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

JUDGMENT RENDERED MA Y 9 , 2014

NO. 03
- 12
- 00527
- CV

Appellants, Texas Entertainment Assoc iation, Inc. and Karpod, Inc.,// Cross
- Appellants, Susan Combs, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Te x as, and

Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas

v. Appellees, Susan Combs, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and

Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the St ate of Texas// Cross
- Appellees, Texas Entertainment Association, Inc . and Karpod, Inc.

APPEAL FROM 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART

–

OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on July 9, 2012. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was error in the trial court’s judgment . The Court reverses the portion s of t he trial court’s judgment holding that a sexually

oriented

- business tax is an occupation tax and that twenty

- five percent (25%) of the revenue from a sexually

- oriented

- business tax is required to go to public schooling , and renders judgment that the sexual ly

- oriented

- business tax is not an occupation tax and thus there is no requirement that twenty

- five percent (25%) of its revenue go to public schooling. The remainder of the trial court’s judgment is affirmed

. Appellants shall pay all costs relating to t his appeal , both in this Court and the court below.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  CALLISTO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.  FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2009  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I am the Chief Executive Officer of Callisto Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"). I am delivering this
certificate in connection with the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("Form 10-Q").

Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                   |  |                                                        
|------------------ |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 20, 2009 |  | /s/ GARY S. JACOB Gary S. Jacob Chief Executive Officer

---



QuickLinks
JOHN OLIVER WESTBROOKS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-1326

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 12, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Jan Shackelford, Judge.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
**EXHIBIT 10.24****Digene Corporation Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy**     Under the current Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy of Digene Corporation (“Digene”),each non-employee director is entitled to receive: **•** an annual retainer fee of $25,000 and an additional annual retainer of $10,000 forthe Audit Committee Chair, $5,000 for the other Audit Committee members and $5,000 forthe Compensation Committee Chair;  **•** a fee of $1,500 for each Board meeting attended in person, and $750 for eachin-person Board meeting attended by conference telephone;  **•** a fee of $750 for each telephonic Board meeting lasting longer than thirty minutes;  **•** a fee of $1,000 for each Audit or Compensation Committee meeting attended in personother than committee meetings held on the same day as in-person Board meetings;  **•** a fee of $500 for each telephonic Audit or Compensation Committee meeting lastinglonger than thirty minutes;  **•** a fee of $500 for each Nominating and Corporate Governance or Compliance Committeemeeting attended in person other than committee meetings held on the same day asin-person Board meetings;  **•** a fee of $250 for each telephonic Nominating and Corporate Governance or ComplianceCommittee meeting lasting longer than thirty minutes;  **•** upon first joining the Board, a grant of stock options to purchase 10,000 shares ofour common stock, which will become exercisable as to 33%, 33% and 34% of theunderlying shares on the first, second and third anniversaries of the date of grant andhave a term of seven years;  **•** upon first joining the Board, an award of restricted stock units with a fair marketvalue of $90,000 on the date of such award, which will vest as to 33%, 33% and 34% oneach of the first, second and third anniversaries of the date of grant;  **•** an annual grant, to each non-employee director who will continue to serve as adirector after the annual meeting of our stockholders, of immediately exercisable stockoptions to purchase 5,000 shares of our common stock;  **•** an annual award, to each non-employee director who will continue to serve as adirector after the annual meeting of our stockholders, of restricted stock units with afair market value of $45,000 on the date of such award, which will vest on the earlierof the date of the next annual meeting of our stockholders or the first anniversary ofthe award date; and  **•** reimbursement for all reasonable travel expenses incurred in connection with Boardof Directors’ meetings and meetings of committees of the Board of Directors.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herman Lee TATE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-7674.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 16, 2003.

Decided Jan. 27, 2003.

