alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismissed; Opinion Filed October 21, 2015.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 01653

- CV
THOMAS ALLEN POWELL D/B/A ARCHITECTURE U NLIMITED

AND J. KEITH WEBB , Appellants

V. PENHOLLOW, INC., JOH N O. PENHOLLOW, AND YVONNE L. PENHOLLOW , Appellees
On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 429

- 03464

- 2011


### MEMORANDUM OPINION ON JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS

Before Justi ces Bridges, Lang, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Lang On June 1, 2015, this Court issued an opinion in this case modifying the trial court’s judgment and affirming the judgment as modified. Appellants Thomas Allen Powell d/b/a

Architecture Unlimited a nd J. Keith Webb filed timely first and second motion s for rehearing on
June 29, 2015 , and August 12, 2015, respectively. On July 28, 2015, we denied appellants’ first motion for rehearing, withdrew our opinion of June 1, 2015, vacated the corresponding j udgment
of that date, and issued an opinion on motion for rehearing. Additionally, on September 21,
2015, we denied appellants’ second motion for rehearing , withdrew our July 28, 2015 opinion,

vacat ed the corresponding judgment of that date, and issued an opinion on second motion for rehearing.– 2

–

On October 15, 2015, the parties filed a “Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal” in this Court in which they (1) state they have “reached an agreement to compromise and settle their

differences” in this lawsuit ; (2) ask this Court to dismiss this appeal, withdraw the opinion issued, and tax costs on appeal against appellants ; and (3) stipulate that their agreement is not conditioned on withdrawal of the Court’s opinion. We grant the parties’ October 15, 2015 joint mot ion and dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2)

. Further, we withdraw our September 21, 2015 opinion on second motion for rehearing and vacate the judgment of that date. See id

. 42.1(c). This is now the opinion of the

Court. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, the costs of this appeal are taxed against appellants.

See id . 42.1(d).

131653F.P05 / Douglas S. Lang/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE– 3

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

THOMAS ALLEN PO WELL D/B/A ARCHITECTURE UNLIMITED AND J. KEITH WEBB, Appellants

No. 05

- 13

- 01653

- CV V.
PENHOLLOW, INC., JOHN O. PENHOLLOW, AND YVONNE L. PENHOLLOW, Appellees On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cau se No. 429

- 03464

- 2011. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang, Justices Bridges and Schenck participating.

We WITHDRAW our opinion and VACATE our judgment of September 21, 2015. This is now the judgment of the Court. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal.

It is ORDERED that appellees PENHOLLOW, INC., JOHN O. PENHOLLOW, AND YVONNE L. PENHOLLOW recover their costs of this appeal from appellants THOMAS ALLEN POWELL D/B/A ARCHITEC TURE UNLIMITED AND J. KEITH WEBB.

Judgment entered this 21st day of October, 2015.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1



Deloitte & Touche LLP
333 Clay Street
Suite 2300
Houston, Texas 77002

February 11, 2000

Sterling Chemicals Holdings, Inc.
1200 Smith Street, Suite 1900
Houston, Texas 77094

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of Sterling Chemicals Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries for the three
month periods ended December 31, 1999 and 1998, as indicated in our report dated
February 11, 2000; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion
on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 1999, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-30917 for Sterling
Chemicals Holdings, Inc. on Form S-3 and in Registration Statement No. 333-52795
for Sterling Chemicals Holdings, Inc. on Form S-8.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statements prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Exhibit 32.1

                           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 Epolin, Inc. (the "Company")
on  Form  10-Q  for  the  period  ended  November  30,  2010,  as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned certifies,
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of the undersigned's knowledge, 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 results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: January 13, 2011                   By:  /s/ Greg Amato
       ----------------                        --------------------------------
                                               Greg Amato,
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               (Principal Executive Officer)



Dated: January 13, 2011                   By:  /s/ James Ivchenko
       ----------------                        --------------------------------
                                               James Ivchenko,
                                               President
                                               (Principal Financial Officer)
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0594 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-NM-019-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
#### Morris Benson, Respondent, *v.*Abraham Gutterman, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Mew York, tenth district, borough of Manhattan.

Rosenthal & Rosenthal, for appellant.

Rudolph Marks, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

By the return in this case the trial justice certifies that he rendered judgment on March 8, 1900, which was within eight days after the submission of the case. The presence *754of certain unauthenticated words under the justice’s signature on the judgment should not warrant us in indulging in inferences to the contrary. This being the only point raised, the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegebioh and O’Gobman, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-13245 of Virus Research Corporation (The "Company") on Form S-8 of our
report dated January 30, 1998 on the financial statements of the Company as at
December 31, 1997 and December 31, 1996 and for each of the years in the three
year period ended December 31, 1997 appearing in this annual report on Form
10-K of the Company.




