alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Coley R. INGRAM, Jr., Appellant, v. *Carolyn*INGRAM, Appellee.

No. 4216.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

March 19, 1964.

Davee & Davee, Brady, for appellant.

O’Neal Dendy, San Angelo, for appellee.

TIREY, Justice.

This is a divorce action, non-jury. In the decree we find this recital: “ * * * after hearing- the pleadings and the testimony of the plaintiff, finds that the material allegations of her petition with reference to grounds for divorce are true and are sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to a divorce from the defendant; to custody and control of the three minor children; * * *The decree then awarded certain properties to the plaintiff and fixed the support orders for the three minor children at $85.00 per month, and provided for visitation rights of the defendant.

The judgment is assailed on one point: “The trial court erred in granting appel-lee judgment for divorce, for the reason that same is unwarranted, and contrary to the evidence and the pleading in this cause.”' We overrule this point for reasons hereinafter briefly noted. Section (1) of Article 4629, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes,, provides a divorce may be granted

> “Where either party is guilty of excesses, cruel treatment, or outrages toward the other, if such ill treatment is of such a nature as to render their living together insupportable;”.

Article 4632, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes provides in part:

> “ * * * but the decree of the court shall be rendered upon full and satisfactory evidence, upon the judgment of the court affirming the material facts alleged in the petition”.

These provisions of our statute have been construed many times by our appellate courts. Our Supreme Court, in McCullough v. McCullough, 120 Tex. 209, 36 S.W.2d 459, page 463, in answer to certified questions, said:

> *“** * * the excesses, cruel treatment, or outrages provided in our statute as a ground for divorce are sufficient if they are of such a nature as to render further living together insupportable, and that without regard to whether such treatment is of such a nature as to threaten the impairment of the physical health of the wife. Of course the sacredness of the marriage relation should be kept in view, and divorces should not be granted on trivial matters or disagreements.”

In this cause, the plaintiff grounded her cause of action on the cruel treatment of her husband, and we have examined the testimony very carefully, and we are of the view that the testimony of the plaintiff, although not corroborated by any other witness, satisfies the test provided in Article *8894632, supra. See Harrell v. Harrell, Tex.Civ.App., 206 S.W.2d 109, point 1, and cases there cited. The testimony of the plaintiff is clear and convincing to us and we approve the holding of the trial court. Further comment upon this cause would serve no useful purpose. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Wo rth

______________

_____________ No. 02

- 20

- 00122

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 78th District Court Wichita County, Texas Trial Court No. DC78

- CV2020

- 1599

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Womack and Wallach, JJ. M emorandum Opinion by Justice Womack 

### Ex parte Martez Travon Vrana2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from the t rial court ’s August 18, 2020 denial of Appellant
Martez Travon Vrana ’s pre trial appl ication for writ of habeas corpus seeking bail
reduction related to an aggravated robbery charge

. On Au gust 26, 2020 , Vrana filed
his notice of ap peal. On September 21, 2020, Vrana and the State filed a “Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal ” in this court. In the motion, the parties agree that on September 1 6, 202 0, a grand jury de clined to return a n indictm ent for a ggravated robbery , that a magistrate dismissed the aggravated robbery charge, and that Vrana is no longer being confined on that charge

. The longstanding rule in Texas regarding habeas corpus is that “where the
p remise of a habeas corpus applicatio n is dest royed by subsequent developments, the legal issues raised thereunder are moot.” Ex parte Guerrero , 99 S.W.3d 852, 853 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (per curiam) (citations omitted) ; see also Ex parte Cook , No. 02

- 19

- 00286

- CR , 2019 WL 6335417, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Nov. 27, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op

. , not designated for publication ). Accordingly, we grant the parties ’ motion , an d we dismiss Vrana ’ s appeal as moot. /s/ Dana Womack
D ana Womack J ustice
Do No t Pub lish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b )
Delivered : October 1, 2020
Exhibit 23.1

Independent Auditors' Consent

The
Board of Directors
Maxim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.:

We
consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Nos. 333-101302, 333-85216, 333-61154, 333-34398, 333-45600,
333-11375, 333-35669, and 333-47695 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-65011 and 333-52403 on
Form S-3 of Maxim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and subsidiaries (a development stage company) of our report dated November 15, 2002, except for note 18 which is as of
December 8, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Maxim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and subsidiaries as of September 30, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended September 30, 2002, and for the period from inception
(October 23, 1989) through September 30, 2002, which report appears in the September 30, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of Maxim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
As discussed in Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements, in 2002 the Company has adopted the provisions of SFAS No. 142 "Accounting for Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets" and
accordingly has changed its method of accounting for goodwill.

|/s/ KPMG LLP                           
|---------------------------------------
|                                       
|San Diego, California
December 20, 2002

---



QuickLinks
#### Thomas H. BROWN, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 26, 1965.

