alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 23

- 00109

- CR

D ONALD B ERFORD J OHNSON III

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 372nd District

Court

of Tarrant County ( 1695457 )

July 11, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice

Womack

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial cour t’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dana Womack

Justice Dana Womack
Exhibit 21

List of Subsidiaries



|                                 |  |                               |  |                                          
|-------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------
|Subsidiary*                      |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation |  | Name Under which Subsidiary does Business
|Ingenex, Inc.                    |  | Delaware                      |  | This subsidiary is currently inactive    
|Developmental Therapeutics, Inc. |  | Delaware                      |  | Developmental Therapeutics               



|* | We own 100% of the outstanding common stock of Developmental Therapeutics, Inc. and 81% of the outstanding common stock of Ingenex, Inc.
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relative Poverty Rates in Appalachia, 2012–2016

(County Rates as a Percentage of the U.S. Average)

A poverty rate is the ratio of the persons below the poverty level 

to the total number of persons for whom poverty status has been 

determined.The percent of the U.S. average is computed by 

dividing the county poverty rate by the national average and 

multiplying by 100. The map uses critical breaks such as the 

national average to organize the data into groups of common 

values.

Map Created: July 2018

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 

American Community Survey, 2012–2016

0 50 100

Miles

GEORGIA

ALABAMA

MISSISSIPPI

SOUTH

CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA

VIRGINIA

WEST

VIRGINIA

KENTUCKY

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA

WISCONSIN

MICHIGAN

DE

NJ PENNSYLVANIA

MARYLAND

NEW YORK

TENNESSEE

150.0% - 281.3%

100.1% - 149.9%

75.1% - 100.0%

42.5% - 75.0%

Percent of the U.S. Average

(Critical Breaks Classification)

U.S. average = 15.1%

Appalachian average = 16.7%
## Supporting Analysis for July 2, 2011 Salt River Exceedance

Figure 1: Phoenix Area 24

- Hour PM 10 

### Averages on July 2, 2011

Figure 2 : Google Earth Image Overlay of 24

- hour PM 10 

### averages and ADEQ GIS Analysis for 11:00

- 11:30 PM

### Figure 3 : Google Earth Image Overlay of 24

- hour PM 10 

### averages and ADEQ GIS Analysis for 11:00

- 11:30 PM

After closer examination of the Salt River data on 7/2/2011, it appears that may be possible the exceedance may have

been caused by local agricultural activity (per information from Stan at Salt River), not the regional dust storm on the

evening of 7/2/2011 and morning of 7/3/2011.

Looking at the data it is apparent that the dust storm on the evening of 7/2/2011 reached the Salt River monitor at the

11 PM hour, but nearby concentrations indicate that the total contribution of the dust storm on the evening of the 2 nd

was only approxim ately 35 ug/m3 (Based on concentrations from hourly data at the West Chandler monitoring site

located to the south of Salt River)

... the but

- for for this exceedance would need a 62 ug/m3 contribution (216 ug/m3

– 24 hr NAAQS of 154 ug/m3)

Also, nearby concen trations at other Salt River PM10 sites only measured a 24 hour average of 74 ug/m3 , which supports the notion that

the exceedance of 216 μg/m3 was isolated and not associated with broader regional transport from the evening dust storm.

### Table 1 : Estimated Event Contribution

Hour W est Chandler Hourly PM 10 W est Chandler Hourly PM 10 (w/o Event) 1

00:00 38 38

01:00 46 46

02:00 41 41

03:00 43 43

04:00 44 44

05:00 47 47

06:00 57 57

07:00 35 35

08:00 53 53

09:00 32 32

10:00 52 52

11:00 57 57

12:00 40 40

13:00 38 38

14:00 39 39

15:00 82 82

16:00 36 36

17:00 60 60

18:00 47 47

19:00 55 55

20:00 48 48

21:00 32 32

22:00 32 32

23:00 871 46

24

- hour Average 80 46

Estimated Event Contribution W. Chandler: 3 4

Salt River 24 hr PM
10 216

Salt River 24 hr PM
10 w/o Event 18 2

1 The 24

- hour concentration for West Chandler without the influence of the event in the 11:00 PM

– 12:00 AM was calculated with the use of a

substituted value of 46 μg/m 3 , which represents the average of the hourly PM 10 concentrations for the remaining port ion of the day.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 124 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H6061]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

            By Mr. SARBANES:
        H.R. 6426.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution under the 
     General Welfare Clause.
```
Exhibit 99.1


                             KERR-McGEE CORPORATION

                                Kerr-McGee Center

                          Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                      REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING
                              FINANCIAL STATEMENTS


I, Luke R. Corbett,  the Chief Executive Officer of Kerr-McGee  Corporation (the
"Issuer"),  in compliance  with 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify in connection with
the  Issuer's  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the period that ended June 30,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") that:

      *  the  Report  fully  complies  with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      *  information  contained in  the Report fairly  presents, in all material
         respects,  the financial  condition and  results  of operations  of the
         Issuer.



                                            /s/ Luke R. Corbett
                                            -------------------
                                            Luke R. Corbett
                                            Chief Executive Officer
                                            August 9, 2002
# C_2008128EN.01003401.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/34

---

Appeal brought on 18 January 2008 by C. Michail against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 22 November 2007 in Case F-34/06 Michail v Commission

(Case T-50/08)

(2008/C 128/73)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: C. Michail (represented by C. Meïdanis, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | hold that the present application to set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-34/06 is admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

hold that the present application to set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-34/06 is admissible and well founded;

| — | annul the disputed measures/decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-34/06; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the disputed measures/decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-34/06;

| — | determine the financial compensation for the non-material harm to the appellant, which amounts to EUR 120 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

determine the financial compensation for the non-material harm to the appellant, which amounts to EUR 120 000;

| — | make an order as to costs as laid down by law. |
| --- | --- |

—

make an order as to costs as laid down by law.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant submits that, in the contested judgment, the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) erred in ruling upon his application for annulment of his career development report for 2004 and of the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the complaints submitted by him under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

More specifically, the appellant contends, first, that that the CST misinterpreted Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and the general provisions implementing that Article. Second, the CST misinterpreted the form of order sought by the application upon which it ruled, and it appraised the evidence wrongly. Third, the CST relied on contradictory reasoning in dismissing his application, with the result that fundamental procedural rights enjoyed by him were infringed. Fourth, the CST erred in refusing to rule on a particular claim or otherwise employed insufficient reasoning and, finally, it wrongly dismissed part of the application for lack of precision.

---
---



Exhibit 32.2

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 Tari Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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.



Date:  February 13, 2009



/s/  Theodore Tsagkaris

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

Theodore Tsagkaris

Secretary, Treasurer & C.F.O.

(Principal Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer)







---
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 15

- 00130

- CV

ANGELA ALLEN AS THE DEPENDENT ADMINISTRA TOR

OF THE ESTATE OF TRI CIA L. APPLETON, DEC EASED,

DAVID N. APPLETON, J R., D.A., A.A., G.L.A., S.A.,B.A.,

CHILDREN, AND INTERV ENOR, PACIFIC

EMPLOYERS INS. CO.

, Appellant s

v.

TAYLOR TRUCKING SAND & GRAVEL,

BRYAN C. TAYLOR, MAC K TRUCKS, INC., AND

FIREMAN'S FUND COUNT Y MUTUAL

, Appellee s

From the 413th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. C2002

- 00328

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, Angela Allen, as the Dependent Administrator for the Estate of Tricia

L. Appleton, Deceased, David N. Appleton, Jr., D.A., A.A., G.L.A., S.A., B.A., Children,

and Intervenor, Pacific Employers Insurance Company, filed an unopposed motion toAllen v . Taylor Trucking Sand & Gravel Page 2

dis miss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). Appellants no longer wish to pursue

the appeal. Dismissal of this appeal would not prevent a party from seeking relief to

which it would otherwise be entitled. The motion is granted, and the appeal is d ismissed.

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted; appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed May 28, 2015

[CV06]
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
MHM Services, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-09147) on Form S-8 of MHM Services, Inc. of our report dated December 17,
1999, on the consolidated balance sheets of MHM Services, Inc. and subsidiaries
as of September 30, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' deficit, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended September 30, 1999, and the related schedule, which
report appears in the September 30, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of MHM
Services, Inc.

Our report dated December 17, 1999, contains an explanatory paragraph that
states that the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations, has an
accumulated deficit, has a working capital deficiency, and is experiencing
difficulty in generating sufficient cash flows to meet its obligations and
sustain its operations. Such conditions raise substantial doubt as to the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule do not include any adjustments that
might result from the outcome of that uncertainty.

KPMG LLP

McLean, Virginia
December 29, 1999
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

272 

CAF 14-02008 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, DEJOSEPH, AND TROUTMAN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF LUCILLE A. SOLDATO, 

COMMISSIONER, ONEIDA COUNTY DEPARTMENT 

OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ON BEHALF OF 

APRIL M. DAVIS, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JASON J. CARINGI, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

 

MARY R. HUMPHREY, NEW HARTFORD, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

TRACY L. PUGLIESE, ROME, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Joan E.

Shkane, J.), entered October 31, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 4. The order, among other things, confirmed

the Support Magistrate’s determination that respondent had willfully

failed to obey a court order. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is

remitted to Family Court, Oneida County, for a new hearing. 

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act

article 4, respondent father appeals from an order finding him in

willful violation of a child support order and imposing a suspended

sentence of six months of incarceration. We agree with the father

that he was denied his right to counsel at the hearing before the

Support Magistrate to determine whether he was in willful violation of

the support order, and we reject petitioner’s contention that the

issue requires preservation (see Matter of Girard v Neville, ___ AD3d

___ [Mar. 18, 2016]). 

At the parties’ initial appearance, the Support Magistrate

informed the father only that he had “the right to hire a lawyer [or]

talk for [himself],” asked the father to choose between those options,

and conducted no further inquiry when the father chose to proceed pro

se. The Support Magistrate thus failed to inform the father of his

right to have counsel assigned if he could not afford to retain an

attorney (see Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [vi]; Matter of Wilder v Bufe,

25 AD3d 827, 828), and also failed to engage the father in the

requisite searching inquiry concerning his decision to proceed pro se

and thereby ensure that the father was knowingly, intelligently and

voluntarily waiving his right to counsel (see Girard, ___ AD3d at ___;
-2- 272 

CAF 14-02008 

Matter of Storelli v Storelli, 101 AD3d 1787, 1788; see generally

Matter of Seifert v Pastwick, 118 AD3d 1503, 1504). We therefore

reverse the order and remit the matter to Family Court for a new

hearing (see Storelli, 101 AD3d at 1788). In light of our

determination, we do not reach the father’s remaining contention. 

 

Entered: March 25, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

I, Rick Fresia, certify that: 

 

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

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances 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 presentin 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 (asdefined 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 designated under oursupervision, 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 theregistrant’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 theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely 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 financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 13, 2004
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00475-CR

Charles Ombati Moreka

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From County Criminal Court No. 3

of Tarrant County (1184851)

April 11, 2013

Opinion by Chief Justice Livingston

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By_________________________________

 Chief Justice Terrie Livingston
**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 Beard Company’s (the “Company”) Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Herb Mee, Jr., President and Chief Financial 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, 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, as amended; 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:  April 14, 2008 | By:  /s/ Herb Mee, Jr.               

Herb Mee, Jr.President and Chief Financial Officer |
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    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(d)
    
    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
  (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/ LEE E. BECKELMANName:
    
    Lee E. BeckelmanTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
#### In the Matter of Dewey S. Legal Aid Society, Appellant; Joseph A. Esquirol et al., Respondents.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to bar a Justice of the Family Court from relieving the Legal Aid Society from its appointment as Law Guardian for a child, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated March 19, 1991, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

"Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court — in cases where judicial authority is challenged —acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” *(Matter of Holtzman v Gold*
      *922
      *man,*71 NY2d 564, 569; *accord, Matter of Rush v Mordue,*68 NY2d 348, 353). Accordingly, the petitioner’s proper remedy is to seek review of the order relieving it of its appointment as Law Guardian for the child by direct appeal therefrom *(see, Matter of Dewey S.,*175 AD2d 920 [decided herewith]). Eiber, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.