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

No. 20107.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 22, 1939.

Rehearing Denied April 12, 1939.

John L. Poulter, of Fort Worth, for appellants.

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

' HAWKINS, Judge.

On May 20, 1936, an indictment against C. A. Mark was returned to into the Criminal District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, charging him with forgery. On June *65715, 1936 appellant entered into an appearance bond in the sum of one thousand dollars with H. G. Tankersley and J. J. Williams as sureties. Mark’s case was set for .trial on October 15, 1936. He failed to appear. His bond was forfeited and judgment nisi entered against him and his sureties. Upon proper notice the judgment nisi was made final on the 28th day of May, 1938, from which judgment Tankersley and Williams bring this appeal.

The facts developed upon the trial are precisely the same as found and related in cause No. 20,109, Henry Darwin Caldwell et al. v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 126 S.W.2d 654, this day decided; and appellants’ contentions are the same here as in the case mentioned.

For the same reasons which lead to an affirmance of the judgment in cause No. 20,-. 109 the judgment here will be affirmed.

On Appellants’ Motion for Rehearing.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

After carefully re-examining the record in the light of appellants’ motion for rehearing, we are constrained to adhere to the conclusion expressed in the original opinion.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

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.
#### WASHINGTON v. STATE.

No. 19218.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 17, 1937.

Joe Bailey Humphreys, of Crockett, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The offense is rape; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for ten years.

The indictment appears regular and properly presented. The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. In the absence of the evidence which was adduced in the trial court, we are unable to appraise the matters presented in the motion for new trial.

No error having been perceived or pointed out, the judgment is affirmed.
#### WARD v. VALAND et al.

No. 3892.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

Nov. 23, 1939.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 1940.

M. V. Ward, of El Paso, for appellant.

Theo. Andress, of El Paso, for appellee.

HIGGINS, Justice

(after stating the case as above).

The petition was verified by the petitioners in Norway before a notary public of that Kingdom. It is objected that a notary public commissioned under the laws of Norway had no authority to take the affidavits of the petitioners. Article 26, Revised Statutes, provides:

> “All oaths, affidavits or affirmations may be administered and a certificate of the fact given:

> * 3⁄8 * * * *

> “3. If without the United States, before any notary public, or any minister, commissioner or charge d'affaires of the United States, resident in and accredited to the country where the affidavit may be taken, or any consul general, consul, vice-consul, commercial agent, vice-commercial agent, deputy consul, or consular agent of the United States, resident in such country.”

As we understand appellant’s theory, the words “notary public” appearing in the third subsection of said Article are qualified by the phrases “resident in and accredited-to the country where the affidavit may be taken” and “resident in such coun*771try.” The words “notary public” are followed by the word “or,” and the qualifying phrases mentioned have ho relation to or qualifying effect upon the words “notary public.” The objection indicated is without merit.

The sufficiency of the citation to the unknown heirs of Spelling and service thereof are questioned. We express no opinion as to the merits of the sufficiency of such citation and service. Assuming they were defective, the unknown heirs have not appealed from the judgment rendered. The Court had complete jurisdiction over the Administrator, and the judgment rendered is conclusive upon such Administrator and will protect him in any action taken by him in obedience to the judgment. Article 3S9S, R.S. He is not in a position to complain of the defect, if any, in the citation to the unknown heirs and the service thereof. They have not seen fit to appeal from the judgment rendered.

This disposes of all questions presented by appellant.

The judgment is affirmed.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 3, 2024

NO. 03-24-00215-CV

In re Commitment of George Johnson, Appellant

APPEAL FROM PROBATE COURT NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, SMITH, AND THEOFANIS

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE THEOFANIS

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on March 21, 2024. Having reviewed 

the record, the Court holds that appellant has not prosecuted his appeal and did not comply with 

a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of 

prosecution. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is 

made.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, V. Bryan Lawlis, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Aradigm Corporation;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Dated: August 11, 2005 /s/ V. BRYAN LAWLIS   V. Bryan Lawlis        *President and Chief Executive Officer*
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76878-76879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21374]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: September 19, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 13, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 337 to Competitive Product List. Documents

[[Page 76879]]

are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-680, CP2024-689.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-21374 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATION**I, Thomas C. Chesterman, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Aradigm Corporation;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.       /s/ Thomas C. Chesterman     Thomas C. Chesterman    *Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer*       Dated: August 14, 2006
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2137 

To amend the Rural Development Act of 1972 to improve access to grants 

for evidence-based substance use disorder treatment services in rural 

areas, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2017 

Mr. DONNELLY (for himself and Mr. HOEVEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Rural Development Act of 1972 to improve 

access to grants for evidence-based substance use disorder treatment services in rural areas, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RURAL HEALTH AND SAFETY EDUCATION PRO4 GRAMS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 502(i) of the Rural Devel6 opment Act of 1972 (7 U.S.C. 2662(i)) is amended— 

7 (1) by redesignating paragraph (5) as para8 graph (6); and 


daltland on DSK30NT082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2137 IS

1 (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(5) SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER EDUCATION

4 AND PREVENTION.—In making grants under this 

5 subsection, the Secretary shall give priority to an ap6 plicant that will use the grant for substance use dis7 order education, prevention, or treatment.’’. 

