alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rogelio GUAJARDO, Sr., Trustee, et al., Petitioners, v. ALAMO LUMBER COMPANY, Respondents.

No. A-7033.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Nov. 5, 1958.

Rehearing Denied Dee. 3, 1958.

Lloyd & Lloyd, Alice, for petitioners.

Perkins, Floyd & Davis, and Kenneth Oden, Alice, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The jurisdiction invoked by petitioners in this Court and the Court of Civil Appeals relates only to the propriety of granting a temporary injunction. Article 4662, Vernon’s Annotated Texas Civil Statutes. Rule 385, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Lawless v. Big State Land Company, Tex.Civ.App., 301 S.W.2d 958, no writ history. It is apparent from the briefs of the parties filed herein that after the Court of Civil Appeals had dissolved the temporary injunction granted by the trial court (315 S.W.2d 672), the petitioners (plaintiffs in *726the trial court), under protest, tendered to the Sheriff of Duval County a sufficient amount of money to discharge the indebtedness claimed by respondent. This prevented an execution sale of the property involved and rendered the matter of granting a temporary injunction to restrain such sale wholly moot.

“The rule has long been established in this court that when a case becomes moot on appeal, all previous orders are set aside by the appellate court and the case is dismissed. * * * When the appeal is from an order granting a temporary injunction, and that phase of the case becomes moot on appeal, the same rule applies. The proper order is to set aside all orders pertaining to the temporary injunction and dismiss that portion of the case, leaving the main case still pending.” Texas Foundries, Inc., v. International Moulders & Foundry Workers’ Union, 151 Tex. 239, 248 S.W.2d 460, 461 ; Service Finance Corporation v. Grote, 133 Tex. 606, 131 S.W.2d 93.

Accordingly writ of error is granted without reference to the merits of the matters or issues decided by the Court of Civil Appeals, University Interscholastic League v. Sims, 133 Tex. 605, 131 S.W.2d 94, and the orders of the Court of Civil Appeals and the trial court relating to the temporary injunction feature of the case are set aside and this cause insofar as it relates to the matter of a temporary injunction is dismissed at petitioners’ cost. Poole v. Giles, 151 Tex. 224, 248 S.W.2d 464; City of West University Place v. Martin, 132 Tex. 354, 123 S.W.2d 638; International Ass’n of Machinists, Local Union No. 1488 v. Federated Ass’n of Accessory Workers, 133 Tex. 624, 130 S.W.2d 282.

This order of dismissal is entered without prejudice to such further actions as the parties may wish to take with reference to the case on the merits. As the judgment of the Court of Civil ’ Appeals has been vacated its opinion will not necessarily control the trial of the cause upon the merits. We do not pass upon the merits of the controversy.

Cause dismissed insofar as the temporary injunction is concerned.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

*CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERCERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of MedicalCV, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-QSB for the quarter ended July 31, 2007, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, EapenChacko, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.             The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2.             The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| Dated:  September 14, 2007 |   | By:    | /s/ Eapen Chacko                                     |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                            |   |   | Eapen Chacko                                         |
|                            |   |   | Vice President, Finance and  Chief Financial Officer |

 

                                                                

----
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-7107 

WILLIAM B. TWINE, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

Kenneth M. Carpenter, Carpenter, Chartered, of Topeka, Kansas, argued for claimantappellant. Of counsel was Kathy A. Lieberman, Lieberman & Mark, of Washington, DC. 

Domenique Kirchner, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, 

United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. 

With her on the brief were Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, Todd M. Hughes, Deputy Director, 

and Hillary A. Stern, Trial Attorney. Of counsel were David J. Barrans, Deputy Assistant 

General Counsel, and Jamie L. Mueller, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, United 

States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. 

 

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

Judge Bruce E. Kasold
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 

 2008-7107 

WILLIAM B. TWINE, 

 Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

 Respondent-Appellee. 

 Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United States Court of Appeals 

for Veterans Claims 

in CASE NO(S). 06-1414. 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 

Per Curiam (MAYER, BRYSON, and PROST, Circuit Judges ) 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

DATED May 8, 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

DEC 22 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 97-2154

v. (D.C. No. CV-96-519 JP/JHG)

THOMAS TURNER, (D. New Mex.)

Defendant - Appellant.

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

After examining Appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination

of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Appellant claims that his conviction was fundamentally defective because he was

allowed to plead guilty to conduct that was not a crime, in violation of his right to due

process. Mr. Turner appeals the district court’s denial of his Motion to Vacate, Set Aside,
2

or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and the district court’s dismissal of his

action. 

We grant Appellant’s motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of costs or

fees, and we grant Appellant a certificate of appealability. We affirm the judgment for the

reasons given in the magistrate judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommended

Disposition, as adopted and supplemented by the district court in its Order filed April 1,

1997. 

