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

No. 27122.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 3, 1954.

Clyde Vinson, San Angelo, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

• This- is a conviction for the felony offense of drunken driving, art. 802b, Vernon’s P.C., with punishment assessed at a fine of $-1,000 and thirty days in jail.

As pointed out in appellant’s brief, the sole question presented by this appeal relates to the receipt in evidence of the certified copy of the judgment showing appellant’s prior conviction for the misdemeanor offense of drunken driving.

The prosecution was had in Sterling Coünty. The prior conviction was alleged in the indictment to have occurred in Upton County, in Cause No. 1488 against the appellant.

To establish such allegation; the state offered in evidence and relied upon a certified copy of that judgment of conviction.

To the introduction of such certified copy, appellant objected because it was not *104filed among the papers in the case or notice of such filing given to the appellant or his counsel, as required by the statutes of this state.

Whether art. 3726, Vernon’s R.C.S., as amended, required such filing or notice, we do not here determine, for we are of the opinion that the instant question is controlled by art. 3731a, Vernon’s R.C.S., as amended in 1953.

This statute authorizes the introduction in evidence of “any written statement, certificate, record, return or report made by an officer of this state or of any governmental subdivision thereof, or by his deputy or employee, in the performance of the functions of his office shall be, so far as relevant, admitted in the courts of this state as evidence of the matters stated therein, subject to the provisions in Section 3.”

Section 3, there mentioned, requires as a condition precedent to the admission of such writing the delivery of a copy to the adverse party. Such notice requirement does not become necessary, however, “unless in the opinion of the trial court the adverse party has not been unfairly surprised by the failure to deliver such copy.”

This record does not suggest, nor did the appellant in his objection say that he was surprised at the effort of the state to introduce in evidence the certified copy of the judgment in the case. Moreover, appellant was charged, of necessity, with notice in the indictment that a copy of the judgment would be offered in evidence by the state.

These facts fail to evidence any' unfair surprise to appellant or his counsel by which we. would be warranted in saying that the trial court was not authorized to reach the conclusipn that he did — which was that the appellant was not unfairly surprised at his failure to receive, in advance of the trial, a copy of the the judgment of prior conviction.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
CERTIFICATIONS



I, Gordon Samson, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of CYOP Systems International Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we 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 us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly 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 quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and



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



5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our 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. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly 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 our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Date: May 20, 2004

/s/ Gordon Samson

Gordon Samson

Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4571 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4571

  To reduce temporarily the duty on 5-Ethylpyridine-2,3-dicarboxylic 
                                 acid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 24, 2012

 Mr. Luetkemeyer introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To reduce temporarily the duty on 5-Ethylpyridine-2,3-dicarboxylic 
                                 acid.

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

SECTION 1. 5-ETHYLPYRIDINE-2,3-DICARBOXYLIC ACID.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.01.16 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 5-Ethylpyridine-2,3-
dicarboxylic acid) is amended--
            (1) in the general rate of duty column, by striking 
        ``Free'' and inserting ``0.5%''; and
            (2) by striking the date in the effective period column and 
        inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply to 
goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 
the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
-78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0
38.0 38.5 39.0 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 06/11 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 11 Jun 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.48 N 77.37 WMeters AGL
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION 

OF MARYLAND 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

JONATHAN KIMBEL O’NEILL 

Respondent. 

ORDER

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS 

OF MARYLAND 

Misc. Docket AG 

No. 82 

September Term, 2018 

 This matter came before the Court on the Joint Petition of the Attorney Grievance 

Commission of Maryland and the Respondent, Jonathan Kimbel O’Neill, to indefinitely 

suspend the Respondent from the practice of law for violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.15, 

1.16(d), 5.3, 8.1(b) and 8.4(a) and (d) of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional 

Conduct. The Court having considered the Petition, and the record herein, it is this 28th 

day of May, 2019; 

 ORDERED, that the Respondent, Jonathan Kimbel O’Neill, be indefinitely 

suspended from the practice of law in the State of Maryland; and it is further 

 ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Jonathan Kimbel 

O’Neill from the registry of attorneys in the Court and certify that fact to the trustees of the 

Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and all Clerks of all judicial tribunals in this 

State in accordance with Maryland Rule 19-761; and it is further 

ORDERED, that the Respondent shall not petition for reinstatement unless and until 

he has been deemed fit to practice law by a medical provider acceptable to Bar Counsel. 

 

 /s/ Clayton Greene Jr. 

 Senior Judge
**Revised - 5/12/00**

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 00-0535 ENGINE PV (kg/yr): SUBMITTER:

MSDS: Yes Label: Yes

General Eqp.: when contact with liquids is possible, use a face shield

and chemical goggles; otherwise use safety glasses or goggles;

full protective clothing, boots, and gloves when contact with

liquid is possible Respirator: NIOSH/OSHA-approved vapor air-purifying respirator,

self-contained breathing apparatus, or air-supplied respirators

dependent on concentration

Health Effects: direct contact may be irritating to eyes, skin, nose,

and throat. Overexposure to vapors may result in depression of

the central nervous system and cause sleepiness. TLV/PEL (PMN or raw materials): not provided

CRSS:

Chemi

VP: 6.7 E-06 torr @25  C (est)

S-H 2 O:0.001 g/L (est)

MW: 271

tate: Neat: Solid (est) Proc/Form:

Mfg: End Use:

Consumer Use:

SAT (concerns):

Migration to

Healt

Eco:

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING:

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 00-0535ASSUMPTIONS: Submitter contacted, see telecon.

