alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Civ. No. 1491.

Second Appellate District.

June 6, 1914.]

#### H. ROY STOVEL, Respondent, v. NORTH LOS ANGELES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant.

Pleading—Amended Complaint—Sufficiency of Affidavit of Service.—An affidavit oi service of an amended complaint is not insufficient because reciting that the affiant served a copy of the amended complaint, instead of stating that he served the amended complaint by delivering a true copy thereof.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County entered by the clerk on the defendant’s default for failure to answer the amended complaint.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Hammack & Hammack, for Appellant.

Elliott L. Perkins, for Respondent.

CONREY, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered by the clerk of the superior court after entry of defendant’s default for failure to answer the amended complaint. The defendant had appeared by its attorneys, who filed a demurrer to the original complaint. With respect to the amended complaint the affidavit of service is by plaintiff’s attorney and states that he “served a copy of the amended complaint herein on Hammack & Hammack, attorneys for the defendant herein, by delivering to and leaving with said attorneys in the city of Los Angeles, a true copy thereof.” This affidavit is sufficient, unless it is deficient in saying that the affiant served a *copy*of the amended complaint, instead of saying that he served the amended complaint, by delivering the true copy thereof. The briefs do not refer us to any decisions bearing upon this question. - We find that section 410 of the Code of Civil Procedure, says that “a copy of the complaint must be served, with the summons, upon each of the defendants. When the summons is served ... it must be returned . . . with an affidavit ... of its service, and of the service of a copy of the complaint, where such copy is served. ’ ’ *730Under this wording of the statute there seems to be no doubt that an affidavit showing that the process-server served “a copy of the complaint,” etc., would be sufficient. No good reason appears for holding that the same form of statement may not be made in proving service of an amended complaint. “All pleadings subsequent to the complaint, must be filed with the clerk, and copies thereof served upon the adverse party or his attorney.” (Code Civ. Proe., see. 465.)

The judgment is affirmed.

James, J., and Shaw, J.. concurred.
**EXHIBIT
      23.1**





**CONSENT
          OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
 
 We
          consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
          333-136713, 333-128607, 333-10993, 333-100186, 333-106054, 333-106080,
          and
          333-121059 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-139108, 333-129454,
          333-03303, 333-03289, 333-61598, 333-76316, 333-76288, 333-88372, 333-100184,
          333-113684, 333-121371, 333-125010 on Form S-8 of our report dated February
          28,
          2007, August 14, 2007 as to the effects of the restatement discussed in
          Note 23
          and Note 1, relating to the financial statements and financial statement
          schedules, respectively, of PNM Resources, Inc. and subsidiaries (which
          express
          an unqualified opinion and include explanatory paragraphs regarding the
          adoption
          of Financial Accounting Standards Board Financial Interpretation No. 47,
*Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations* in 2005,
          Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004),
*Share-Based Payment*and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No.
          158, *Employers' Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other
          Postretirement Plans - an amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106,
          and
          132R* in 2006, PNM Resources, Inc.’s acquisition of TNP Enterprises, Inc. in
          2005, and PNM Resources, Inc.’s restatement discussed in Note 23 and Note 1,
          respectively), and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control
          over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A
          of PNM
          Resources, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31,
          2006.
 
 /s/  DELOITTE
          & TOUCHE LLP
 
 
 Dallas,
          Texas
 August
          14, 2007
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 12:41 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA; michelle.singletary@washpost.com

Subject: Re: RIN 1210-AB32

Dear Secretary Perez and Michelle,

I am a 73 year old (GM) retiree. My wife and I live comfortable. We worked at a time when 

both, 401k plans and company pensions were provided. Since that time companies have learned 

that they only need provide access to a 401k plan. While a 401k plan can be very lucrative, it is 

also susceptible to personal ignorance and to fluctuations in the market place. I suspect this 

makes retirement planning difficult, Does a person retire when markets are up or find they must 

put off retirement until they are? Will we see a time (i.e. a great recession) when potential 

retirees find there retirement savings have vanished?.

Getting to the subject, the words "fiduciary duty" have strong implications and go beyond 401k 

plans. With respect to 401k's my concerns are for all those, and particularly family members, 

who are still in the work place. They find themselves dealing with an investment house such as 

Fidelity, then either their company or the investment house limits there investment 

choices. Finally an investment service may be offered to provide so called independent 

investment advice. Who is to be believed? Something more needs to be done. If someone 

declares to me that they have fiduciary responsibility, how do I know they are telling the 

truth? There should be an official listing of investment houses, services, etc. which have made, 

under penalty of law, some government backed declaration of fiduciary responsibility. This list 

should be made available to the public.

