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

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 21

- 00161

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.G.I.G.

From the 37th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019

- PA

- 01378 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor , Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE WATKINS , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that no costs be assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal

.

SIGNED September 15, 2021.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
<Page>

                                   EXHIBIT 10(a)

                                                                 ARTHUR ANDERSEN


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our report
dated March 20, 2002, covering the audited financial statements of Variable
Account D (and to all references to our Firm) included in or made a part of
this Registration Statement File No. 333-43799 for Fortis Benefits Insurance
Company Variable Account D on Form N-4.

Hartford, Connecticut                                    /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
April 17, 2002
#### Zubaty v. Noyce

25849

09/15/2004

Affirmed
104 P.3d 945

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

November 22, 2004

23673

#### Asing v. Asing

Affirmed
#### Arthur Radin, Plaintiff, *v.*Jack Korkreich et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

January 29, 1943.

*861*Leon Dashew*for plaintiff.

*Samuel L. Waller stein*for Jack Kornreich and others, defendants.

*Charles Kraft*for Jacob Press and others, defendants.

*Samuel Chester*for Samuel L. Wallerstein, defendant.

*Steekler, Frank <& Newmark*for Lonis H. Schroeder and another, defendants.

Alfred V. Norton, J.

Motion by plaintiff to examine, as adverse parties, several defendants before trial and for an inspection of books and records. The complaint pleads two causes of action and is founded on conspiracy in restraint of trade and charges that the defendants acted in concert to destroy the business of the plaintiff and his successor. The affidavits establish the competency and materiality of the examination. The defendants assert, however, that illegal acts are charged against them and therefore their answers may incriminate them. The right to refuse to incriminate oneself is a personal right and must be claimed at the time the questions are asked. This objection to the examination is without merit. *(Heit & Weisenthal, Inc.*v. *Licht,*218 App. Div. 753.) The constitutional provision urged is not possessed by a corporation. *(James*v. *Hotel Gramatan,*251 App. Div. 748.) The motion to examine will be granted, therefore, as to all items except 8, 9, 10, 37, 54 and 60. The second part of the motion, to wit, production and inspection of books and records, etc., of all defendants is at this time denied without prejudice to a renewal after examination of the defendants upon the showing of the necessity therefor. However, such books and records as relate to the subject matter of the examination should be produced on the examination, pursuant to section 296 of the Civil Practice Act, for the purpose of refreshing the recollection of the defendants.

Settle order on notice.
#### State v. Yamura

24362

03/07/2003

Affirmed
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Brian E. Dearing, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of ARINetwork Services, Inc., certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ARI NetworkServices, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the smallbusiness issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the smallbusiness issuer and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the small businessissuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the smallbusiness issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the smallbusiness issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting.
Dated: December 15, 2004
/s/ Brian E. DearingBrian E. Dearing
# C_2016202EN.01039501.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/395 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/395

---

Article 9

Right to marry and right to found a family

The right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights.

---
2007 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-3-2007

Briseno-Flores v. Atty Gen USA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 05-5323

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Briseno-Flores v. Atty Gen USA" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 666.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/666
PRECEDENTIAL

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________

No: 05-5323

_______________

JESUS BRISENO-FLORES,

 Petitioner

 v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

 Respondent

_______________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

United States Department of Justice

Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA No. A74-992-241)

Immigration Judge Donald V. Ferlise

_______________

Argued May 8, 2007

Before: RENDELL and JORDAN, Circuit Judges

and VANASKIE*, District Judge

(Opinion Filed June 26, 2007)
2

_______________

Roger R. Laguna, Jr. [ARGUED]

Laguna, Reyes & Maloney

1119 North Front Street

Harrisburg, PA 17102

 Counsel for Petitioner

Richard M. Evans

Emily A. Radford

David E. Dauenheimer

Blair T. O’Connor

Gjon Juncaj [ARGUED]

United States Department of Justice

Office of Immigration Litigation

P. O. Box 878

Ben Franklin Station

Washington, DC 20044

_______________

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

_______________

JORDAN, Circuit Judge.

IT IS NOW ORDERED in the above-captioned case

that the Opinion be amended as follows: 

Footnote 2 shall now read: 
3

Briseno also asks this Court to stay the

voluntary departure period granted to him by the

BIA. That application will be addressed in a

separate order. 

