alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## NO. 12

- 23

- 00235

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

AARION J. CUNNINGHA M AND IN THE INTEREST OF A. T., A CHILD , APPELLANT

V.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL , APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW

CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM

T hi s appeal is being dismissed for failu re to co mply wit h t h e Texas R ules of App ellate
Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3 (c)

. Aarion J. Cunningham , acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal on August 24, 2023

. On September 8 , the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the no tice of appeal fa iled to contain

t he information specifically r equired by Texas Rule s of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and Section 51.017(a) of the Texas Civil Practice an d Remedies Code. 1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.5 (service); see also T EX

. C IV

. P RA C

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 51.017(a) (West Supp. 2019) (notice of appeal must be served on each court reporter responsible for pr eparing reporter ’ s record). The notice warned that, unl ess Appellant filed a proper notice of appeal on or before October 9 , the appeal would be
refer red to the Co urt f or dismissal. This deadline passed and Appellant has not filed a compliant notice of ap peal or otherwise responded to this Court ’ s notice

.

1 P ro s e lit igants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable rules of procedure; other wise, p ro se li tigants would benefit from an unfair advantage over parties repr ese nted by counsel

. Muhamm ed v. Plai n s Pipeline, L.P. , No . 12

- 16

- 00189

- CV, 20 17 WL 2665180 , at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.

— Tyler June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.)

.2 Bec ause Appellant failed, after notice, to comply with Rule 9.5 and Section 51.017(a) , the appeal is dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 42.3(c) (on its own initiative after giving ten days ’ notice to all par ties, appellate court may dismiss appeal if appeal is s ubject to dismissal because appellant failed to comply with a requirement of these rules, a court order, or a not ice from the
cl erk requiring a response or other action within a specified time).

Opinion delivered October 18, 2023

. Panel consisted of Worth en, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TW ELFTH COURT OF A PPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

J UDGMENT

O CTOBER 1 8, 2023

NO

. 12-23-00235- CV

AARI ON J. CUNNINGHAM AND IN THE INTER EST OF A. T., A CHILD , Appellant V. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL , Appellee

A ppeal from the County Court at Law
of Cherokee County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. FM2300146)

THIS CAU SE came on to be heard on the appellate re cord, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court th at the appeal should be dismissed.

It is t herefore ORDERED, ADJUDG ED a nd DE CREED by this Cou rt t hat this appeal be, and the same is, he reby dismissed ; and that this decision be certifie d to t he court
below for observance.
By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J

.
About this capture
web_con
**Exhibit 10.49**

 

| Irwin  J. Gruverman |   | December 31, 2001 |
|---------------------|--------|-------------------|

16 Tanglewood Road

Needham, MA  02194

 

Dear Mr. Gruverman:

 

This will confirm our Agreement concerning your compensation asChairman and CEO of MFIC.­

 

Subject to approval by the Board, we will pay you at a base rateof  $60,000 per year, beginning January1,2002. You will participate in a bonus pool, if any, for management employees,and the Board will consider a Special Bonus if financial results and stockperformance warrant it.  You agree thatMFIC will withhold money from your compensa­tion to pay appropriate taxes. Youwill be included in MFIC’s insurance and medical programs as in past years, atno cost to you, as part of your compensation.

 

 
| MFIC  CORPORATION               |   |                         |
|---------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|
|                            |   |                         |
|                            |   |                         |
|                            |   |                         |
| Irwin  Gruverman, CEO, Chairman |   | Irwin  Gruverman, for myself |

 

----
#### Deppen, Appellant, *v.*Light.

*Deceit*— False *statements*— Evidence.

To establish an action to recover damages, alleged to have been sustained by reason of false and fraudulent statements made by the defendant concerning the value of certain bonds and shares of-stock, which the plaintiff purchased on the defendant’s recommendation, it is essential for the plaintiff to prove that the statements were untrue, and that they were made in bad faith.

Argued Feb. 28, 1910.

Appeal, No. 308, Jan. T., 1909, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Berks Co., March T., 1908, No. 63, on verdict for defendant, in case of Anna I. Deppen v. Wellington W. Light.

Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Mestrezat, Potter and Stewart, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass for deceit.

At the trial Stevens, J., charged as follows:

The plaintiff, Anna I. Deppen, has brought this action against the defendant, Wellington W. Light, to recover damages, alleging that she was induced by false and fraudulent representations to make certain purchases of stock from the defendant.

This action is what is known in law as an action of fraud or deceit, and it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to offer positive proof, not only that the representations were made, but that the representations which were made were false and fraudulent.

It appears that on April 7, 1903, the plaintiff went to the defendant and purchased twenty shares of the capital stock of the National Brass & Iron Works, fourteen shares of the capital stock of the Montello Brick Works and ten shares of the Lebanon Valley Iron Works. It is conceded that the stock of the Lebanon Valley Iron Works is good, and all the testimony that has been offered has been con*80cerning the truth of the representations made as to the value of the other stocks.

