alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Daniel William MITCHELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28348.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 30, 1956.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Eugene Brady and Thomas D. White, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is burglary; the punishment, two years.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review. The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2

Certifications pursuant to Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 Rule 13a-14 as
adopted pursuant to Section 302 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

I, Gifford A. Dieterle, Chief Financial Officer of Capital Gold Corporation (the
"Registrant"), certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the
Registrant and I have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the Evaluation Date); and

c) presented in this annual report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the Registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal controls; and

6. I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including
any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses.

Date: November 14, 2005

/s/ Gifford A. Dieterle
-----------------------
Gifford A. Dieterle
Chief Financial Officer
#### Billy Van PHILLIPS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28221.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 4, 1956.

Rex Emerson, Odessa, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is assault with intent to rape; the punishment, two years.

Our able State’s Attorney has confessed error herein. By bill of exception No. 2 it is shown that the appellant was not present when his motion for new trial was *776overruled,, that he was in- jail, and that he did not waive his right to be present at the proceedings. His presence is requisite under such circumstances. Article 580, V.A.C.C.P.; Henderson v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 18, 127 S.W.2d 902; Manual of Reversible Errors in Texas Criminal Cases, Sec. 362, p. 350.

The trial court attempted to qualify the bill, but an exception to such qualification was reserved over the Judge’s signature which destroyed the qualification, and we are bound by the bill as originally submitted. Lovett v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 483, 228 S.W.2d 855, and Palmer v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 251, 226 S.W.2d 634.

Because of the, error reflected by the bill, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
258 

OFFICE OF TNE A-ITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

.c. AUSTIN 

:--!&!tz 

j! 

I neuorablo Homer Oarrieon, Jr. 

: DfreotOr, Department of Pub110 Safety 

aolppl*Lbry 

Austin, Texas 

Dear sir: Attention: Hon 

-b-y;' 

,:; :.7(,. #I : 

&j& 

Your requeet for reoeired and @arctpuy oonoldered by this do ote rmm your ref. Qobbti p&3 r011owI3r 

mush grow? ohsokIf In your oplnng unlawi'ully aolleeted 

oarerully oonsldered the encaloeed ream6 herein as,the eiame ilp lengthy. We 

servatlone upon said reports 

arrest Is excessive. The 

ee Arttale 1065, Vernon’s 

Annotated Texae Code of Orlminal Prodeduro.) 

We enclose herewith oopiea of Opiniona! NOS. 

O-693 and k963 whiah deal with arrest raea, oommltmnt fees 
.-_ 

259 

mnorable Homer Oatikon, Jr., Page 2 

and rsleaeb feeis, whloh will guide you in deternining whether or not such fee@ were Improperly aesessed and oolleeoted in auoh oaees,~ The faota in eaoh partloular oa.88, or 

gourse, determine the legality or lllegallty of suoh reea. 

3. The twenty oases for reoklem or oaraleea 

driving were Inpro er beoauee Article 7'30, Vernrm*s Annotated Penal Code, P the reoklesrr or oarslees driving statute) has been held umonstitutional as a penal atatute. 

(See Ladd V. State, 27 8. W, (26) 1098). Officers should 

not eniorae or attempt to enforse orimlnal statuteo whloh 

hare been held unoonetltutlonal by the courts. 

4. Artlole 827e, Vernonlo Annotated Texas Penal 

oode, prolrldeIr a penalty for paoeing rea ll$bt trafiio 

~#lgnala on State hlgbwayr outoide then lfgtta of incorporated 

oities and tome.. You do not State,whether or not Bufialo 

ir an inoorporated olty or towni fi the tom or city ‘was 

not fnoorporated then mob oanes would be proper; if ineorporated, the oity or town ors$inancres, if any, would 

oontrol, and the oorpomtion court ‘and not the juatloe 

oourt ,vMd have jurisdlotlon 0r the 0,rr~se. 

rent up 

We do not baoe euffieient information to eomon other mattere&ated in the report. 

inquiry 

Ti-usting that thla eatisfaotorily amwere your 

', we are 

Vergtrulg yours 

+WNWEYGYBJmAL OFTEXAS 

Wm. J. Faming 

Assistant 

WJFzGO 

APPRCWECMAR 1, 1941 

h*- 

ATTORNEY GEERAL Or' TEXAS
Opinion issued September 3, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-20-00250-CV

