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

No. 20222.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 1, 1939.

Eugene F. Mathis, of San Angelo, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

Conviction is for possession of liquor for purpose of sale in dry area; punishment assessed is a fine of $300.

The record is before us without a state-4 ment of facts or bills of exceptions. The information is sufficient to charge the offense, and.all procedural matters appear to be in due order.

The judgment 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. •
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.29

                               SECOND ADDENDUM TO
                        LICENSE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
                         FOR SPECIFIC MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY
                    FOR THE DETECTION OF ONCOGENIC HPV VIRUS

         This is a Second Addendum to the License and Development Agreement for
Specific Medical Technology for the Detection of Oncogenic HPV Virus dated June
23, 2000 ("License and Development Agreement") by and between INVIRION, a United
States corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Illinois, having a place of business at 2350 Pilgrim Highway, Frankfort,
Michigan 49635 ("Invirion") and AMPERSAND MEDICAL CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, having a place of business at 414 North Orleans, Chicago, Illinois
60610 ("Ampersand").

         Except to the extent modified by this Second Addendum, the License and
Development Agreement and related First Addendum are hereby reaffirmed.

         The License and Development Agreement is hereby modified by
incorporating into it the following agreement between the parties:

         1. Effective as of June 23, 2000 the License and Development Agreement
for Specific Medical Technology for the Detection of Oncogenic HPV Virus shall
be between Bruce Patterson, an individual inventor residing in Chicago, Illinois
(hereinafter "Patterson") and Ampersand. All payments previously made to
Invirion and all warrants issued to Invirion shall be considered by the parties
as having been received by Patterson, and are hereby acknowledged by Patterson.
Ampersand shall take whatever steps are necessary to change the warrants to
reflect the above.

         2. As a result of Patterson meeting the benchmarks set forth in
Paragraphs 3.1(1), 3.1(2), and 3.1(3), the parties now agree that the following
payment terms will be used to pay Patterson for the balance owed by Ampersand as
set froth in Paragraph 3.1:

                                        1
<PAGE>   2


            Starting on January 11, 2001 Ampersand will pay Patterson
            $50,000 per month for a period of six months for a total of
            $300,000.

         3. In the event the License and Development Agreement is terminated,
all payments made and owed to Patterson and all warrants issued to Patterson are
non-refundable and all warrants are irrevocable and non-cancellable. Ampersand
acknowledges that all payments made and owed as well as the issuance of warrants
to Patterson are for services already performed by Patterson prior to such
payment or issuance of the warrant.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused to be signed, by
their duly authorized officers, this Second Addendum of the License and
Development Agreement originally dated June 23, 2000, on the dates set
forth below.

BRUCE PATTERSON

_____________________________________

DATED:_______________________________


AMPERSAND MEDICAL CORPORATION

BY:__________________________________

DATED: ______________________________


                                       2
Exhibit 99(b)

                           FIRST MERCHANTS CORPORATION
                             200 East Jackson Street
                                  P.O. Box 792
                              Muncie, Indiana 47305


               PROXY SOLICITED ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The undersigned hereby appoints _________________________________, and each of
them, proxies of the undersigned, with full power of substitution and
re-substitution, to represent and vote all shares of common stock of First
Merchants Corporation which the undersigned would be entitled to vote at the
special meeting of shareholders of First Merchants Corporation to be held at
First Merchants Corporation's principal office, located at 200 East Jackson
Street, Muncie, Indiana, on ___________, ________ ___, 2002, at _:__ _.m. local
time, and at any adjournment thereof, with all of the powers the undersigned
would possess if personally present, as set forth below.

The Board of Directors of First Merchants Corporation recommends a vote FOR
approval of the Agreement of Reorganization and Merger dated October 14, 2001,
by and between First Merchants Corporation and Lafayette Bancorporation pursuant
to which Lafayette Bancorporation will merge with and into First Merchants
Corporation, and Lafayette Bank and Trust Company will become a wholly-owned
subsidiary of First Merchants Corporation.