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 00-0535

MFG:

per submission)

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES (Eqpt. cleaning, container residue, etc.):

WATER e-day over days/yr

fro

to:

basis:

NOTE:

AIR: not required, per SAT

INCINERATION:not required, per SAT

LANDFILL: not required, per SAT

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE Tot. # of workers: (per submission) Days/yr: (per submission)

Inhalation: not required, per SAT

Dermal:not required, per SATINITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 00-0535

PROC:

Site/Location: submission)
Days/yr: (per submitter)

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES (Eqpt. cleaning, container residue, etc.):

fro

to:

basis:

NOTE:

NOTE:

NOTE:

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE

Tot. # of workers: submission) Days/yr: (per submitter telecon)

Inhalation: not required, per SAT

Dermal:not required, per SAT

### CONTACT REPORT

(Telephone Log)

PMN:00-0535

Call By:Elizabeth A. Wood (Eastern Research Group for EPA/OPPT/CEB)

Call To:

Submitter:

Date:March 9, 2000

Time:10:00 PM

Q1:

Q2:

A2:
#### J. C. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27128.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 3, 1954.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Robbery is the offense, with punishment assessed at twenty years in the penitentiary.

No statement of facts or bills of exception appear in the record. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SOLITRON
DEVICES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED AUGUST 31, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENT

</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                         2,193,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  740,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (5,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    2,466,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,509,000
<PP&E>                                         2,006,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,630,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,948,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,355,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       21,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,948,000
<SALES>                                        4,127,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4,127,000
<CGS>                                          3,035,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,755,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (66,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             40,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                398,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            398,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   398,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .18



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 186 (Monday, September 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57600-57601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24515]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 11616-000-Michigan; Project No. 2566-010-Michigan]


City of Portland, Michigan, Consumers Energy Company; Notice of 
Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment

September 19, 2000.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory

[[Page 57601]]

Commission's (Commission's) regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 
486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the City 
of Portland's application for original license for the operating 
unlicensed Portland Municipal Hydroelectric Project, and Consumers 
Energy Company's new license for the continued operation of the Webber 
Hydroelectric Project, located on the Grand River, in the City of 
Portland, Ionia County, Michigan, and has prepared a Draft 
Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the projects. In the DEA, the 
Commission's staff has analyzed the potential environmental effects of 
the projects and has concluded that licensing the projects, with staffs 
recommended measures, would not constitute a major federal action 
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    Copies of the DEA are available for review in the Public Reference 
Branch, Room 2-A, of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. The DEA may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.us/online/rims.htm. Please call (202) 208-2222 for assistance.
    Anyone may file comments on the EA. The public, federal and state 
resource agencies are encouraged to provide comments. All written 
comments must be filed within 45 days from the issuance date of this 
notice shown above. Send an original and eight copies of all comments 
marked with Project No. 11616-000 or Project No. 2566-010 to: The 
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. If you have any questions regarding this notice, 
please contact Tom Dean at (202) 219-2778.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-24515 Filed 9-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00555-CR

Robert MARTINEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 5, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 307125

Honorable Jason Pulliam, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED.

SIGNED December 9, 2015.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Exhibit 32.2


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 Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2016 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Karl W. Newlin, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.


September 7, 2016


/s/ Karl W. NewlinKarl W. NewlinSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**UNITEDSTATES**

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION**

**Washington****,D.C.**** 20549**

** **

**FORM10-K**

(Mark One)

[X]   AnnualReport Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

** **

For the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2008

** **

or

** **

[ ]   TransitionReport Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

** **

For thetransition period from_______to_______

** **

Commission file number2-85829

** **

**DREXEL BURNHAM LAMBERT REALESTATE ASSOCIATES II**

(Exactname of registrant as specified in its charter)

** **

** **

55Beattie Place, P.O. Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina 29602

(Addressof principal executive offices)

** **

Issuer'stelephone number (864) 239-1000

** **

Securities registeredpursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

** **

None

** **

Securities registeredpursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

** **

Limited PartnershipUnits

(Titleof class)

** **

Indicate by check mark ifthe registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of theSecurities Act. Yes [ ] No [X]

 

Indicate by check mark ifthe registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)of the Act. Yes [ ] No [X]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file suchreports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90days. Yes [X] No [ ]

 

Indicate by check mark ifdisclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is notcontained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant'sknowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated byreference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.[X]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, anon-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of“large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company”in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).Yes [ ] No [X]

 

State the aggregate marketvalue of the voting and non-voting partnership interests held by non-affiliatescomputed by reference to the price at which the partnership interests were lastsold, or the average bid and asked prices of such partnership interests as ofthe last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscalquarter. No market exists for the limited partnership interests of theRegistrant, and, therefore, no aggregate market value can bedetermined.

 

**DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BYREFERENCE**

**None**
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7551

CHARLES EDWARD THOMAS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JON OZMINT, Former 

Prison Director; MEDICAL DIVISION; FINANCIAL RECORDS, In 

their individual and official capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(0:14-cv-00302-DCN)

Submitted: July 20, 2015 Decided: September 21, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Edward Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Edward Thomas appeals the district court’s order 

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss, after 

a 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2012) review, Thomas’s claims brought 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12300 (2012), and the 

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, 42 

U.S.C. §§ 1320d–1320d-9 (2012), and declining to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over Thomas’s state law claims. 

Thomas has also filed with this Court several motions seeking 

additional relief. We deny the pending motions and affirm the 

district court’s judgment.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate 

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review 

of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have 

been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. 

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas 

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Moreover, we limit our review to 

the issues raised in the appellant’s informal brief. See 4th 

Cir. R. 34(b). Thomas waived appellate review of the district 

court’s dispositive holdings by failing to file specific 

objections to the magistrate judge’s dispositive recommendations 

after receiving proper notice, and by failing to challenge the 

district court’s dispositive holdings in his informal brief. 
3

Accordingly, we deny the pending motions and affirm the 

district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this Court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED