alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEM BER 30 , 2020

NO. 03

- 19

- 00769

- CV

Matthew S. Bovee, Appellant

v.

Heinz North America Div. of J.H. Heinz Co., L.P.; CBS News, Inc.; Michael Kasper Heinz;

Michael Charles Heinz; Mi chelle Heinz; and Jerika Duncan, Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES BAKER AND TRIANA

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

T his is an interlocutory appeal from the district court’s October 17, 2019 orders denying

Appellant’s TCPA motion to dismiss. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments,

the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the district court’s ord ers . Therefore, the

Court affirms the district court’s orders. The January 30, 2020 stay of trial

- level proceedings is

lifted a nd this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and section

27.009 of the Civil Practice and Rem edies Code. See former Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code

§ 27.009. Because A ppellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudica tion of costs is

made.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Agroecosystem Management Research: Lincoln, NE
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Lincoln, Nebraska Agroecosystem Management Research People & Locations







Joseph M Allen
                        Agroecosystem Management Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Aid
                        Phone: (402) 499-8281
                        
                        
                        Fax: (402) 472-4020(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
**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 Annual Report of Emeritus Corporation (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, Raymond R.
Brandstrom, 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
      Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
      and
 
 2.
    The
      information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.
 
 
 
 /s/    Raymond
R. Brandstrom
 Raymond
R. Brandstrom
 Chief
Financial Officer
 March 30,
2005
(8 App. Div. 306)

#### CORN EXCH. BANK v. BOSSIO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 31, 1896.)

Attachment—Withdrawal—Right to Order oe Vacation.

The fact that an attachment may be withdrawn does not defeat defendant’s right to an order vacating it.

Appeal from special term, New York county.

Action by the Corn Exchange Bank against Bartolomé Martinez Bossio. From so much of an order as denied a motion to vacate a warrant of attachment against defendant, issued on the 7th day of December, 1895, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before BARRETT, RUMSEY, PATTERSON, and INGRAHAM, JJ.

Antonio Knauth, for appellant.

John M. Bowers and Latham G. Reed, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

It is conceded that the first attachment, namely, that of December 7, 1895, fell because-of the failure to serve the summons as required by law. Upon the 14th day of May, 1896, the defendant served papers upon a motion to vacate this attachment, specifying as one of the grounds of the motion that the terms of the order of publication had not been complied with. Upon the 15th day of May, 1896, the plaintiff’s attorneys notified the defendant’s attorneys and the sheriff that the plaintiff withdrew the attachment. Still later, namely, May 19,1896, the sheriff returned the attachment with this indorsement: “The within attachment has been withdrawn.” The plaintiff now insists that, as the attachment fell by operation of law, and especially in view of its formal withdrawal, the motion to vacate was futile and unnecessary. It is, however, the settled practice not to leave the question of the existence or nonexistence of the attachment under such circumstances open upon the rec*995ord, and dependent upon evidence, but to enter a formal order in accordance with the facts and the legal consequences following thereupon. It was held in Betzemann v. Brooks, 31 Hun, 271, that, although the attachment had become inoperative by reason of the omission to serve the summons, yet the defendant was entitled to an order definitely declaring that to be the fact. The order in that case denying the application was accordingly reversed, and the attachment vacated. The same practice was adopted in Blossom v. Estes, 22 Hun, 472, affirmed 84 N. Y. 614. Indeed, this question of jurisdiction has in all the cases been determined upon motion to vacate. Taylor v. Troncoso, 76 N. Y. 599; Mojarrieta v. Saenz, 80 N. Y. 549; Gatlin v. Ricketts, 91 N. Y. 668. The defendant was entitled to a formal order giving legal effect upon the records of the court to the plaintiff’s withdrawal.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion to vacate the first attachment granted, with $10 costs.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 5, 2018

No. 04-18-00712-CR

Lisa Ann ESCOBEDO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 13, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 565471

Honorable Crystal D. Chandler, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On October 30, 2018, the court reporter filed a Notification of Late Record stating

appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee, and the appellant has failed to pay the 

fee or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing such record. Thereafter, we ordered 

appellant to file proof that either arrangements had been made to pay the reporter’s fee or that 

appellant was entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee. On November 27, 2018, 

appellant’s counsel notified the court that he had recently been appointed appellate counsel in 

accordance with article 26,04 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and that appellant is 

entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee. Accordingly, the court reporter is 

ORDERED to file the reporter’s record in this court no later than December 27, 2018.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of December, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
NUMBER 13-09-00561-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

SOUTHLAND FAB & OFFSHORE, INC., Appellant,

v.

UNIQUE STAFF LEASING I, LTD., Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

of Nueces County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Southland Fab & Offshore, Inc., perfected an appeal from a judgment

entered by the County Court at Law No. 1 of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number

06-62477-1. Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the parties
2

have reached a settlement and the appellant no longer wishes to prosecute the appeal.

Appellant requests that this Court dismiss the appeal.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s motion to

dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a). Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Costs will be taxed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of

the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal

at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will

issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 19th day of November, 2009.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
  CERTIFICATION
    Accompanying
    Form 10-Q
    Report
    of First Industrial, L.P.
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
    2002
    (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. §1350(a) and
    (b))
  Form 10-Q
  /s/ Michael W. Brennan
         /s/ Michael J. Havala
         A signed original of this written statement required by
    Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be
    retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
    Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The information
    contained in this written statement shall not be deemed
    filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, nor shall it be deemed
    incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act
    of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except as shall
    be expressly set forth by specific reference to such filing.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. EL21-39-000]

                    On December 31, 2020, Neptune Regional Transmission System, LLC (Neptune) and Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) (together, Neptune/LIPA), pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),[1]                                          filed a complaint alleging the assignment of costs pursuant to the provisions of the regional cost allocation method included in the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) Open Access Transmission Tariff (Tariff) results in unjust and unreasonable rates. In an order issued on June 25, 2021, the Commission found that Neptune/LIPA has raised questions of material fact about the 1%                     *de minimis*                     threshold and netting provisions of PJM's solution-based DFAX method and whether the rates may have become unjust and unreasonable.[2]                                          The Commission found that the record would benefit from further information and established paper hearing procedures to develop a further record.                

Any interested persons who currently are not parties to Docket No. EL21-39-000 may submit notices of intervention or motions to intervene, as appropriate, within 21 days of the date of the Commission's June 25, 2021 order establishing paper hearing procedures. The briefing schedule described in Ordering Paragraph (D) of the June 25, 2021 order will apply to such persons.

Dated: June 28, 2021.

Debbie-Anne A. Reese,

Deputy Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             16 U.S.C. 824e and 825e.                    
        Back to Citation      

2.                                                     *Neptune Reg'l Transmission Sys., LLC*                         v.                         *PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,*                         175 FERC ¶ 61,247, at P 29 (2021).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2021-14240 Filed 7-1-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Case: 1:02-cv-03310 Document #: 252 Filed: 12/21/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:3697
Case: 1:02-cv-03310 Document #: 252 Filed: 12/21/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:3698
Case: 1:02-cv-03310 Document #: 252 Filed: 12/21/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:3699
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. FRANK J. BOSLET JR., Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 697 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 21st day of January, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### SEP 11 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. PAULA CASTILLO ROGERS,

Defendant-Appellant. No. 97-4169 (D.C. No. 96-CR-023-02) (D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO , KELLY , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of malicious destruction of a building by means of a destructive device, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). The district court sentenced defendant to thirty-six mo nths in prison and ordered restitution in the amount of $59,452. This amount included restitution for the offense of conviction as well as for other offenses
. Defendant appeals from the restitution order, argui ng that the district court erred in ordering restitution for offenses other th an the offense of conviction. Petitioner believes the district court should have limited restitution to $350, the amount of loss for the offense of conviction. The government correctly concedes that the district court erred in ordering defendantto pay restitution for offenses for which she was not convicted. See Hughey v. United States , 495 U.S. 411, 413 (1990). We commend the government for recognizing and conce ding the error in defendant’s sentence. One hallmark of ethical advo cacy is making concessions that need to be made. We compliment the governmentin the hopes of encouraging others to follow this good example.-3-

The restitution order is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for resentencing with respect to restitution.

Entered for the Court
Robert H. Henry Circuit Judge
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF E.W.N.,

A CHILD. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 13

- 00345

- CV

Appeal from

431st District Court

of Denton County, Texas

(TC # 2009

- 20902

- 158)

CORRECTED JUDGMENT

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee

recover from Appellant and its sureties, if any, see T EX .R.A PP .P. 43.5, on the judgment and all

costs, both in this Court and the court below for which let execution issue. This decision shall be

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 26 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
* 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 February 14, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-30370 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CEDRIC ALLEN SENNETT, also known as Cedric Veazia, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:02-CR-20047-ALL

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Counsel appointed to represent Cedric Allen Sennett has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Sennett has not filed a response to counsel’s motion. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. 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.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 33-80065, 333-06563 and 333-114151) pertaining to the Secure
Computing Corporation Amended and Restated 1995 Omnibus Stock Plan, and the
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No.
333-16767) dated November 26, 1996, of our report dated January 30, 1996, with
respect to the financial statements included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Secure Computing Corporation.

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 27, 1997
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
I, Richard Baron, Vice President – Finance and Chief Financial Officer ofAnimas Corporation, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Animas 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 thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of AnimasCorporation as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. Animas Corporation’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to Animas Corporation, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and (c) disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting;
5. Animas Corporation’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors:
(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonable likely to adversely affect AnimasCorporation’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and (b) any fraud, whether material or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: November 15, 2004      By:     /s/ Richard Baron      Richard Baron   Vice President – Finance and Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Tyrone Brown, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

—Appeal unanimously dismissed as moot *(see, mem in People v Brown*[Appeal No. 2], 117 AD2d 978). (Appeal from order of Monroe County Court, Mark, J.—dismiss count three of indictment.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Denman, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.