alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Nos. 04-10-00133-CR & 04-10-00134-CR

Frank TORRES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 1996CR0616 & 2003CR6882

Honorable Pat Priest, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 3, 2010

DISMISSED

Frank Torres filed notices of appeal in each of the underlying causes seeking to appeal the

trial court’s judgments that imposed twenty-year concurrent sentences on August 4, 2008. In appeal

number 04-10-00134-CR, the judgment was in accordance with Torres’s plea bargain agreement,

and the record does not contain a trial court’s certification showing Torres has the right of appeal.

Accordingly, appeal number 04-10-00134-CR is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). 
04-10-00133-CR & 04-10-00134-CR

-2-

In appeal number 04-10-00133-CR, the notice of appeal was required to be filed by

September 3, 2008; however, the notice of appeal was not filed in the trial court until January 25,

2010. This court lacksjurisdiction over an appeal of a criminal conviction in the absence of a timely,

written notice of appeal. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also

Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (out-of-time appeal from

final felony conviction may be sought by filing a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to article 11.07 of

the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure); Apt v. State, No. 04-03-00885-CR, 2004 WL 730832, at *1

(Tex. App.—San Antonio Apr. 7, 2004, no pet.) (unlike rule in civil cases, notice of appeal filed with

appellate court in criminal case is not deemed filed the same day with the trial court clerk) (not

designated for publication). Accordingly, appeal number 04-10-00133-CR is dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
EXHIBIT 21.1

Subsidiaries of Maxwell Technologies, Inc.



|                                                     |  |                               
|---------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------
|ENTITY                                               |  | STATE/COUNTRY OF INCORPORATION
|Maxwell Technologies SA                              |  | Switzerland                   
|Maxwell Technologies Systems Division, Inc.          |  | California                    
|PurePulse Technologies, Inc.                         |  | Delaware                      
|I-Bus/Phoenix, Inc.                                  |  | California                    
|Maxwell Holding, GmbH (formerly I-Bus/Phoenix, GmbH) |  | Germany                       
|MML Acquisition, Inc.                                |  | Delaware                      
|Maxwell Technologies GmbH                            |  | Germany                       
|Maxwell Technologies Ltd                             |  | United Kingdom
#### WARREN LUTHER CHEDESTER, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7444

May 21, 1975

535 P.2d 794

*Horace R. Goff,*State Public Defender, and *Gary A. Sheerin,*Deputy State Public Defender, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Larry R. Hicks,*District Attorney, and *Kathleen M. Wall,*Assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, for Respondent.

*317OPINION

By the Court,

Zenoff, J.:

On July 27, 1973, Warren Luther Chedester was convicted of attempting to obtain money by false pretenses and sentenced to a term of five years in the Nevada State Prison, sentence to be suspended and probation granted for three years.

The conviction stems from Chedester’s conduct on December 22 and December 29 of 1972 when he met with an undercover officer of the Reno Police Department on the tip of an informant who had firsthand knowledge that Chedester was promising to heal persons by use of a sonic meter which is a toy lie detector apparatus. The idea was that by connecting the machine to the fingertips it monitored spiritual and emotional responses to questions and somehow cleansed the soul. Chedester’s defense was that being of a religious mind, family and background he believed sincerely that when the spirit is troubled there are observable, physical and emotional manifestations which can sometimes be eliminated or reduced by the act of the spirit. He neglected, however, to relate these beliefs to the arresting and complaining officers.

His issues on appeal are whether the intended victim of the misrepresentations must actually be deceived in order for a conviction of attempting to obtain money by false pretenses to stand and whether his conduct was exempt from prosecution for his claim that his activities were in exercise of his freedom of religion.

1. The great weight of authority which we adopt holds that it is not necessary that the defendant’s intended victim be deceived by the falsity of the representations. See People v. Camodeca, 338 P.2d 903, 906 (Cal. 1959); People v. Lynam, 68 Cal.Rptr. 202 (Cal.App.2d 1968).

*3182. Chedester administered his so-called treatments for a fee. He never told the officer that his ministering of treatment was a form of religious practice which he claimed at trial and on this appeal.

In order to raise this religious defense he must be held to have explicitly proffered himself as making religious, as opposed to medical, scientific or otherwise secular, claims. Founding Church of Scientology v. United States, 409 F.2d 1146 (D.C.Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 963 (1969).

Affirmed.

Gunderson, C. J., and Batjer, Mowbray, and Thompson, JJ., concur.
#### DONALD EUGENE EARLYWINE, JR., Appellant, v. SHERIFF, ESMERALDA COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 10303

March 2, 1978

575 P.2d 599

*Skupa & Mainor,*Las Vegas, and *Gary L. Gardner,*Salem, Oregon, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; and *Alan R. Harter,*District Attorney, Esmeralda County, for Respondent.

