alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MINNOCK et al. v. GARRISON et al.

No. 2375.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

Oct. 24, 1940.

Harris & Gordon and Frank Wilson, all of Waco, for appellants.

Tom M. Hamilton and J. W. Spivey, both of Waco, for appellees.

ALEXANDER, Justice.

This suit was brought by Laura Min-nock and others against J. L. Garrison and others, as heirs and independent executors of the estate of J. W. Garrison and wife, for the partition of said estate. The plaintiffs also joined as defendants Drs. Latti-more, Maxfield and others, it being alleged as to these last named defendants that they were claiming to hold some sort of debts against said estate, but that said debts were barred by limitation and therefore uncollectible, and plaintiffs prayed for cancellation thereof. The main defendants, J. L. Garrison and others, filed exceptions to plaintiffs’ petition. The defendants, Lattimore and others, filed pleas of misjoinder of parties, and, by way of cross-action, sought judgment for their debts. Upon the call of the case, the court sustained the defendants’ exceptions to plaintiffs’ petition, and, upon plaintiffs declining to amend, dismissed plaintiffs’ suit. The order of dismissal made no attempt to dispose of the cross-action filed by Dr. Lattimore and others. The plaintiffs have attempted to appeal to this court.

The appellees have filed motion to dismiss appeal on the ground that the order sought to be appealed from is not a final judgment. It is a well-settled rule that an appeal can be prosecuted only from a final judgment, and that in order for a judgment to be final, it must dispose of all of the parties and all of the issues in the case. 3 Tex.Jur. 103-122. The order sought to be appealed from dismissed plaintiffs’ suit for partition of said estate and for cancellation of the debts held by Dr. Lattimore and others, but it did not undertake to dispose of the cross-action filed by Dr. Lattimore and others for judgment on their said debts. The mere dismissal of the main suit did not have the effect of dismissing the cross action. Jungbecker v. Huber, 101 Tex. 148, 105 S.W. 487; Barrier v. Lowery, 118 Tex. 227, 13 S.W.2d 688; 15 Tex.Jur. 265, 291. Consequently, said order did not dispose of all of the parties nor all of the issues and therefore is not a final judgment.

Appellants assert that the cross-actions filed by Lattimore and others were not properly before the court at the time the judgment of dismissal was entered, because the plaintiffs had not been served with citation on such cross-actions. It appears, however, that the plaintiffs appeared in court and participated in the argument on the exceptions after said cross-actions had been filed. Under these circumstances, there was no necessity for *329citation on the cross-actions. Thompson v. Gaither, Tex.Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 1106, par. 5; Mueller v. Heidemeyer, 49 Tex.Civ.App. 259, 109 S.W. 447; 33 Tex.Jur. 804; 15 Tex.Jur. 266.

Appellees’ motion to dismiss appeal is sustained and the appeal is dismissed at appellants’ cost.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

 

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of SureWest Communications (the “Company”), on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission of the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, as theChief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

1.                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: August 4,  2008 | By:    | /s/ Dan T. Bessey       |
|----------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                       |   | Dan T. Bessey,          |
|                       |   | Vice President and      |
|                       |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SureWestCommunications and will be retained by SureWest Communications and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

The foregoing certificateis being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit tothe Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.

 

----
Form of Letter Agreement-Quantum Value Management, LLC and the Registrant



 Exhibit 10.13 
  
 FORM OF LETTER AGREEMENT 
 OAKMONT ACQUISITION CORP. 
  
 [May]         , 2005 
  
 Quantum Value Management, LLC 
 33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway 
 Suite 240 
 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 
  
 Gentlemen: 
  
 This letter will confirm our agreement that, commencing on the effective date (“Effective Date”) of the registration statement for the initial public offering (“IPO”) of
the securities of Oakmont Acquisition Corp. (“Company”) and continuing until the consummation by the Company of a “Business Combination” (as described in the Company’s IPO prospectus), Quantum
Value Management, LLC shall make available to the Company certain limited administrative, technology and secretarial services, as well as the use of certain limited office space, including a conference room, in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, as may be
required by the Company from time to time, situated at Suite 240, 33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan (or any successor location). In exchange therefor, the Company shall pay Quantum Value Management, LLC the sum of $7,500 per
month on the Effective Date and continuing monthly thereafter. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	OAKMONT ACQUISITION CORP.
	
	

	By:	 	Michael C. Azar
	Title:	 	President
	
	AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:
	
	Quantum Value Management, LLC
	
	

	By:	 	Michael C. Azar
	Title:	 	Managing Director and Principal
US ONCOLOGY HOLDINGS, INC. AND US ONCOLOGY, INC.



Exhibit 32.1

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 US Oncology Holdings, Inc. and US Oncology, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bruce D. Broussard, Chief Executive Officer of the 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                                
|------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Bruce D. Broussard                          
|Bruce D. Broussard                              
|Chief Executive Officer of                      
|US Oncology Holdings, Inc. and US Oncology, Inc.

August 11, 2009
Austin, TX Site

Information Provided by Nick Scappini, HaloSource

08/24/2010 02:57 PM

Jesse-attached is the case study along with the simple treatment BMP-we call this semi passive 

treatment and this is the model that we are using all over the country-many more to come.

DBP2100 field trial TX 002

DBP2100 field trial TX 003 DBP2100 field trial TX 004
DBP2100 field trial TX 005 DBP2100 field trial TX 006

DBP2100 field trial TX 007 DBP2100 field trial TX 008

DBP2100 field trial TX 009 DBP2100 field trial TX 010
DBP2100 field trial TX 011 DBP2100 field trial TX 012

DBP2100 field trial TX 013 DBP2100 field trial TX 014

DBP2100 field trial TX 015
Austin, TX pond dewatering 

SsdOto Bnbwfi
Turbid water
StormKlear 

GelFloc and DBP2100 w/ Hanes TerraTex filterbag & 3” pump
Results: Clean Water

 Inlet water – 598 NTU StormKlear polymer 

treatment only – 117 NTU

 Polymer & Hanes filterbag 

(initial sample) – 58.8 NTU

 Polymer & filterbag (~15 

min sample) – 23.7 NTU

 Polymer & filterbag (~30 

min sample) – 10.5 NTU
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent v Thomas Gilliam, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.), rendered January 4, 1989, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*688Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the People failed to adduce legally sufficient evidence of manslaughter in the first degree in that the People’s only eyewitness gave confused and inconsistent testimony which was incredible as a matter of law. The defendant also contends that the trial testimony did not establish that he had the requisite intent to cause serious physical injury when he shot and killed his girlfriend’s brother. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the defendant’s guilt of manslaughter in the first degree. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

Finally, under the circumstances of this violent felony offense resulting in death, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 70926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30158]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: November 20, 2000.
    Time: 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: 6000 Executive Boulevard, Suite 409, Rockville, MD 20852, 
(Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Elsie D. Taylor, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Extramural Project Review Branch, National Institute 
on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, 
Suite 409, 6000 Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892-7003, 301-443-
9787, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e98c9d889085869ba98780888888c7878081c78e869f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2c49584d5540435e6c42454d4d4d02424544024b435a">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, 
Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and 
Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, 
Alcohol Research Center Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: November 16, 2000.
Laverne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-30158 Filed 11-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Julius JOHNSON v. STATE.

No. 21809

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 17, 1941.

Alex P. Pope, of Tyler, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

The appellant was convicted herein for a violation of the liquor laws of this State, and given a sentence of one year in the county jail.

There is no statement of facts in the record, and. the two bills of exception found therein are identical with the two bills in our cause No. 21808, Johnson v. State, 156 S.W.2d 985, this day decided. The record shown is the same, and we think the reasoning in cause No. 21808 is conclusive of the matters herein presented. Under that authority this record appears to be without any error, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Schultz, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.), rendered December 14, 1989, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), sodomy in the first degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly permitted the eight-year-old complainant to be sworn as a witness. Absent an improvident exercise of discretion, the court’s determination with respect to a witness’s competency will not be disturbed *(see, People v Nisoff,*36 NY2d 560, 566; *see also, People v Fernandez,*138 AD2d 733, 734; *People v Boyd,*122 AD2d 273, 275). The court found, after a preliminary examination, that the complainant knew and appreciated the difference between truth and falsity, and knew the consequences of telling a lie. It was therefore reasonable to conclude that he understood the gravity of the oath.

Upon a review of the record, we are satisfied that the People’s expression of readiness for trial on February 3, 1989, indicated present readiness to proceed, and not merely an expectation of future readiness *(see, People v Kendzia,*64 NY2d 331, 337; *People v Hamilton,*46 NY2d 932). Consequently, the defendant was not denied his statutory right to a *469speedy trial, and the trial court correctly denied the motion to dismiss on this ground.

We reject the defendant’s claim that the admission at trial of allegations of acts not charged in the indictment violated standards of fair notice *(see, People v Keindl,*68 NY2d 410, 416; *People v Morris,*61 NY2d 290, 293; *People v Iannone,*45 NY2d 589, 594).

Further, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that it was legally sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction of the crimes charged *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.
Case 4:22-cr-00332-Y Document 21 Filed 11/09/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 33
Case 4:22-cr-00332-Y Document 21 Filed 11/09/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 34
TBAC RECOMMENDED US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 3RD QUARTER 2018*

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

ANNOUNCEMENT AUCTION SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE DATE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT MONEY

4-WK 3-MO 6-MO 12-MO

4-WEEK AND 6/24 7/2 7/5 35.00 48.00 42.00 125.00 0.00

3&6&12 MO BILLS 7/1 7/9 7/12 35.00 48.00 42.00 125.00 0.00

7/8 7/16 7/19 45.00 51.00 45.00 26.00 145.00 22.00

7/15 7/23 7/26 45.00 51.00 45.00 125.00 16.00

7/22 7/30 8/2 45.00 51.00 45.00 125.00 16.00

7/29 8/6 8/9 45.00 51.00 45.00 125.00 16.00

8/5 8/13 8/16 45.00 51.00 45.00 155.00 -14.00

8/12 8/20 8/23 45.00 48.00 42.00 26.00 138.00 23.00

8/19 8/27 8/30 45.00 48.00 42.00 138.00 -3.00

8/26 9/3 9/6 45.00 48.00 42.00 138.00 -3.00

9/2 9/10 9/13 45.00 48.00 40.00 158.00 -25.00

9/9 9/17 9/20 45.00 46.00 40.00 26.00 138.00 19.00

9/16 9/24 9/27 45.00 46.00 40.00 138.00 -7.00

1833.00 1773.00 60.00

CASH MANAGEMENT BILLS

CMB Funds: 0.00

COUPONS

CHANGE

2-year note 6/21 6/26 7/2 34.00 1.00

5-year note 6/21 6/27 7/2 36.00 0.00

7-year note 6/21 6/28 7/2 30.00 0.00 64.27 35.73

3-year Note 7/6 7/11 7/17 33.00 1.00

10-year Note (r) 7/6 7/12 7/17 22.00 0.00

30-year Bond (r) 7/6 7/13 7/17 14.00 0.00 40.23 28.77

10-year TIPS 7/12 7/19 7/31 13.00 0.00

2-year note 7/19 7/24 7/31 35.00 1.00

2-year FRN 7/19 7/25 7/31 18.00 1.00

5-year note 7/19 7/25 7/31 36.00 0.00

7-year note 7/19 7/26 7/31 30.00 0.00 107.06 24.94

3-year Note 8/1 8/7 8/15 34.00 1.00

10-year Note 8/1 8/8 8/15 26.00 1.00

30-year Bond 8/1 8/9 8/15 18.00 1.00 38.22 39.78

2-year FRN (r) 8/23 8/29 8/31 17.00 1.00 0.00 17.00

5-year TIPS (r) 8/16 8/23 8/31 14.00 0.00

2-year note 8/23 8/27 8/31 36.00 1.00

5-year note 8/23 8/28 8/31 37.00 1.00

7-year note 8/23 8/29 8/31 31.00 1.00 71.73 46.27

3-year Note 9/6 9/11 9/17 35.00 1.00

10-year Note (r) 9/6 9/12 9/17 23.00 1.00

30-year Bond (r) 9/6 9/13 9/17 15.00 1.00 24.00 49.00

10-year TIPS (r) 9/13 9/20 9/28 11.00 0.00

2-year FRN (r) 9/20 9/25 9/28 17.00 0.00 0.00 28.00

615.00 345.51 269.49

Estimates are italicized. R = Reopening

NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: 329

* This Financing table is meant to be illustrative based on meeting discussions and does not indicate how Treasury will actually issue

debt in the future.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. S E B A S T I A N B A R R I E N T O S - V E L E Z , D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 08- 10569 D. C . No . 2 : 0 8 - c r - 0 0 6 5 7 - NV W ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona N e i l V . W a ke , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d June 29, 2010 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , L E A V Y , an dG R A B E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S e ba s t i an B arr i e nt os - V e l e z appe a l s f r om hi s gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on and 51- m o n th s e n te n c e im p o s e df o rille g a l r e e n try , inv io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) . P ur s uantt o A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 38 6 U . S . 73 8 (19 67 ), B arri ent os-V el ez ’ s c ou nsel 

# FI LED JU L 21 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 10569 2 h a s f ile dab r ie f

s ta tin g th e r e ar e n o g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f , a lo n g w ith am o tio n to w i thdr aw a s c ouns e l of

r e c or d. A ppe l l antha s f i l e d apr o s e br i e f

. N o ans w e r i ng br i e f ha s be e n f

i l e d. O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 - 8 1 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o ar g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. C o u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED . DI S MI S S E D.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

September 30, 2022

2022 PREEMPTION REPORT

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE

The Federal Insurance Office (FIO) issues this report on actions taken regarding preemption of 

inconsistent state insurance measures, pursuant to the Federal Insurance Office Act of 2010.1

During the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022, FIO did not take any action regarding the 

preemption of any inconsistent state insurance measure.

FIO continues to monitor the status of State measures adopting and implementing the 2019 

amendments to the NAIC Credit for Reinsurance Model Law and Regulation for consistency of 

those measures with the U.S.-EU and U.S.-UK Covered Agreements, and anticipates publishing a 

comprehensive update during 2023.

1 31 U.S.C. § 313(n)(l).
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00024-CV

__________________

KELLY WAYNE THRAILKILLE, Appellant

V.

APRIL THRAILKILLE, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 163rd District Court

Orange County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 220020-D

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Kelly Wayne Thrailkille, Appellant, filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). Appellant filed the motion before the 

appellate court issued a decision in the appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the 

appeal. See id. 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on February 14, 2024

Opinion Delivered February 15, 2024

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
Case 7:22-cr-00001-O Document 19 Filed 03/10/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 41
Case 7:22-cr-00001-O Document 19 Filed 03/10/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 42
#### GENERAL EXCHANGE INS. CORPORATION v. ANDREWS et al.

No. 10820.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Dec. 4, 1940.

Kemp, Lewright, Dyer, Wilson & Sor-rell and J. Woodrow Hazelwood, all of Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Barnhouse & Stanley, of Freer, and Perkins & Floyd, of Alice, for appellees.

MURRAY, Justice.

The appellee C. A. Andrews instituted this suit in the Justice of the Peace Court of Precinct No. 4, Duval County, Texas, against General Exchange Insurance Corporation and F. M. Bowman, doing business as Bowman Chevrolet Company. Both defendants below filed pleas of privilege to be sued in the counties of their residence, which were overruled by the Justice of the Peace and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff.

An appeal was taken to the District Court of Duval County, which court at the time had jurisdiction of such appeals. The pleas of privilege were again heard; the plea of Bowman was granted but the plea .of the Insurance Corporation overruled.

The General Exchange Insurance Corporation has prosecuted this appeal from the order overruling its plea of privilege.

The plaintiff had alleged a joint cause of action against the Insurance Corporation and Bowman, and having granted the plea of privilege of Bowman and ordered the cause as to him transferred to Jim Wells County, the county of his residence, it was error for the court not to also order the cause of action as to the Insurance Corporation transferred to Jim Wells County.

The order overruling the plea of privilege of the General Exchange Insurance Corporation will be reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to the trial court to transfer the entire cause to the proper court of Jim Wells County.