Herman Lee Tate, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Steven Cromwell, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Herman Lee Tate appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Tate,*No. CR-98-125-9-V (W.D.N.C. filed Sept. 25, 2002; entered Oct. 2, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the *169facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 152 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 152

  To reduce Federal spending and rapidly enhance strategic airlift by 
  terminating the C-17 aircraft program after fiscal year 1996 and by 
    providing for a program to meet the remaining strategic airlift 
    requirements of the Department of Defense with nondevelopmental 
                               aircraft.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 5, 1995

 Mr. Bumpers (for himself, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
 Kohl, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Simon, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Wellstone) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                           on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To reduce Federal spending and rapidly enhance strategic airlift by 
  terminating the C-17 aircraft program after fiscal year 1996 and by 
    providing for a program to meet the remaining strategic airlift 
    requirements of the Department of Defense with nondevelopmental 
                               aircraft.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Airlift Enhancement Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF C-17 STRATEGIC AIRLIFT PROGRAM.

    (a) Program Termination.--The Secretary of Defense shall terminate 
the C-17 aircraft acquisition program with those aircraft for which 
funds are appropriated for fiscal year 1996. No funds appropriated to 
the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1996 may be obligated for 
procurement of long-lead items for C-17 aircraft, and no funds 
appropriated to the Department of Defense for a fiscal year after 1996 
may be obligated for procurement of C-17 aircraft or for procurement of 
long-lead items for such aircraft.
    (b) Alternative Strategic Airlift Program.--
            (1) The Secretary shall develop a program to meet the 
        remaining strategic airlift requirements of the Air Force 
        through acquisition of nondevelopment airlift aircraft;
            (2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the remaining strategic 
        airlift requirements of the Air Force are those requirements 
        that before the date of the enactment of this Act were 
        programmed to be met through the acquisition of C-17 aircraft 
        using funds appropriated for a fiscal year after fiscal year 
        1995; and
            (3) Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment 
        of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on 
        the program developed under paragraph (1). The report shall 
        describe the proposed scope, pace, and cost of acquisition of 
        nondevelopmental aircraft under that program.
                                 <all>
```
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 8435 Directorate I d entifier: 2015

- NM

- 049

- AD

If you make changes to t h e values in the t able below, y ou must ens u re the totals u pdate accord i ngly. If

they do no t

, click (or Tab) i n to a nd then out of the ch a nged cell

.

Estim a ted Co sts:

Acti o n

(e

. g

., I n s p ection,

replace m ent)

Do n o t i n c l ud e o n

c o n d iti o n c o st

s h e re Costs per Pro d uct (e

. g

., aircr a ft, e ng i ne,

p ro p eller, a ppl i ance)

W or k

- h ou rs

(incl u de

access, testing,

a n d cl o s e

- up) Labor

cost

( @ $ 8 5 /h

o u r) Parts C o st Total Costs

(la b or +

part s ) Nu m

b er of

U. S

. Regi s tered

Pro d ucts T o tal C o st

f o r U. S

. Fleet



### REPLAC E MENT 4

. 0 $ 3 4 0 .0 0 $0 $ 3 4 0 .0 0 

### 60 $ 2 0

, 4 0 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known n u m

b er of products in compliance:

Total Costs of c o m

p liance for U.S. fleet: $ 2 0 ,4 0 0

Costs covered u n der warran t y ( if kno wn ) $

On

- Condit i on Cost s :

Acti o n

(e

. g

., I n s p ection,

replace m ent) W or k

- h ou rs

(include acc e s s

, testing, an d cl o se

u p ) Labor c o st

( @ $ 8 5 / ho u r ) Parts C o st Cost p e r Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic A nalysis (Use t h is field to ex

p l a in a n yt h ing i n t h e Estim a ted C o sts ta b le

that w a s as s u m ed or mi g h t not be o b vi o u s. T h is field c a n a l so be us e d to e xplain w a r r a n t y costs ) :Executive Order 12866:

Could the A D be considered a “significant regulato r y action”?

*Explanatio n :

DOT R egulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD si g n ificant?

*Explanatio n :

Regulatory Flexibility Act: YES* NO

YES* NO

Will the AD have a significant econo m ic i m pact on a s ubstantial nu m b er of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes o r No answer.

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: YES NO

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include sp e cific requirements for

aircraft oper a ted in Alaska where aviati o n m ight be the on l y m ode of transportation?



### * Explanatio n 

### : YES* NO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             896
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,810
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,864
<INVENTORY>                                     53,190<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                69,733
<PP&E>                                         160,504
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 264,536
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,330
<BONDS>                                        188,830<F2>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           42,293
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           146
<OTHER-SE>                                        (63)<F3>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   264,536
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               311,044
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               329,147
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (167)<F4>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,271
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (29,207)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,020
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (24,187)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (24,187)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.42)
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING ASSETS: PREPAID EXPENSES AND OTHER OF $10,934, PREPAID
INCOME TAXES OF $3,873, DEFERRED INCOME TAXES--CURRENT OF $4,084, DEFERRED
INCOME TAXES--LONG-TERM OF $2,229, RESTRICTED CASH OF $2,110, NOTE RECEIVABLE
OF $7,487, INTANGIBLE ASSETS, NET OF $18,173 AND OTHER ASSETS, NET OF $4,300.
<F2>INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING LONG-TERM LIABILITIES: DEFERRED INCOME OF $3,104,
CAPITAL LEASE OBLIGATION OF $51,253, AND LONG-TERM DEBT OF $134,473.
<F3>INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING EQUITY ACCOUNTS: ADDITIONAL PAID-IN CAPITAL OF $204,607,
TREASURY STOCK OF ($183,746) AND RETAINED DEFICIT OF ($20,924).
<F4>INCLUDES OTHER REVENUE $167.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheet of Adams Outdoor Advertising Limited Partnership as of December 31, 1998
and the related Statements of Operations and Cash Flows and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001011977
<NAME> ADAMS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,687
<SECURITIES>                                     1,879
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,201
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (648)
<INVENTORY>                                         69
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,661
<PP&E>                                         117,236
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (63,885)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  78,193
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,855
<BONDS>                                        132,728
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (69,447)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    78,193
<SALES>                                         64,569
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                64,569
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,315
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,875
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,408
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,514
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,514
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (330)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,184
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronnie Lee JEFFERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-4587.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 20, 2002.

Decided Jan. 31, 2003.

Paul G. Beers, Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Thomas Linn Eckert, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Ronnie Lee Jefferson pled guilty to unauthorized use of a credit card, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1029 (West 2000 *&*Supp. 2002), and was sentenced to fifteen months’ imprisonment, followed by a three-year supervised release term. Jefferson’s probation officer alleged Jefferson failed to pay restitution, failed to report to *186the probation officer, and failed to maintain regular employment while on supervised release. Jefferson did not appear for the revocation hearing, and the probation officer additionally alleged Jefferson violated his supervised release by committing another federal, state, or local crime due to his failure to appear. The district court revoked Jefferson’s supervised release and imposed a twenty-four month term of imprisonment.

On appeal of the supervised release revocation, Jefferson argues the district court abused its discretion in finding he committed a Grade B violation because the Government did not prove he knowingly failed to appear. A defendant acts knowingly “when he knows that the result is practically certain to follow from his conduct.” *See United States v. Carr,*303 F.3d 539, 546 (4th Cir.2002) (citation omitted), *petition for cert. filed,*71 U.S.L.W. 3473 (U.S. Nov. 22, 2002) (No. 02-7687). We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirm. *See United States v. Davis,*53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1514 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

  1st Session
                                S. 1514

To authorize the obligation and expenditure of appropriated funds for a 
 2.4 percent increase in pay and allowances and a 5.2 percent increase 
   for basic allowance for quarters for the members of the uniformed 
                               services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            December 30 (legislative day, December 29), 1995

  Mr. Dole for Mr. Stevens (for himself, Mr. Dole, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. 
Coats, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Byrd, and Mr. Nunn) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the obligation and expenditure of appropriated funds for a 
 2.4 percent increase in pay and allowances and a 5.2 percent increase 
   for basic allowance for quarters for the members of the uniformed 
                               services.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
the Executive order of the President, or any other provision of law, 
funds appropriated by Public Law 104-61 for purposes set forth in 
section 601 of H.R. 1530, the Conference Report accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, House Report 
No. 104-406, One Hundred Fourth Congress, First Session, as passed by 
the House of Representatives on December 15, 1995 and by the Senate on 
December 19, 1995, may be obligated and expended for such purposes in 
accordance with such section: Provided, That authorities provided under 
this section shall expire on April 2, 1996.

                                 <all>
```