*101OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

At the conclusion of a preliminary examination, Donald Eugene Earlywine, Jr., was ordered to stand trial for two counts of involuntary manslaughter (NRS 200.070). A pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus contended, *inter alia,*that the information is insufficient to support the charges of involuntary manslaughter. The habeas petition was denied and in this appeal Earlywine argues that we are compelled to reverse. We agree.

In the charging portion of each count of the information, it is alleged that Earlywine operated a vehicle “in an unlawful and criminally negligent manner, to-wit, by operating said vehicle with wilfull [sic] or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property in that the Defendant despite the existence of a special hazard with respect to pedestrians or other traffic, or as was necessary to avoid colliding with another vehicle, failed to maintain the duty to use due care, and did thereby cause or allow his vehicle to strike a 1966 Chevrolet vehicle . . . resulting in injury. ...”

The quoted language is, at best, conclusory and insufficient to charge the alleged crime. *See*NRS 173.035(3) which provides, in part, that “[a]ll informations shall set forth the crime committed according to the facts.” *See also*Bielling v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 112, 113, 508 P.2d 546 (1973), where we said: “In order to properly charge appellant with the offense of involuntary manslaughter, the information must specify the acts of *criminal negligence*upon which the state is relying to try to obtain a *conviction.”Cf.*Simpson v. District Court, 88 Nev. 654, 503 P.2d 1225 (1972).

Accordingly, we reverse without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to institute a new and sufficient accusation within fifteen (15) days after remittitur issues.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Peter L. Donato, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that the Annual Report of IRIS International, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of IRIS International, Inc. 

 

Date: March 5, 2009 

 

 

This certification shall not bedeemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Ace. Such certification shall not be deemed to beincorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
----

----

I Aktai, kuriuos skelbti privaloma

----

KOMISIJOS REGLAMENTAS (EB) Nr. 1080/2004

2004 m. birželio 8 d.

nustatantis kai kurių vaisių ir daržovių standartines importo vertes, kad būtų galima nustatyti įvežimo kainą

EUROPOS BENDRIJŲ KOMISIJA,

atsižvelgdama į Europos bendrijos steigimo sutartį,

atsižvelgdama į 1994 m. gruodžio 21 d. Komisijos reglamentą (EB) Nr. 3223/94 dėl vaisių ir daržovių importo taisyklių (1), ypač į jo 4 straipsnio 1 dalį,

kadangi:

PRIĖMĖ ŠĮ REGLAMENTĄ:

1 straipsnis

Reglamento (EB) Nr. 3223/94 4 straipsnyje nurodytos standartinės importo vertės nustatomos šio reglamento priede.

2 straipsnis

Šis reglamentas įsigalioja 2004 m. birželio 9 d.

Šis reglamentas yra privalomas visas ir tiesiogiai taikomas visose valstybėse narėse.

Priimta Briuselyje, 2004 m. birželio 8 d.

Komisijos vardu

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Generalinis direktorius žemės ūkio reikalams

----

(1)OL L 337, 1994 12 24, p. 66. Reglamentas su paskutiniais pakeitimais, padarytais Reglamentu (EB) Nr. 1947/2002 (OL L 299, 2002 11 1, p. 17).

----

PRIEDAS

prie 2004 m. birželio 8 d. Komisijos reglamento, nustatančio kai kurių vaisių ir daržovių standartines importo vertes, kad būtų galima nustatyti įvežimo kainą

----

(1)  Šalių nomenklatūra yra nustatyta Komisijos Reglamentu (EB) Nr. 2081/2003 (OL L 313, 2003 11 28, p. 11). Kodas „999“ žymi „kitą kilmę“.

----

----

KOMISIJOS REGLAMENTAS (EB) Nr. 1081/2004

2004 m. birželio 8 d.

leidžiantis nukrypti nuo Reglamento (EB) Nr. 1431/94 dėl importo licencijų galiojimo paukštienos sektoriuje

EUROPOS BENDRIJŲ KOMISIJA,

atsižvelgdama į Europos bendrijos steigimo sutartį,

atsižvelgdama į 1975 m. spalio 29 d. Tarybos reglamentą (EEB) Nr. 2777/75 dėl bendro paukštienos rinkos organizavimo (1), ypač į jo 3 straipsnio 2 dalį,

kadangi:

PRIĖMĖ ŠĮ REGLAMENTĄ:

1 straipsnis

Nukrypstant nuo Reglamento (EB) Nr. 1431/94 5 straipsnio pirmos dalies, licencijų, išduotų 2004 m. sausio 1 d.–2004 m. kovo 31 d. laikotarpiui iš Tailando importuojamiems 2 grupės produktams, galiojimas yra pratęsiamas iki 2004 m. rugsėjo 30 d.

2 straipsnis

Šis reglamentas įsigalioja septintą dieną po jo paskelbimo Europos Sąjungos oficialiajame leidinyje.

Šis reglamentas yra privalomas visas ir tiesiogiai taikomas visose valstybėse narėse.

Priimta Briuselyje, 2004 m. birželio 8 d.

Komisijos vardu

Franz FISCHLER

Komisijos narys

----

(1)OL L 282, 1975 11 1, p. 77. Reglamentas su paskutiniais pakeitimais, padarytais Reglamentu (EB) Nr. 806/2003 (OL L 122, 2003 5 16, p. 1).

(2)OL L 156, 1994 6 23, p. 9. Reglamentas su paskutiniais pakeitimais, padarytais Reglamentu (EB) Nr. 1043/2001 (OL L 145, 2001 5 31, p. 24).

(3)OL L 36, 2004 2 7, p. 59.

----
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.A., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 

FEDERAL AVAIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Miami, FL Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0026

Issued: October 27, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Lisa Varughese, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On September 9, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 15, 2020 nonmerit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate 

Boards assigned Docket No. 20-1595.

On October 6, 2020 appellant, through counsel, filed a duplicate appeal from the same 

April 15, 2020 nonmerit decision. The Clerk of the AppellateBoards inadvertently assigned that 

appeal Docket No. 21-0026. 

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that, since there are now two 

docket numbers assigned for a review of the same OWCP’ decision, one of the docket numbers 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.
2

must be dismissed. As the Clerk of the Appellate Boards inadvertently assigned Docket No. 21-

0026 to appellant’s second appeal request, this docket number shall be dismissed.2 Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-0026 is dismissed.

Issued: October 27, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

2 On April 21, 2021 the Board issued a decision in Docket No. 20-1595 affirming OWCP’s April15, 2020 decision. 

See Docket No. 20-1595 (issued April21, 2021).
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, NORTHVILLE POST 

OFFICE, Northville, MI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1252

Issued: September 29, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. MCGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On August 27, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from a February 2, 2021 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 22-1252.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’Compensation Act.1 

For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s review 

authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of OWCP’s 

decision.2

The 180th day following the February 2, 2021 decision was August 1, 2021. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until August 27, 2022, more than 180 days after the

February 2, 2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-1252 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered 

a reason to explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

2

 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e).
2

establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP 

within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed 

as No. 22-1252, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-1252 is dismissed.

Issued: September 29, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id. at 

§ 501.6(d).
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Douglas L. Schmick, Chief Executive Officer, in connection with the
Report on Form 10-Q of McCormick & Schmicks Seafood Restaurants, Inc. for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2008 (the Report), hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 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
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of McCormick & Schmicks Seafood Restaurants, Inc.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ DOUGLAS L. SCHMICK 
|Douglas L. Schmick     
|Chief Executive Officer

Dated: August 6, 2008
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 Defense

###### Department of the Army

# AGENCY:

Department of the Army, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice of availability.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of the Army announces the general availability of exclusive, partially exclusive or non-exclusive licenses relative to a novel Composite Processing technology as described in U.S. Patent 6,586,054; entitled “Apparatus and method for selectively distributing and controlling a means for impregnation of fibrous articles”; Shawn Walsh. Any license shall comply with 35 U.S.C 209 and 37 CFR 404.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael D. Rausa, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Technology Applications, ATTN: AMSRL-DP-T/Bldg. 434, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425, Telephone: (410) 278-5028.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

None.

Brenda S. Bowen,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 05-21520 Filed 10-27-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 214 (Monday, November 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 67501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22066]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Comment Request for Review of a Revised Information Collection: 
OPM Online Form 1417

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) intends to submit to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) a request for clearance of a revised 
information collection. OPM Online Form 1417, the Combined Federal 
Campaign (CFC) Information System form, collects information from the 
302 local CFC campaigns to verify campaign results and collect contact 
information. Revisions to the form clarify OPM's request for campaign 
costs, solicitation data, prior-year receipts, and the inclusion of 
electronic fund information (EFT). Campaign EFT information is released 
only to Federal payroll providers for the proper and timely 
disbursement of aggregated donor pledges. OPM has routinely collected 
EFT information through e-mail.
    We estimate 302 Online OPM Forms 1417 are completed annually. Each 
form takes approximately 20 minutes to complete. The annual estimated 
burden is 101 hours.
    Comments are particularly invited on: Whether this information is 
necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Office of 
Personnel Management, and whether it will have practical utility; 
whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of 
information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and 
methodology; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the 
collection of information on those who are to respond, through the 
appropriate use of technological collection techniques or other forms 
of information technology.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on 
(202) 606-8358, FAX (202) 418-3251 or E-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#650807110a0a08001c250a15084b020a13"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="95f8f7e1fafaf8f0ecd5fae5f8bbf2fae3">[email protected]</span></a>. 
Please be sure to include a mailing address with your request.

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 60 calendar 
days from the date of this publication.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to Cherlynn Stevens, CFC 
Operations, Office of CFC Operations, U.S. Office of Personnel 
Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 5450, Washington, DC 20415.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Linda M. Springer,
Director.
[FR Doc. 05-22066 Filed 11-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-46-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>