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

No. 286P82.

Case below: 54 N.C. App. 451.

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 13 July 1982.
#### STATE v. MARTIN

No. 118 PC.

Case below: 40 N.C. App. 408.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 June 1979.
#### Henry Doscher, Appellant, *v.*Phelps Guardant Time Lock Company et al., Respondents.

*Doscher*v. *Phelps Guardant Time Loch Co.,*172 App. Div. 954, affirmed.

(Argued November 13, 1918;

decided December 3, 1918.

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of. the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 25, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on'trial at Special Term. The action was brought by the plaintiff, a stockholder of the Phelps Guardant Time Lock Company, to have declared a certain invention of the defendant Edwin S. Phelps, the president and general manager, to be the property of the said company, on the grounds that said Phelps had promised and agreed to give the said company the benefit of his inventions; that said invention cured a defect in a previous invention of said Phelps, for which prior invention the Phelps Guardant Time Lock Company had paid said Phelps by the issuance to him of $400,000 worth of its stock, and that under the circumstances," the relation of said Phelps to the company and the duty which he owed to it, the invention should become the. property of the company, independent of any agreement-on his part.

*Henry F. Cochrane*for appellant.

*Adolph Sonnenthal*for Phelps Guardant Time Lock Company, respondent.

*William Law Stout*for Edwin S. Phelps, respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan and Crane, JJ. Not sitting: McLaughlin, J.
Order entered January 23 , 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 22 - 01369 - CR

EX PARTE: S.L. On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Tr ial Court Cause No. 219 - 03832 - 2022 O RDER The State has moved for dismissal of this appeal asserting the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider appellant’s Motion to A mend T erms and C onditions of B ond. The Court requests that appellant file a respon se to the motion to dismiss. Any response must be filed on or before FEBRUARY 2, 2023

. /s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
KNICKERBOCKER VILLAGE INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-1998
<CASH>                                           40252
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   430237
<ALLOWANCES>                                    286000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1486516
<PP&E>                                         7660316
<DEPRECIATION>                                  396452
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                10452165
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1798774
<BONDS>                                        6089212
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        317048
<OTHER-SE>                                     1382486
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  10452165
<SALES>                                        7609547
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7618190
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  7134349
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              411159
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 483841
<INCOME-TAX>                                    236000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             247841
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    247841
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s

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 September 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-60287

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MORRIS JAMES, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

Case No. 2:03-CR-88 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Appellant Morris James was convicted of twenty-three
counts of mail fraud, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1341. He raises several i ssues on appeal. The court has carefully considered appellant’s position in light of the briefs, oral arguments, and pertinent portions of the record. We conclude that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate specific intent to defraud and thus to sustain James’s convictions. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying James’s request for2

subpoenas or an investigator because James failed to make the requisite showing of necessity at trial, and has not demonstrated to this court that the district court’s ruling was prejudicial to his defense. No Batson violation was present in the Government’s
use of peremptory challenges. Additionally, the district court did not err in its instruction to the jury concerning a matter of tax law. Finally, we hold that the district court’s admission of evidence at trial did not violate the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause. The district court judgment is AFFIRMED.
#### STATE v. LANIER

No. 37PC

Case below: 50 NC App 383

Petition by Attorney General for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 May 1981.
#### ROLLINS v. ROLLINS

No. 142 PC.

Case below: 51 N.C. App. 249.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 June 1981.
#### STATE v. DOVE

No. 161 PC.

Case below: 54 N.C. App. 692.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 March 1982.
EXHIBIT 31.1  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14 OR 15D-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Lindsay Semple, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, of Global Precision Medical Inc.; 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 report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report. 4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures 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 small business issuer's internal control over      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and 5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee 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 of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's  ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's  internal control over financial reporting.  Date: March ­­­­31, 2007 /s/ Lindsay Semple Lindsay Semple Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 5 Filed 05/11/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 5 Filed 05/11/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 5 Filed 05/11/2007 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 193 (Friday, October 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 56992]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4947]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation Board of 
Visitors; Meeting

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the schedule and summary agenda for the 
fall meeting of the Board of Visitors (BoV) for the Western Hemisphere 
Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC). Notice of this meeting is 
required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463). The 
Board's charter was renewed on February 1, 2006 in compliance with the 
requirements set forth in Title 10 U.S.C. 2166.
    Date: Friday, November 2, 2007.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.
    Location: WHINSEC, 35 Ridgeway Loop, Room 219, Fort Benning, GA
    Proposed Agenda: The WHINSEC BoV will be briefed on activities at 
the Institute since the last Board meeting on June 14, 2007 as well as 
receive other information appropriate to its interests. The BoV will be 
visiting classes from 9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: WHINSEC Board of Visitors Secretariat 
at (703) 692-7852 or (703) 692-8221.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At the time specified, the meeting is open 
to the public. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 
and 41 CFR 102-3.140(c), members of the public or interested groups may 
submit written statements to the advisory committee for consideration 
by the committee members. Written statements should be no longer than 
two type-written pages and sent via fax to (703) 614-8920 by 5 p.m. EST 
on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 for consideration at this meeting. In 
addition, public comments by individuals and organizations may be made 
from 1 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. during the meeting. Public comments will be 
limited to three minutes each. Anyone desiring to make an oral 
statement must register by sending a fax to (703) 614-8920 with their 
name, phone number, e-mail address, and the full text of their comments 
(no longer than two type-written pages) by 5 p.m. EST on Tuesday, 
October 30, 2007. The first ten requestors will be notified by 5 p.m. 
EST on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 of their time to address the Board 
during the public comment forum. All other comments will be retained 
for the record. Public seating is limited and will be available on a 
first come, first serve basis.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-4947 Filed 10-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 29 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 1 of 8Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 29 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 2 of 8Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 29 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 3 of 8Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 29 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 4 of 8Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 29 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 5 of 8Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 29 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 6 of 8Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 29 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 7 of 8Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 29 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 8 of 8
#### ELMWOOD v. ELMWOOD

No. 3 PC.

