alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jerrel Dean SKATES, by and through her next friend and father, Jerry Roland Skates, Sr., Appellant, v. Robert L. McGAY, Appellee.

No. O-285.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 20, 1971.

Raymond L. Syfrett, of Urquhart & Chapman, Panama City for appellant.

Isler, Welch, Bryant, Smith, Higby & Brown, Panama City, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed. See Sanders v. Yancey, 122 So.2d 202 (Fla.App.1960); and Kennedy v. Davis, 221 So.2d 415 (Fla.1969).

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JT., concur.
#### Otis HARPER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1175.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 4, 1971.

Otis Harper, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within' which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
##### 



COMPREHENSIVE CARE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Exhibit 99.1

Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Comprehensive Care Corporation
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending August 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 4, 2002 (the Report),
Mary Jane Johnson, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of her knowledge, 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.

| |  |                                                                                 
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/   Mary Jane JohnsonMary Jane Johnson
Chief Executive Officer
October 4, 2002

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to SS. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

22
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 12, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00362

- CV

Steve NUNEZ

, Appellant

v.

Alma Idalia NUNEZ

, Appellee

From the 63rd Judicia l District Court

, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 34916

Honorable Sid L. Harle , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On June 28 and June 29, 2022, we ordered appellant to provide written proofs to this court within ten days of the date of the orders that he had paid the reporters’ fees or was entitled to appeal without paying the reporters’ fees. We further ordered that , if appellant failed to respond to our orders, his brief would be due within thirty days of the date of the orders and we would consider only those issues or points raised in appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(c). Because appellant did not timely respond and did not file a brief within thirty days of the orders, we ordered appellant to file his brief and a response regarding his untimely brief

.

On August 10, 2022, court reporter Lisa A. Tr aslavina filed two volumes of the reporter’s record. On that same date, court reporter Melinda M. Walker filed a notification of late record, requesting until August 16, 2022 to file the record. Walker’s notification is NOTED

.

On August 12, 2022, appel lant filed a response to our orders and a motion for extension of time to file proof of payment of the reporters’ fees and to file his brief. Appellant’s motion is

GRANTED . Appellant’s proof of payment of the reporters’ fees is deemed timely filed . W e

w ill consider the reporter’s record in this appeal. It is ORDERED that appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date the complete reporter’s record is filed with this court

.

________________________________ _ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 12th day of August, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 221 (Monday, November 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 61340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30084]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Division 
of Extramural Activities; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting:

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel (Telephone Conference Call).
    Date: November 19, 1997.
    Time: 11:00 am.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 7550 Wisconsin Avenue, 
Room 9C10, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Dr. Katherine Woodbury/Mr. Phillip Wiethorn, 
Scientific Review Administrators, NINDS, National Institutes of 
Health, 7550 Wisconsin Avenue, Room 9C10, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 
496-9223.
    Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate Phase II RFP Contract 
Proposal(s).
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by 
the review and funding cycle.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.853, Clinical 
Research Related to Neurological Disorders; No. 93.854, Biological 
Basis Research in the Neurosciences)

    Dated: November 7, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-30084 Filed 11-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0116

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JACOB TYLER POWELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including July 26, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 17 2024

06/17/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0116
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/gpo23039 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
#### Abner A. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. The AMERICAN ROAD INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 71-608.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 27, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; B. C. Muszynski, Judge.

Appeal quashed.
----

|   | 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:         | /s/ William Salek       |   |
|-------------|-------------------------|--------|
| Name:  | William Salek           |   |
|        | Chief Financial Officer |   |
|        | Date: May 12, 2010      |   |

----
Exhibit 99.1



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 TNP Enterprises, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
William J. Catacosinos, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(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





|/s/ William J. Catacosinos                    
|----------------------------------------------
|                                              
|William J. Catacosinos Chief Executive Officer



July
24, 2003
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 CompuDyne Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 accompanying this
certification and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Martin Roenigk, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, 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 7, 2004

                                            /s/ Martin Roenigk
                                            ------------------
                                            Martin Roenigk
                                            Chief Executive Officer
Motion Granted, Judgment Set Aside , Case Remanded, and Mem orandum