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

Coopers & Lybrand Letterhead


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
         Statements on Form S-8 pertaining to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan,
         1996 Equity Incentive Plan, Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee
         Directors and Management Bonus Plan of Interstate Hotels Company (File
         Nos. 333-19307, 333-29457, 333-29461 and 333-29459, respectively) of
         our report dated February 11, 1998, except for Note 21, as to which the
         date is March 1, 1998, and except for Note 3, as to which the date is
         March 30, 1998, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements
         as of December 31, 1996 and 1997 and for each of the three years in the
         period ended December 31, 1997, which report is included in this Annual
         Report on Form 10-K.

                                                    /s/ COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.


         600 Grant Street
         Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
         March 30, 1998
Presidential Documents

5419 

Federal Register 

Vol. 89, No. 18 

Friday, January 26, 2024 

Title 3— 

The President 

Memorandum of December 27, 2023 

Delegation of Authority Under Section 614(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, including section 621 of the Foreign 

Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), I hereby delegate to the Secretary of State 

the authority under section 614(a)(1) of the FAA to determine whether 

it is important to the security interests of the United States to furnish 

up to $20 million in assistance to Ukraine without regard to any provision 

of law within the purview of section 614(a)(1) of the FAA. 

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal 

Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, December 27, 2023 

[FR Doc. 2024–01755 

Filed 1–25–24; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with FR_PREZDOC0BIDEN.EPS</GPH>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Paul R. Kimmel, certify that:

 

1.  The QuarterlyReport on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”) ofMediCor Ltd. (the “Company”), fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of MediCor.

 

Date: May 15, 2006

 
|   | /s/  Paul R. Kimmel      |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Paul  R. Kimmel          |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
#### TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Appellant, v. Billy Van WILLIAMS, Appellee.

No. 3712.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

April 20, 1962.

Rehearing Denied May 18, 1962.

Charles J. Lieclc, Jr., Dist. Atty., Edward E. DeWees, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, for appellant.

Stateson, Deane & Ward, San Antonio, for appellee.

COLLINGS, Justice.

The Texas Department of Public Safety brought suit in the corporation court of the City of San Antonio against Billy Van Williams to have him adjudged an habitual violator of the traffic laws under Article 6687b, Section 22, Vernon’s Ann.Tex.Civ. St. At a hearing in the corporation court Williams was found to be an habitual violator of such laws by reason of having had four different traffic law convictions within a twelve months’ period. Williams appealed to the County Court at Law Number 2 of Bexar County and after a hearing that court held that his payment of the four fines shown by the evidence did not constitute him an habitual violator under the statute because it was found by the court that two of the cases in which he had paid fines were not convictions. The Texas Department of Public Safety has appealed.

The evidence shows that two of the four .convictions alleged against appellee Williams were based upon payment of fines by him by mail in cases in which he did not make an appearance either in person or by an attorney in the court which assessed the fine. We cannot agree with appellant’s contention that proof of payment of a fine by mail in a misdemeanor case shows a conviction. Mooneyhan v. Benedict, Tex.Civ.App., 284 S.W.2d 741; Article 518, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. For the reasons stated the evidence would not have sustained a finding that Williams was convicted of *849four different violations of the traffic laws within a period of twelve months. The trial court properly found that proof of the payment of such fines by mail did not show convictions, and that the State failed to establish its charge that Williams was an habitual violator of the traffic laws.

The judgment is affirmed.
OAR Box 1490 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

49) IV-C-22 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 8/4/2008 11:51:47 AM Sheet 49 of 273 

P.1 
P.2 

A-9A-52 

IV-C-22 

Keith Barnett 

03/26/2002 10:09 AM 

To: John Schweitzer <jschwtzr@gte.net> 

Subject: Re: centrifugal casting^ 

This looks reasonable to me. We will do a little research on this end to confirm the emission factors 

see what changes we might need to make to the rule. 

Keith W. Barnett j ~ ~ 

US/EPA OAQPS, ESD/MICG C504-05 ' 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

919-541-5605 

barnett. keith@epa. gov 

John Schweitzer <jschwtzr@gte.net> 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

John Schweitzer 

< jschwtzr@gte.net > 

03/26/2002 09:19 AM 

Please respond to John 

Schweitzer 

To: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

cc: 

Subject: centrifugal casting 

Keith, I'm going to posfthjs notice (below) on our UEF website. 

The factors for centrifugal castihg in Table 1 in the MACT rule should have the same notation. 

'The UEF factors for CENTRlhJGAL CASTING (CC) are based on source test data from a CC 

operation that heats the molds ^blowing hot air intp^ne mold during cure. The UEF factors for 

CC should therefore only be appliecKto operation^^lmilar to this source; i.e., those that use hot 

air to internally heat the mold during cnre. 

