-Sponsored Disinformation (2020)	  September 25, 2020 
          -    ACPD Special Report  		Teaching Public Diplomacy and the Information Instruments of Power in a Complex Information Environment (2020)	  August 1, 2020 

123…14next page

Back to Top
41639.

#### CAIN v. THE STATE.

Argued November 2, 1965

Decided November 12, 1965.

*647
      *Lanier Randall,*for appellant.

*Wright Lipjord, Solicitor General,*for appellee.

Ebhrhardt, Judge.

The court erred in refusing to permit the defendant to testify as to his intention to return the automobile. Intent,at the time of taking permanently to deprive the owner of the property is an essential element of the crime for which the defendant was being tried. *Austin v. State,*65 Ga. App. 733 (1) (16 SE2d 497). The defendant was sworn and testified as a witness in his own. behalf. In so doing testimony as to what his intention had been was not opinion evidence, but proof of a substantive fact. *Alexander v. State,*118 Ga. 26 (44 SE 851).

The evidence strongly indicates that the defendant intended to return Dr. Yeitia’s automobile to the place from which it had been taken, and that there was no intent permanently to deprive the owner of it. But, as was held in *Johnson v. State,*9 Ga. App. 409 (3) (71 SE 507), though “[t]he evidence as to the existence of criminal intent is exceedingly weak and unsatisfactory, . . . the intent with which an act is done being peculiarly a question of fact for determination by the jury, this court does not feel authorized to set aside the verdict on that ground.” Accord: *Towler v. State,*24 Ga. App. 167 (3) (100 SE 42). Certainly a conviction for using the vehicle without the owner’s consent *(Code Ann.*§ 26-2639) would have been authorized, for he admits that.

A written request for a charge was submitted and there is exception to the court’s refusal to give it. While the propositions *648of law contained in the request were correct and applicable and inclusion of them in the charge would have been proper, the request contained material that was argumentative in nature and it was not error to refuse to give it. A request must be in all respects perfect before the court is required to give it. *Davis v. State,*153 Ga. 669, 680 (18) (113 SE 11).

*Judgment reversed for the reason stated in Division 1.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          20
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  287
<ALLOWANCES>                                    70
<INVENTORY>                                    954
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,191
<PP&E>                                       1,955
<DEPRECIATION>                                 326
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,820
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,914
<BONDS>                                        475
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,503
<COMMON>                                        35
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,107)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,820
<SALES>                                        250
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               250
<CGS>                                          110
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   59
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                70
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4
<EPS-BASIC>                                 .000
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 .000


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18. U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Parkway Properties, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q forthe period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven G. Rogers,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, asadopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to myknowledge:

(1)       The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)       The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

|  | /s/ Steven G. Rogers                            |
|--|-------------------------------------------------|
|  | Steven G. Rogers (*)                            |
|  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director |
|  | August 5, 2005                                  |

*A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ParkwayProperties, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 6, 2009                  /s/ Colin Goddard, Ph.D.   Colin Goddard, Ph.D.   Chief Executive Officer