April 25, 1910:

It appears from the plaintiff's own testimony that the stocks at that time were marketable stocks selling at about the price, at the exact price, at which they were sold to the plaintiff, and there is no evidence here concerning the falsity of the representations made at the time. It may be unfortunate that afterward some of these enterprises failed, but the evidence which the jury must consider is that which relates to the time when the sale was made. I find in this testimony no positive evidence in support of the various allegations made by the plaintiff, and I therefore direct you to find a verdict in favor of the defendant.

*Error assigned*was in giving binding instructions for defendant.

*E. H. Deysher,*for appellant.

*C. H.*Buhl, with him *J. Milton Miller,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

This was an action to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of false and fraudulent statements made by the defendant concerning the value of certain bonds and shares of stock which the plaintiff purchased on his recommendation. To establish her action it was essential that she should prove that the statements were untrue and that they were made in bad faith. The learned trial judge found that she did not prove either and directed a verdict for the defendant. We find no reason to doubt the correctness of his conclusion. The judgment is affirmed.
#### Robert L. RABORN v. LA. HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION, La. Civil Service Commission and La. Dept. of Civil Service.

No. 60718.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 1977.

In re: Robert L. Raborn applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 349 So.2d 903.

Granted.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that *176counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
Exhibit 32.1



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 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Immunomedics. Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge,
that:



The annual report for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2005 (the Form 10-K) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



| |  |                                      
| |  | -------------------------------------
| |  | Dated: September 12, 2005            
| | 
| |  | /s/ CYNTHIA L. SULLIVAN              
| |  | Cynthia L. Sullivan                  
| |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Global Earth Energy, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ending February 28, 2011, I, Sydney A. Harland, Chief Executive Officer of Global Earth Energy, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that: 1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending February 28, 2011, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending February 28, 2011, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Global Earth Energy, Inc. Dated: April 19, 2011. /s/ Sydney A. Harland   Sydney A. Harland, Chief Executive Officer of
    Global Earth Energy, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

March 17, 2006

Before

Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

Nos. 04-2557 and 04-2592

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

PIERRE DAWSON and ALFONZO

INGRAM,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeals from the United States

District

Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 02 CR 688

Elaine E. Bucklo, Judge.

O R D E R

On Paladino remand, the judge stated simply: “The issue before me is

whether I would have imposed the same sentences on these defendants if I had

known the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. In this case I would have imposed

the same sentences.” The sentences were guideline sentences and such sentences

are, as we held in United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606,608 (7th Cir. 2005),

presumptively reasonable under the new regime of the Booker case. The defendants

in the present case do not contend that the judge refused to consider or address any

arguments they may have made for why the guidelines sentences imposed on them

were unreasonable. Their only contention is that Mykytiuk is inconsistent with

Booker and should be overruled. It is not inconsistent, and we shall not overrule it.

The judgment is 

AFFIRMED.

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
<PAGE>

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Xyvision, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-56277, 33-10405, 33-15473, 33-29845,
33-29486, 33-36243, 33-41846, 33-54014, 33-54018 and 333-19529) of our report
dated June 11, 1998, which report disclaims an opinion on consolidated
financial statements of Xyvision, Inc. as of March 31, 1998 and 1997 and for
each of the three fiscal years in the period ended March 31, 1998 due to
uncertainties as to the Company's ability to continue as a going concern.



                                                     /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P



Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
Boston, Massachusetts
June 26, 1998


                                       1
<PAGE>
Exhibit 23 -- Consent of Experts


Beckstead and Watts, LLP
------------------------
Certified Public Accountants
                                                     3340 Wynn Road, Suite B
                                                         Las Vegas, NV 89102
                                                                702.257.1984
                                                            702.362.0540 fax


To Whom It May Concern:

We have issued our report dated February 19, 2003, accompanying the financial
statements of Benchmark Technology Corporation on Form 10-QSB for the period
of September 14, 2001 (inception date) through December 31, 2002.  We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of said report on the Quarterly
Report of Benchmark Technology Corporation on Form 10-QSB.


Signed,
/s/ Beckstead and Watts, LLP
----------------------------
    Beckstead and Watts, LLP


February 19, 2003

<PAGE>
#### Martha G. AGUILLARD v. NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE, INC.

No. 60563.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 27, 1977.

In re: New Orleans Public Service, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 348 So.2d 97.

Writ denied.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1250 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2005 

Referred to the Committee on Resources 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

S 1250 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. GREAT APE CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE. 

2 Section 4 of the Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000 

3 (16 U.S.C. 6303) is amended— 

4 (1) in subsection (d)— 

5 (A) in paragraph (4)(C), by striking ‘‘or’’ 

6 after the semicolon at the end; 

7 (B) in paragraph (5), by striking the pe8 riod at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

9 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(6) address root causes of threats to great 

11 apes in range states, including illegal bushmeat 

12 trade, diseases, lack of regional or local capacity for 

13 conservation, and habitat loss due to natural disas14 ters.’’; and 

15 (2) in subsection (i)— 

16 (A) by striking ‘‘Every’’ and inserting the 

17 following: 

18 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Every’’; 

19 (B) in paragraph (1) (as designated by 

20 subparagraph (A)), by striking ‘‘shall’’ and in21 serting ‘‘may’’; and 

22 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

23 ‘‘(2) APPLICABILITY OF FACA.—The Federal 

24 Advisory Committee Act (5 App. U.S.C.) shall not 

25 apply to a panel convened under paragraph (1).’’. 
3 

S 1250 RFH 

1 SEC. 2. GREAT APE CONSERVATION FUND. 

2 Section 5(b)(2) of the Great Ape Conservation Act 

3 of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 6304(b)(2)) is amended— 

4 (1) by striking ‘‘expand’’ and inserting ‘‘ex5 pend’’; and 

6 (2) by striking ‘‘$80,000’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘$150,000’’. 