     1.   Approval of the Agreement of Reorganization and Merger:

          ________ FOR         _______ AGAINST         ________ ABSTAIN

     2.   In their discretion, on such other matters as may properly be
          presented at the special meeting.

THIS PROXY WILL BE VOTED AS DIRECTED, BUT IF NOT OTHERWISE DIRECTED, THIS PROXY
WILL BE VOTED FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT OF REORGANIZATION AND MERGER. ON ANY
OTHER MATTERS THAT MAY PROPERLY BE PRESENTED AT THE SPECIAL MEETING, THIS PROXY
WILL BE VOTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF FIRST MERCHANTS CORPORATION.

PLEASE COMPLETE, SIGN, DATE AND RETURN THIS PROXY PROMPTLY.

Dated: ______________, 2002.

                                    ------------------------------------------
                                    (SIGNATURE OF SHAREHOLDER)


                                    ------------------------------------------
                                    (SIGNATURE OF SHAREHOLDER)

PLEASE SIGN EXACTLY AS YOUR NAME APPEARS ON YOUR STOCK CERTIFICATE. JOINT OWNERS
SHOULD EACH SIGN PERSONALLY. TRUSTEES AND OTHERS SIGNING IN A REPRESENTATIVE
CAPACITY SHOULD INDICATE THE CAPACITY IN WHICH THEY SIGN.

                                  Ex. 99(b)-1
#### GRESSETT v. GRESSETT.

No. 2235.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

Oct. 10, 1940.

Henry Jackson, of Groesbeck, for appellant.

Lewis M. Seay, of Groesbeck, for appel-lee.

ALEXANDER, Justice.

In this case the plaintiff in her petition for divorce alleged “that she is an actual bona fide resident of Limestone County, Texas, and has resided in the State of Texas for more than one year and in Limestone County for more than six months before the filing and exhibiting of this petition.” The petition did not allege, as' is required by Revised Statutes, art. 4631, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 4631, that plaintiff was or had been an actual bona fide “inhabitant” of this state for a period of twelve months nor that she had resided in the county where the suit was filed for six months “next preceding” the filing of the petition. It has been held many times that in the absence of such allegations, a petition for divorce is subject to a general demurrer. 15 Tex.Jur., p. 539, par. 77; Haymond v. Haymond, 74 Tex. 414, 12 S.W. 90; Lawler v. Lawler, Tex.Civ.App., 15 S.W.2d 684, 685, and cases there cited; Franzetti v. Franzetti, Tex.Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 760; Coffman v. Coffman, Tex.Civ.App., 71 S.W.2d 331. The trial court therefore erred in failing to sustain the defendant’s general demurrer to plaintiff’s petition.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10193

Conference Calendar

 

BILLY R. CONNOR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHARLES MARMOLEJO, CHARLES

REED, J. KELLER, DALE BROWN,

Warden, FCI, Big Spring, TX;

SANDRA KAZ,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:95-CV-135

- - - - - - - - - -

October 24, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Billy R. Connor appeals the summary-judgment dismissal of

his complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Connor’s § 1983

complaint is construed as an action brought pursuant to Bivens v.

Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), because it alleges

a civil rights violation by federal defendants. See Stephenson

v. Reno, 28 F.3d 26, 26 n.1 (5th Cir. 1994). Connor contends

that the district court erred by granting summary judgment
No. 96-10193

- 2 -

because he raised genuine issues of material fact. We have

reviewed the record and Connor’s brief and AFFIRM the district

court’s grant of summary judgment for essentially the same

reasons set forth by the district court. Connor v. Marmolejo et

al., No. 1:95-CV-135 (N.D. Tx. Jan. 29, 1996).

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
      OF
      2002**





In
      connection with the Annual Report on
      Form 10-K of ADDvantage Technologies Group, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year
      ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      on the date hereof (the “Report”) I, Daniel E. O'Keefe, the Chief Financial
      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
      theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2)           The
      information contained on the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.








/s/ Daniel E. O'Keefe


Name:    Daniel
      E. O'Keefe


Title:      
      Chief Financial Officer


Date:      December
      28, 2007
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

TODD D. GASTALDO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-35385

D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00310-HU

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 27, 2011** 

Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Todd D. Gastaldo appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

for the United States in its civil action to collect amounts due on three defaulted,

federally-insured student loans. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

FILED

OCT 12 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-35385

review de novo. United States v. Phillips, 20 F.3d 1005, 1006-07 (9th Cir. 1994)

(per curiam). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for the United States

because Gastaldo failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact as to

whether he owed the alleged amounts to the government. See Celotex Corp. v.

