alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Victoria Mari



# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Antonio, Texas**

August 28, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00239

- CR

The STATE of Texas, Appellant

v.

Victoria Mari VELASQUEZ

, Appellee

Fr om the County Court at Law No. 6, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 478295 Honorable Wayne A. Christian, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

q The appell ee ’s brief was originally due to be filed on July 27, 2015 . The appell ee ’s first
motion for extension of time wa s granted, extending the deadline for filing the brief to August 26, 2015 . On August 26, 2015 , the appell ee filed a motion requesting an additional extension of
time to file the brief until September 25, 2015 , for a total extension of sixty days. The mot ion is
GRANTED. THIS IS THE FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME THAT THE APPELLEE
WILL BE GRANTED . The a ppell ee ’s b rief must be filed by September 25, 2015, or the case will be set “at issue” and will be submitted without the appellee’s brief.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 28th day of August, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle
Clerk of Court
<Page>

EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our reports dated February 25, 2003, accompanying the
consolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report
of Computer Horizons Corp. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002.
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the
Registration Statements of Computer Horizons Corp. on Forms S-3 (File No.
333-33665, effective September 24, 1997, File No. 333-44417, effective
February 27, 1998, and File No. 333-48877, effective March 30, 1998) and on
Forms S-8 (File No. 033-41726, effective July 16, 1991, File No. 033-59437,
effective May 18, 1995, File No. 033-64763, effective December 5, 1995 and
File No. 333-60751, effective August 5, 1998, and File No. 333-74579,
effective March 17, 1999).