                                               Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP




Cambridge, MA
March 26, 1998
#### STAMPS *et al. v.*TISINGER, administrator.

No. 8943.

July 12, 1932.

*Smith &*Millican, for plaintiffs in error,

*Willis*Smith, contra,

*94Gilbert, J.

Tisinger, as administrator of the estate of Thomas Stamps, brought suit to cancel a deed made by his intestate to Z. T. Stamps et al., on the ground that the intestate, at the time of executing the deed, was mentally incapable of making a valid deed; that the deed was void because of undue influence exercised by the grantees, and because of fraud. The court submitted three questions to the jury, which were, together with the answers made by the jury, as follows: “1. Should the deed in question from Thomas Stamps to Z. T. Stamps and Josie Stamps be set aside on the ground of lack of mental capacity of the grantor, Thomas Stamps? The jury answered, No. 2. Should said deed be set aside on ground of fraud ? Answer, No. 3. Should said deed be set aside on grounds of undue influence ? Answer, Yes.” The jury having found against the allegation of mental incapacity and against fraud and in favor of the charge of undue influence, the deed was canceled by decree of court. The defendants’ motion for a new trial was overruled,, and they excepted. The motion consisted of the general grounds and four grounds by amendment.

The four grounds of amendment to the motion for a new trial fail to comply with the rule that grounds of a motion for a new trial must plainly and distinctly set forth' the errors complained of. On the contrary’', these grounds are vague, confused, and indefinite, being composed of colloquies of counsel on both sides and of the court, including much that is unnecessary. For these reasons the amendments to the motion will not be considered. *Gate City Gas-Light Co.*v. *Farley,*95 *Ga.*796 (23 S. E. 119); *Seymour*v. *Daniel,*97 *Ga. 328 (23*S. E. 37); *Henley*v. *Brockman,*124 *Ga.*1059 (4) (53 S. E. 672); *Jeffers*v. *State,*145 *Ga.*74 (6) (88 S. E. 571); *O'Connor*v. *Horne,*165 *Ga.*349 (141 S. E. 74).

The evidence was wholly insufficient to support the verdict finding that the deed was void because of undue influence, and it was error to refuse a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Jutices concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3390 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3390

 To amend title 10, United States Code, relating to prescription drug 
  benefits for Medicare-eligible enrollees under defense health care 
                                 plans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 29, 2003

    Mr. Schrock (for himself, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. 
  Simmons, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Hayes, 
     Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, and Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, relating to prescription drug 
  benefits for Medicare-eligible enrollees under defense health care 
                                 plans.

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

SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT RELATING TO PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFITS FOR 
              MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE ENROLLEES UNDER DEFENSE HEALTH CARE 
              PLANS.

    Section 1074g(a)(6) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(6)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(B) For a medicare-eligible beneficiary, the cost-sharing 
        requirements may not be in excess of the cost-sharing 
        requirements applicable to all other beneficiaries covered by 
        section 1086 of this title. For purposes of the preceding 
        sentence, a medicare-eligible beneficiary is a beneficiary 
        eligible for health benefits under section 1086 of this title 
        pursuant to subsection (d)(2) of such section.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 199 (Friday, October 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 53278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24972]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

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

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; NINDS T-32 Review.
    Date: December 1-2, 2009.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Argonaut Hotel, 495 Jefferson Street, San Francisco, CA 
94109.
    Contact Person: Phillip F. Wiethorn, Scientific Review 
Administrator, DHHS/NIH/NINDS/DER/SRB, 6001 Executive Boulevard; MSC 
9529, Neuroscience Center; Room 3203, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, (301) 
496-5388, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#780f111d0c10170a08381611161c0b56161110561f170e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6b1c020e1f0304191b2b0502050f1845050203450c041d">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 9, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-24972 Filed 10-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 652.100 Audit of the risk-based capital stress test.