If a CC operation employs manual or meefianical resin application, and open curing at ambient 

temperatures, then the UEF factors foi^manualor mechanical resin application should be used. 

If a CC operation employs maptral or mechanical r-^sin application, and the molds are then closed 

during cure, then the UEF jaftors for covered cure should be used." 

Thanks, 

John 

FROM==* 

John SchwejJ&er 

Sr. Dirertef of Gov't. Affairs 

Composites Fabricators Assoc. 

voiceT734.622.0162 

fa*734.622.0122 

nschwtzr@ate.net 

www.cfa-hq.ora
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 275

To establish a temporary moratorium on the Interagency Memorandum of

Agreement Concerning Wetlands Determinations until enactment of a

law that is the successor to the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and

Trade Act of 1990, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 25 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 1995

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. BOND, Mr. BURNS, Mr. HELMS, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. PRESSLER, and Mr. NICKLES) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

A BILL

To establish a temporary moratorium on the Interagency

Memorandum of Agreement Concerning Wetlands Determinations until enactment of a law that is the successor

to the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act

of 1990, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 275 IS

1 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE INTER2 AGENCY MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

3 CONCERNING WETLANDS DETERMINATIONS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law, during the period beginning on the date of

6 enactment of this Act and ending on the date of enactment

7 of a law that is the successor to the Food, Agriculture,

8 Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–

9 624), the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the

10 Army, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Administrator

11 of the Environmental Protection Agency may not carry

12 out—

13 (1) the Interagency Memorandum of Agreement

14 Concerning Wetlands Determinations for Purposes

15 of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Subtitle

16 B of the Food Security Act (59 Fed. Reg. 2920) (re17 ferred to in this section as the ‘‘Memorandum of

18 Agreement’’); or

19 (2) any method of delineating wetlands based

20 on the Memorandum of Agreement for purposes of

21 carrying out subtitle C of title XII of the Food Secu22 rity Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821 et seq.) or section

23 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33

24 U.S.C. 1344).

25 (b) SAVINGS PROVISION.—Wetlands may be delin26 eated based on a policy or practice in effect prior to the
3

•S 275 IS

1 proposed effective date of the Memorandum of Agreement.

2 This Act shall not constitute acceptance or approval of the

3 policy or practice.

Æ
Exhibit 99.1


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

     In connection with the Annual Report of EP MedSystems, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Reinhard Schmidt,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/ Reinhard Schmidt
--------------------
Reinhard Schmidt
President and Chief Executive Officer
March 31, 2003
<PAGE>   1
                       IRVINE APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.
                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

                                  Exhibit 23.2



We consent to the use of our reports dated January 31, 1997 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and related financial statement schedule of
Irvine Apartment Communities, Inc., in the December 31, 1996 Form 10-K of Irvine
Apartment Communities, Inc.

We also consent to the use of our reports dated January 31, 1997 with respect to
the consolidated financial statements and related financial statement schedule
of Irvine Apartment Communities, Inc., in the Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 33-77808) pertaining to the Irvine Apartment Communities, Inc. 1993 Stock
Option Plan for Directors, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-77810)
pertaining to the Irvine Apartment Communities, Inc. 1993 Long-Term Stock
Incentive Plan, and in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-92036)
pertaining to the Irvine Apartment Communities, Inc. Registration of
$250,000,000 of Debt Securities, Preferred Stock, Common Stock and Warrants.


                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Newport Beach, California
March 24, 1997
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       3,145,309
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,423,702
<ALLOWANCES>                                   300,378
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,554,085
<PP&E>                                     193,256,626
<DEPRECIATION>                              29,258,581
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             574,611,141
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       26,334,866
<BONDS>                                    410,300,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 126,909,932
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               574,611,141
<SALES>                                    120,279,555
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           120,279,555
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              119,422,481
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               290,368
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          32,516,728
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (31,950,022)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (31,950,022)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (31,950,022)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23



                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
                         -----------------------------


The Board of Directors
MeriStar Hospitality Corporation:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-60463) on Form S-8 (MeriStar Hospitality Corporation Incentive Plan), the
registration statement (No. 333-60465) on Form S-8 (MeriStar Hospitality
Corporation Non-employee Director's Incentive Plan), the registration statement
(No. 333-66229) on Form S-3 (for a shelf registration to register shares for
certain operating partnership unit holders), and the registration statement (No.
333-37888) on Form S-8 (MeriStar Hospitality Corporation Employee Stock Purchase
Plan) of our report on the consolidated balance sheets of MeriStar Hospitality
Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2000, and the
related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31,
2000 annual report on Form 10-K of MeriStar Hospitality Corporation.


KPMG LLP

Washington, D.C.
February 2, 2001
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: _____2014_____-NM-____041______-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)