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
----------------------
GRANT THORNTON LLP
Edison, New Jersey
March 28, 2003
```

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 174 (Monday, September 11, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 62317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19035]

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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Notice of Public Meeting of the Texas Advisory Committee Advisory 
Committee; Cancellation

AGENCY: Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Notice; cancellation of virtual business meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission on Civil Rights is cancelling the virtual 
business meeting of the Texas Advisory Committee.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brooke Peery, [email protected],
    (202) 701-1376.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission on Civil Rights published a 
notice in the Federal Register concerning a virtual business meeting of 
the Texas Advisory Committee. The meeting scheduled for Tuesday, 
September 12, 2023, at 12 p.m. Central Time is cancelled. The notice is 
in the Federal Register of Monday, August 28, 2023, in FR Doc. 2023-
18422 in the first and second columns of page 58544.

    Dated: August 29, 2023.
David Mussatt,
Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
[FR Doc. 2023-19035 Filed 9-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
From: Lucia Howard

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:21:05 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Lucia Howard

11811 N. Tatum, #1051

Phoenix, AZ 85018
From: Lisa Rentz

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 9:05:59 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Lisa Rentz

2127 Boundary Street

Beaufort, SC 29902
EXHIBIT
21

SUBSIDIARIES
OF ZYGO CORPORATION (DELAWARE)

Technical Instrument Company (California)
100% owned by Registrant (effective as of August 8, 1996)

Syncotec Neue Technologien und Instrumente GmbH
100% owned by Technical Instrument Company (effective as of September 1, 1997)

NexStar Corporation (Colorado)
100% owned by Registrant (effective as of September 12, 1996)

TechniStar Corporation (Delaware)
25% owned by NexStar Corporation

Sight Systems, Inc. (California)
100% owned by Registrant (effective as of August 19, 1997)

Zygo TeraOptix, Inc. (Delaware)
100% owned by Registrant (effective as of May 5, 2000)

Zygo KK
100% owned by Registrant (effective as of October 1, 1999)

Zygo PTE
100% owned by Registrant (effective as of January 1, 1998)

ZygoLOT GmbH
60% owned by Registrant (effective as of October 2, 1999)

Six Brookside Drive (Connecticut)
100% owned by Registrant (effective as of January 9, 1998)

---
The Nor Arevik Coal Deposit, Southern Armenia

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 2177   VERSION 1.0
AVAILABLE ONLY ON THE WORLD-WIDE WEB

Buffalo sealThe Nor Arevik coal deposit is located in southernmost Armenia approximately 15 km north of Megri in the Synik Administrative District.  Although the deposit is composed more of carbonaceous or combustible shale than of coal, it could be important as a local resource.  Nor Arevik coal and combustible shale has been used in home heating and in a district heating facility in nearby Megri, apparently with some success.  In addition, it cleans very well, the results being increased volatile matter and decreased ash yields.This report is stored in Portable Document Format.
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view it.If you already have Acrobat Reader installed
on your computer, click here to access report text (640K).If you wish to download Acrobat Reader
free of charge, click here.



Return to Bulletins

This page is https://pubs.usgs.gov/bulletin/b2177/
For more information, contact Brenda Pierce
Maintained by Eastern Publications Group Web Team
Last updated 10.3.00
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**425 CA 14-01660**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., VALENTINO, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

BRENDA C. HARRINGTON, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

MARY A. BRUNSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

FORSYTH, HOWE, O’DWYER, KALB & MURPHY, P.C., ROCHESTER (SANFORD R. SHAPIRO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MORGENSTERN DEVOESICK, PLLC, PITTSFORD (ROBERT D. SCHULTZ OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (J. Scott Odorisi, J.), entered January 10, 2014. The order granted in part and denied in part the motion of plaintiff for summary judgment.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs ( see Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy , 140 AD2d 988; Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v Roberts & Roberts , 63 AD2d 566, 567; see also CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Entered: June 19, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
**Exhibit 24-5**

 

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

 

KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that I, Nelson A. Diaz do hereby appoint John W. Rowe and Randall E. Mehrberg, or either of them, attorney for me and in my name and on my behalf to sign the annual Securities and ExchangeCommission report on Form 10-K for 2004 of Exelon Corporation, together with any amendments thereto, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and generally to do and perform all things necessary to be done in the premises as fullyand effectually in all respects as I could do if personally present. 

 

 

DATE:February 22, 2005
|  | *NCBI News* |   |
|--|-------------|--------|

| PubMed | Entrez | BLAST | OMIM | Taxonomy | Structure |
|--------|--------|-------|------|----------|-----------|

|  |
|--|
From: Michelle Wolff

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 5:28:17 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Michelle Wolff

4981 Catoctin Dr #120

San Diego, CA 92115
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 580 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      October 10, 2002.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the joint 
resolution (H.J. Res. 122) making further continuing appropriations for the 
fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be 
