alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered July 2 6 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00317
- CV DELORIS PHILLIPS, Appellant

V. PORSHALA PHILLIPS AN D WILLIAM BRENT, Appellee s On Appeal f

rom the 254th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 18
- 00541



### O RDER Before the Court are appellant’s (1) July 11, 2018 emergency expedited motion to correct/amend reporter’s record ; (2) July 19, 2018 request for documents t o be included in clerk’s record ; (3) July 19, 2018 request for supplementa tion of clerk’s record; and (4) July 23,
2018 “request for preservation of an y /all records/files/documents, etc.” We DENY the July 11 th
motion and July 19 th request s. We DENY as mo ot the July 23 rd request for preservation because
all records and documents filed in this appeal will be retained in accordance with applicable
statutes and the Court’s record retention policy.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-10-0039

SAT Date: 11/13/2009

Print Date: 3/28/2011

Related cases: CBI: Yes

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 1 1

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

3 31

Exposure Based Review:

Health:

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: No exposures needed

Ecotox: No releases to water

Fate: ;

Keywords:

 Keywords: 

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-10-0039

FATE: 

Solid 

S < 0.001 mg/L at 25 EC (E)

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 EC (E)

BP > 400 EC (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)

POTW removal (%) = 0-90 via sorption

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg > mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = low - v.strong
PBT Potential: P3B3

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl - rapid

Direct photolysis will be negl - rapid

Indirect photolysis will be negl - rapid

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is nil all routes (pchem); 

 No significant health concerns.

 Ecotox:

Test 

Organism

Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 *

daphnid 48-h LC50 *

green algal 96-h EC50 *

fish _ chronic value *

daphnid _ chronic value *

algal _ chronic value *

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for neutral organic chemicals; 

SAR chemical class = ; MW>1,000,000; solid; log 

Kow >> 10 (P); S = negligible; pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active 

ingredients and nominal concentrations; DW hardness < 150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and DW TOC 

<2.0 mg/L

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

NES *

SARs neutral organic chemicals

SAR Class

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robbie Ramsingh, Appellant.

[700 NYS2d 736]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunlop, J.), rendered March 21, 1997, convicting him of rape in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

It is well established that a guilty plea will be upheld as valid if it was entered into voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently *(see, People v Fiumefreddo,*82 NY2d 536; *People v Moissett,*76 NY2d 909; *People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9). Similarly *407well settled is the principle that the determination of whether to allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of the trial court *(see,*CPL 220.60 [3]; *People v McGriff,*216 AD2d 330; *People v Ochoa,*179 AD2d 689; *People v Rivera,*177 AD2d 664).

The record fully supports the conclusion that the defendant voluntarily pleaded guilty with a full understanding of the consequences attendant thereto *(see, People v Dunlop,*228 AD2d 692; *People v Guerrone,*208 AD2d 383). Accordingly, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw the plea.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.
Before the First Division,

February 6, 1939

No. 43194.

#### Protests 973094-G, etc., of Allied Purchasing Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**





In
      connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Summit Environmental
      Corporation, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
      December 31, 2006 (the “Report”), I, Doug Cox, Chief Executive Officer of the
      Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Sec.78o(d)); and





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





Dated: April 16, 2007*/s/
              Doug Cox*Doug CoxChairman and Chief Executive
              Officer





The
      above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sec.1350) and is not being filed as part
      of the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.




Exhibit
            32
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Delegation of Authority 302] 

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Secretary of State by the laws of the United States, including, Section 1 of the State Departments Basic Authorities Act. As amended (22 U.S.C. 2651a), I hereby delegate to Maura A. Harty, to the extent authorized by law, all authorities that have been or may be delegated to the Under Secretary for Management. 

Any authority covered by this delegation may also be exercised by the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, or the Under Secretary for Management. 

Any act, executive order, regulation, or procedure subject to or affected by, this delegation of authority shall be deemed to be such act, executive order, regulation, or procedure as amended from time to time. 

This delegation shall expire upon the appointment and entry upon duty of an individual to replace Henrietta H. Fore as the Under Secretary of State for Management. 

                    This delegation of authority shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

Dated: May 10, 2007. 

Condoleezza Rice, 

Secretary of State, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E7-9761 Filed 5-18-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-10-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 Quarterly Report of NUEVO FINANCIAL CENTER, INC. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jose
Araque, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

      (1)   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 result of operations
            of the Company.


By: /s/ Jose Araque
    --------------------------------------
    Jose Araque, Chief Executive Officer

Dated: November 8, 2006
EXHIBIT 32



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

     I, Richard O. Dean, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and
Joseph A. Oblas, Principal Financial Officer of Ashcroft Homes Corporation (the
"Company") certify that:

     1. I have reviewed the annual report on Form 10-QSB of Ashcroft Homes
Corporation;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report; and

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Company as of, and for, the period presented in this quarterly report.

