alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Harold YATES, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 25, 1966.

*737Joe P. Tackett, Prestonsburg, for appellant.

Robert Matthews, Atty. Gen., David Mur-rell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for ap-pellee.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

Appellant, Harold Yates, was convicted of the illegal sale of alcoholic beverages (KRS 242.230), fined $100 and sentenced to confinement in the county jail for a period of 60 days. On this appeal he contends that the verdict is contrary to the evidence because the testimony of the only witness implicating him in the sale was so weakened on cross-examination that it had no probative value.

The prosecuting witness, an agent of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, testified that he purchased whiskey in Floyd County from appellant. He positively identified appellant as the person who sold him the whiskey. On cross-examination it was disclosed that, prior to the trial, he stated that Steve Smith rather than appellant had sold him the whiskey, but he explained that he had been mistaken as to the seller’s name.

His confusion with the name of the person who allegedly sold him the whiskey merely tended to affect the credibility of his testimony; we are unwilling to hold that it destroyed the value of his testimony as a matter of law. In these circumstances the question of the credibility of the witness’ testimony was exclusively the responsibility of the jury. Shepherd v. Commonwealth, Ky., 277 S.W.2d 42; Carroll v. Commonwealth, 306 Ky. 175, 206 S.W.2d 818.

Under this view of the case there is no merit in the contention for reversal of the conviction.

The judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>

                           INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
                                          

Board of Directors
Maxim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 
333-11375) on Form S-8, registration statement (No. 333-35669) on Form S-8, 
registration statement (No. 333-47695) on Form S-8, registration statement 
(No. 333-65011) on Form S-3, registration statement (No. 333-52403) on Form 
S-3, and registration statement (No. 333-4854-LA) on Form S-3 of Maxim 
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a development stage company) of our report dated 
November 5, 1998, relating to the balance sheets of Maxim Pharmaceuticals, 
Inc. as of September 30, 1998 and 1997, and the related statements of 
operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the 
years in the three-year period ended September 30, 1998, and from the period 
from inception (October 23, 1989) through September 30, 1998, which report 
appears in the September 30, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of Maxim 
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

/s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

San Diego, California
December 28, 1998
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6163** 

JOHN THOMAS RILEY , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. ERIC WILSON, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. John A. Gibney, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:13

- cv - 00565

- JAG )

Submitted : March 27, 2014 Decided: April 1, 2014

Before MOTZ , Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. John Thomas Riley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: John Thomas Riley , a federal prisoner, appeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district c ourt. Riley v. Wilson , No. 3:13

- cv - 00565

- JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 22, 2014) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

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.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

Ex parte Martez Travon Vrana
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from the trial court’s August 18, 2020 denial of Appellant

Martez Travon Vrana’s pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus seeking bail 

reduction related to an aggravated robbery charge. On August 26, 2020, Vrana filed 

his notice of appeal. 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 16, 2020, a grand jury declined to return an indictment for aggravated 

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 

premise of a habeas corpus application is destroyed 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, and we dismiss Vrana’s appeal as moot.

/s/ Dana Womack

Dana Womack

Justice

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: October 1, 2020
Coil only combinations, 1CM ratings >=5% higher than OEM HSV

Totals: >=5% Total %

1CM 1484 9533 1 5.57%

OEM 44 4000 1.10%

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 12.5
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 416 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 416

   To require the application of the antitrust laws to major league 
                   baseball, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            February 14 (legislative day, January 30), 1995

Mr. Thurmond (for himself and Mr. Leahy) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the application of the antitrust laws to major league 
                   baseball, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Major League Baseball Antitrust 
Reform Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS TO PROFESSIONAL MAJOR LEAGUE 
              BASEBALL.

    The Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
end the following new section:
    ``Sec. 27. (a) Subject to subsection (b), the antitrust laws shall 
apply to the business of professional major league baseball.
    ``(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect--
            ``(1) the application of the antitrust laws to baseball's 
        amateur draft, the minor league reserve clause, the 
        Professional Baseball Agreement, or any other matter relating 
        to the minor leagues; or
            ``(2) the application of Public Law 87-331 (15 U.S.C. 1291 
        et seq.) (commonly known as the Sports Broadcasting Act of 
        1961).''.
                                 <all>
```
Union Calendar No. 93

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 532

[Report No. 104–181]

AN ACT

To clarify the rules governing venue, and for other

purposes.

JULY 11, 1995

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
IB

Union Calendar No. 93

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 532

[Report No. 104–181]

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 3, 1995

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JULY 11, 1995

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union

and ordered to be printed

AN ACT

To clarify the rules governing venue, 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 532 RH

1 SECTION 1. VENUE.

2 Paragraph (3) of section 1391(a) of title 28, United

3 States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘the defendants are’’

4 and inserting ‘‘any defendant is’’.

Passed the Senate March 30 (legislative day, March

27), 1995.

Attest: SHEILA P. BURKE,

Secretary.
EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

|Pursuant to Section 906
        of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section
        1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned
        officers of Surge Technologies Corp., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"),
        does hereby certify that:
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
|1.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
|2.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

|Dated: | April 29, 2003 | By: | /s/     Gordon McPhedran                       
|------ | -------------- | --- | -----------------------------------------------
|       |                |     | Gordon McPhedran, Chief Executive
      Officer
|       |                |     |                                                
|Dated: | April 29, 2003 | By: | /s/     Thom Eggerston                         
|       |                |     | Thom Eggerston, Chief Financial Officer        

---
September 20, 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

LEANDREW RAY, JR. , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00984

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order this decisio n certified below for observance.
Exhibit 99.2

Co-Registrant (Commission File Number 000-30761):

UbiquiTel Inc.
One West Elm Street
Suite 400
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428

Co-Registrant (Commission File Number 333-39950):

UbiquiTel Operating Company
One West Elm Street
Suite 400
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428

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 UbiquiTel Inc. and UbiquiTel Operating Company on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James J. Volk, Chief Financial Officer of UbiquiTel Inc. and UbiquiTel Operating
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 UbiquiTel Inc. and
UbiquiTel Operating Company.

| |  | UBIQUITEL INC.             
| |  | ---------------------------
| |  | By:                        
| |  | UBIQUITEL OPERATING COMPANY
| |  | By:                        

November 13,
2002

---

QuickLinks
<PAGE>

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

Board of Directors
Maxim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.:

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Maxim 
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and subsidiary (a development stage company) as of 
September 30, 1996 and 1995, and the related consolidated statements of 
operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the 
years in the three-year period ended September 30, 1996 and for the period 
from inception (October 23, 1989) through September 30, 1996.  These 
consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's 
management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these 
consolidated financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing 
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free 
of material misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, 
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  
An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and 
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall 
financial statement presentation.  We believe that our audits provide a 
reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above 
present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Maxim 
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and subsidiary (a development stage company) as of 
September 30, 1996 and 1995, and the results of their operations and their 
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended September 30, 
1996 and for the period from inception (October 23, 1989) through September 
30, 1996, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.


/s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

San Diego, California
November 27, 1996


                                      27
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0000853 27-JUN-2013 09:34 AM
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 23.01


                      CONSENT OF COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.,
                            INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
CardioGenesis Corporation on Form S-8 (File Numbers 333-04287 and 333-35095) of
our reports dated January 30, 1998 on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule of CardioGenesis Corporation as of
December 31, 1997 and 1996, and for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 1997, which reports are included in this Annual Report on Form
10-K.


                                        COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

