alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### D. B. HUNTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 26080.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 5, 1952.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is violation of fishing laws; the punishment, a fine of $100.

Accompanying the record is an affidavit in proper form, executed by appellant, requesting the dismissal of the appeal.

The request is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 200 (Monday, October 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 61184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26431]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-950-1420-00-P]


Filing of Plats of Survey; Nebraska

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The plats of the following described lands were officially filed in 
the Wyoming State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 
effective 10:00 a.m., September 28, 2000.
    The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the 
North boundary of the Winnebago Indian Reservation, through Range 8 
East, the First Guide Meridian East, through Township 27 North, between 
Ranges 8 and 9 East, the South boundary, the subdivisional lines and 
the subdivision of Sections 33 and 36, and the survey of the 
subdivision of Sections 33 and 36, T. 27 N., R. 8 E., Sixth Principal 
Meridian, Nebraska, Group No. 148, was accepted September 22, 2000.
    The plat representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the 
subdivisional lines and the subdivision of Sections 10 and 11, and the 
survey of Sections 10 and 11, T. 25 N., R. 9 E., Sixth Principal 
Meridian, Nebraska, Group No. 148, was accepted September 22, 2000.

    Dated: September 28, 2000.
John P. Lee,
Chief Cadastral Survey Group.
[FR Doc. 00-26431 Filed 10-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
CERTIFICATIONS 

I, Kevin J. High, certify that: 

1.  I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Cytation Corporation; 

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

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have: 

     (a)  Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared; 

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

     (c)  Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the period covered by the registrant's most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): 

     (a)  All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

     (b)  Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: November 18, 2004

 

/s/ Kevin J. High
REVISED

 

ITEM 1123 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

WITH RESPECT TO THE INDENTURE (“THE INDENTURE”) FOR THE 

ALLSTATE LIFE GLOBAL FUNDING TRUSTS

 

 

I, Lawrence M. Kusch, Vice President of The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. (the “Trustee”), state:

 

(a) a review of the Trustee's activities for the period January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008 and of the Trustee’s performance under the Indenture has been made under my supervision, and

 

(b) to the best of my knowledge the Trustee has fulfilled, in all material respects, its obligations under the Indenture for the period described above.

The material instances of non-compliance identified on Schedule A of the Assertion of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria (Exhibit 33) does not apply to the Trustee’s performance under the Indenture.

 

Date: August 24, 2009

 

|   | (signed) Lawrence M. Kusch |
|--------|----------------------------|

|   | Vice President |
|--------|----------------|
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 21

- 00274

- CR

The STATE of Texas, Appellant

v.

Marco Antonio GLORIA

, Appellee

From the 365th Judicial District Court

, Maverick County, Texas Trial Court No. 19

- 02

- 07984

- MCRAJA Honorable Amado J. Abascal, III , Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Beth Watkins

, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez , Justice Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 17, 2021

DISMISSED

Appellant the State of Texas has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion contains

a certificate of service to appellee, who h as not opposed the motion. Therefore, we grant the motion

and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

 

** Each defendant-appellant has adopted the issues and

arguments raised in the other appellant's brief. See Fed.

R. App. P. 28(i).

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-11072

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHYANN FINE BRATCHER;

BRENDA ROBERTSON FINE,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:95-CR-9

- - - - - - - - - -

July 8, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Chyann Fine Bratcher and Brenda Robertson Fine appeal their

convictions for conspiracy to commit mail fraud, several counts

of mail fraud, conspiracy to commit murder, and aiding and

abetting murder with premeditation and malice aforethought.**
No. 95-11072

-2-

Bratcher argues that the evidence was insufficient to

support the convictions for conspiracy to murder and for aiding

and abetting murder. Our review of the record confirms that

there was more than sufficient evidence to sustain these counts

of conviction. See United States v. Pierre, 958 F.2d 1304, 1310

(5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 898 (1992). Fine's

adoption of Bratcher's sufficiency argument is insufficient,

without more, to raise the argument as to Fine. See United

States v. Harris, 932 F.2d 1529, 1533 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

502 U.S. 897 (1991). 

Bratcher and Fine argue that the district court abused its

discretion by disallowing the expert testimony concerning the

polygraph examination of Thomas Earl Fine, Jr. (Tommy). The

argument is premised upon caselaw being sufficient to establish

the requisite reliability of proffered expert testimony pursuant

to Fed. R. Evid. 702. This premise is contrary to United States

v. Posado, 57 F.3d 428, 434 (5th Cir. 1995). Our review of the

record detects no abuse of discretion in the district court's

ruling. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S.

Ct. 2786, 2796-97 (1993).

Bratcher and Fine argue that the district court abused its

discretion by denying their joint motion for a new trial based on

newly discovered evidence, namely, Tommy's affidavit and hearing

testimony recanting his earlier testimony. In light of the
No. 95-11072

-3-

district court's credibility determination, made from the best

position to evaluate the new evidence in light of the whole

record of the trial over which the district court presided, we

find no abuse of discretion. See United States v. MMR Corp., 954

F.2d 1040, 1049-50 (5th Cir. 1992). Bratcher and Fine's

remaining argument, that the prosecution should be barred,

pursuant to the Due Process Clause, based on the purported

outrageous government conduct, is without merit. 

AFFIRMED.
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS ~

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

1177 Avenue of the Americas

New York NY 10036

Telephone (646) 471 4000 

Facsimile (813) 286 6000

Report ofIndependentAccountants
 

 

 

To the Board of Directors andShareholder of
GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation:

We have examined management's assertion, dated March 17, 2003, about GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation's compliance with its established minimum master servicing standards ("Master Servicing Policy"), which were derived from the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers (USAP), as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 included in the accompanying management assertion. Management is responsible for the company's 

compliance with the Master Servicing Policy. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with the standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the company's compliance with the Master Servicing Policy and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination of the company's compliance with the Master Servicing Policy.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the company complied with the aforementioned Master Servicing Policy as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

March 17, 2003
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of Technology Resources, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Lou Maki, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1. The Report 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.  Date: February 1, 2008    /S/ Lou Maki ------------- Lou Maki Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                             849
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,666
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,913
<INVENTORY>                                     15,465
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,035
<PP&E>                                          11,209
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,377
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  42,276
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,614
<BONDS>                                         21,282
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           160
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,420
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    42,276
<SALES>                                         57,648
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                57,648
<CGS>                                           46,663
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,663
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,760
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,170
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,375
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,320)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,320)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,320)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.17)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.31 

GUARANTY 

        THISGUARANTY (this “Guaranty”), dated as of October 15, 2004, is made by StorageTekHolding Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the “Guarantor”), in favor of theLenders party to the Credit Agreement referred to below and Bank of America, N.A., asAdministrative Agent (in such capacity, the “Administrative Agent”) and L/CIssuer. 

        StorageTechnology Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), the Lenders fromtime to time party thereto (each a “Lender” and, collectively, the“Lenders”), the L/C Issuer and the Administrative Agent are parties to a CreditAgreement dated as of October 15, 2004 (as amended, modified, renewed or extendedfrom time to time, the “Credit Agreement”). 

        Itis a condition precedent to the Borrowings and issuances of Letters of Credit under theCredit Agreement that the Guarantor guarantee the indebtedness and other obligations ofthe Company to the Guaranteed Parties under or in connection with the Credit Agreement asset forth herein. The Guarantor, as a Subsidiary of the Company, will derive substantialdirect and indirect benefits from the making of the Loans to, and issuances of Letters ofCredit for the account of, the Company pursuant to the Credit Agreement (which benefitsare hereby acknowledged by the Guarantor). 

        Accordingly,to induce the Administrative Agent, the L/C Issuer and the Lenders to enter into theCredit Agreement, and in consideration thereof, the Guarantor hereby agrees as follows: 

        SECTION 1  Definitions; Interpretation.

        (a)               Terms Defined in Credit Agreement. All capitalized terms used in this Guaranty          (including in the recitals hereof) and not otherwise defined herein shall have          the meanings assigned to them in the Credit Agreement. 

        (b)           Certain  Defined Terms.  As used in this Guaranty  (including in the recitals  hereof),  the following  termsshall have the following meanings:

        “BankruptcyCode” means the Federal Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 (11 U.S.C. §101, et seq.). 

        “Guaranteed Obligations”has the meaning set forth in Section 2. 

         “GuaranteedParties” means the Administrative Agent, the Lenders and the L/C Issuer. 

1 

----
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5595 

To suspend temporarily the duty on plastic mesh for filters (high flow). 

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 duty on plastic mesh for filters 

(high flow). 

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

3 SECTION 1. PLASTIC MESH FOR FILTERS (HIGH FLOW). 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Woven mesh of 

perfluoroalkoxy copolymer 

resin with fibers measuring 

below 100 microns in diameter, for use in manufacturing filters of heading 

8421 (provided for in subheading 5407.71.00) ......... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5595 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DE CEMBER 4, 2018

NO. 03

- 17

- 00035

- CV

Dr. Ruthie Harper and PLLG, LLC, Appellant s

v.

Wellbeing Genomics Pty Ltd., Appellee

APPEAL FROM 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, FI ELD, AND BOURLAND AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment si gned by the tr i a l court on December 18, 2016. This

Court’s opinion and judgment dated April 4, 2018

, are withdraw n. Having reviewed the record

and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in that portion of the

trial court’ s judgment awarding appellee damages and attorney’s fees on its breach

- of

- contract

claim . Therefore, the Court reverses that portion of the trial court’s judgment and renders

judgment that appellee take nothing on its breach

- of

- contract claim. The Court affirms the

judgment of the trial court in all other respects. Each party shall pay the costs of appeal incurred

by that party , both in this Court and the court below.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5693 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5693

      To extend the suspension of duty on perfluorocarbon amines.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To extend the suspension of duty on perfluorocarbon amines.

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

SECTION 1. PERFLUOROCARBON AMINES.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.40.90 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to perfluorocarbon amines) is 
amended by striking the date in the effective period column and 
inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies 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>
```
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. RP99-518-017]

Take notice that on October 3, 2000, PG&E Gas Transmission, Northwest Corporation (PG&E GTN) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1-A., Fourth Revised Sheet No. 7.01, to become effective October 1, 2000.

PG&E GTN states that this sheet is being filed to reflect the implementation of one negotiated rate agreement.

PG&E GTN further states that a copy of this filing has been served on PG&E GTN's jurisdictional customers and interested state regulatory agencies.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. 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. 00-26288  Filed 10-12-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M