considered as read for amendment. The amendment specified in section 2 shall be 
considered as adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the joint resolution, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion 
except: (1) one hour of debate on the joint resolution equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in the first section of this resolution is 
as follows:
    Page 1, line 4, strike ``inserting `November 22, 2002'.'' and insert 
``inserting `October 18, 2002'.''.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
PUBLIC LAW 107–200—JULY 23, 2002 116 STAT. 735

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 87 (S.J. Res. 34):

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107–425 (Comm. on Energy and Commerce).

SENATE REPORTS: No. 107–159 accompanying S.J. Res. 34 (Comm. on Energy

and Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):

May 8, considered and passed House.

July 9, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 107–200

107th Congress

Joint Resolution

Approving the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the development of a repository

for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, pursuant

to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That there hereby

is approved the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for a repository,

with respect to which a notice of disapproval was submitted by

the Governor of the State of Nevada on April 8, 2002.

Approved July 23, 2002.

42 USC 10135

note.

July 23, 2002

[H.J. Res. 87]
EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

     Each of the below-listed subsidiaries is 100 percent directly or indirectly
owned by CompuDyne Corporation.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                                              Percentage
                                                                                                               of voting
                                                                                                               securities
                                                    Incorporated                                               owned by
                                                      under the                                                immediate
Name                                                  laws of                 Parent                             parent
----                                                ------------         ------------------                   -----------
<S>                                                    <C>               <C>                                       <C>
CompuDyne Corp. of Maryland *                          Maryland          CompuDyne Corporation                     100%
CompuDyne-Integrated Electronics Division, LLC *       Delaware          CompuDyne Corporation                     100%
CompuDyne, Inc.**                                      Delaware          CompuDyne Corporation                     100%
CorrLogic, LLC *                                       Delaware          CompuDyne-Public Safety and Justice       100%
Norment Security Group, Inc. *                         Delaware          CompuDyne Corporation                     100%
Norshield Corporation  *                               Alabama           CompuDyne Corporation                     100%
Norment Industries S.A. (Pty) Ltd.                     South Africa      Norment Security Group, Inc.              100%
Fiber SenSys, LLC *                                    Delaware          CompuDyne Corporation                     100%
CompuDyne-Public Safety and Justice, Inc. *            Virginia          CompuDyne Corporation                     100%
Xanalys Corporation *                                  Delaware          CompuDyne-Public Safety and Justice       100%
Xanalys Limited *                                      United Kingdom    Xanalys Corporation                       100%
Xanalys Pty. Ltd. *                                    Australia         Xanalys Corporation                       100%
Xanalys Corp.  *                                       Canada            Xanalys Corporation                       100%

</TABLE>

Note:     *    All  subsidiaries  of the Registrant as of December 31, 2005, are
               included  in  the  consolidated   financial   statements  of  the
               Registrant.
          **   CompuDyne,  Inc. filed for petition in bankruptcy on December 31,
               1991.


                                       65
ARTICLE 2. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS; AREA DESIGNATIONS; 

CLASSIFICATIONS

R18-2-201. Particulate Matter: PM10 and PM2.5

A. PM10 Standards

1. The level of the primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for PM10 is 150 

micrograms per cubic meter of PM10 - 24-hour average concentration.

2. To determine attainment of the primary and secondary standards, a person shall measure 

PM10 in the ambient air by:

a. A reference method based on 40 CFR 50, Appendix J, and designated according to 40 

CFR 53; or

b. An equivalent method designated according to 40 CFR 53.

3. The primary and secondary 24-hour ambient air quality standards for PM10 are attained 

when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration 

above 150 micrograms per cubic meter, determined according to 40 CFR 50, Appendix K, 

is less than or equal to one.

B. PM2.5 Standards

1. The primary ambient air quality standards for PM2.5 are:

a. 15 micrograms per cubic meter of PM2.5 - annual arithmetic mean concentration.

b. 35 micrograms per cubic meter of PM2.5 - 24-hour average concentration.

2. The secondary ambient air quality standards for PM2.5 are:

a. 15 micrograms per cubic meter of PM2.5 - annual arithmetic mean concentration.

b. 35 micrograms per cubic meter of PM2.5 - 24-hour average concentration.

3. To determine attainment of the primary and secondary standards, a person shall measure 

PM2.5 in the ambient air by:

a. A reference method based on 40 CFR 50, Appendix L, and designated according to 40 

CFR 53; or

b. An equivalent method designated according to 40 CFR 53.

4. The primary and secondary annual ambient air quality standards for PM2.5 are met when 

the annual arithmetic mean concentration, determined according to 40 CFR 50, Appendix 

N, is less than or equal to 15 micrograms per cubic meter.