San Jose, California
March 30, 1998
**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT**

(PURSUANT TO NRS 78.385 AND 78.390)

 

**Certificate of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation**

**For Nevada Profit Corporations**

**(Pursuant to NRS 78.385 and 78.390 - After Issuance of Stock)**

 

| 1. | Name of corporation: |
|----|----------------------|

|   | Mid-Power Service Corporation |
|--------|-------------------------------|

 

| 2. | The articles have been amended as follows (provide article numbers, if available): |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Article I is amended to read as follows: |
|--------|------------------------------------------|

Article I

The name of the Corporation shall be Caldera Corporation.

 

3.         The vote by which the stockholders holding shares in the corporation entitling them to exercise at least a majority of the voting power, or such greater proportion of the voting power as may be required in the case of a vote by classes or series, or as may be required by the provisions of the articles of incorporation have voted in favor of the amendment is: 6,006,667 (54.3%)

 

| 4. | Effective date of filing (optional): 2/16/07 |
|----|----------------------------------------------|

 

| 5. | Officer Signature (Required): /s/ |
|----|-----------------------------------|
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 8

,

2011

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14

- 11

- 00487

- CV

____________

DAWN JOHNSON WHATLEY, Individually and as the Executrix of the Estate of

Perry Lee Whatley, and MICHAEL EASTON, Appellant s

V.

MYLUS JAMES WALKER, JR., Appellee

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 355,095



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from an order signed May 11, 2011, sustaining the contests to

appellant Dawn Johnson Whatley’s affidavit of indigency. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1. On

October 27

, 2011

, appellants filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal because the

case has been settled. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted.2

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justice s Anderson and McCally

.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 22, 2010 

s1115 

Order 

 

November 22, 2010 

141383 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141383 

 COA: 290553 

Kalamazoo CC: 2008-001528-FH 

JEFFREY ROBERT CHAPMAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 15, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
1 Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases

on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."

Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 95-20071

Summary Calendar

_____________________________________

RAYMOND HAYDEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

CA H 93 2422

______________________________________________________

June 23, 1995

Before DUHÉ, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Raymond Hayden, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Institutional Division, inmate sued several representatives of the

institution alleging numerous violations of his Constitutional

rights. Two of the Defendants answered the complaint. Two did

not. The district court held a hearing pursuant to Spears v.

McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985), and dismissed the claims as
2

frivolous under § 1915(d). Hayden appeals. We find his appeal

frivolous and dismiss it.

Appellant lists seven issues which we treat in four groups:

He first contends that it was error for the district court to

dismiss his complaint when two Defendants had failed to respond.

However, it is clear that a court may dismiss a frivolous complaint

before responsive pleadings are filed. Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d

1427, 1434 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc).

Hayden next complains of the dismissal of his complaint of

inadequate medical care. We have carefully reviewed the record and

find that it does not support a finding of deliberate indifference

to his serious medical needs. This is the standard he must meet to

prevail. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).

Appellant's next contention is that it was error to dismiss

his complaints that prison officials were deliberately indifferent

to his working conditions. However his allegations concerning his

fall from the trailer, assuming their truthfulness, amount to no

more than negligence. This will not support a Constitutional

claim.

Finally, Appellant contends that the court violated 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e because it did not afford him an impartial hearing. This

section addresses prison administrative proceedings and is not

relevant to district court proceedings.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 58

To increase the role of the Secretary of Transportation in administering

section 901 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 4, 1995

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

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To increase the role of the Secretary of Transportation in

administering section 901 of the Merchant Marine Act,

1936, 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. TRANSPORTATION IN AMERICAN VESSELS OF

4 GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL AND CERTAIN

5 CARGOES.

6 Section 901(b)(2) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936

7 (46 U.S.C. App. 1241(b)(2)), is amended to read as fol8 lows:

9 ‘‘(2)(A) The Secretary of Transportation shall have

10 the sole responsibility for determining and designating the
2

•S 58 IS

1 programs that are subject to the requirements of this sub2 section. Each department or agency that has responsibility

3 for a program that is designated by the Secretary of

4 Transportation pursuant to the preceding sentence shall,

5 for the purposes of this subsection, administer such pro6 gram pursuant to regulations promulgated by such Sec7 retary.

8 ‘‘(B) The Secretary of Transportation shall—

9 ‘‘(i) review the administration of the programs

10 referred to in subparagraph (A); and

11 ‘‘(ii) on an annual basis, submit a report to

12 Congress concerning the administration of such pro13 grams.’’.

Æ