One additional comment. On a personal basis, I detect that some family members are somewhat 

bitter that my wife and I have it so well while issues of Social Security and retirement funding 

hang over their heads.

Here's hoping your efforts pay off. Keep up the good work. 

Sincerely,

J.T.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                          27,552
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   72,123
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,724
<INVENTORY>                                     58,129
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               190,403
<PP&E>                                         196,909
<DEPRECIATION>                                 100,289
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 337,116
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          116,223
<BONDS>                                         93,415
<COMMON>                                        13,560
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     24,172
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,429
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   337,116
<SALES>                                        465,209
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               465,209
<CGS>                                          340,993
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  340,993
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   850
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,083
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,738
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,382
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,356
<DISCONTINUED>                                   6,083
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (4,044)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,395
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .95
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LANCE REBERGER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

JAMES DZURENDA; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-15155 

D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00552-RCJ-WGC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 5, 2020**

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges. 

Nevada state prisoner Lance Reberger appeals pro se from the district 

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the 

filing fee after denying Reberger’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 

(“IFP”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 12 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 19-15155 

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). We reverse and 

remand.

The district court denied Reberger’s application to proceed IFP on the basis 

that Reberger has three prior strikes. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). However, Reberger 

alleged in the complaint that he was under imminent danger of serious physical 

harm because his prolonged isolation in administrative segregation is causing him 

physical injuries, he is unable to access his HIV medication as prescribed, and his 

water is contaminated with chemicals and is undrinkable. These allegations are 

sufficient to satisfy the “imminent danger” exception. See Andrews, 493 F.3d at 

1055 (an exception to the three-strikes rule exists where “the complaint makes a 

plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical 

injury’ at the time of filing.”). We reverse the judgment and remand for further 

proceedings. 

REVERSED and REMANDED.
#### § 604.29 Incomplete complaints.

If a complaint is not dismissed under § 604.28, but is deficient as to one or more of the requirements set forth in § 604.27, the Office of the Chief Counsel may dismiss the complaint within 20 days after receiving it. Dismissal shall be without prejudice and the complainant may re-file after amendment to correct the deficiency. The Chief Counsel's dismissal shall include the reasons for the dismissal without prejudice.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAnalysis of Thick Sandwich Shells with Embedded Ceramic TilesThe Composite Armored Vehicle (CAV) is an advanced technology demonstrator of an all-composite ground combat vehicle. The CAV upper hull is made of a tough light-weight S2-glass/epoxy laminate with embedded ceramic tiles that serve as armor. The tiles are bonded to a rubber mat with a carefully selected, highly viscoelastic adhesive. The integration of armor and structure offers an efficient combination of ballistic protection and structural performance. The analysis of this anisotropic construction, with its inherent discontinuous and periodic nature, however, poses several challenges. The present paper describes a shell-based 'element-layering' technique that properly accounts for these effects and for the concentrated transverse shear flexibility in the rubber mat. One of the most important advantages of the element-layering technique over advanced higher-order elements is that it is based on conventional elements. This advantage allows the models to be portable to other structural analysis codes, a prerequisite in a program that involves the computational facilities of several manufacturers and government laboratories. The element-layering technique was implemented into an auto-layering program that automatically transforms a conventional shell model into a multi-layered model. The effects of tile layer homogenization, tile placement patterns, and tile gap size on the analysis results are described.Document ID19970003306Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsDavila, Carlos G.*(Army Research Lab. Hampton, VA United States)*Smith, C.*(United Defense, Ltd. Partnership San Jose, CA United States)*Lumban-Tobing, F.*(United Defense, Ltd. Partnership San Jose, CA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 1996Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:110278ARL-TR-1213NASA-TM-110278Meeting InformationMeeting: Conference on Fibrous Composites in Structural DesignLocation: Fort Worth, TXCountry: United StatesStart Date: August 26, 1996End Date: August 30, 1996Sponsors:NASA Langley Research Center,Federal Aviation Administration,Department of DefenseAccession Number97N12050Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-63-50-08Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970003306.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
EXHIBIT 32

TAMIR BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC.