No. 49 (Spring Term).

Case below: 34 N.C. App. 652.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 24 January 1978.
Skip directly to site content Skip directly to search


Español  Other Languages


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC twenty four seven. Saving Lives, Protecting People
 Search
		×
			NIOSH
			NIOSH
				All CDC
				Submit
			For a full list of topics:A-Z Index
			Advanced Search
		Advanced Search


The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)








TRAUMATIC OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES						Print
																Related Pages
										collage of workers on the jobResearch
Traumatic Injury Program Portfolio
The National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA)
NIOSH Research Grants
							
					
							Last Reviewed:  July 26, 2022						Source: 	National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
					Facebook
        Twitter
        LinkedIn
        Syndicate Workplace Safety & Health Topics
Traumatic Occupational Injury
Research
Fast Facts
Resources
Data and Statistics Follow NIOSH Facebook
Pinterest
Twitter
YouTube
 NIOSH Homepage NIOSH A-Z
Workplace Safety & Health Topics
Publications and Products
Programs
Contact NIOSH


About CDC
					Contact Us
					800-232-4636
 Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn Youtube Pinterest Snapchat
 CONTACT CDC
				Contact Us
							Call 800-232-4636
							Email Us
			ABOUT CDC
				About CDC
							Jobs
							Funding
			POLICIES
				Accessibility
							External Links
							Privacy
							Policies
							No Fear Act
							FOIA
							OIG
							Nondiscrimination
							Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			CONNECT WITH US
				Facebook
								Twitter
								Instagram
								LinkedIn
							Youtube
								Pinterest
								Snapchat
								Email
			LANGUAGES
				Español
							繁體中文
							Tiếng Việt
							한국어
							Tagalog
							Русский
							العربية
							Kreyòl Ayisyen
							Français
							Polski
							Português
							Italiano
							Deutsch
							日本語
							فارسی
							English


U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
			Accessibility
			External Links
			Privacy
			Policies
			No Fear Act
			FOIA
			Nondiscrimination
			OIG
			Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			USA.gov


Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy Close
 Links with this icon  indicate that you are leaving the CDC website. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
				Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
				You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
				CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website. Website Disclaimers
 Cancel Continue
EXHIBIT
      23.1





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm











The Board
of Directors


Cytori
Therapeutics, Inc.:




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (Nos.
333-82074 and 333-122691) on Form S-8 and (Nos. 333-140875, 333-157023,
333-153233 and 333-134129) on Form S-3 of Cytori Therapeutics, Inc. of our
reports dated March 6, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of
Cytori Therapeutics, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008 and
2007, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive
loss, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the years in
the three-year period ended December 31, 2008, the accompanying schedule of
valuation and qualifying accounts, and the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting of Cytori Therapeutics, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2008, and to the reference to our firm in Item 6, Selected Financial Data,
which reports appear in the December 31, 2008, annual report on Form 10-K of
Cytori Therapeutics, Inc.





/s/
      KPMG LLPSan
      Diego, CaliforniaMarch
      6, 2009
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 3, 2015

s0126 

# Order

Clerk February 3, 2015

149198

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGA N,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 149198

COA: 319506

Macomb CC: 1984

- 000602

- FC

GEORGE JURICH,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 17, 2014 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
#### LACKEY v. DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES

No. 147 PC.

Now No. 88 PA 82.

Case below: 54 N.C. App. 57.

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 3 March 1982.
Case 7:07-cv-03458-SCR-GAY Document 6 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 189 (Monday, October 1, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 55785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4811]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Complementary & Alternative Medicine; Amended 
Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine Special Emphasis 
Panel, October 25, 2007, 9 a.m. to October 26, 2007, 5 p.m. Bethesda 
Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD, 20814 which was published 
in the Federal Register on August 16, 2007, 7246093.
    The meeting notice is being amended due to the meeting dates 
changing from October 25-26, 2007 to October 25, 2007. The meeting is 
closed to the public.

    Dated: September 19, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-4811 Filed 9-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1455**
**KA 13-00721**

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GARY CHAPPELL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (CAITLIN M. CONNELLY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (NICHOLAS T. TEXIDO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Christopher J. Burns, J.), rendered March 26, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of driving while ability impaired, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree and speeding.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a nonjury trial, of driving while ability impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]), aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (§ 511 [3] [a] [i]), and speeding (§ 1180 [d]). We reject defendant’s contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction. The arresting officer testified that, after he stopped defendant’s vehicle for speeding, defendant had glassy eyes and slurred speech, and he smelled of alcohol. In addition, defendant failed three of four field sobriety tests and refused to submit to a chemical test. That evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620, 621), is legally sufficient to establish that defendant operated a motor vehicle while his ability to do so was impaired by alcohol ( see People v McDonald , 27 AD3d 949, 950). The evidence is also legally sufficient to support the conviction of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree ( see People v Jarocha , 66 AD3d 1384, 1384, lv denied 13 NY3d 908). With respect to the speeding conviction, we conclude that, “even if the radar evidence standing alone were deemed insufficient to support the conviction, there is additional evidence here that sufficiently corroborates the accuracy of the radar reading so as to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” ( People v Knight , 72 NY2d 481, 488). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the**-2- 1455**
**KA 13-00721**

offenses in this bench trial ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349), we further conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495). Finally, we agree with the People that defendant’s attorney was not ineffective in failing to make a suppression motion “that ha[d] little or no chance of success” ( People v Stultz , 2 NY3d 277, 287, rearg denied 3 NY3d 702).

Entered: January 2, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court