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

No. 19488.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 30, 1938.

Rehearing Denied May 18, 1938.

George H. Cavanagh, of Houston, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

Conviction is for violation of the Medical Practice Act, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 739 et seq.; punishment, a fine of $50 and confinement in the county jail for one day.

When the case was called for trial, appellant entered a plea of not guilty, waived a jury, and agreed to submit the issues raised by the testimony to the court for determination. The only question on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to justify and sustain his conviction.

The recprd shows that appellant did not have a license or certificate to practice medicine, but maintained an office in the West building in the city of Houston, Harris county, Tex., where he practiced his occupation. On the 1st day of June, 1933, he treated one Joseph Lato for a physical deformity. Lato testified that in the pursuit of his occupation he had used a loupe for many years, a type of magnifying glass which fitted over the eye; that from constant use thereof the muscles over and under his eye had become stretched, causing the skin and flesh to sag down. He testified that he went to see appellant at his place of business; that appellant told him he could remove the surplus flesh and remedy said defect for $75. That appellant placed him in a chair and pitt some “stuff” around his eye which smelled like chloroform, stating that it would kill the pain. A strong acid was then placed around his eye which burned and caused a swelling, almost closing his eye. That he continued said treatment for about four weeks. The witness paid appellant the $75 for said treatments. See article 739, P.C. as amended in 1931, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 739.

Appellant’s testimony was to the effect that he had a license to practice cosmetology in Texas and was pursuing his avocation at the time Lato came to see him; that he used no chloroform or acid , on him, but only a beauty peel purchased by him at a drug store.

Subdivision 2 of article 741, P.C., defines what constitutes a prattice of medicine, and we believe that the State’s testimony brings appellant within the purview of the law. See Hicks v. State, 88 Tex. Cr.R. 438, 227 S.W. 302; Black v. State, 86 Tex.Cr.R. 253, 216 S.W. 181.

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.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Our re-examination of the record in the light of the appellant’s motion for rehear*403ing leaves us of the opinion that the proper disposition of the case was made upon the original submission. The motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.
O pinion filed April 4 , 2017



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

___ ___ ____
No. 11

- 1 6

- 00 19 7

- C V

____ __ ____ ESCOPETA OIL AND GAS CORPORATION, Appellant

V. F.S. TRUCKING, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 161st District Court

Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. B

- 16

- 01

- 0041

- CV

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant and Appellee have filed in this court an agreed motion to dismiss

with prejudice

, indicat ing that the disputes made the basis of this litigation have been resolved. Accordingly, both parties request that this court dismiss the appeal , and

each party has agreed to bear its own costs

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a) , (d)

.2

The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

April 4 , 2017

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J. , and Bailey, J.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1466 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1466

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to improve the procedure for 
       appointing members to the National Labor Relations Board.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 24, 1993

  Mr. Owens introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the National Labor Relations Act to improve the procedure for 
       appointing members to the National Labor Relations Board.

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

SECTION 1. APPOINTMENT TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.

    (a) In General.--Section 3(a) of the National Labor Relations Act 
(29 U.S.C. 153(a)) is amended by inserting immediately before the 
period at the end of the first sentence the following: ``, two to be 
selected from lists of qualified individuals recommended by national 
labor organizations and two to be selected from lists of qualified 
individuals recommended by national organizations representing 
employers, with each such list including the names of at least three 
individuals for each applicable vacancy''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect with respect to appointments to the National Labor 
Relations Board made after the date of enactment of this Act as 
follows:
            (1) The first and third appointments shall be from lists of 
        individuals recommended by national labor organizations.
            (2) The second and fourth appointments shall be from lists 
        of individuals recommended by national organizations 
        representing employers.

                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN CORONEL, AKA Juan Coronel

Garcia,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 73613

Agency No. A070

- 056

- 683

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 13, 2018 **

Before: LEAVY , M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN , Circuit Judges.

Juan Coronel, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal under the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 22 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 73613

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §

1252. We review for substantial evidenc e the agency’s factual findings. Delgado

v. Holder , 648 F.3d 1095, 1108 (9th Cir. 2011) . We review de novo claims of due

process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder , 754 F.3d 733, 738

(9th Cir. 2014). W e deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal

under the CAT because Coronel failed to show it is more likely than not he will be

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See

8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); Arteaga v. Mukasey , 511 F.3d 940, 948 (9th Cir. 2007).