Thomas H. Brown, LaGrange, pro se.

Robert Matthews, Atty. Gen., H. N. Mc-Tyeire, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

HILL, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order overruling without a hearing appellant’s motion under RCr 11.42 to vacate judgment of conviction for armed robbery entered April 1949 in which he was given a life sentence.

The motion to vacate was filed February 17, 1965, stating that he was not represented by counsel.

The order of the Circuit Court, a photostatic copy of which appears in the record, shows he appeared with his counsel. There is also filed with the record a photostatic copy of the indictment with notations thereon, along with the affidavit of an assistant commonwealth’s attorney who pointed out the name of “Stone” appears on the back of the indictment. This affidavit showed that it was the custom at that time for the clerk to make a written notation on the indictment of the name of the attorney appointed to represent indigent persons. The affidavit shows the notation intended to designate Foster Stone, a local attorney, as the one appointed by the court to represent the appellant.

It may be safely stated that the dignity and majesty of public records increase with age, and the longer the period of time elapsing between their date and the time validity is questioned the greater the dig*774nity, so that after the passage of a sufficient period of time such public records may become absolute and unassailable.

In the face of such an ancient public record, yellow with age, for it has been nearly sixteen years since it was made, we hold that the bare allegation that appellant did not have counsel, without some substantial supporting circumstance, is utterly insufficient to entitle him to a hearing under RCr 11.42. In Moore v. Commonwealth, Ky., 394 S.W.2d 931, decided October 22, 1965, this Court said:

> “We agree with the proposition set forth in Rayborn v. United States, 6 Cir., 251 F.2d 950, that mere unsupported allegations of lack of counsel will not be permitted to contradict plain, unambiguous court records.”

Appellant had a right during this sixteen-year period to raise the present question by habeas corpus. He did not do this. Although we do not at the present time apply the usual rules of laches and delay in cases of this character, it is an interesting circumstance to keep in mind in determining the sufficiency of an attack on aged public records.

The motion to vacate is insufficient and the judgment is affirmed.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed July 6, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1100

Lower Tribunal No. 18-40228

________________

Norma Herrera,

Appellant,

vs.

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mark 

Blumstein, Judge.

The Rousso, Boumel Law Firm, PLLC, and Adam T. Boumel; Philip D. 

Parrish, P.A., and Philip D. Parrish, for appellant.

Cosio Law Group, and Eduardo Cosio and Julie Bork Glassman, for 

appellee.

Before LOGUE, HENDON, and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. See Encarnacion v. Lifemark Hosps. of Fla., 211 So. 3d 275, 

278 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
Exhibit 10.125
                                 --------------

March 14, 2003

FROM:             S. Brewer Enterprises, Inc.

TO:               Commodore Applied Technologies
                  Attn.: James DeAngelis

SUBJ:             CONVERSION OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE AND INTEREST
                  OF BREWER NOTE.

REF:              (1) Amended and Restated Promissory Note October 29,2002
                  (2) Registration Rights Agreement October 29, 2002
                  (3) Warrant to Purchase Shares of Common Stock of Commodore
                      Applied Technologies, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is to notify Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc. (the "Maker") that S.
Brewer Enterprises, Inc. (the "Payee") intends to exercise its conversion rights
under the provisions of Ref.(1) effective Friday March 14, 2003. The conversion
will include the entirety of the loan principal balance ($250,000.00) and unpaid
interest due on March 3, 2003 ($36,562.50). Per Ref. (1), the conversion price
shall be based on the five-day look-back method.

                 ----------------------------------- ---------------------------
                                Day                         Closing Price
                 ----------------------------------- ---------------------------
                 March 14, 2003                      $0.02250
                 ----------------------------------- ---------------------------
                 March 13, 2003                      $0.02513
                 ----------------------------------- ---------------------------
                 March 12, 2003                      $0.02000
                 ----------------------------------- ---------------------------
                 March 11, 2003                      $0.02000
                  ----------------------------------- --------------------------
                 March 10, 2003                      $0.02100
                  ----------------------------------- --------------------------
                              Average                $0.021726
                 ----------------------------------- ---------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Brewer Note Conversion Notice March 14, 2003

                Principal                        $ 250,000.00
                Interest                         $  36,562.50
                                                 ------------
                                                 $ 286,562.50
                Share Average                    $   0.021726
                                                 ------------
                Conversion Shares                  13,189,842
                                                 ============


/s/ Shelby T. Brewer                                          March 14, 2003
---------------------------                                   --------------
Shelby T. Brewer                                                    Date
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<LEGEND>


                                   SATX, INC.
                                   EXHIBIT 27
                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                           ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION S-X

The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the financial
statements for the six month period ended June 30, 2000, and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such statements.