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION
1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,

UNITED STATES CODE)



Pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Tamir Biotechnology, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby
certify, to the best of his knowledge and belief that:



(1) The Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2013 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|May 2, 2013            
|-----------------------
|                       
|                       
|/s/ JAMIE SULLEY       
|President              
|                       
|May 2, 2013            
|                       
|                       
|/s/ JOANNE BARSA       
|Chief Financial Officer
Order entered January 30 , 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 01123
- CR ROBERT CHAD EUBANK , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 380
- 83513
- 2017

O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s January 26, 2023 motion for extension of time to file his response to counsel’s Anders brief and motion to withdraw. Appellant’s res ponse is due March 6, 2023. In the motion, appellant states he requires additional time to file his response because he has not received all of the documents related to his case from his former attorney, Heather Barbieri. Appellant requests the time for his pro se response to the motion to withdraw and Anders brief be extended to June 15, 2023. Appellant has not shown how anydocuments from his former attorney that are not part of the appellate record may be

considered on appeal. See Leza v. State , 351 S.W.3d 344, 362 n.78 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (appellate court may not consider extra

- record materials). T his Court has received certification from appellant’s attorney on appeal, Lara Braca monte Davila, that she sent appellant a copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record on November 2, 2022

. Accordingly, appellant’s motion for extension of time to file appellant’s pro se response to counsel’s motion to withdraw and Anders brief is DENIED . Appellant’s pro se response is due MARCH 6, 2023

. Appellant’ s motion also requests that a special master be appointed to determine whether a photograph of spandex shorts with measuring devices along the top and left sides of the photograph had been sent to appellant’s former attorney Kent Star and whether it was ba cked up to a backup de v ice. We DENY appellant’s request for a special master

. See Leza , 351 S.W.3d at 362 n.78 (appellate court cannot consider extra

- record materials).

/s/ DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE
#### John A. C. Gray, Respondent, v. John A. Bartholomew, Appellant.

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Davis, P. J.
H. Res. 513

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

September 10, 2002.

Whereas from September 4, 2002, to September 6, 2002, the

United States-Ireland Business Summit was held at the

Ronald Reagan Building International Trade Center in

Washington D.C.;

Whereas global economic change and the war against international terrorism have challenged industries and governments throughout the world to look at new ways to resolve conflicts, eliminate barriers, and expand markets;

Whereas the Summit brought together senior level corporate,

government, and academic leaders from across the

United States, Ireland, and Northern Ireland for discussions on economic competitiveness and important issues

that are confronting the sectors of information and communications technology, biotechnology, and financial services in the United States and European markets;

Whereas the discussions focused on new public and private

sector priorities, market development and entry, regulatory issues, and opportunities for joint ventures and

economic growth, generating alliances between businesses

with operations in the United States, Ireland, and Northern Ireland;
2

•HRES 513 EH

Whereas increased economic growth and job creation in

Northern Ireland can further help promote the peace and

shared governance under the terms of the Good Friday

Agreement of 1998;

Whereas President George W. Bush has offered a compelling

new vision for peace in Northern Ireland that emphasizes

private sector leadership and innovation to restore economic vitality and cooperation;

Whereas the United States-Ireland Business Summit was a

bold step toward making the vision of President Bush a

reality and creating new opportunities in the United

States, Ireland, and Northern Ireland; and

Whereas approximately 44,000,000 citizens of the United

States identify themselves as having Irish ancestry and

the United States has a strong and enduring interest in

maintaining close ties with the people of Ireland and in

supporting efforts to ensure peace, justice, and prosperity

in Northern Ireland: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Congress recognizes the historical significance and timeliness of the United States-Ireland Business Summit held in Washington, D.C. from September 4,

2002, to September 6, 2002.

Attest:

Clerk.
§ 7.46 How are late payments handled? ( a ) DOT assesses interest on an unpaid bill starting on the 31st day following the day on which the notice of the amount due is first mailed to the requester. Interest accrues from the date of the notice of amount due at the rate prescribed in 31 U.S.C. 3717. Receipt by DOT of a payment for the full amount of the fees owed within 30 calendar days after the date of the initial billing stops the accrual of interest, even if the payment has not been processed.
( b ) If DOT does not receive payment of the fees charged within 30 calendar days after the date the initial notice of the amount due is first mailed to the requester, DOT assesses an administrative charge to cover the cost of processing and handling the delinquent claim. In addition, DOT applies a penalty charge with respect to any principal amount of a debt that is more than 90 days past due. Where appropriate, DOT uses other steps permitted by Federal debt collection statutes, including disclosure to consumer reporting agencies and use of collection agencies, to encourage payment of amounts overdue.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 290 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 98
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 290

                          [Report No. 107-294]

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

            November 16 (legislative day, November 15), 2001

  Mr. Reynolds,  from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
 resolution which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

    Resolved,  That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any 
resolution reported on the legislative day of November 16, 2001, 
providing for consideration or disposition of a conference report to 
accompany the bill (S. 1447) to improve aviation security, and for 
other purposes, or any amendment reported in disagreement from a 
conference thereon.

                                                  House Calendar No. 98

107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 290

                          [Report No. 107-294]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

            November 16 (legislative day, November 15), 2001

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```