Opinion filed October 22 , 2019

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 19

- 00698

- CV

JOSE HERRERA AND PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC., Appellants

V.
JANE PORTER , Appellee

On Appeal from the 334th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016

- 40459

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N This is an appeal from a judgment signed June 1 0 , 2019 . O n October 1, 2019 , the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal pursuant to a settlement agreement. In their joint motion, the parties advise that they have reached an agreement to settle and compromise the judgment, and they accordingly request the

court to set aside the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of a judgment in accordance with the parties’2

settlement agreement. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B). The motion is GRANTED

. W e set aside the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and
remand this case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer

.
4. This Second Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts (including facsimilecounterparts), each of which counterparts, when so executed and delivered, shall be deemed to be anoriginal and all of which counterparts, taken together, will constitute one and the sameinstrument.5. Except as set forth in this Second Amendment, the terms and provisions of the EmploymentAgreement (a) are hereby ratified and confirmed, and (b) shall be and remain in full force andeffect.**[The next page is the signature page.]**
 

 
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Second Amendment to the EmploymentAgreement as of the date first above written.      **EXECUTIVE:**
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 55267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28012]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 97N-0399]


Helen A. Ballack Co. et al.; Withdrawal of Approval of 61 New 
Drug Applications, 8 Abbreviated Antibiotic Applications, and 36 
Abbreviated New Drug Applications; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice 
that appeared in the Federal Register of September 25, 1997 (62 FR 
50387). The document announced the withdrawal of approval of 61 new 
drug applications (NDA's), 8 abbreviated antibiotic applications 
(AADA's), and 36 abbreviated new drug applications (ANDA's). The 
document inadvertently withdrew approval of NDA 19-339 for Heparin 
Sodium in 5% Dextrose Injection in CR3 Flexible Container held by 
Abbott Laboratories, D-389 Bldg. AP30, 200 Abbott Park Rd., Abbott 
Park, IL 60064-3537. This document confirms that approval of NDA 19-339 
is still in effect, and that the withdrawal of approval of the NDA was 
in error.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 25, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Olivia A. Pritzlaff, Center for Drug 
Evaluation and Research (HFD-7), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-594-2041.

    In FR Doc. 97-25369, appearing at page 50387 in the Federal 
Register of Thursday, September 25, 1997, the following correction is 
made: On page 50388, in the table, the entry for NDA 19-339 is removed.

    Dated: October 9, 1997.
Janet Woodcock,
Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
[FR Doc. 97-28012 Filed 10-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ROBERT KING, § § No. 589, 2016 Defendant-Below, § Appellant, § § Court Below – Superior Court v. § for the State of Delaware § STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 1208013187 (K) § Plaintiff-Below, § Appellee. § Submitted: June 14, 2017 Decided: June 28, 2017

Before STRINE , Chief Justice; VALIHURA , and SEITZ , Justices; CLARK , SURLES , Judges,  constituting the Court en Banc

. ORDER

This 28 th day of June 2017, after careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we find it evident that the final judgment of the Superior

Court should be affirmed on the basis of a nd for the reasons stated in its November 16, 2016 Order. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the final judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice

 Sitting by designation under De l. Const. art. IV, § 12.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 222 (Tuesday, November 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 61573]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30227]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION


Notice of Application for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart Q During 
the Week Ending November 7, 1997

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
Q of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 
CFR 302.1701 et seq.). The due date for Answers, Conforming 
Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each 
application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.

    Docket Number: OST-97-3089.
    Date Filed: November 5, 1997.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: December 3, 1997.
    Description: Application of Federal Express Corporation, pursuant 
to 49 U.S.C. Section 41110 and Subpart Q of the Regulations, applies 
for amendment of its existing certificate authority to provide 
scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail between 
points in the United States, on the one hand, and points in China, on 
the other hand, as contained in Federal Express' certificate of public 
convenience and necessity for Route 638.