Date:    November 21, 2003


Ricahrd O. Dean
----------------------------
Richard O. Dean,
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer


Joseph A. Oblas
----------------------------
Joseph A. Oblas,
Executive Vice President and Principal Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Craig Burton, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-QSB of USIP.Com, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this quarterly  report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for theregistrant and have:

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared;

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to thefiling date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and

 

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on ourevaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design oroperation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and haveidentified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internalcontrols; and

 

----

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls; and

 

6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and Ihave indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significantchanges in internal controls or in other factors that could significantlyaffect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.

 
| Date: November 10, 2003 |                    |
|-------------------------|-------------------------|
|                    |                    | /s/ Craig Burton |   |
|                    | Craig Burton, President |

 

2

----
PUBLIC LAW 111–109—NOV. 30, 2009 123 STAT. 3021 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 748: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009): 

Aug. 4, considered and passed Senate. 

Nov. 5, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–109 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2777 

Logan Avenue in San Diego, California, as the ‘‘Cesar E. Chavez Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CESAR E. CHAVEZ POST OFFICE. 

(a) REDESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 2777 Logan Avenue in San Diego, California, 

and known as the Southeastern Post Office, shall be known and 

designated as the ‘‘Cesar E. Chavez Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Cesar E. Chavez Post Office’’. 

Approved November 30, 2009. 

Nov. 30, 2009 

[S. 748] 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1 with PUBLAW
June 20 , 2013



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

KRIS HALL AND HOLLY J. JONES, LARRY BISH OP AND CYNTHIA BISHOP, GEORGE CLARK AND DEBORAH CLARK, G ARY MCGREGOR
AN D TERI MCGREGOR, SOLEDAD PINEDA AND C AROL SEVERANCE

, Appellant s

NO. 14

- 12

- 00323

- CV V.

JACKIE BEAN, DAN KEL LOGG, KAY LEIPZIG, J ANICE LUTHY, BOB MCDONALD, BRUCE REIN HART AND KAREN VOLK , Appellee s

________________________________ This caus e, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee s , Jackie Bean, Dan Kellogg, Kay Leipzig, Janice Luthy, Bob McDonald, Bruce Reinhart and Karen Volk, signed February 28, 2012, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and fi nd error in the judgment. We therefore order the judgment of the court below REVERSED and REMAND the cause for proceedin gs in accordance with the court’ s opinion.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellee s , Jack ie Bean, Dan Kellogg, Kay Leipzig, Janice Luthy, Bob McDonald, Bruce Reinhart and Karen Volk.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff, *v.*Elaine C. Berg, Individually and as Committee of the Estate of Harvey M. Berg, an Incompetent, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Erie County,

April 12, 1966.

*905*Ohlin, Damon, Morey, Sawyer <& Moot (James S. McAskill*of counsel), for plaintiff. *Milton Rabow*for defendant.

Reid S. Moule, J.

The plaintiff, which issued a policy of insurance on the life of the above-named incompetent, moves for summary judgment on its first cause of action to rescind the accidental death benefit provision and on its second cause of action to rescind the waiver of premium after total disability provision.

The complaint alleges and the answer admits that the incompetent represented in his application for the policy that he had never received any disability benefits from any source, had not consulted or been treated by a physician for nervous or mental symptoms, and had not been treated by a physician or confined to any hospital for the past five years; that such representations were false, were material, and were relied on by the plaintiff in issuing the policy.

The defendant claims that the provisions sought to be rescinded are now incontestable and in any event that an incompetent is not chargeable with misrepresentations, since he was incapable of knowing the meaning of his acts.

While the life insurance provision of the policy is now incontestable I do not believe the provisions sued on are incontestable. By the terms of the policy the accidental death benefit provision is contestable during the life of the policy and the waiver of premium after total disability provision is contestable if total disability occurs within three years from the date of issue of the policy. The proof submitted by the plaintiff establishes and in fact the answer alleges that the incompetent was totally disabled within three years from the date of issue of the policy.

The court is aware of the rule of law that a contract with an incompetent person who has not been adjudicated is not valid and while the other party may not rescind it because of the incompetency, the incompetent party may if the other party can be placed in *status quo.*This rule was developed to protect not only the incompetent but also an innocent party who had conferred a benefit on an incompetent party.

