alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CALVACHE, et al. v JACKSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Case No. 90-260 AP (Lower Court Case No. 88-11363 SP05)

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County

June 11, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Miguel A. Suarez, Esquire, for appellant.

Jon B. Sage, Esquire, for appellee.

Before GREENBAUM, KORNBLUM, TENDRICH, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

KORNBLUM, J.

Appellee, by its Amended Complaint, sought damages in the sum of $4,524.84 for services allegedly rendered to Marilyn Calvache, a minor.

Appellee’s complaint was in Four Counts: Count I sought judgment against Guido Calvache, Marilyn’s natural father, based on his parental *55responsibility; Count II was an open account; Count III was account stated and Count IV sought judgment against Norma Calvache, Marilyn’s stepmother, on her guaranty of payment.

The Hospital’s one witness was Veronica Smart, a Billing Supervisor. She qualified the copies of the bills sent to Norma Calvache and the computer print-out as business records of the Hospital.

Over objection, the Trial Court admitted the guaranty agreement allegedly signed by Norma Calvache.

The Court entered judgment against Guido Calvache and Norma Calvache, from which this appeal is taken.

Appellants argue that:

> 1. The Hospital’s Records were insufficient to prove a repayment of an overpayment to an insuror.

> 2. There was no predicate laid for the introduction of the Guaranty.

> 3. There was an accord and satisfaction which barred the Hospital’s claim.

The Hospital Record, admitted as a business record, reflected a repayment to Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Such records were competent evidence of such repayment.

Guido Calvache testified at trial and admitted that the services for which Appellee billed were, in fact, rendered. He also testified that Norma had tendered her check on May 4, 1988, in full payment of the account and that she, in fact, signed the check.

The check was accepted by a cashier at the Hospital and was paid.

Though there was no testimony about the authenticity of the Guaranty, the Trial Court could have properly concluded by examining the signature and comparing it with the signature on the check that the Guaranty was authentic. 90.901 F.S.

Finally, there was sufficient competent evidence to support the Court’s determination that the intent necessary to an accord and satisfaction was not proven by the Appellants. *Miller-Dunn Co., Inc. v Green,*16 So.2d 637 (Fla. 1944).

The Judgment is Affirmed.

GREENBAUM, and TENDRICH, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT F

Summary of Segal Consulting Expenses 

Service Description Amount

Business Meals $263.52

Hotel $1,920.32

In-City Transportation $526.10

Other Professional Services $0.00

Parking $34.00

Mileage $16.35

Travel $1,645.30

TOTAL $4,405.59

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2742-6 Filed:03/19/18 Entered:03/19/18 19:07:09 Desc:

Exhibit F Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 183
Editorial Note: For miscellaneous amendments to cross references in this part 183, see Amdt. 183-1, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966.

§ 183.49 Authorized functions. ( a ) Consistent with an ODA Holder's qualifications, the Administrator may delegate any function determined appropriate under 49 U.S.C. 44702(d).
( b ) Under the general supervision of the Administrator, an ODA Unit may perform only those functions, and is subject to the limitations, listed in the ODA Holder's procedures manual.
###### Editorial Note on Part 21

#### Editorial Notes:

1. For miscellaneous amendments to cross references in this 21 see Amdt. 21-10, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear at 74 FR 53384, Oct. 16, 2009.

#### § 21.91 Applicability.

This subpart prescribes procedural requirements for the approval of changes to type certificates.
Exhibit 24.5


                               KEYSPAN CORPORATION

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY



     WHEREAS,  KeySpan  Corporation,  a New York  corporation  (the  "Company"),
intends to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, an Annual Report on Form 10-K as prescribed by
said Commission  pursuant to said Act and the rules and regulations  promulgated
thereunder.

     NOW,  THEREFORE,  in my capacity as a director of the Company,  I do hereby
appoint GERALD LUTERMAN, JOHN J. BISHAR, JR. and MICHAEL J. TAUNTON, and each of
them  severally,  as my  attorneys-in-fact  with power to execute in my name and
place, and in my capacity as a director of KeySpan Corporation, said Report, any
amendment  to said  Report  and  any  other  documents  required  in  connection
therewith, and to file the same with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this power of attorney this 21st day of
February, 2007.


                                                       /s/James L. Larocca
#### § 14.25 Settlement.

The applicant and agency counsel may agree on a proposed settlement of the award before final action on the application, either in connection with a settlement of the underlying proceeding, or after the underlying proceeding has been concluded. If a prevailing party and agency counsel agree on a proposed settlement of an award before an application has been filed, the application shall be filed with the proposed settlement.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed January 29, 2018 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-01366-CV 

NATIONAL JUDGMENT RECOVERY CENTER, L.P. 

AS ASSIGNEE OF UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, Appellant 

V. 

MICHAEL LOYA, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-05-10049-E 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Evans, and Justice Brown 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

In its notice of appeal, appellant states it is appealing the trial court’s “August 31, 2017 

denial of its Application for Writ of Scire Facias.” By letter dated December 28, 2017, the Court 

questioned its jurisdiction over this appeal as the clerk’s record did not contain a signed order on 

the application for writ of scire facias. We instructed appellant to file, by January 9, 2018, a letter 

brief addressing our concern and cautioned that failure to do so may result in dismissal of the 

appeal without further notice. As of today’s date, appellant has not filed a response. 

Generally, this Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments and certain 

interlocutory orders as permitted by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 

195 (Tex. 2001). A final judgment is one that disposes of all pending parties and claims. Id. 
 –2– 

Appellate timetables run from the date the appealable order or judgment is signed. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 26.1. 

The record before this Court does not contain a final judgment or other appealable order. 

Without a judgment or other appealable order, there is nothing for this Court to review. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). 

171366F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

NATIONAL JUDGMENT RECOVERY 

CENTER, L.P. AS ASSIGNEE OF 

UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, Appellant 

No. 05-17-01366-CV V. 

MICHAEL LOYA, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 5, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-05-10049-E. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Evans and Brown participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee MICHAEL LOYA recover his costs of this appeal from 

appellant NATIONAL JUDGMENT RECOVERY CENTER, L.P. AS ASSIGNEE OF 

UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS. 

Judgment entered January 29, 2018.
§ 25.941 Inlet, engine, and exhaust compatibility. For airplanes using variable inlet or exhaust system geometry, or both— ( a ) The system comprised of the inlet, engine (including thrust augmentation systems, if incorporated), and exhaust must be shown to function properly under all operating conditions for which approval is sought, including all engine rotating speeds and power settings, and engine inlet and exhaust configurations;
( b ) The dynamic effects of the operation of these (including consideration of probable malfunctions) upon the aerodynamic control of the airplane may not result in any condition that would require exceptional skill, alertness, or strength on the part of the pilot to avoid exceeding an operational or structural limitation of the airplane; and
( c ) In showing compliance with paragraph (b) of this section, the pilot strength required may not exceed the limits set forth in § 25.143(d), subject to the conditions set forth in paragraphs (e) and (f) of § 25.143.
[Amdt. 25-38, 41 FR 55467, Dec. 20, 1976, as amended by Amdt. 25-121, 72 FR 44669, Aug. 8, 2007]
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20 - 0197

_________________ STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RICHARD D. HINMAN,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to our Order of February 23, 2022, this cause is classified for oral argument before the Court sitting en banc and is hereby set for argument on Friday, April 8, 2022, at 9:30 a.m. The Court has determined that the argument will be held in person in the Courtroom of the Montana Supreme Court, Joseph P. Mazurek Justice Building, Helena, Montana. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Robert J . Whelan, District Judge .

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 23 2022

03/23/2022
Case Number: DA 20-0197
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 2969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1132]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Research Resources; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), 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 Center for Research Resources 
Special Emphasis Panel, General Clinical Research Center.
    Date: February 27-28, 2000.
    Time: February 27, 2000, 7:00 PM to Adjournment.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Double Tree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 
20852.
    Contact Person: Rebecca A. Fuldner, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Office of Review, National Center for Research 
Resources, 6705 Rockledge Drive, MSC 7965, Room 6018, Bethesda, MD 
20892-7965, (301) 435-0809.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine, 93.306; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.333; 
93.371, Biomedical Technology; 93.389, Research Infrastructure, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 10, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-1132 Filed 1-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### W. H. BRADFORD & CO. v. UNITED STATES

*[Ante,*p. 89;

293 U.S. 564]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by the Supreme-Court, October 8, 1934.
#### § 29.775 Windshields and windows.

Windshields and windows must be made of material that will not break into dangerous fragments.

[Amdt. 29-31, 55 FR 38966, Sept. 21, 1990]
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors of Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-3 (No. 333-129188) and the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.
333-114201, No. 333-122738, No. 333-127485 and No. 333-131728) of Memory
Pharmaceuticals Corp. of our report dated March 30, 2006, with respect to the
balance sheets of Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp. as of December 31, 2005 and 2004,
and the related statements of operations, stockholders' equity/(deficit), and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
2005, which report appears in the December 31, 2005 annual report on Form 10-K
of Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Short Hills, New Jersey
March 30, 2006
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 17, 2014

Nos. 04-14-00136-CR, 04-14-00137-CR, 04-14-00138-CR, & 04-14-00139-CR

Billy Edward GONZALEZ,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 381st Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 12-CR-611, 12-CR-615, 12-CR-613, & 12-CR-609

Honorable Jose Luis Garza, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In the interest of the efficient administration of the court’s docket, we order Appeal Nos. 

04-14-00136-CR, 04-14-00137-CR, 04-14-00138-CR, and 04-14-00139-CR consolidated. The 

parties must file motions, briefs, and other pleadings as if the appeals were one but put both appeal 

numbers in the style of the case. However, a record must be filed in each appeal, the record in each 

case will remain separate and, if supplementation of the record becomes necessary, the 

supplemental material must be filed in the appeal to which it applies. The cases must be argued 

together in one brief, as in a single appeal, and if oral argument is requested and granted, the entire 

case must be argued as a single appeal, with the total time limit for each party equal to the ordinary 

time limit for a party in a single appeal. The court will dispose of both appeals in the same 

judgment, opinion, and mandate.

We order the clerk of this court to serve copies of this order on all counsel, the district 

clerk, and the court reporter. 

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on this 17th day of March, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Independent Accountant's Report

Deutsche Financial Services Corporation:

We have examined management's assertion about Deutsche Financial
Services Corporation's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of
America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers
(USAP) relating to RV Trust 1999-1, Marine Trust 1999-2, and RV
Trust 1999-3 as of and for the period ended December 31, 1999
included in the accompanying management assertion.  Management is
responsible for Deutsche Financial Services Corporation's
compliance with those minimum servicing standards.  Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's
assertion about the entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established
by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence
about Deutsche Financial Services Corporation's compliance with
the minimum servicing standards and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We
believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our
opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination
on Deutsche Financial Services Corporation's compliance with the
minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Deutsche Financial
Services Corporation complied with the aforementioned minimum
Servicing standards as of and for the period ended December
31, 1999 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

By:    KPMG LLP
       10 South Broadway - Suite 900
       St. Louis, MO 63102-1761

Date:  March 3, 2000



Management Report on Deutsche Financial Services Corporation
Compliance, as Servicer, with the minimum servicing standards set
forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform
Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers relating to RV
Trust 1999-1, Marine Trust 1999-2, and RV Trust 1999-3.

As of and for the period ended December 31, 1999, Deutsche
Financial Services Corporation has complied in all material
respects with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the
Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single
Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers relating to RV Trust
1999-1, Marine Trust 1999-2, and RV Trust 1999-3.  As of and for
this same period, Deutsche Financial Services Corporation had in
effect a fidelity bond and errors and omissions policy in the
amount of DM 100,000,000.00.

Sincerely,

By:    /s/ Richard C. Goldman
       Senior Vice President, Secretary and Chief Legal Officer
Date:  March 3, 2000

By:    /s/ Stephen J. Gentry
       Senior Vice President and Controller
Date:  March 3, 2000
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00166

- CR

E X PARTE N ORMAN J OSEPH L ANDRY §

§

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 158 th District

Court

of Denton County ( 21

- 8789

- 158 )

December 16, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice

Walker

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s order . I t i s ordered that the order of the trial court is

affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ B rian Walker

Justice Brian Walker
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                             732
<SECURITIES>                                       765
<RECEIVABLES>                                       32
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         13
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    5410
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          8656
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      5410
<SALES>                                              1
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   311
<CGS>                                                3
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        3
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   250
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     44
<INCOME-TAX>                                         6
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 38
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        38
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 35.31 [Reserved]
(Exhibit 10.33)

                               XYNERGY CORPORATION
                        269 So. Beverly Drive, Suite 938
                             Beverly Hills, CA 90212
                                 (310) 274-0086
                                  (Letterhead)



Via Facsimile & U.S. Mail

May 2, 2003

Mr. Todd Beutel
Beutel Accountancy Corporation
30423 Canwood Street, Suite 112
Agoura Hills, CA  91301

Dear Todd:

We have retained another accountancy firm to conduct our audit for the period
ending December 31, 2002. As required by SEC rules, we are filing the attached
Form 8-K for notification.

We are therefore requesting that you write a letter to the Securities and
Exchange Commission stating whether you agree or disagree with the statements
made in Item 4 of the Form 8-K.

Please call me with any questions. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in
this matter.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raquel Zepeda
Raquel Zepeda
President

Enclosures
§ 27.1301 Function and installation. Each item of installed equipment must— ( a ) Be of a kind and design appropriate to its intended function;
( b ) Be labeled as to its identification, function, or operating limitations, or any applicable combination of these factors;
( c ) Be installed according to limitations specified for that equipment; and
( d ) Function properly when installed.
# The Attorney General of Texas
March 21, 1978 JOHN L.HILL Attorney General
Honorable G.L.“Lynn” Tate Commissioner Texas Department ofLabor and Standards Box12157 Austin, Texas 78711 Dear Commissioner Tate: Opinion No. H-1140 Re: Whether a non-citizen of the United States may be licensed under the Texas Private Employment Agency Law, art. 5221a-6,V.T.C.S.

You have requested our opinion concerning the constitutionality of article 5221a-6, section 5(a)(l), V.T.C.S., which deals with Private Employment Agency licensing and provides:

(a) Application for a license as en operator may be made and shall be issued to any person who (1)is a citizen of the United States.

... On numerous occasions this office has stated that such citizenship requirements are unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Attorney General Opinions H-926 (1977)(landscape architect); H-157(1973),R-2247 (1950),O-866 (1939)(physician); H-81(1973)(certified public accountant); and M-447 (1969) (vocational nurse). The United States Supreme Court has made the law quite clear in this regard. Restrictions based on alienage cannot be upheld unless the State can prove that the restriction is necessary to accomplish a compelling state purpose. See - Surveyors v. Flores de Otero, 4 from being licensed as engineers); In re Griffiths, 413U.S. 717(1973)(aliens may not be denied admission to thevbar);arman v. Dougall, 413U.S. 634 (1973)(aliens may not be denied civil service employment); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971)(aliens are entitled to welfare benefits). can discern no meaningful distinction between the rational basis for such a restriction as applied to Private Employment Agency operators on the one hand versus physicians, nurses, accountants and landscape architects on the other. Accordingly, in our opinion article 5221a-6, section 5(a)(l), V.T.C.S., violates the 14thAmendment to the United States Constitution and is invalid.

p. 4640Honorable G.L.“Lynn” Tete - Page 2 (H-1140)

SUMMARY Article 5221e-6, section 5(e)(l), which restricts licensing es Private Employment Agency operators to citizens of the United States, isunconstitutional. *ry truly yours,

/ 1’ Attorney General of Texas APPROVED:

Opinion Committee jst

p. 4641