5. The primary and secondary 24-hour ambient air quality standards for PM2.5 are met when 

the 98th percentile 24-hour concentration, determined according to 40 CFR 50, Appendix 

N, is less than or equal to 35 micrograms per cubic meter.

Historical Note

Amended effective December 22, 1976 (Supp. 76-5). Former Section R9-3-201 repealed, 

new Section R9-3-201 adopted effective May 14, 1979 (Supp. 79-1). Amended effective 

October 2, 1979 (Supp. 79-5). Editorial correction, subsection (E) (Supp. 80-2). 

Amended effective August 29, 1980 (Supp. 80-4). Amended subsection(B)(1) and 

deleted subsections (C) through (E) effective September 22, 1983 (Supp. 83-5). Former 

Section R9-3-201 renumbered without change as Section R18-2-201 (Supp. 87-3). 

Amended effective September 26, 1990 (Supp. 90-3). Amended by final rulemaking at 11 

A.A.R. 3305, effective October 3, 2005 (Supp. 05-3). Section corrected to include 

subsection (B), which was inadvertently omitted in Supp. 05-3 (Supp. 07-4). Amended by 

final rulemaking at 18 A.A.R. 1542, effective August 7, 2012 (Supp. 12-2).
# Did you know... 

# Class of 2018!

For more information:

Texas Education Agency: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/brochures/

Institute for Public School Initiatives http://ipsi.utexas.edu/hb5-resources-2/

Education Service Center Region 13 http://www4.esc13.net/cc/house-bill-5 

# the high school graduation requirements are changing?

Beginning with the graduating class of 2018, Texas high school students will have the option to complete one of three new graduation plans: the Foundation Plan, the Foundation plus Endorsement Plan, or the Distinguished Plan.

With the move to these new graduation plans comes new course requirements, particularly with regard to mathematics. Only students who choose to complete the Distinguished Plan or the STEM endorsement within the Foundation plus Endorsement Plan will be required to complete Algebra II.

Yet, Algebra II is still an admissions requirement for most public colleges and universities in Texas.

# Will you have the math to get you to college?

Foundation Plan (22 credits)
English (4 credits) Science (3 credits) Mathematics (3 credits) Social Studies (3 credits) Physical Education (1 credit) World Language (2 credits) Fine Arts (1 credit) Electives (5 credits) Foundation plus Endorsement (26 credits)

English (4 credits) Science (4 credits) Mathematics (4 credits) Social Studies (3 credits) Physical Education (1 credit) World Language or Computer Science (2 credits) Fine Arts (1 credit) Electives (2 credits) Endorsement Requirements Distinguished (26 credits)
English (4 credits) Science (4 credits) Mathematics (4 credits) MUST INCLUDE ALGEBRA II Social Studies (3 credits) Physical Education (1 credit) World Language or Computer Science (2 credits) Fine Arts (1 credit) Electives (2 credits) Endorsement Requirements for 1 Endorsement 

## Not all new graduation plans require Algebra II, but most Texas public universities do!

If you intend to select either the Foundation or the Foundation plus Endorsement Plan,



# talk to your guidance counselor TODAY about adding Algebra II! Does NOT require Algebra II

Will NOT qualify for admission to Texas public universities Will qualify for admission to Texas

public universities, if you complete Algebra II Will qualify for automatic admission to Texas public universities Requires Algebra II Only STEM endorsement requires Algebra II 

# Your Choice of High School Graduation Plans:

Aects Your College Options:
#### Will Maxey v. The State.

No. 1921.

Decided February 28, 1900.

1. Recognizance—Jurisdiction on Appeal.

A recognizancd taken for appeal from a misdemeanor conviction must be entered of record in the final minutes of the" court during the term at which the appeal was taken. This is essential to the jurisdiction of the court on appeal. Affidavit of the judge that the recognizance was taken will not suffice.

.8. Same—Practice on Appeal.

Where the record on appeal fails to show a recognizance properly entered in the ■court below and contains no certificate that appellant is in jail pending the appeal, •the appeal will be dismissed.

Appeal • from the County Court of Shackelford. Tried below before Hon. I. M. Chism, County Judge.

Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully playing at a game with ■cards; penalty, a fine of $10.

No statement necessary.

*Thos. L. Blanton,*for appellant.

*BoVt A. John,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

HENDERSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of playing at a ¿ame with cards, and be prosecutes this appeal.

The Assistant Attorney-General has filed a motion to dismiss the .appeal, because there is no recognizance in the record, nor a certificate that appellant is confined in jail. In reply to this, appellant has filed .an affidavit of the county judge to the effect that a recognizance was actually taken in open court. This is not sufficient. The recognizance should have been entered of record in the final minutes of the court. A recognizance is an undertaking entered into before a court of record in session by a defendant in a criminal action and his sureties, by which they bind themselves, etc. The requisites thereof are prescribed by our statutes. Articles 303, 308, 886-888, Code Crim. Proc. From an inspection of these articles it is evident that, whatever the court may have done in the way of taking recognizance, it is not perfected until this recognizance is entered of record in the ■final minutes of the ease. 20 Am. and Eng. Enc. of Law, 1 ed., 471. In Quarles v. State, 37 Texas Criminal Reports, 362, it was held that -the entry of this recognizance could not be made nunc pro tunc, so as -to give this court jurisdiction. In Thompson v. State, 35 Texas Criminal Reports, 505, it was • held it was the duty of appellant to see that this recognizance was entered of record before the adjournment of the court, and that such recognizance could not afterwards be amended. And see Dement v. State, 39 Texas Crim. Rep., 271. We accordingly hold that, in order to give this court jurisdiction, it is necessary not only that the recognizance be taken, but that .such *557recognizance be entered of record during the term at which the appeal was taken. There being no recognizance in this case, nor certificate that appellant is in jail, the appeal is dismissed.

*Appeal dismissed.*