alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### WYATT v. STATE.

No. 21178.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 30, 1940.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 8, 1941.

M. M. Crane, Jr., of Dallas, J. -R. Bo-gard, of San Augustine, and Baskett & Parks, of Dallas, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for burglary of a private residence at night. The penalty assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of fifty years.

The evidence adduced upon the trial is not brought up for review. In the. absence of a statement of facts, the bills of exception found in the record cannot be properly appraised by this court. See Jackson v. State, 127 Tex.Cr.R. 329, 76 S.W.2d 1046, and authorities there cited.

No error having been presented by the record before us, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant has filed a motion for rehearing in this cause and by brief and argument insists that this court should consider his objections and exceptions to the court’s charge.

It is first presented that these may be considered even in the absence of statement of facts and, specifically in the first paragraph of said motion, it is alleged that the ninth paragraph of the court’s charge is on the weight of the evidence, as is shown by the charge itself independent of statement of facts. If a fact is admitted to be true by both sides, a charge on the weight of such admitted evidence would be harmless error. Whether or not that is true in this case depends upon the statement of facts itself.

*188Appellant has not seen fit to have prepared and presented to this court a statement of facts in this case, and it will be presumed that there is found therein that which warrants the court’s charge. Similar reasoning rpay be indulged in each and every paragraph of the motion that is now before us.

We find in the record an amended motion for new trial setting up fifty-two grounds. Many of these have no merit under any state of facts, and the rest are dependent upon the facts of the case, without which they cannot be considered.

We adhere to the original holding and overrule the motion for rehearing.
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 Conmed Healthcare Management, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard W. Turner, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.




May 11, 2011By /s/ Richard W. TurnerRichard W. Turner, Ph.D.Chairman and Chief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to and will be retained by Conmed Healthcare Management, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-18357, 333-46084, 333-67331,
333-89377, and 333-91518) pertaining to the Cygnus, Inc. Amended 1991 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the Cygnus, Inc. Amended 1999 Stock Incentive Plan, in the
Registration Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-39275, 333-49020, 333-60598, 333-60962, 333-71524, 333-85801, and
333-91949) and in the related prospectuses of our report dated February 24, 2003 (except for Note 10, as to which the date is March 19, 2003), with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Cygnus, Inc. included in the Annual Report, as amended, on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2002.



Palo
Alto, California
May 20, 2003

---

QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 71119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30388]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[CA-160-1220-00]


Amendment of Meeting Notice for Central California Resource 
Advisory Council

    This is to amend the meeting place address listed in the notice 
that was already published.

DATES: Thursday and Friday, November 30-December 1, 2000.

ADDRESSES: BLM California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, 
CA 95825.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Mercer, Public Affairs Officer, 
Bureau of Land Management, 3801 Pegasus Drive, Bakersfield, CA 93308, 
telephone 661-391-6012.

    Dated: November 16, 2000.
Ron Fellows,
Field Manager.
[FR Doc. 00-30388 Filed 11-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-M
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 lunani 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 J I AN QIN C HE N, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 10- 71182 A ge nc yN o. A 098- 452- 282 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d Jul y17, 2012 ** B e f o r e : S C H R O E D E R , T H O M A S , an dS I L V E R M A N , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . J i an Q i n C he n, ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of C hi na , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ or de rdi s m i s s i ng he rappe a lf r om an i m m i gr a t i on ju d g e ’s d e c is io n d e n y in g h e rap p lic a tio n f o ra s y lu m an dw ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l. W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. R evi ew i ng for s ub st ant i alevi dence, 

# FI LED JU L 25 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 71182 2 W akkaryv. H

older , 558 F . 3d 1049, 1056 ( 9th C i r . 2009) , w e de nythe pe t i t i on f or r e v i e w. C h e n d o e s n o t c h a lle n g e th e a g e n c y ’s f in d in g th a t s h e f

a ile dto d e m o n s tr a te p a s t p e r s e c u tio n , b u t s h e f e ar s r e tu rn in g to C h in ab e c au s e o f an a f f iliatio n w ith F al u n G o n g . S ub st an t i alev i d en ce sup p o rt s th e B IA ’ s fi n d i n g th atC h en l ack s a w e ll- f o u n d e df e aro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . Se e I N S v . E li as - Zac ar i as , 502 U . S . 478, 481 n. 1 ( 1992) ( “ T o r e ve r s e the B I A f i ndi ng w e m us tf

i nd tha tthe e vi de nc e not o n l y s u p p o r ts th a t c o n c lu s io n , b u t c o m p e ls it . . . .” ) ; s e e a l

s o Na g o u lko v . I

NS , 333 F .3 d1 0 1 2 , 1 0 1 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( p o s s ib ilityo f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n to o s p e c u la tiv e ) . A cco rd i n g l y, C h en ’ s asyl u m cl ai m fai l s. B e c au s e C h e n f

a i l e dt o m e e tth e l o we rb u r d e n o f p r o o f f o ra s y l u m , i tf

o l l o ws th a t s h e h a s n o t m e t th e h ig h e rs tan d ar df o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. See Zehat

ye v. G on zales , 45 3 F . 3d11 82 , 11 90 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). P E T I T I O N F O R R E V I E W D E N I E D .
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 Commerce

###### International Trade Administration 

Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether an instrument of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instrument shown below is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the United States. 

Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and be filed within 20 days with the Statutory Import Programs Staff, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 

*Docket Number:*                     00-037.                     *Applicant:*                     Washington University School of Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Research Unit, 660 South Euclid, Campus Box 8054, St. Louis, MO 63110.                     *Instrument:*                    Flash Lamp System with Accessories.                     *Manufacturer:*                    Rapp OptoElectronic, Germany.                     *Intended Use:*                     The instrument will be used to study the mechanisms that underlie the synaptic connection at a synapse in the brain to determine how an increase in Ca2+                     regulates synaptic transmission. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: November 6, 2000.                 

Gerald A. Zerdy, 

Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs Staff. 

[FR Doc. 00-30040 Filed 11-22-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### PORTER v. STATE.

No. 21712.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 7, 1942.

Allison & Gordon, of Levelland, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The conviction is for murder without ■malice; the punishment, three years in the state penitentiary.

This court is without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, because the appeal bond which was given after adjournment of trial court was approved only by the Sheriff of Cochran County. It was not approved by the trial judge. Such a bond is fatally defective. Pleasant v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 154, 128 S.W.2d 813; Shaver v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 444, 120 S.W.2d 1051; Lamb v. State, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 97, 108 S.W.2d 1112; Art. 818, Vernon’s Annotated Code of Criminal Procedure, and authorities collated under Note 1 thereof.

It follows that the opinion heretofore rendered in this cause should be and is withdrawn and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1511 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1511

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 23, 2009

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To amend the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 to authorize 
appropriations to provide assistance for domestic and foreign programs 
  and centers for the treatment of victims of torture, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Torture Victims Relief 
Reauthorization Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR DOMESTIC TREATMENT CENTERS 
              FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE.

    Section 5(b)(1) of the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 (22 
U.S.C. 2152 note) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--Of the amounts 
        authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Health and 
        Human Services for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, there are 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection (a) 
        $25,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2010 and 2011.''.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FOREIGN TREATMENT CENTERS 
              FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE.

    Section 4(b)(1) of the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 (22 
U.S.C. 2152 note) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--Of the amounts 
        authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 
        pursuant to chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act 
        of 1961, there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
        President to carry out section 130 of such Act $12,000,000 for 
        each of the fiscal years 2010 and 2011.''.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES 
              CONTRIBUTION TO THE UNITED NATIONS VOLUNTARY FUND FOR 
              VICTIMS OF TORTURE.

    Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 2010 
and 2011 pursuant to chapter 3 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act 
of 1961, there are authorized to be appropriated to the President for a 
voluntary contribution to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims 
of Torture $12,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 22, 2009.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 238

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 25 (legislative day, MAY 16), 1994

Received

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the Capitol grounds for the Greater

Washington Soap Box Derby.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SOAP BOX DERBY RACES

4 ON CAPITOL GROUNDS.

5 The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Associa6 tion (hereinafter in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘As7 sociation’’) shall be permitted to sponsor a public event,

8 soap box derby races, on the Capitol grounds on July 16,

9 1994, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House

10 of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the

11 Senate may jointly designate.
2

HCON 238 RDS

1 SEC. 2. CONDITIONS.

2 The event to be carried out under this resolution shall

3 be free of admission charge to the public and arranged

4 not to interfere with the needs of Congress, under condi5 tions to be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol and

6 the Capitol Police Board; except that the Association shall

7 assume full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities

8 incident to all activities associated with the event.

9 SEC. 3. STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.

10 For the purposes of this resolution, the Association

11 is authorized to erect upon the Capitol grounds, subject

12 to the approval of the Architect of the Capitol, such stage,

13 sound amplification devices, and other related structures

14 and equipment as may be required for the event to be car15 ried out under this resolution.

16 SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.

17 The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police

18 Board are authorized to make any such additional ar19 rangements that may be required to carry out the event

20 under this resolution.

Passed the House of Representatives May 23, 1994.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v James Crossley, Respondent.

Order unanimously reversed on the law, motion denied, count one of the indictment reinstated and matter remitted to Onondaga County Court for further proceedings on count one of the indictment. Memorandum: The People appeal from that portion of an order which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the first count of a 38-count indictment. Count one charged defendant and two codefendants with conspiracy in the second degree based on their alleged agreement to commit the crimes of criminal sale or criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first or second degree. In dismissing that count, the court held that the evidence before the Grand Jury was legally insufficient to establish defendant’s involvement in a conspiracy. We hold that the evidence was sufficient to permit the inference that defendant had entered into an unlawful agreement to distribute cocaine, and we therefore reinstate the first count of the indictment.

In order to support count one of the indictment, the evidence before the Grand Jury must establish all the elements of the crime of second degree conspiracy or some lesser included offense, and must demonstrate reasonable cause to believe that defendant committed such offense *(see,*CPL 190.65 [1]; 210.20 [1] [b]; 210.30 [1]). Thus, the Grand Jury minutes are sufficient if they show that defendant probably agreed to participate in or cause the commission of criminal sale or possession of cocaine in any quantity. The evidence before the Grand Jury rendered it more probable than not that defendant entered into an unlawful agreement with DeTomaso, Cristantiello and Paige to possess or sell cocaine. The evidence established that defendant purchased cocaine directly or indirectly from those individuals on at least four occasions, in quantities greater than would be required for *931personal use. Additionally, the evidence showed defendant’s awareness of and willing participation in the smuggling and distribution scheme. Defendant’s knowledge and intent was demonstrated by his numerous contacts with DeTomaso; his questioning of DeTomaso concerning the details of his business, including volume and profit; his threats to buy cocaine from a source other than Paige; and his unsuccessful attempts to negotiate purchases directly from Owens, DeTomaso’s and Cristantiello’s former supplier and defendant’s longtime friend. In sum, defendant’s purchase of cocaine from his immediate suppliers establishes a tacit agreement between him and them. Moreover, defendant’s acquaintance and repeated dealings with his suppliers’ sources tend to establish that he had a tacit agreement with them as well. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant was a link in a chain conspiracy to smuggle and distribute cocaine. (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J.— conspiracy, second degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
### ECONOMIC AND REGULA TORY EVALUATION

Regulatory Evaluation Form , Revision 2
. 5 Page 1 of 1 1/15/10 

### AD Title: RB211
- 524 TRU Rivet Replacement Docket No. FAA

- 2011
- 0624 Directorate Identifier: 2010
- NE
- 11
- AD Costs: Costs per Product (e.g., engine, propeller) Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

h ours L abor cost ( @ $8 5 /hour) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

U.S. Registered Products Total Cost

for U

. S
. Fleet Rivet Replacement 40.0 $ 3,400.00 $100 $ 3,500.00 0 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.0 0 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0



### Total Cost s of compliance for U

. S
. fleet: $ 0



### Costs covered under warranty Special considerations for Econom ic Analysis : 

### Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES explain below NO DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant? YES explain below NO Regulatory Flexi bility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES explain below NO
Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it app ropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES explain below NO 

### Explanation:
#### In the Matter of Robert M. Clark, Appellant, v New York City Housing Authority et al., Respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kenneth L. Shorter, J.), entered December 1, 1989, which dismissed the CPLR *306article 78 proceeding to review a determination of respondents terminating petitioner from his position as a probationary police officer based on the results of a random drug test, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner sought a judgment vacating a determination of respondents terminating his services as a probationary New York City Housing Police officer after a laboratory analysis of a urine specimen taken during a random drug test showed the presence of cocaine metabolites. Petitioner had been notified at least three times that he would be subject to random drug tests during his probationary period. The record shows that the test was conducted and the samples collected, labeled and stored in compliance with all aspects of departmental procedures.

Petitioner now challenges the constitutionality of the random drug-testing procedures. While all public employees have some diminished expectations of privacy, "[t]he privacy expectations of police officers must be regarded as even further diminished by virtue of their membership in a paramilitary force, the integrity of which is a recognized and important State concern” *(Matter of Caruso v Ward,*72 NY2d 432, 439). In *Caruso,*the Court of Appeals found that random drug testing for officers of the Organized Crime Control Bureau was constitutionally permissible since, *inter alia,*the government had a justifiable interest and responsibility in periodically testing officers who were exposed daily to drug users and traffickers. Random drug tests have also been upheld for all New York City correction officers because of the hazardous nature of their employment and to prevent a drug-impaired officer from harming fellow officers or others *(Matter of Seelig v Koehler,*76 NY2d 87, *cert denied*— US —, 112 L Ed 2d 102). The policy reasons justifying random drug testing in the instant case are indistinguishable from earlier precedent.

Petitioner has also raised no issue requiring the need for an evidentiary hearing, as his assertions regarding errors in the collection and labeling of the urine specimen were based on mere conclusory allegations *(see, Capelin Assocs. v Globe Mfg. Corp.,*34 NY2d 338). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Ross, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.