/s/ Kent A. Jordan 

Circuit Judge

DATED: July 3, 2007

 

 *Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie, District Court Judge

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, sitting by

designation.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           8,515
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 4,425
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     39,544
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        139,176
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,646
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 200,418
<DEPOSITS>                                     182,439
<SHORT-TERM>                                       800
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,408
<LONG-TERM>                                      1,357
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,673
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,741
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 200,418
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,517
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,251
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   185
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 7,953
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,605
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,686
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,267
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      140
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (48)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,230
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,853
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,853
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,225
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.29
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                        299
<LOANS-PAST>                                       300
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   237
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  2,326
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,541
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       49
<RECOVERIES>                                        14
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,646
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,646
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**Section Section 906 Certification of Chief Financial OfficerI, Jerrold J. Pellizzon, Chief Financial Officer of Ceradyne, Inc. (the “Company”), certify,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section Section 1350, that:     (1)     the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and     (2)     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: February 26, 2008         /s/ Jerrold J. Pellizzon        Jerrold J. Pellizzon        Chief Financial Officer
20785

#### State v. Ogawa

Affirmed
#### O. G. DREHER, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 8453.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Nov. 10, 1939.

Albus & Greaney, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. P. Wenchel, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before HICKS, ALLEN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon reading the stipulation made and entered into by the above named parties, through their respective attorneys, and filed in this court, and in accordance with said stipulation, it is now ordered by this Court that the above and foregoing proceeding be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the said Board of Tax Appeals for further proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Section 214 of the Revenue Act of 1939, 26 U.S.C.A. § 214. And it is further ordered by this Court that the mandate in this cause issue forthwith to the said Board of Tax Appeals.
#### Livingston *et al. v.*Peacock *et al.*

No. 4968.

February 19, 1926.

Trial 38 Cyc. p. 1557, n. 24.

Pee Curiam.

Under the ruling in the case of *Livingston*v. *Peacock,*155 *Ga.*261 (116 S. E. 618), which applied the doctrine laid down in *Ridgeway*v. *Ridgeway,*84 *Ga.*25 (10 S. E. 495), the judgment of the court below denying a new trial must be reversed.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*882Equitable petition. Before Judge Sheppard. Dodge superior court. May 31, 1935.-

*B. R. Calhoun*and Hall, *Grice &*Bloch, for plaintiffs.

*W. A. Wooten*and *Roberts & Smith,*for defendants.
----

----

|                                                       |   | Year      Ended December 31,                                   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                       |   | 2005                                                           |   |   | 2006 |   |   | 2007 |   |   | 2008 |   |   | 2009 |   |
|                                                       |   | (In      thousands, except ratio of earnings to fixed charges) |   |
| Income      from continuing operations before income taxes |   | $                                                              | 73,152 |   |   | $ | 191,428 |   |   | $ | 223,129 |   |   | $ | 160,904 |   |   | $ | 417 |   |
| Fixed      charges(1)                                      |   |                                                           |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest      expense                                      |   |                                                           | 6,022  |   |   |   | 6,800 |   |   |   | 7,106 |   |   |   | 7,369 |   |   |   | 7,119 |   |
| Amortization      of debt issuance cost                    |   |                                                           | 3,308  |   |   |   | 436 |   |   |   | 421 |   |   |   | 506 |   |   |   | 399 |   |
| Interest      included in rental expense                   |   |                                                           | 632    |   |   |   | 918 |   |   |   | 899 |   |   |   |  992 |   |   |   | 1,071 |   |
| Total      fixed charges                                   |   | $                                                              | 9,962  |   |   | $ | 8,154 |   |   | $ | 8,426 |   |   | $ |  8,867 |   |   | $ |  8,589 |   |
| Earnings(2)                                                |   | $                                                              | 83,114 |   |   | $ | 199,582 |   |   | $ | 231,555 |   |   | $ | 169,771 |   |   | $ | 9,006 |   |
| Ratio      of earnings to fixed charges                    |   |                                                           | 8.3    |   |   |   | 24.5 |   |   |   | 27.5 |   |   |   | 19.1 |   |   |   | 1.1 |   |

|   |      |
|--------|--------------------------|

| (1) | “Fixed      charges” consist of interest expense on indebtedness, amortization of debt      issuance costs and the estimated portion of rental expense deemed a      reasonable approximation of this interest  factor. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Attachment 1

Pleasant Prairie FGD Wastewater Flow DiagramAttachment 2

Pleasant Prairie Plant Water Balance DiagramAttachment 3

Letter submitted by Pleasant Prairie to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

characterizing the Carbon Capture Technology Waste Stream and t he DNR’s Response to