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986); see also 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(a)(2) (the United

States may at any time bring an action for the repayment of the amount due from a

borrower on a loan made under Title IV of the Higher Education Act that has been

assigned to the Secretary of Education). 

Gastaldo’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          16,058
<SECURITIES>                                    34,692
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,179
<ALLOWANCES>                                       180
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,715
<PP&E>                                           6,714
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,607
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  62,929
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,627
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,835
<OTHER-SE>                                         193
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    62,929
<SALES>                                          7,676
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,676
<CGS>                                            1,134
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,134
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,779
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  18
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,379
<INCOME-TAX>                                       455
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       924
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Robert A. Levinson, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this amendment to the annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of
Levcor International, Inc.; and

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


Date: April 29, 2003


/s/ ROBERT A. LEVINSON
------------------------------
Robert A. Levinson,
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
#### HURVEY et al. v. STATE.

No. 16382.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 20, 1933.

W. B. Howard, of Childress, for appellants.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

■Conviction for burglary; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

This case is docketed on our dockets in the name of L. C. Hurvey and Tommie Lewis. An inspection of the record shows that Hur-vey made no motion for a new trial and gave no notice of appeal. Tommie Lewis alone took such steps. An affidavit in due form is now made and filed with the clerk of this court showing that pending this appeal Tommie Lewis has made his escape. F'or this reason, and owing to the further fact that Hur-vey did not appeal, the appeal as to both said parties will be dismissed.
NUMBER 13-11-00360-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE BARRY DWAYNE MINNFEE

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Vela, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1

Relator, Barry Dwayne Minnfee, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus on June 8, 2011. The petition for writ of mandamus is unclear regarding the 

identity of the real parties in interest and/or the respondent, the specific actions or 

orders complained of in this original proceeding, or the nature of the extraordinary relief 

sought by relator. 

To be entitled to mandamus relief, relator must establish both that he has no 

adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and that what he seeks to compel 

 

1

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is 

not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young 

v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2007). If relator fails to meet both of these requirements, then the petition for writ 

of mandamus should be denied. See id. It is relator’s burden to properly request and 

show entitlement to mandamus relief. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. 

App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of 

mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”). In addition 

to other requirements, relator must include a statement of facts supported by citations to 

“competent evidence included in the appendix or record,” and must also provide “a clear 

and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities 

and to the appendix or record.” See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. In this regard, it is 

clear that relator must furnish an appendix or record sufficient to support the claim for 

mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); 

R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of 

mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden 

to obtain mandamus relief. See State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210. Accordingly, 

relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

9th day of June, 2011.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DUPONT PHOTOMASKS, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         $54,845
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   74,664
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,317
<INVENTORY>                                     17,159
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               180,649
<PP&E>                                         754,641
<DEPRECIATION>                                (290,659)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 702,206
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           92,788
<BONDS>                                        100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           173
<OTHER-SE>                                     439,288
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   702,206
<SALES>                                        100,589
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               100,589
<CGS>                                           64,969
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   84,646
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    77
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 738
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,858
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,160
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,698
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,698
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .58


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                  ------------

                   [GOLDSTEIN  GOLUB  KESSLER  LLP LETTERHEAD]

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors
Orbit International Corp.

We  hereby  consent  to  incorporation  by  reference  in  Registration
Numbers  333-25979,  333-69410  and 333-122575 on Form S-8 and Registration
Number  333-230629 on Form S-3 of our report dated February 23, 2006 on the
consolidated balance sheet of Orbit International Corp. and Subsidiaries as
of  December  31,  2005 and 2004 and the related consolidated statements of
income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years then ended, which
appear  in  the  December  31,  2005  Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Orbit
International Corp.




/s/ Goldstein Golub Kessler LLP
-------------------------------
GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP
New York,  New York
March 30, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMEDICS
DETECTION INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED APRIL 4,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-04-1998
<CASH>                                          28,065
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,916
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,128
<INVENTORY>                                     18,627
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,271
<PP&E>                                           9,474
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,375
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 127,869
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,616
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,932
<OTHER-SE>                                     108,321
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   127,869
<SALES>                                         19,451
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,707
<CGS>                                            9,010
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,999
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,687
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    49
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 303
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,361
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,311
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,050
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,050
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>