We reject as unsupported by the record Coronel’s contention s that the

agency did not use the correct legal standard and erred in its analysis

. See Lata v.

INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due

process claim).

The government ’s motion to expedite adjudication and vacate the stay of

r emoval is denied

. The temporary s tay of removal will terminate upon issuance of

the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
* 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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-10459

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES LINSCOMB,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas

(4:93-CR-49-E)

______________________________________________

November 27, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Linscomb appeals the district court’s denial of his

motion for a new trial. Having reviewed the evidence, record, and

Linscomb’s arguments on appeal, we find that the district court did

not clearly abuse its discretion in refusing to grant Linscomb’s

motion. We affirm for substantially the same reasons cited by the
2

district court. United States v. Linscomb, No. 4:93-CR-49-E (N.D.

Tex., Apr. 12, 1996).
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

 

 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (FormS-8 Nos. 33-43001, 33-49234, 333-27613, 333-31464, 333-31379, 333-61002, 333-95725, and 333-125062 and Form S-3 No. 333-101514) of ESB Financial Corporation of our reports dated March 6, 2008, relating to our audit of the consolidatedfinancial statements and internal control over financial reporting, which appears in the 2007 Annual Report to Shareholders of ESB Financial Corporation, on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007. 

 

 

 

/s/ S.R. Snodgrass, A.C. 

 

Wexford, PA 

March 14, 2008
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael J. Foskit, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The record reflects that defendant’s plea of guilty to burglary in the third degree was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made *(see, People v Nixon,*21 NY2d 338, 353, *cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York,*393 US 1067). (Appeal from judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Kelly, J. — burglary, third degree.) Present —Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Digene Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Evan Jones, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 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, as amended; 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/ Evan Jones                                     
| |                                                    
| | Evan Jones
Chief Executive Officer
February 7, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 75938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31103]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Meeting Act

Agency Holding the Meeting: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Monday, December 11, 2000.

Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:
    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

Contact Person for More Information: Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the 
Board; 202-452-3204.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not 
only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other 
information about the meeting.

    Dated: December 1, 2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-31103 Filed 12-1-00; 3:58 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-M
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 the Interior

###### Fish and Wildlife Service

# AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of availability. 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has published the Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Summary. This Plan describes how the FWS intends to manage the Tewaukon Complex for the next 10-15 years.

# ADDRESSES:

                        A copy of the Plan may be obtained by writing to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge, 9754 143                        1/2                         Avenue SW., Cayuga ND 58013; or download from                         *http://www.r6.fws.gov/​larp.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Allison Banks, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486 DFC, Denver, CO 80225, 303/236-8145 extension 626; fax 303/236-4792.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Tewaukon NWR Complex is located in southeast North Dakota. Implementation of the Plan will focus on adaptive resource management of glaciated prairie wetlands, tall and mixed-grass prairie grasslands, riparian woodlands, and opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation. Habitat monitoring and evaluation will be emphasized as the Plan is implemented. Opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation will continue to be provided.

Dated: November 27, 2000.

Elliott Sutta,

Regional Director, Denver, Colorado.

[FR Doc. 00-30614  Filed 11-30-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
Exhibit 32, Section 1350 Certifications

I, Barbara A. Manzolillo, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, certify this
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Medical Information Technology, Inc. for the
period ended September 30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

October 31, 2005
(Date)

Barbara A. Manzolillo, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
(Signature)

I, A. Neil Pappalardo, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, certify this
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Medical Information Technology, Inc. for the
period ended September 30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

October 31, 2005
(Date)

