alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appea **ls**

**San Antonio, Texas**

May 21, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00785

- CV

Mary Ann CASTRO

, Appellant

v.

Manuel CASTRO

, Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011

- CI

- 15957 Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On May 18, 2015, appellant filed eight additional motions

– “Motion for Reconsideration,” “Motion to Deny Counsel Joseph Appelt and Applee [sic] Manuel Castro Time to Turn in Appellee Brief,” “Motion to Amend Agreement for Final Divorce Signed 10/30/2013,” “Motion for Action for Bill of Review BSI Mortgage Statement to Modify Agreement for Final Divorce . . .,” “Motion to Redivison [sic] of Community Esta te Due to Fraud . . .,” “Motion to Just and Right Divison [sic] of Community Estate Due to Fraud . . .,” “Motion for Punitive Damages . . .,” and “Motion to Grant Appellant Relief and Punitive Damages Who is the Wronged Spouse.” We DENY the eights motions identified in this order.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on this 21st day of May, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v BILLY JUNIOR VANZANDT, Seaman Recruit, U. S. Navy, Appellant

16 USCMA 247, 36 CMR 403

No. 19,287

April 29, 1966

*Major Ernest B. Wright,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Jean E. Van Slate,*USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

The decision of the board of review is affirmed. United States v Surtasky, 16 USCMA 241, 36 CMR 397.

Judges Ferguson and Kilday concur.
#### In the Matter of Peter A. H. Jackson.

Decree affirmed with costs of appeal against the trustee personally. Opinion by Dwight, J. 1
ACC CPI Safety & Health Training Through January 2012

December 2011 January 2012 Total Through January 2012

Job

Description Fully Complete Fully Complete Fully Complete InProgress

Instructor Online Instructor Online Instructor Online Started, not 

finished

Applicator 0 58 30 66 123 727 450

Helper 0 4 1 10 29 119 56

Test Scores through January 2012 100% 90-99% 70-89%

Percent achieving test scores 55% 35% 10%

Helper 0 4 1 10 29 119 56

Other 10 61 12 40 177 1054 474

Supervisor 0 43 29 30 182 479 371

Total 10 166 72 146 511 2379 1351

Total Students Fully Completed 

Through January 2012

Total Students Started or Finished 

Through January 2012

2890 4241
No. 64937.

#### Chester K. Stoner *v.*United States,

protest 329065-K (Boston).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of carrizo baskets the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Chester K. Stoner*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 178, C.D. 2083), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8355 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to recognize Indian tribal 

governments for purposes of determining under the adoption credit 

whether a child has special needs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 10, 2024 

Mr. KILMER (for himself, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. MOOLENAAR, and 

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to recognize 

Indian tribal governments for purposes of determining 

under the adoption credit whether a child has special 

needs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tribal Adoption Parity 

5 Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8355 IH

1 SEC. 2. RECOGNIZING INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS FOR 

2 PURPOSES OF DETERMINING UNDER THE 

3 ADOPTION CREDIT WHETHER CHILD HAS 

4 SPECIAL NEEDS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 23(d)(3) of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

7 (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘or In8 dian tribal government’’ after ‘‘a State’’, and 

9 (2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ‘‘or In10 dian tribal government’’ after ‘‘such State’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

13 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### Jonathan Woodruff *v.*Charles G. Schneider.

Motion denied.
No. 42922.

#### Protest 971618-G of E. Leitz, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

On the record the merchandise was found to consist of small square pieces of paper covered with tinfoil with rectangular openings in the center. The claim at 5 cents per pound and 20 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1405 was therefore sustained.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark Harmon, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 172]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.), rendered December 6, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of 51⁄2 to 11 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The jury could have reasonably concluded from the evidence *208that defendant had an ongoing business relationship with an unknown heroin seller behind the dumpster, or that the heroin sold to the undercover officer was from defendant’s own stash. Agency "is generally a factual question[;] * * * [t]here is no legal formula for determining the defendant’s intent at the time of the drug transfer” *(People v Lam Lek Chong,*45 NY2d 64, 74-75, *cert denied*439 US 935). The jury’s verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unpreserved by specific objection, or without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Tom, JJ.
No. 42908.

Suit 4233.