———————————

IN RE SPRAGUE, RUSTAM & DIAMOND, PC, MICHAEL SPRAGUE, 

INDIVIDUALLY, AND J. CHRISTOPHER DIAMOND, INDIVIDUALLY, 

Relators

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators, Sprague, Rustam & Diamond, PC, Michael Sprague, individually,

and J. Christopher Diamond, individually, have filed a petition for a writ of 

mandamus challenging the trial court’s order denying their motion to compel the 

production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege. 
2

We deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus.1

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is only available in limited 

circumstances. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992). In the 

case of a challenge to a decision within the trial court’s discretion, mandamus will 

only issue where relators establish that “the trial court failed to reach the only 

reasonable conclusion.” In re Mem’l Hermann Hosp. Sys., 464 S.W.3d 686, 698 

(Tex. 2015). Discovery matters are generally within the trial court’s sound 

discretion, but “mandamus will issue to correct a discovery order if the order 

constitutes a clear abuse of discretion and there is no adequate remedy by appeal.” 

See In re Colonial Pipeline Co., 968 S.W.2d 938, 941 (Tex. 1998).

Relators have not demonstrated that the trial court committed an abuse of 

discretion in refusing to compel the production of certain privileged documents 

pursuant to the “offensive use” doctrine. See Republic Ins. Co. v. Davis, 856 S.W.2d 

158, 163 (Tex. 1993) (setting forth standard for application of “offensive use”

doctrine for waiver of privilege). Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of 

mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a), (d). All pending motions are dismissed as 

moot. 

1 The underlying case is Coastal Cargo of Texas, Inc. and Tokio Marine HCC v. 

Sprague, Rustam & Diamond, PC, Michael Sprague, individually, and J. 

Christopher Diamond, individually, Cause No. 2017-76096, in the 127th District 

Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable R.K. Sandill presiding.
3

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Lloyd, and Landau
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 23
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 23

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To CYTOGEN CORPORATION:

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed Form S-8
Registration Statement (File No. 33-30595), filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 18, 1989, Form S-3 Registration Statement (File
No. 33-35140), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 31,
1990, Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 33-52574), filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 1992, Form S-8 Registration
Statement (File No. 33-57004), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on January 12, 1993, Form S-3 Registration Statement (File No. 33-77396) filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 6, 1994, Form S-8
Registration Statement (File No. 33-63321), filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 10, 1995, Form S-8 Registration Statement (File
No. 333-00431), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 25,
1996 and Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-04679), filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 29, 1996.

                                                          ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Philadelphia, PA
     March 21, 1997
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Washington, D.C.

SPA RENTAL, LLC, D/B/A MSI AVIATION,

Complainant,

v.

Docket No.: AGC-16-13-02

SOMERSET - PULASKI COUNTY AIRPORT BOARD,

Respondent.

MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND TO APPEAL

The Somerset - Pulaski County Airport Board, by counsel, requests an extension of 

time in which to respond to the complaint in this matter, to and including December 18, 

2015. This extension is requested due to previously scheduled vacations and other deadlines. 

Accordingly, in order to adequately and thoroughly respond to the appeal, the Airport Board 

needs additional time. 

No party will suffer any harm due to this extension. When counsel for the Airport 

Board asked counsel for Complainant whether he would agree to the extension, his sole 

objection was that he would be required to work “on a reply over the Christmas holiday.” 

But 14 C.F.R. 16.33 does not give Complainant the right to file a reply. If, however,

Complainant may file a reply, the Airport Board would be agreeable to an extension to 

accommodate holiday schedules. 
- 2-

By: /s/ Bethany A. Breetz

Bethany A. Breetz

bbreetz@stites.com

Rachel L. Owsley

rowsley@stites.com

STITES & HARBISON, PLLC

400 West Market Street, Suite 1800

Louisville, KY 40202-3352

Telephone: (502) 587-3400

Attorneys for Respondent, Somerset -

Pulaski County Airport Board
- 3-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent by electronic mail this 6th day

of November, 2015 to:

Konrad Kuczak

130 West Second Street

Suite 1010

Dayton, OH 45402

your_lawyer@sbcglobal.net

FAA Docket Clerk

9-AWA-AGC-PART-16@faa.gov

/s/ Bethany A. Breetz

Bethany A. Breetz

1056476:1:LOUISVILLE
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

         WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CFO PURSUANT TO 18 S.S.C. SECTION 1350

                            CERITFICATION 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 PurchaseSoft, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending May 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin A. Yanoscik,
Secretary and Treasurer of the Company, certify, solely for the purposes of
complying with 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 results of operations of the Company as of
May 31, 2006 and for the periods then ended.

                              /s/ Kevin A. Yanoscik
                              ----------------------------
                              Kevin A. Yanoscik, Secretary, Treasurer and CFO
                              Dated October 9, 2007
DISMISS; Opinion FiledJanuary 23, 2013. 