A. Neil Pappalardo, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
(Signature)
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                  CALCULATION OF PRO FORMA NET LOSS PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            THREE MONTHS ENDED         NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                              SEPTEMBER 30,              SEPTEMBER 30,
                                            1995          1996         1995          1996
                                            ----          ----         ----          ----
   <S>                                     <C>         <C>         <C>            <C>
   Weighted Average Common and Common
    Equivalent Shares:
        Series A Preferred Stock           1,919,307            -     1,916,661       994,677
        Series B Preferred Stock           3,114,426            -     2,955,853     1,614,046
        Common Stock                       1,745,667   10,008,542     1,742,774     5,720,538
        Common Stock Options                 883,710            -       883,710       457,981
        Warrants                               4,133            -         4,133         2,142
                                          ----------   ----------   -----------   -----------
                                           7,667,243   10,008,542     7,503,131     8,789,384
                                         ============  ==========   ============  ============
   Net Loss                              ($1,484,000)  ($246,000)   ($5,751,000)  ($5,085,000)
                                         ============  ==========   ============  ============
   Pro Forma net loss per common and
    common equivalent share                  ($0.19)      ($0.02)        ($0.77)       ($0.58)
                                            =======      =======        =======       =======
</TABLE>



                                                                            21
#### SATTERFIELD, Inc., v. RUMLEY.

No. 12649.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

Oct. 15, 1938.

J. J. Fagan, of Dallas, for appellant.

Margaret Scottino and G. Ray Lee, both of Dallas, for appellee.

LOONEY, Justice.

This appeal is from an order of the court below, sustaining a motion to dismiss a certiorari proceeding. G. G. Rumley sued and obtained judgment against Satterfield, Inc., in a Justice Court for the sum of $191.86. In its petition for certiorari, appellant alleged that, “Your petitioner now says that he gave notice of appeal to the County Court of Dallas County at Law No. Two, and perfected his appeal by filing bond with said Justice of the Peace, but said appeal was never sent to the County Court of Dallas County at Law No. Two 3⁄8 *»*

 An appeal having been perfected from the Justice Court to the County Court, the latter obtained jurisdiction of the case, and its power over the same was not lost by reason of the fact that the Justice of the Peace failed to transmit to the County Clerk a transcript of his docket entries together with a bill of cost and the original papers, as required by law. El Continental Pub. Co. v. Blumenthal, Tex.Civ.App., 63 S.W.2d 1056; Tevebaugh v. Smith Land Co., Tex.Civ.App., 146 S.W. 647; Imperial, etc., Co. v. Brannon, Tex.Civ.App., 217 S.W. 761; McCorvey v. Huddleston, Tex.Civ.App., 262 S.W. 567. It was the duty of appellant to see that the Justice discharged his duty in the respect mentioned, and could have invoked the power of the County *391Court to compel by mandamus the performance of such duty (Art. 1957, R.S.).

A certiorari to review a Justice Court judgment is not granted as a matter of right, but is a matter of discretion, and will not be granted at all where it appears that the right of appeal is lost or an appeal perfected is abandoned (as in the instant case) through the negligence of the appealing party. Hodginson v. Pena, Tex.Civ.App., 247 S.W. 600; Roberts v. Kirk, Tex.Civ.App., 43 S.W.2d 966.

We find no error in the action of the court in dismissing the certiorari, therefore its judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-83,253-03

IN RE RONALD WHIT DUBOSE, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 07-1246-CR IN THE 25TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM GUADALUPE COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that Respondent, the District Clerk of Guadalupe

County, failed to send him a copy of the supplemental record in Ex parte Dubose, No. WR-83,253-

01 (Tex. Crim. App. June 3, 2015) (not designated for publication).

On September 16, 2015,we held this application in abeyance and ordered Respondent to state

“whether she complied with Article 11.07, § 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Rule of

Appellate Procedure 73.4(b)(2).” On February 1, 2016, we received a response from a deputy clerk

in the District Clerk’s Office. She stated that she is responsible for forwarding findings of fact to
2

all the parties in Relator’s case, the method of delivery was by U.S. Mail, and the delivery date was

July 15, 2015. We are not able to determine from the deputy clerk’s response whether Respondent

has fully complied with Article 11.07, § 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Rule of Appellate

Procedure 73.4(b)(2). Accordingly, Respondent shall submit a second response. This application

for leave to file a writ of mandamus shall be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted the

appropriate response. Such response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.

Filed: May 18, 2016

Do not publish
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 41259 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JUAN RAMON RESENDEZ, also known as Juan Ramon Resendiz

- Resendiz , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:14

- CR

- 380

- 1

Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Ramon
Resendez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Resendez h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 1 8 , 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-41259 Document: 00513158373 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2015No. 14

- 41259

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly , counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 14-41259 Document: 00513158373 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2015