#### *United States*v. *Daniel F. Young, Inc., et*al.

Reap. Dec. 4476 reversed.
EXHIBIT 21



SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

AS OF JUNE 30, 2004



|1. | Mobile P.E.T. Systems (UK) Limited
|-- | ----------------------------------



|2. | Molecular Imaging Services Corp I, a Delaware corporation
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------



|3. | MBPT #1, LLC, a California limited liability company
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------



|4. | MBPT #2, LLC, a California limited liability company
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------



|5. | MBPT #3, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
|-- | --------------------------------------------------



|6. | MBPT #5, LLC, a California limited liability company
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------



|7. | Molecular Imaging Cyclotron LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------



|8 | Molecular Imaging Sorrento Valley LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------



|9 | Molecular Imaging MicroPET LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
|- | --------------------------------------------------------------------



|10. | Molecular Imaging Houston LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------



|11. | PET Billing Solutions, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------



|12. | Molecular Imaging St. Pete LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------



|13. | Molecular Imaging Bellevue LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------
#### John H. Bonn, *Appellant, v.*Ernest Steiger, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Davis, P. J.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-17-00352-CR

Style: Nelson Oroyo Rodriguez v. The State of Texas

Date motion filed*: November 15, 2017

Type of motion: Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Brief

Party filing motion: Appellant’s appointed counsel Tom Abbate

Document to be filed: Appellant’s Brief

Is appeal accelerated? No.

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: September 15, 2017

Number of extensions granted: 1 Current Due Date: November 14, 2017

Date Requested: December 29, 2017 (105 days from original due date)

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: December 29, 2017.

 No further extensions of time will be granted.

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Although the Court of Criminal Appeals’ extension order has expired, because 

appellant’s counsel’s request states, among other things, that Hurricane Harvey has 

continued to affect his practice, his second extension is granted, but counsel is warned

that no further extensions will be granted due to the total length requested. See

Extension of Emergency Order Authorizing Modification and Suspension of Court 

Procedures in Proceedings Affected by Disaster, Misc. Docket No. 17-013 (Tex. Crim. 

App. Sept. 26, 2017); TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 38.6(d). Accordingly, if appellant’s brief is not 

filed by December 29, 2017, this Court may abate this case. See id. 38.8(b)(2).

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

  Acting for the Court

Date: November 21, 2017
No. 49241.

#### Protest 975730-G of W. X. Huber Co. (Los Angeles).

*267Opinion by

Keefe, J.

The importer testified that the fish were highly perishable and were required to bo kept frozen at all times. The inspector of customs testified on behalf of the Government that he weighed the fish and that they were not packed in ice, and that therefore no allowance was made by him for ice or moisture. The invoices in question were received in evidence, as well as the dock book in which the inspector entered the weights. From an examination of the evidence it was found that the only proof of the net landed weights of the fish in question was submitted by the Government. The plaintiff neither weighed the shipment nor established that the net landed weights returned by the collector were not the actual weights of the merchandise. It was found that the documentary evidence in the form of copies of invoices was insufficient to establish the net landed weights. *Lakeside Fish & Oyster Co.*v. *United States*(T. D. 48301) and *Dow*v. *United States*(T.D. 44444) cited. On the record presented the protest was overruled.
##### 



EX 31
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 USC, SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Pacific Fuel
Cell Corp. (the Registrant or the Company);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 in order 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.
    
    I am 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:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedure to be designed under my supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant
(including its consolidated subsidiaries), is made known to me by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;b.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based upon such evaluations; andc.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth quarter in the
case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    I have disclosed, based on my 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 function):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
 Dated: April 28, 2008
    /s/ George SuzukiGeorge Suzuki,Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 21.1


The subsidiaries of The Neptune Society, Inc. are as follows:

     o    Neptune  Society of America,  Inc., a company  incorporated  under the
          laws of the State of California;

     o    Neptune Management Corp., a company incorporated under the laws of the
          State of California;

     o    Heritage Alternatives,  Inc., a company incorporated under the laws of
          the State of California;

     o    Neptune Pre-Need Plan, Inc., a company  incorporated under the laws of
          the State of California;

     o    Neptune Funeral Services,  Inc., a company incorporated under the laws
          of New York; and

     o    Neptune  Funeral  Services of Yonkers,  Inc.,  a company  incorporated
          under the laws of New York.

     o    Wilhelm Mortuary, Inc., an Oregon corporation.
### NUMBER 13 - 1 4 - 00 059 - C R 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

MONICA GALVAN , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On a ppeal from the 347 th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.



## ORDER OF ABATEMENT
Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam Appellant ’ s appointed counsel, Lisa Harris , has filed a motion requesting to withdraw as counsel. According to her motion to withdraw, good cause exists for her to
withdraw be cause of a conflict of interest. Counsel states that during time she was employed with the Nueces County District Attorney’s Office, she signed the affidavit for a
search warrant in this cause.2

Adequate reason for the discharge of c ounsel and appointment of new counsel rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Carroll v. State , 176 S.W.3d 249, 255 (Tex. App.

-- Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd). In those circumstances where the appointment of substitute counsel may be necessary, an appellate court, when faced with a motion to withdraw, should abate the proceeding to the trial court for determination of this issue. Accordingly, we ABATE the appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial court for further proceedings consisten t with this order. Upon remand, the trial court shall determine whether appellant ’ s court

- appointed attorney should remain as appellant's counsel; and, if not, whether appellant is entitled to new appointed counsel. If the trial court determines that ther e is no reason to discharge appellant ’ s current appointed attorney and appoint substitute counsel, the court shall enter an order to that effect. If the trial court determines that new counsel should be appointed, the name, address, telephone number, and state bar number of newly appointed counsel shall be included in the order appointing counsel. The trial court shall further cause its order to be included in a supplemental clerk's record to be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before the expirati on of thirty days from the date of this order.
It is so ordered. Per Curiam
Do no t pu blish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2 (b)

. D elivered and filed th e 15th day of December, 2014

.
Exhibit 32(a)Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350     I, Joseph P. Keithley, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of KeithleyInstruments, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2007which this certification accompanies 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, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Joseph P. Keithley   Joseph P. Keithley
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 55 (Thursday, March 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13510]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5207]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[UT-920-07-1320-EL, UTU-84713]


Notice of Invitation To Participate in Coal Exploration License 
Application, Parallel Petroleum Corporation, UTU-84713, Utah

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Invitation to Participate in Coal Exploration 
License.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 2(b) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, 
as amended by section 4 of the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 
1976, 90 Stat. 1083, 30 U.S.C. 201(b), and to the regulations adopted 
as 43 CFR part 3410, all interested parties are hereby invited to 
participate with Parallel Petroleum Corporation on a pro rata cost 
sharing basis in a program for the exploration of coal deposits in the 
Vernal Coal Field owned by the United States of America in the 
following-described lands in Uintah County, Utah:

T. 3 S., R. 23 E., SLM, Utah
    Sec. 7, lot 2;
    Sec. 29, SW\1/4\NE\1/4\ .
T. 4 S., R. 22 E., SLM, Utah
    Sec. 10, NE\1/4\SW\1/4\;
    Sec. 35, NE\1/4\SW\1/4\.

    Containing 159.57 acres.

DATES: Any party electing to participate in this exploration program 
must send written notice to both the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
and Parallel Petroleum Corporation, as provided in the ADDRESSES 
section below, no later than thirty days after publication of this 
invitation in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the exploration plan and license (serialized under 
the number of UTU 84713) are available for review during normal 
business hours in the public room of the BLM State Office, 440 West 200 
South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah. The written notice to 
participate in the exploration program should be sent to both the BLM, 
Utah State Office, P.O. Box 45155, Salt Lake City, Utah 84145, and to 
William A. Ryan, Agent Rocky Mountain Consulting, Inc., 290 South 800 
East, Vernal, Utah 94078.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All of the coal in the above-described land 
consists of unleased Federal coal. This coal is not within a known coal 
production area. This coal exploration license will be issued by the 
BLM. The exploration program is fully described and is being conducted 
pursuant to an exploration plan approved by the BLM. The plan may be 
modified to accommodate the legitimate exploration needs of persons 
seeking to participate. This notice of invitation to participate was 
published in The Vernal Express, once each week for two consecutive 
weeks beginning the fourth week of August 2006 and in the Federal 
Register.
    The foregoing is published in the Federal Register pursuant to 43 
CFR 3410.2-1(c)(1).

    Dated: February 13, 2007.
Kent Hoffman,
Deputy State Director, Lands and Minerals.
 [FR Doc. E7-5207 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P
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 Annual Report of Monterey Bay Tech, Inc., (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Jonathan Kahn, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify,
in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:


      (1)   The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1,
            fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 Registrant




Dated: April 21, 2005                         /s/  Jonathan Kahn
                                              ------------------------
                                              Jonathan Kahn
                                              Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Registrant and will be
retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-KSB to which it relates, is not
deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities
Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after
the date of the Form 10-KSB), irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.