You must have a qualified, independent external auditor review your implementation of the risk-based capital stress test every 3 years and submit a copy of the auditor's opinion to us.
§ 703.20 Request for additional authority. ( a ) *Additional authority.* A federal credit union may submit a written request to its regional director seeking expanded authority above the following limits in this part: ( 1 ) Borrowing repurchase transaction maximum maturity mismatch of 30 days under § 703.13(d)(3)(ii).
( 2 ) Zero-coupon investment 10-year maximum maturity under § 703.14(i), up to a maturity of no more than 30 years.
( 3 ) CMRS aggregate limit of 25% of net worth under § 703.14(j), up to no more than 50% of net worth. To obtain approval for additional authority, the federal credit union must demonstrate three consecutive years of effective CMRS portfolio management and the ability to evaluate key risk factors.
( b ) *Written request.* A federal credit union desiring additional authority must submit a written request to the NCUA regional office having jurisdiction over the geographical area in which the credit union's main office is located, that includes the following: ( 1 ) A copy of the credit union's investment policy;
( 2 ) The higher limit sought;
( 3 ) An explanation of the need for additional authority;
( 4 ) Documentation supporting the credit union's ability to manage the investment or activity; and
( 5 ) An analysis of the credit union's prior experience with the investment or activity.
( c ) *Approval process.* A regional director will provide a written determination on a request for expanded authority within 60 calendar days after receipt of the request; however, the 60-day period will not begin until the requesting credit union has submitted all necessary information to the regional director. The regional director will inform the requesting credit union, in writing, of the date the request was received and of any additional documentation that the regional director requires in support of the request. If the regional director approves the request, the regional director will establish a limit on the investment or activity as appropriate and subject to the limitations in this part. If the regional director does not notify the credit union of the action taken on its request within 60 calendar days of the receipt of the request or the receipt of additional requested supporting information, whichever occurs later, the credit union may proceed with its proposed investment or investment activity.
( d ) *Appeal to NCUA Board.* A Federal credit union may request the regional director to reconsider any part of the determination made under paragraph (c) of this section and/or file an appeal with the NCUA Board in accordance with the procedures set forth in subpart B to part 746 of this chapter.
[77 FR 31991, May 31, 2012, as amended at 82 FR 50293, Oct. 30, 2017]
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I,
William T. Schleyer, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Adelphia Communications Corporation;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

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



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



|                      |  |                                                                               
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  |                                                                               
|Date: October 7, 2005 |  | /s/WILLIAM T. SCHLEYERWilliam T. Schleyer Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

98

---



QuickLinks
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:19880-1 Filed:01/21/22 Entered:01/25/22 13:58:33 Desc:

Exhibit Page 1 of 1
#### Chapman *v.*Portwood, administrator.

No. 8588.

August 11, 1932.

*M. L. Felts*and *Hawes*Cloud, for plaintiff in error.

*E. P. & J. Cecil Davis*and *J. A.*Mitchell, contra.

Atkinson, J.

A husband and wife jointly executed a promissory note for $1400, which contained a clause mortgaging certain land. The note was a substitute for former notes given for money borrowed by the husband from the mortgagee. The husband, prior to the date of the mortgage, had conveyed the land to the wife. An equitable suit was instituted upon the paper against the husband and wife, seeking a general judgment and to have it declared a special lien upon the land. The wife alone filed answer. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff. The judge granted a new trial. The plaintiff excepted. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed, after announcing the principles of law involved in the case. *Gunn*v. *Chapman,*166 *Ga.*279 (142 S. E. 873). At the next trial the plaintiff amended her petition by alleging and pleading as an estoppel a written contract by the wife with the plaintiff, as follows: “Georgia, Taliaferro County. Received of Miss Delia Gunn fifty dollars in full payment of all equity that I have in and to the 50 acres of land in the 607th Dist. G. M., said county, whereon I now reside. Mrs. Lula Chapman.” A verdict for the plaintiff for a stated amount was rendered, “to be recovered from the land covered by the mortgage.” The exception is to a judgment overruling the defendant’s second motion for a new trial, based on the general grounds and certain excerpts from the charge. *Held:*

1. The judge did not err in charging the jury: “If you believe, under the evidence, facts, and circumstances of this ease, and that is entirely a matter for you to determine, that after this litigation began, that if Mrs. Chapman, the defendant in this case, did make and execute the writing which has been introduced in evidence, under and by virtue of the terms of which she conveyed all her equity or interest or whatever right she may have had in this particular property in question, and that she received therefor the sum of $50, why I charge you that you would stop right there in your deliberations and find a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.”

2. The remaining portions of the charge complained of in the motion for new trial, considered with the context, were in substantial accord with the principles announced when the case was formerly before this court, and show no error requiring a reversal.

3. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and there was no error in refusing a second new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### § 650.25 Report to Congress.

On a determination by the receiver that there are insufficient assets of the receivership to pay all valid claims against the receivership, the receiver shall submit to the Secretary of the Treasury and Congress a report on the financial condition of the receivership.