    Docket Number: OST-97-3076.
    Date Filed: November 3, 1997.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: December 1, 1997.
    Description: Application of Servicios Aereos Profesionales S.A., 
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Section 41110 and Subpart Q of the Regulations, 
applies for a foreign air carrier permit to provide service between the 
Dominican Republic and the United States under a wet lease agreement 
with a U.S. Carrier.
Paulette V. Twine,
Documentary Services.
[FR Doc. 97-30227 Filed 11-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
124 STAT. 3054 PUBLIC LAW 111–285—NOV. 24, 2010 

Public Law 111–285 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To extend the deadline for Social Services Block Grant expenditures of supplemental 

funds appropriated following disasters occurring in 2008. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EXPENDITURE DEADLINE OF SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT DISASTER FUNDING. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, amounts made 

available to the Department of Health and Human Services, 

Administration for Children and Families, under the heading 

‘‘Social Services Block Grant’’ under chapter 7 of division B of 

Public Law 110–329, shall remain available for expenditure through 

September 30, 2011. 

SEC. 2. BUDGETARY PROVISIONS. 

(a) STATUTORY PAYGO.—The budgetary effects of this Act, 

for the purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go 

Act of 2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the Chairman 

of the Senate Budget Committee, provided that such statement 

has been submitted prior to the vote on passage. 

(b) EMERGENCY DESIGNATIONS.—This Act— 

(1) is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant 

to section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 

(Public Law 111–139; 2 U.S.C. 933(g)); 

(2) in the House of Representatives, is designated as an 

emergency for purposes of pay-as-you-go principles; and 

(3) in the Senate, is designated as an emergency requirement and necessary to meet emergency needs pursuant to 

Nov. 24, 2010 

[S. 3774] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
PUBLIC LAW 111–285—NOV. 24, 2010 124 STAT. 3055 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 3774: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010): 

Sept. 29, considered and passed Senate. 

Nov. 17, 18, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

section 403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010. 

Approved November 24, 2010. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
#### Cleveland MYERS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Valentino F. JAMES and George Powell, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. L-79, L-80.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

July 17, 1969.

Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, and Gerald Sohn, Asst. Public Defender, for appellants.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and James Robert Yon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgments of the lower court hereby appealed are affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
#### Fred S. SCHMUNK, Jr., Municipal Court Judge, and City of Oakland Park, Florida, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida ex rel. Ray SANDSTROM, Appellee.

No. 76-2415.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 28, 1977.

Lewis D. Haines, II, City Atty. for Oakland Park, Fort Lauderdale, and Edward J. Williams, Asst. City Atty., for appellants.

Ray Sandstrom of Sandstrom & Haddad, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The points on appeal can be consolidated into a single argument that the trial court erred in considering a petition for habeas corpus and in issuing the writ. We agree.

Appellee in this case was fined for careless driving. At no time was he detained by the trial judge or any other governmental authority. For this reason, review by habeas corpus was improper because neither the pre, nor post, judgment proceedings, or directions, detained the appellee. *Pennekamp v. Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit In and For Dade County,*155 Fla. 589, 21 So.2d 41 (1945). Moreover, where a person is not in custody, the court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus. *Sandstrom v. Kolski,*305 So.2d 75 (Fla. 3 DCA 1974). Accordingly, the final order and judgment in habeas corpus is reversed and this cause remanded to the trial court for proper proceeding.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., and STEPHEN LEE DAKAN, Associate Judge, concur.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20549

 

FORM N-CSR

 

| Investment Company Act file number | 811-642 |
|------------------------------------|---------|

 

DWS International Fund, Inc.

 (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

 

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY  10154

(Address of principal executive offices)             (Zip code)

 

Registrant’s Telephone Number, including Area Code: (212) 454-7190

 

Paul Schubert

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10154

(Name and Address of Agent for Service)

 

| Date of fiscal year end: | 10/31 |
|--------------------------|-------|

 

| Date of reporting period: | 10/31/07 |
|---------------------------|----------|

 

 

**ITEM 1.**           **REPORT TO STOCKHOLDERS**

 

 

OCTOBER 31, 2007

Annual Report