8 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

9 The Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000 is amended 

10 by striking section 6 (16 U.S.C. 6305) and inserting the 

11 following: 

12 ‘‘SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

13 ‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated to the 

14 Fund— 

15 ‘‘(1) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 

16 and 2007; and 

17 ‘‘(2) $7,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 

18 through 2010.’’. 

Passed the Senate September 9, 2005. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Armenia [electronic resource].**
 
2002
Mar
Sep
2003
Mar
Oct
2004
Mar
Sep
2007
May
Nov
2008
 
Nov
2009
May
Dec
 
 
SuDoc Number:ID 1.29:AR 5/
Item Number:0900-I-20 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000631999
 
October 9, 2019
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1199 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1199

  To amend title II of the Social Security Act to shorten the waiting 
  period for social security disability benefits for individuals with 
                             mesothelioma.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 8, 2005

   Mr. Burns introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title II of the Social Security Act to shorten the waiting 
  period for social security disability benefits for individuals with 
                             mesothelioma.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Prompt Disability Payment to 
Mesothelioma Victims Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress makes the following findings:
            (1) Mesothelioma is a quickly advancing form of cancer.
            (2) Most cases of mesothelioma arise from exposure to 
        asbestos fibers.
            (3) The National Cancer Institute estimates that in 2002, 
        approximately 2,000 new mesothelioma diagnoses were made in the 
        United States.

SEC. 3. SHORTENED WAITING PERIOD FOR SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY 
              BENEFITS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH MESOTHELIOMA.

    (a) In General.--Section 223(c)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 423(c)(2)) is amended--
            (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
        ``(or, in the case of an individual with mesothelioma, 30 
        days)'' after ``months''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (B)--
                    (A) in clause (i), by inserting ``(or, in the case 
                of an individual with mesothelioma, the thirteenth 
                month)'' after ``seventeenth month''; and
                    (B) in clause (ii), by inserting ``(or, in the case 
                of an individual with mesothelioma, such thirteenth 
                month)'' after ``such seventeenth month''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply to 
applications for disability benefits filed or pending on or after the 
date of enactment of this Act and to any individuals with filed 
applications for such benefits as of that date who are within a waiting 
period on such date.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

To the Board of Directors and StockholdersSavient Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on (i) Form S-3 (no. 333-146257) and (ii) Form S-8 (no. 333-36121, 333-33073, 333-33075, 333-64541, 333-87344 and 333-127068) filed by Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our Reports dated March 1, 2010, relating to our audits of the  consolidated financial statements, the financial statement schedule and internal control over financial reporting, including in and incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009.

/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLPNew York, NYMarch 1, 2010
No. 45324.

#### Protests 789394-G, etc., of C. J. Tower & Sons et al. (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

On the authority of *Lamborn*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 46, C. A. D. 60) the protests were dismissed.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1340 

To amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to extend the 

date after which surplus funds in the wildlife restoration fund become 

available for apportionment. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 30, 2005 

Mr. INHOFE (for himself and Mr. JEFFORDS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL

To amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act 

to extend the date after which surplus funds in the 

wildlife restoration fund become available for apportionment.

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

3 SECTION 1. AVAILABILITY OF SURPLUS FUNDS IN WILD4 LIFE RESTORATION FUND. 

5 Section 3(b)(2)(C) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 

6 Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669b(b)(2)(C) is amended by 

7 striking ‘‘2006’’ and inserting ‘‘2016’’.

Æ
#### Ellen ROZIER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1757.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 20, 1977.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Warren S. Schwartz, Asst. Public Defender and Randolph Ferguson, Legal Intern, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Lonworth Butler, J., Legal Intern, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., HAVERFIELD, J., and DREW, E. HARRIS, (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Ellen Rozier, presents two points on appeal of her conviction and sentence for manslaughter.

Only one point has merit, to wit: the trial court erred in sentencing her to five years imprisonment and then invoking Section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1975) by further ordering that she shall not be eligible for parole until she has served three calendar years of the sentence.

Manslaughter for which defendant was convicted clearly is not one of the crimes specified in Section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes which provides for a mandatory three year sentence upon conviction of the offenses listed therein when a firearm is used. *Brewer v. State,*343 So.2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); *Biles*v. *State,*349 So.2d 662 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).

Accordingly, the provision of the sentence requiring a minimum sentence of three years during which defendant would not be eligible for parole is hereby stricken. The judgment and sentence of the trial court are affirmed in all other respects.