8 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.—Title V of the Rural 

9 Development Act of 1972 (7 U.S.C. 2661 et seq.) (as 

10 amended by subsection (a)) is amended— 

11 (1) in section 502, in the matter preceding sub12 section (a), by inserting ‘‘(referred to in this title as 

13 the ‘Secretary’)’’ after ‘‘Agriculture’’; and 

14 (2) by striking ‘‘Secretary of Agriculture’’ each 

15 place it appears (other than in section 502 in the 

16 matter preceding subsection (a)) and inserting ‘‘Sec17 retary’’. 

Æ 


daltland on DSK30NT082PROD with BILLS
# C_2022372EN.01000101.xml

| 29.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10436 – MOËT HENNESSY / CAMPARI / CLASS A TANNICO SHAREHOLDERS / TANNICO)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 372/01)

On 20 December 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10436. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10436. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 76892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21324]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: September 19, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 333 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-630, CP2024-639.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-21324 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
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 pa ne l una ni 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 a r 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 PED RI N A G U A D A LU PE BO LA N O SVE NT UR A, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 74730 A ge nc yN o. A 098- 432- 452 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M a y24, 2011 ** B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , T H O M A S , an dP A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P edri na G uadal up e B ol anos-V entura, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f E l S al vado r, pe t i t i ons pr o s e f

orr e vi e w of

the B oa r 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 l f

r om a n i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng he rappl i c a t i on f or asyl u m , w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al , an dp ro t ect i o n u n d er th e C o n v en t i o n A g ai n st 

# FI LED JU N 03 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 74730 2 T ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f or subst ant i alevi dence, N

ah rv an iv. G on zales , 39 9 F . 3d 11 48 , 11 51 (9th C i r. 20 05 ), a n dwe d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. S ub st ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the agency’ s c on cl usi on thatB ol anos-V entura d idn o t e s tab lis h p a s t p e r s e c u tio n b a s e do n h e re x p e r ie n c e s in E l S a lv a d o r . Se e i d. a t1153- 54 ( tw o “ s e r i ous ” buta nony m ous thr e a t s c oupl e d w i th ha r a s s m e nta nd de m i n i m is prop erty dam age di d n otconst i tut e pas tpers ec ut i on ). S ub st ant i alevi dence a l s o s upport s the a ge nc y ’ s c onc l us i on tha tB ol a nos - V e ntur af a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h a w e ll- f o u n d e df e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . Se e i d. a t1154 ( f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on t o o sp ecu l at i v e). A cco rd i n g l y, B o l an o s-V en tu ra’ s asyl u m cl ai m fai l s. B e c aus e B ol a nos - V e ntur af a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h e l i gi bi l i tyf ora s y l um , s he n e c e s s a r ilyf

a ile dto m e e t th e m o r e s tr in g e n t s ta n d a r df o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. Se e i d. F i na l l y , B ol a nos - V e ntur af a i l s t o r a i s e a nys ubs t a nt i ve c ha l l e nge t o the d e n ia l o f h e rC A T c la im . Se e M a r t i n ez - Se rr a n o v . I

NS , 94 F . 3d 1256, 1259- 60 (9th C i r. 19 96 ) ( i ss ues notaddres se d i n the ar gu m entpo rt i on of a bri ef ar e dee m ed w ai ved). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
<TABLE>
                                                                      Exhibit 11
                   ORION CAPITAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

<CAPTION>

                                                           (Unaudited)
                                                       Three Months Ended       Year Ended
                                                          December 31,         December 31,
                                                       -------------------  --------------------
(In thousands, except per share amounts)                   1998       1997       1998       1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic:
<S>                                                      <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>   
Weighted average number of shares outstanding ......     26,880     27,392     27,236     27,333
                                                       ========   ========  =========   ========
                                                       
Net earnings attributable to common stockholders ...   $ 20,175   $ 36,421  $ 102,830   $115,806
                                                       ========   ========  =========   ========
                                                       
Net earnings per basic common share ................   $   0.75   $   1.33  $    3.78   $   4.24
                                                       ========   ========  =========   ========
                                                       
Diluted:
Computation of weighted average number of
common and diluted equivalent shares
outstanding:-
   Weighted average number of shares outstanding ...     26,880     27,392     27,236     27,333
   Dilutive effect of stock options and stock awards        336        727        606        567
                                                       --------   --------  ---------   --------
   Weighted average number of common and
     diluted equivalent shares ...................       27,216     28,119     27,842     27,900
                                                       ========   ========  =========   ========

Net earnings attributable to common stockholders ...   $ 20,175   $ 36,421  $ 102,830   $115,806
                                                       ========   ========  =========   ========
                                                       
Net earnings per diluted common share ..............   $   0.74   $   1.30  $    3.69   $   4.15
                                                       ========   ========  =========   ========
                                                       
</TABLE>