alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BROWN EXPRESS v. HARRIS.

No. 11695.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

April 2, 1947.

Rehearing Denied April 30, 1947.

Ronald Smallwood, of Harlingen, for appellant.

R. A. Hightower, of Brownsville, for appellee.

MURRAY, Justice.

This suit was instituted by Lance J, Harris against Brown Express, a common carrier, in the District Court of Cameron County, for the value of a phonograph alleged to have been lost in transit. The trial was before the court without a jury and resulted in judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $530.75, from which judgment Brown Express has prosecuted this appeal.

The evidence shows that Lance J. Harris delivered to Brown Express five boxes, three containing Rockola Commander phonographs, one containing a Playmaster, and one containing wall boxes, at his place of business in Plarlingen, Texas, to be transported to San Antonio, Texas. This shipment was first consigned to United Amusement Company, but later Brown Express was told to deliver it to Commercial Music Company. Five boxes were delivered to Commercial Music Company, but one box containing a Rockola Commander No. 77701 was missing, and in its place was a box containing an empty Victrola Model Cabinet. The loss of the Rockola Commander No. 77701 was reported to Brown Express and a detective from that company was assigned to investigate the matter. He was unable to locate the machine.

Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to show that the phonograph was not delivered to United Amusement Company, which was the original destination. We overrule this contention. The evidence is sufficient to show that the agent of Brown Express accepted the change in destination and actually delivered four of the boxes there. A fifth box was delivered but it did not contain the Rock-ola Commander No. 77701. Brown Express, after being notified of the loss, undertook to locate the machine but was unable to do so. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to show that Brown Express lost Machine No. 77701 in transit.

Appellant next complains that the evidence was insufficient to show that the Rockola Commander was worth $530.75. All the evidence as to value was given by appellee, and appellant did not see fit to offer any evidence on the question of value of the lost machine. The undisputed evidence of appellee was sufficient to support the value placed upon the machine by the trial court.

The judgment is affirmed.
```

                                      CERTIFICATION

I, ALAN J. FOHRER, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, of Southern
California Edison Company;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are 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 have:

     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to
be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting; and

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of
internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant
role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  August 8, 2005

                                                /s/ ALAN J. FOHRER
                                   --------------------------------------------
                                                  ALAN J. FOHRER
                                              Chief Executive Officer
```
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 1 0

- 4 0 0 9 9 C o n f e r e n c e C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v
. A N S E L M O P E N A

- T E L I O , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o
. 2 : 0 9

- C R

- 7 6 5

- 2

B e f o r e K I N G , B E N A V I D E S , a n d P R A D O , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : * T h e a t t o r n e y a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t A n s e l m o P e n a - T e l i o h a s m o v e d f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A n d e r s v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. P e n a - T e l i o h a s n o t f i l e d a r e s p o n s e
. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t

r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d a n d c o u n s e l ’s b r i e f d i s c l o s e s n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f

o r a p p e a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l i s

e x c u s e d f

r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Decem ber 8 , 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-40099 Document: 00511316041 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2010
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Michael Sullivan,
certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Oragenics, Inc.;
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                            
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ---------------------------
|Date: April 27, 2016 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Michael Sullivan       
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Principal Executive Officer
R18-2-205. Nitrogen Oxides (Nitrogen Dioxide)

A. The primary ambient air quality standards for oxides of nitrogen, measured in the ambient air as nitrogen dioxide, are:

1. 53 parts per billion - annual average concentration.

2. 100 parts per billion - one-hour average concentration.

B. The secondary ambient air quality standard for nitrogen dioxide is 0.053 (parts per million (100 micrograms per cubic meter) -

- annual arithmetic mean.

C. The levels of the standards shall be measured by a reference method based on 40 CFR 50, Appendix F or a federal equivalent 

method designated in accordance with 40 CFR 53.

D. The annual primary standard is met when the annual average concentration in a calendar year is less than or equal to 53 ppb, as 

determined in accordance with 40 CFR, Appendix S for the annual standard.

E. The one-hour primary standard is met when the three-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the daily maximum one-hour 

average concentration is less than or equal to 100 parts per billion, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50, Appendix S.

F. The secondary standard is attained when the annual arithmetic mean concentration in a calendar year is less than or equal to 

0.053 ppm, rounded to three decimal places, with fractional parts equal to or greater than 0.0005 ppm rounded up. To 

demonstrate attainment, an annual mean shall be based upon hourly data that is at least 75% complete or upon data derived 

from the manual methods, that is at least 75% complete for the scheduled sampling days in each calendar quarter.

Historical Note

Amended effective December 22, 1976 (Supp. 76-5). Former Section R9-3-206 repealed, new Section R9-3-206 adopted 

effective May 14, 1979 (Supp. 79-1). Amended effective October 2, 1979 (Supp. 79-5). Amended effective August 29, 

1980 (Supp. 80-4). Amended by deleting subsections (B) through (D) effective September 22, 1983 (Supp. 83-5). 

Former Section R9-3-206 renumbered without change as Section R18-2-206 (Supp. 87-3). Former Section R18-2-205 

renumbered to R18-2-204, new Section R18-2-205 renumbered from R18-2-206 and amended effective September 26, 

1990 (Supp. 90-3). Amended by final rulemaking at 18 A.A.R. 1542, effective August 7, 2012 (Supp. 12-2).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      336
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   380
<PP&E>                                           1,218
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,724
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              264
<BONDS>                                            399
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         869
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,724
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   267
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      131
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  29
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    121
<INCOME-TAX>                                        47
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 74
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     12
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        86
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
<FN>
<F1>Not separately identified in the consolidated financial statements or
accompanying notes thereto.
</FN>


</TABLE>
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-18-00362-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 360th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 360-558172-14

Before Womack, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN THE INTEREST OF A.G., A CHILD
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

On February 13, 2019, we notified appellants that their briefs had not been 

filed as the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). We stated that we 

could dismiss their appeal for want of prosecution unless appellants filed with the 

court appellants’ briefs and accompanying motions reasonably explaining the briefs’

untimely filing and why an extension was needed by February 19, 2019. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 10.5(b), 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We have gotten no response.

Because appellants have failed to file briefs even after we afforded an 

opportunity to explain the initial failure, we dismiss their appeals for want of 

prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered: February 28, 2019
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5601 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5601

   To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on Encapsulated Potassium 
                              Persulfate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on Encapsulated Potassium 
                              Persulfate.

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

SECTION 1. ENCAPSULATED POTASSIUM PERSULFATE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Potassium           Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          persulfate (CAS                                                   12/31/2015
                          No. 7727-21-1)
                          encapsulated in
                          cellulose acetate
                          butyrate (CAS No.
                          9004-36-8)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          3815.90.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Case 5:20-mj-00644-FB Document 1 Filed 05/07/20 Page 1 of 4
Case 5:20-mj-00644-FB Document 1 Filed 05/07/20 Page 2 of 4
Case 5:20-mj-00644-FB Document 1 Filed 05/07/20 Page 3 of 4
Case 5:20-mj-00644-FB Document 1 Filed 05/07/20 Page 4 of 4
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 194 (Thursday, October 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 59501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25582]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service

[T.D. 00-66]


Retraction of Revocation Notice

AGENCY: Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: General notice.

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

SUMMARY: The following Customs broker license numbers were erroneously 
included in a published list of revoked Customs broker licenses in the 
Federal Register.

Port, Name, and License No.

Maimi, Olaya Reynaldo, 13732
Chicago, Tammie Krauskopf, 14704

    Licenses 13732 and 14704 are valid licenses.

    Dated: September 27, 2000.
Bonni G. Tischler,
Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations.
[FR Doc. 00-25582 Filed 10-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-169-001]

Take notice that on September 29, 2000, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America (Natural) tendered for filing to be a part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 75, Original Sheet No. 75A and Original Sheet No. 75B, to be effective November 1, 2000.

Natural states that these tariff sheets were filed in compliance with the Commission's “Order Following Technical Conference” issued September 15, 2000 in Docket No. RP00-169-000, relating to capacity release of rights under Natural's Rate Schedule FRSS (Firm Reverse Storage Service).

Natural requests waiver of the Commission's Regulations to the extent necessary to permit the tariff sheets submitted herein to become effective November 1, 2000.

Natural states that copies of the filing have been mailed to all parties set out on the Commission's official service list in Docket No. RP00-169.

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us./​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-26043  Filed 10-10-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4927

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. CLEVELAND D. DRUMWRIGHT, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:07-cr-00429-JAB-2)

Submitted: July 15, 2009 Decided: July 27, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Darren Byers, LAW OFFICES OF J. DARREN BYERS, P.A., WinstonSalem, North Carolina, for Appellant. David Paul Folmar, Jr., Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Cleveland Drumwright pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of a substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and was sentenced to 196 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), noting no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the sentence imposed was reasonable. Finding no error, we affirm. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. We further find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Drumwright as a career offender, and imposed a sentence that is procedurally and substantively
reasonable. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007) (review of sentence is for abuse of discretion). In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such filing would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from

23 representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED