alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU LY 1 4 , 2015

NO. 03

- 14

- 0049 4

- CR

Isaac Benavidez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 21ST DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBERTON , AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ briefs , the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial

court’s judgment . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction

. Because

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is m ade.

### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU LY 1 4 , 2015

NO. 03

- 14

- 00495

- CR

Isaac Benavidez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 21ST DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBERTON , AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ brief s, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial

court’s judgment . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction

. Because

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is m ade.
Exhibit 23.1



                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements of Boston Edison Company on Form S-3 (File Nos. 33-57840 and
33-59693) and on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-00810, 33-7558, 33-38434, 33-48424,
33-48425, 33-59662, 33-59682 and 33-58457) and on Form S-4 (File No.
333-23439) of our report dated January 23, 1997 on our audits of the 
consolidated financial statements of Boston Edison Company as of
December 31, 1996 and 1995 and for each of the three years in the period
ended December 31, 1996, which report is included in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K.



                                 By:  /s/ Coopers & Lybrand, L.L.P.
                                      -----------------------------
                                          Coopers & Lybrand, L.L.P.


Boston, Massachusetts
March 27, 1997
|                                                        |                               |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|--------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|
|                                                        |                               |  |  |  |  |
| Subsidiaries                                           | Jurisdiction of Incorporation |
| Active Industrial Uniform Co., LLC                     | Delaware                      |
| AmeriPride Services, LLC                               | Delaware                      |
| Aramark Monclova Manufacturing de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. | Mexico                        |
| Aramark Monclova Support, S.A. de C.V.                 | Mexico                        |
| Aramark Uniform Holding de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.        | Mexico                        |
| Aramark Uniform Services Japan Corporation (1)         | Japan                         |
| Canadian Linen and Uniform Service Corp.               | Canada                        |
| Canadian Linen and Uniform Service Holdco, Ltd.        | Canada                        |
| Delsac VIII, LLC                                       | Delaware                      |
| L&N Uniform Supply, LLC                            | California                    |
| Landy Textile Rental Services, LLC                     | Delaware                      |
| Overall Laundry Services, LLC                          | Delaware                      |
| Vestis (Matchpoint), LLC                               | Delaware                      |
| Vestis (Rochester), LLC                                | Delaware                      |
| Vestis (Supply Chain), LLC                             | Delaware                      |
| Vestis (Syracuse), LLC                                 | Delaware                      |
| Vestis (Texas), LLC                                    | Delaware                      |
| Vestis (West Adams), LLC                               | Delaware                      |
| Vestis Cleanroom Services (Puerto Rico), Inc.          | Delaware                      |
| Vestis Group, Inc.                                     | Delaware                      |
| Vestis Manufacturing Company                           | Delaware                      |
| Vestis Services, LLC                                   | Delaware                      |
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 CB Richard Ellis Realty Trust (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jack A. Cuneo, President and 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; and

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



/s/ JACK A. CUNEOJack A. Cuneo President and Chief Executive Officer


May 15, 2008
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Randall K. Gausman, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Tut Systems, Inc.;



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 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. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are 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 procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us 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 our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) 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 fiscal 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. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our 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 functions):



(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; and



(b) 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.



By:/s/    RANDALL K. GAUSMANRandall K. Gausman Vice-President, Finance and Administration, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary (Principal Financial Officer)




Date: October 30, 2003
December 5, 2011

MEMORANDUM

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080

FROM: Jan King

OAQPS/OID/RDPAG

List of Attendees

Prepared Feeds Manufacturing Meeting

January 25, 2011

Attendee Affiliation

Keith Epperson ` American Feed Industry Association

John Jones Cargill, Inc.

Vance Dan Southern States 

Jess McCluer National Feed and Grain Association

David Fairfield National Feed and Grain Association

Tom Holte Archer Daniels Midland—Alliance Nutrition, Inc.

Paul Luther Land O’Lakes Purina Feed

Chebryll Edwards ` EPA/OAQPS/OID/RDPAG

Laura Bunte EPA/OAQPS/OID

Jan King EPA/OAQPS/RDPAG

Scott Throwe EPA/OECA

Gretchen Graves EPA/OGC

Ray Merrill EPA/OAQPS/MTG
DENIED; and Opinion Filed April 8, 2015

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-00366-CV

IN RE HYDROSCIENCE INC, AND DWIGHT M. FRANCIS, Relators

Original Proceeding from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-3690

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Stoddart, and Schenck

Opinion by Justice Stoddart

This petition for writ of mandamus presents that question whether the trial court abused 

its discretion in refusing to quash the deposition of an attorney who is counsel for one of the 

parties in the case. The underlying suit is an attorney malpractice case brought derivatively by 

Hydroscience Inc., against an attorney who represented Hydroscience Technologies, Inc. in the 

settlement of a prior lawsuit. Hydroscience Technologies, Inc. seeks to depose relator Dwight 

M. Francis, the attorney who represented the parent of Hydroscience Inc. in the settlement of the 

prior suit and who currently serves as counsel for Hydroscience Inc. 

The petition is premature. Borden, Inc. v. Valdez, 773 S.W.2d 718, 720 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi 1989, no writ) (“The problem, however, is that no questions have been asked and 

we may only speculate as to the substance of what would be revealed should [the attorney] be 

deposed. This, we cannot do.”); Hilliard v. Heard, 666 S.W.2d 584, 585 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[1st Dist.] 1984, no writ) (“The possible future assertion of such claims does not require 
–2–

preemptive rulings by the court. Whether or not such claims will be asserted is conjectural until 

they are made of record, and the mere prospect that such privilege or immunity will be urged on 

deposition does not justify prior restraint on the taking of a deposition.”). We DENY the 

petition.

150366F.P05

/ Craig Stoddart/

CRAIG STODDART

JUSTICE
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 Kentucky First Federal Bancorp (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Tony D. Whitaker, the 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:





(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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/Tony
      D. WhitakerTony
      D. WhitakerChairman
      of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerFebruary
      12, 2010
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21

                                                            Percentage of Voting
                                                            Securities of Sub-
                                                            sidiaries Owned by
                                       Place of             Registrant as of
 Name                                Incorporation          December 31, 1997

Charles Burton Builder, Inc.         Maryland                      100%

Town Center                          District of
Management Corp.                     Columbia                      100%

Bresler & Reiner
Investment Co., Inc.                 Delaware                      100%

Maplewood Manor
Convalescent Center, Inc.            Pennsylvania                  100%

Allentown Road Motel Corporation     Maryland                      100%

Uptown Hotel Corp.                   Maryland                      100%

WMC Management Co., Inc.             District of
                                     Columbia                      100%
Sudley Corporation                   Virginia                      100%

 (1)  The names of certain subsidiaries have been omitted because, considered in
the aggregate as a single subsidiary, they do not constitute a significant
subsidiary.

 (2)  Included in the consolidated financial statements as significant
subsidiaries.
|   | (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/ Linda Hearne                                 |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Linda Hearne                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|   | Vice President, Finance (Principal                                                                                                                                                                               |
|   | Financial and Accounting Officer)                                                                                                                                                                                |

----
Aloha USDA

Cannabis was made illegal because it competed too favorably with a number of industries, which seem to be violently allergic to any form of competition.  At the convenience of the government it was made not only legal to grow during World War 2, it was mandatory to grow; however, after the war, it returned to its illegal status, much to the inconvenience of everyone else.  Why cut down old growth forests that take centuries to regenerate when you can grow a plant that grows like a weed, because that's what it is.  The petroleum industry could save money on exploration, drilling and pipelines by growing large hemp farms.  Vehicles would have to be returned to operate on hemp fuel, but that's how Karl Benz powered his first cars.  The problem with industry is if a product doesn't make them a lot of money, they do not want you to have it and they'll make it as inconvenient as inhumanely possible.  The petroleum industry didn't like the idea of the Navy going green, so they jacked up the price and the World's Largest Nuclear Powered Janitorial Service decided against it.

Mahalo,

Dave Kisor

Pahoa, HI
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 Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
 Mississippi 8 Hydro, LLC
Project No. 13010-002.FFP Project 98, LLC
Project No. 14272-000.
 The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed filed on September 1, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,[1]
                    
                     for proposed projects to be located at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Mississippi River Lock and Dam No. 8 on the Mississippi River, in Houston County, Minnesota, and Vernon County, Wisconsin. The applications were filed by Mississippi 8 Hydro, LLC for Project No. 13010 and FFP Project 98, LLC for Project No. 14272. On April 23, 2012, at 1 p.m. (Eastern Time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.[2]
                    
                     The priority established by this drawing will be used to determine which applicant, among those with identical filing times, will be considered to have the first-filed application. The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Secretary will issue a subsequent notice announcing the results of the drawing. Dated: April 16, 2012. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.


# Footnotes

1.
    
                         Under the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, any document received after regular business hours is considered filed at 8:30 a.m. on the next regular business day. 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(2)(2011). Back to Citation
 2.
    
                         18 CFR 4.37 (2011). Back to Citation


[FR Doc. 2012-9661 Filed 4-20-12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
April 23, 2013 Page 1 of 1

Export Requirements for Further Processed Egg Products containing only egg – Mexico

Eligible/Ineligible Products

A. Eligible Product

a. Further Processed Egg Products

B. Ineligible Product

a. Product with specific state restrictions –

http://www.ams.usda.gov/getfile?dDocName=stelprdc5094893

Documentation Requirements

A. Prior to processing, plant management is responsible for establishing detailed written 

procedures/records to provide the traceability system and procedures to maintain the identity of 

the product from the time of production through transport, storage, processing and packaging.

B. Plant Management is responsible for maintaining all applicable records for one year.

C. AMS verification audit and the products identified by country of destination updated on the AMS 

website. 

D. The product reached one of the following internal temperatures and cooking times 60.0  ̊C for 10 

minutes, pasteurization, or commercial sterilization.

E. Obtain AMS Form Further Processed Egg and Egg Foods Export Certificate.

Handling/Storage Requirements

A. Transport containers used to ship product to Mexico must be clean.

B. The transport container(s) must be sealed (Company seal) prior to departure from the processing 

facility. The seal number must be recorded on the Further Processed Egg and Egg Foods Export 

Certificate
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Kentucky First Federal Bancorp (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tony D. Whitaker, the 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:

(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
result of operations of the Company.



|/s/Tony D. Whitaker                                     | 
|------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Tony D. Whitaker                                       
|Chairman of the Board and Chief
      Executive Officer
|November 14, 2007                                      

---
----

 

EXHIBIT 21
 

 
**BERGEN BRUNSWIG CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES****SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT**
 

The following is a list of the significant subsidiaries of registrant as of November 30, 2000:

 

    
PERCENTAGE    
OF VOTING    
SECURITIES  
STATE OF 
OWNED BY
NAME 
INCORPORATION 
REGISTRANT
Durr-Fillauer Medical, Inc. 
Delaware  
100
%       
Bergen Brunswig Drug Company 
California  
(1)        
ASD Specialty Healthcare, Inc. 
California  
(1)        
PharMerica, Inc. 
Delaware  
100
%

 

 

(1)
100% owned by Durr-Fillauer Medical, Inc.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0038-14

CHRISTOPHER ADRIAN MILLER, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS

TARRANT COUNTY

MEYERS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

D I S S E N T I N G O P I N I O N

The majority states that “strict application of the corpus delicti rule is unnecessary”

when the multiple crimes confessed to “are sufficiently proximate that the underlying policy

reason for the rule is not violated.” Really? Just two months ago, this same majority was

called upon in Butcher v. State, No. PD-1662-13, 2015 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 39 (Tex.

Crim. App. Jan. 28, 2015), to look at the “underlying policy reason” of the safe release

provision of the kidnapping statute. There, however, the majority was quick to avoid any
Miller dissent - Page 2

resolution of that particular question and dispatched with any attempt to apply the

legislature’s actual intent with the provision, to promote the safe release of kidnapping

victims.

There is no valid reason to erode the corpus delicti rule here and now. It has been a

tenet of our state’s judicial system and still serves the important purpose of protecting those

who, for any number of reasons, may give a false confession. While changing the rule in the

way the majority does might be an attractive solution in this case, I believe it largely

removes the protection that the rule was meant to ensure.

1

Unfortunately, just as they have done in the past, the majority is retroactively applying

their new doctrine in Appellant’s case. I disagree with the majority’s altering of the corpus

2

delicti rule and, therefore, I respectfully dissent.

Meyers, J.

Filed: April 15, 2015

Publish

The facts of this case and the nature of the crimes make loosening the corpus delicti rule 1

particularly appealing here. However, in the big picture, we should not erode a rule that provides

so important a protection. I believe that doing so will result in exactly what the rule is supposed

to guard against–the conviction of innocent individuals. 

For example, in Proctor v. State, 967 S.W.2d 840, 844 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998), this 2

court held, for the first time, that the statute of limitations is a rule that must be implemented

only upon the request of the defendant, rather than an absolute requirement for the State to prove

in every prosecution. The court had no problem applying that rule to the appellants’ cases

retroactively. Id. at 845.