# 0

In The tnurt nf

## Apprat ittI! Juttttttif ja 

### at Oalla No. 05-12-01 174-CV 

### IZZY ASHKENZAY, Appellant V. 

### LSREF2 CLOVERREO2, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal fromthe 160th Judicial DistrictCourt Dallas County, Texas Trial CourtCause No. 12M4618 

### OPINION BeforeJustices Lang-Miers, Myers and Lewis Opinionby Justice Myers Before the Court is appellant’s January 16, 2013 unopposed motion to dismiss appeal. We grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEx. R. App. P. 42.l(a)(1).

LANAM ERS 

# Q JUSTICE

121 174F.P05

## 1nitrt nfAppizt1i fifI1! 

## jiitrict uf ciixai at )at1ai JUDGMENT Izzy Ashkenzay, Appellant On Appeal from the 1 60th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-12-011 74-CV V. Trial Court CauseNo. 12-04618. Opinion deliveredbyJustice Myers. LSRIZF2 Clover REO2, LLC, Appellee Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion ofthis date, this appeal is DISMISSED. Subject to any agreement ofthe parties, it is ORDERED that appellee LSREF2 Clover REO2, LLC recover its costs ofthis appeal from appellant lzzv Ashkenzay. Judgment entered this January 23, 2013.

LANA MYERS JUSTICE
<TABLE>
                                                    EXHIBIT 11


                                            ELEXSYS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                          COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
                                For The Years Ended  September  30, 1996,  1995, 1994
                                (Thousands  of dollars  except per share amounts)
<CAPTION>

                                                                    1996            1995         1994
                                                                    ----            ----         ----
<S>                                                               <C>             <C>          <C>   
Net income                                                        $8,470          $5,132       $2,554
Convertible debenture interest                                                                    880
Net income applicable to common and
 dilutive common equivalent share                                 $8,470          $5,132       $3,434

Earnings (loss) per common share and
common share equivalents, primary:
 Loss before extraordinary gain                                    $0.89           $0.37      ($1.28)
 Extraordinary gain, net of expenses and taxes                                     $0.20        $1.82
 Net income                                                        $0.89           $0.57        $0.54

Earnings (loss) per common share and 
common share equivalents, fully diluted:
 Loss before extraordinary gain                                    $0.89           $0.36      ($0.91)
 Extraordinary gain, net of expenses and taxes                                     $0.20        $1.30
 Net income                                                        $0.89           $0.56        $0.39

Weighted average of common and dilutive common 
equivalent shares outstanding:
  Primary weighted average shares                                  9,157           8,623        5,953
  Convertible debenture interest equivalent shares                                                405
  Stock option equivalent shares                                     396             395           29
  Primary common and common equivalent shares                      9,553           9,018        6,387

Fully diluted weighted average shares:                             9,157           8,623        8,335
 Convertible debenture interest equivalent shares                                                 405
 Stock option equivalent shares                                      396             464           29
 Fully diluted common and common equivalent shares                 9,553           9,087        8,769

<FN>
         Refer to Note 9  captioned  "Net  Income  (Loss) Per Share" of Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements in the Company's 1996 annual report on page 23
for additional discussion of earnings per share.
</FN>
</TABLE>
**Exhibit No. 15**

 

Awareness Letter from Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

 

November 3, 2004 

 

Armstrong Holdings, Inc. 

Lancaster,Pennsylvania 

 

Re: Registration Statement No. 333-74501; 33-91890; 33-18996;33-18997; 33-65768; 333-79093; 333-43872 

 

With respect to the subjectregistration statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report dated November 3, 2004 related to our review of interim financial information of Armstrong Holdings, Inc. 

 

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Act”), such report isnot considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an accountant, or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6819
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PHILIP MICHAEL BRADY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-95-465-PJM, CA-97-792-HNM) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 23, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Philip Michael Brady, Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Brady , No. CR-95- 465-PJM; CA-97-792-HNM (D. Md. Apr. 14, 1997). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 25, 2010

0517 

# Order

May 25, 2010

140615

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140615 COA: 286965 Bay CC: 05-010619-FC MICHAEL CHARLES COMTOIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 29, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
|Exhibit 32.1
|------------



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

The undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Belmar Capital Fund LLC (the Fund), that based on his knowledge:

|(a) | the Quarterly Report of the Fund on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Fund for such period.                                       
|   



|Date: August 9, 2007
|--------------------



| | /s/ Thomas E. Faust Jr.
Thomas E. Faust Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------

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