This Letter
Corrections to “Transcript of ECI/NTSB/FAA Meeting.” Dated February 14, 2013, Job 

No. 15494

Page # Line # Change From Change To

2 7 b Harman Harmon

2 7 b Keuthe Kuethe

2 9 a NASH Nash

3 25 Bryonn Bryon

12 1 regarding the regarding how the

12 14 ACE AEC

15 19 ADEs ADs

15 25 ADEs ADs

16 15 ADE AD

34 13 bit fit

45 10 CHD CHT

47 19 Rimasen Rumizen

51 11 problems probes

57 3 orig dimen original dimensions

72 22 Brawley Braly

76 4 talking talk

95 5 8,000 8 thousandths

103 16 operates operators

112 13 Alcar Alcor

112 14 ETT EGT

112 15 Hunt there Hundere

114 25 TO TBO

130 13 issue issued

140 16 reelevated reevaluated
Exhibit 31.1
   1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Ceradyne, 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 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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):
    /s/ Joel P. MoskowitzJoel P. MoskowitzChief Executive Officer
Order filed February 25, 2020 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00006-CV

____________

ALI YAZDCHI, Appellant

V.

MAKANSAM INC. D/B/A IDEAL TOWING, Appellee

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1135418

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due February 5, 2020. No brief or motion for extension 

of time has been filed. If appellant does not file a brief with this court on or before

March 9, 2020, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Wise, and Zimmerer.
## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

April 12, 2024 SC-2024-0137 Ex parte Chelsea Yvette Walker PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re:Chelsea Yvette Walker v. State of Alabama) (Jefferson Circuit Court: CC17-3013 and CC-17-3014; Criminal Appeals: CR-2022-1377).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was entered in this cause on April 12, 2024: Writ Denied. No Opinion. Wise, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Sellers, Stewart, and Cook, JJ., concur. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
#### State v. Veniegas

17302

8/28/95

Granted

80 Hawai'i 75905 P.2d 50
SI()-l()()3()2-()4() 

FRESNO YOSEMITE 

INTERNATIONAL AIRPOR T 

FeiSfiGiary 23, 2010 Qty of prgjoo Ajrpom Department 

The Honorable Raymond H. LaHooci 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Mersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Docket DOT-OST 2010-0034 

Dear Mr. Secretary: * 

I write to recommend approval of the application filed by American Airlines and Japan Airlines for 

antitrust immunity of their proposed joint business agreement covering trans-Pacific flying. 

It's obvious that the world's principal international airlines are consolidating their international 

operations by joining one of three international consortiums, the Star Alliance, Skyteam and 

OneWorld. 

United Airlines, a member of the Star Alliance, was allowed to purchase the extensive trans-Pacific 

rights of the now defunct Pan American World AInways, Including a "hub" In Tokyo - exceptional rights 

that Pan Am was awarded by the US government after World War II. All Nippon Airways, the number 

two Japanese airline, is also a member of the Star Alliance. And, not content with its Pacific 

dominance from Its hubs in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Denver, United recently tried to persuade 

Japan Airlines to leave the OneWorld alliance and join United and ANA in the Star Alliance. 

Delta Air Lines, a member of Skyteam, was allowed to purchase Northwest Airlines (formerly, 

Northwest Orient Airlines) - the other US canrier that was awarded extensive trans-Pacific rights, also 

including a Tokyo hub, following WW II. 

I think it is interesting too that both United and Delta have recently been "saved" by the US bankruptcy 

laws and courts, which freed them of unwanted debts and obligations, and reduced their on-going 

costs (transfenring some of those major costs, such as pension obligations, to the US taxpayers). 

In contrast, American Airlines, a member of the OneWorld Alliance, has had to acquire and 

painstakingly build its few trans-Pacific routes - some decidedly secondary such as San Jose to 

Tokyo - one at a time. That's put American at a tremendous disadvantage vis-d-vis United and Delta. 

In fact, without Japan Airlines In the OneWorld Alliance, American just couldn't compete with United 

and Delta across the Pacific. 

American has continuously met ail their financial and contractual obligations on time and has NOT 

been through bankmptcy. 

To correct the US government-imposed competitive imbalance - at least partially - the US 

Transpoftatjpi^ Department should grant the immunity requested by American and JAL. 

jbmitted, 

QferwWn'Camnody ^ / 

, A^ltant Director of Avjation 

4995 E, Clinton Way • f resno CA, 93727-1525 - (559) 621-4500 • www.tlyfresno.com