*906In the instant case, the plaintiff is not seeking to rescind because of the incompetency, but because of the material misrepresentations. If it were because of the former, the incompetency would act as a shield to protect the incompetent. However, there is no reason to allow the incompetency to be used as a sword and that is what the effect would be if an incompetent were not responsible for misrepresentations. Consequently, the court holds that an incompetent is responsible for misrepresentations, and that a contract based on such may be rescinded by the innocent party. That the misrepresentations were innocently made is of no consequence. *(Eastern District Piece Dye Works*v. *Travelers Ins. Co.,*234 N. Y. 441; *Piccininni*v. *Ætna Life Ins. Co.,*250 App. Div. 498; *Keck*v. *Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,*238 App. Div. 538, affd. 264 N. Y. 422.)
Exhibit 32.1





Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Ixia Pursuant to


Rule 13a-14(b) under the Exchange Act and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002











In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ixia (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Atul Bhatnagar, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Thomas B. Miller, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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













Date:
May 6, 2011

/s/  Atul BhatnagarAtul Bhatnagar

President and Chief Executive Officer








Date:
May 6, 2011

/s/  Thomas B. MillerThomas B. Miller

Chief Financial Officer
Case NTo. 10,053.

#### NATIONAL STATE BANK v. PIERCE.

[18 Alb. Law J. 16; 5 Reporter, 682; 5 Wkly. Notes Cas. 344; 1 2 Nat. Bank Cas. (Browne) 177; 24 Int. Rev. Rec. 212; 25 Pittsb. Leg. J. 177.]

Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

April 23, 1878.

Banks and Banking — Taxation op National Banks.

A national bank located in New Jersey for the convenience of persons in Philadelphia, kept a clerk in that city who received deposits. *Uctil,*that the bank did not become located in Philadelphia so as to be liable to taxation.

Bill to procure an injunction to restrain the bank assessors of the state of Pennsylvania from returning an assessment upon the capital stock to the auditor-general of the state and to have the assessment declared illegal. It appeared from the bill set forth that the plaintiff was a national bank engaged in business in New Jersey; that for the convenience of persons in Philadelphia desiring to deposit money therein, it kept a clerk in an office in that city, to receive deposits and to deliver them to the bank in Camden, N. J., at the close of each day; that the defendants, who were the bank assessors of the state of Pennsylvania, had *1239served on the plaintiff a notice of an assessment of a tax upon the entire capital stock of the bank; that said assessment, ■which was made under acts of the assembly of Pennsylvania of April 12, 18G7, April 2, ISOS, and December 22, 1809, was contrary to law and void; that the plaintiff had taken an appeal from the assessment in due time, but the assessors refused to vacate or alter the assessment. [An injunction was prayed restraining the assessors from returning the assessment to the auditor general of Pennsylvania, and a decree that the assessment was illegal and contrary to law. The answer admitted the facts of the bill so far as within the defendant’s knowledge, but claimed that the tax was properly assessed.] 2

.Tohn Goforth (with him, C. S. Carson), for plaintiff.

S. G. Thompson, for defendants.

The simple question is, is this a bank located in Pennsylvania? A bank may be either of discount or deposit. If it performs the function of either in a place, it becomes located there. If it does business in two places, it must be taxed in both.

1

 [5 Wkly. Notes Cas. 344, contains only a partial report.]

2

**[From 24 Int. Rev. Rec. 212.]

CADWALADER, District Judge.

It is a criminal offense to carry on banking business in the way suggested in Pennsylvania without a license obtained in a particular manner, but that does not make the offender a bank located in Pennsylvania. This is not an assessment upon a stockholder as such, but upon the bank.

MeKENNAN, Circuit Judge

(CADWALA-DER, District Judge, concurring). We have decided, after full discussion, that even when a corporation carries on business in a state, it does not thereby become an inhabitant of it, and we cannot go farther and say that by-similar conduct a corporation becomes' located therein.

Injunction granted.
No. 96-7050.

#### Garcia *v.*Nevada.

Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.
Before the First Division,

June 8, 1944

No. 49483.

#### Petition 6315-R of Gerard J. Cassidy, Inc. (Boston).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It appeared that the merchandise was described on the invoice as “25 casks” of beer and the value of the casks was shown as $13.75. It developed that the beer was contained in the aforementioned iron drums, that the exporter had made an error, and that the cost should have been $137.50. At the hearing the import manager of the customs brokers who made entry for the importer testified that there was no information at the time of entry other than that appearing on the invoice and that the statement of the cost of the containers on the invoice was taken as correct and entry made at that figure. These statements received support from the examiner who passed the merchandise, and the customs agent who was in charge of the investigation of the facts. On the record presented the court found that entry of the merchandise at a less value than that found upon final appraisement was without intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts. Petition was therefore granted.