</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               dec-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                  76,662
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           336,768
<ALLOWANCES>                            283,631
<INVENTORY>                             585,256
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        3,304,170
<PP&E>                                  5,759,048
<DEPRECIATION>                          297,579
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          12,965,946
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   6,741,667
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                72,242
<OTHER-SE>                              1,652,835
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            12,965,946
<SALES>                                 624,506
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        624,506
<CGS>                                   499,842
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           4,007,889
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      332,140
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (3,616,914)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (3,616,914)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            (3,616,914)
<EPS-BASIC>                             (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.06)



</TABLE>
Order entered November 29, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01138-CR

No. 05-18-01176-CR

No. 05-18-01177-CR

No. 05-18-01178-CR

No. 05-18-01179-CR

No. 05-18-01180-CR

JOSE ANTONIO JUAREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F17-72146-S, F10-35577-S,

F13-34001-S, F14-33730-S, F14-33734-S & F14-33735-S

ORDER

Before the Court is Official Court Reporter Lisa V. Jackson’s second request for an 

extension of time to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT the request and ORDER the 

reporter’s record filed within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. Ms. Jackson is 

cautioned that further extensions will be disfavored.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
II

Calendar No. 95

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 421

[Report No. 104–72]

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the

construction of a hydroelectric project in Kentucky, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 15 (legislative day, JANUARY 30), 1995

Mr. FORD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to

the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

APRIL 27 (legislative day, APRIL 24), 1995

Reported by Mr. MURKOWSKI, without amendment

A BILL

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of a hydroelectric project in Kentucky, 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,

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time period

5 specified in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16

6 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the Federal En-
2

•S 421 RS

1 ergy Regulatory Commission project numbered 10228, the

2 Commission may, at the request of the licensee for the

3 project and after reasonable notice, in accordance with the

4 good faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements

5 of that section and the Commission’s procedures under

6 that section, extend the time period during which the li7 censee is required to commence the construction of the

8 project, under the extension described in subsection (b),

9 for not more than 3 consecutive 2-year periods.

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect

11 on the date of the expiration of the extension of the period

12 required for commencement of construction of the project

13 described in subsection (a) that the Commission issued,

14 prior to the date of enactment of this Act, under section

15 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806).

Calendar No. 95

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 421

[Report No. 104–72]

A BILL

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power

poses.electric project in Kentucky, and for other purAct applicable to the construction of a hydroAPRIL 27 (legislative day, APRIL 24), 1995

Reported without amendment
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03- 08 -00 560 -CV He le n O’ Ne al , A ppe lla nt

v. Ector C ounty In dependent S chool Districtand T he Com ission er of Edu cation , Appellee F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-07- 0002 91 , HO NORAB LE W. JEANNE MEURER , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Appellant has f

iled an agr eed motion to dismiss , explaining t hat she ha s settled her dispute with appellee s. We gr ant the motion and dismiss the appe al. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2).

_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______________________________ David Puryear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Puryear and He nson Dismissed on Ag ree d Motion Filed: F ebrua

ry 11, 2009
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 333-78453, 333-50877 and 333-50841) and the Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-5535) of our report dated February 17, 2000 with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Applied
Analytical Industries, Inc. and subsidiaries included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.

                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Raleigh, North Carolina
March 30, 2000
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

*CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MedicalCV, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended January 31, 2006, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Marc P. Flores, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.             The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| Dated: March 20, 2006 | By:    |   | /s/ Marc P. Flores                    |   |
|----------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                       |   |   | Marc P. Flores                        |
|                       |   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350.



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Curis, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Daniel R. Passeri, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



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



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



Dated: March 31,
2006



/s/    DANIEL R. PASSERIDaniel R. Passeri President and Chief Executive
Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 315

To protect the first amendment rights of employees of the Federal

Government.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 1 (legislative day, JANUARY 30), 1995

Mr. HELMS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To protect the first amendment rights of employees of the

Federal Government.

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

3 SECTION. 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of

4 law, no employee of the Federal Government shall be pe5 remptorily removed without public hearings from his or

6 her position because of remarks made during personal

7 time in opposition to the Federal Government’s policies,

8 or proposed policies regarding homosexuals, and any such
2

•S 315 IS

1 individual so removed prior to date of enactment of this

2 Act shall be reinstated to his or her previous position.

Æ
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-23-00571-CV

AHMED EL SAYED

v.

ANNA GHALUMIAN

On Appeal from the

73rd District Court of Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2023CI08741

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 22, 2024