alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 21, 2017

No. 04-17-00417-CR

David S. BISHOP,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR3325

Laura Lee Parker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

We order the Clerk of this court to administratively close appeal numbers 04-17-00417-CR 

and 04-17-00418-CR and to transfer the motions for extension of time to file a notice of appeal that 

were filed under those appeal numbers to appeal numbers 04-17-00436-CR and 04-17-00437–CR.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _______________________
MINUTES

Court of Appeals

Fourth Court of Appeals District

San Antonio, Texas

July 21, 2017

No. 04-17-00417-CR

David S. BISHOP,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR3325

Laura Lee Parker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

We order the Clerk of this court to administratively close appeal numbers 04-17-00417-CR 

and 04-17-00418-CR and to transfer the motions for extension of time to file a notice of appeal that 

were filed under those appeal numbers to appeal numbers 04-17-00436-CR and 04-17-00437–CR.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: /s/ Luz Estrada

Entered this 21st day of July, 2017. Vol ____ Page ____
Opinion issued October 1 1 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 8
- 00 627
- CV

——————————— IN RE LESLIE LYNN MCDONALD , Relator

O rigi n al Proceeding on Petition f o r Writ o f Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Leslie Lynn McDonald , ha s filed a petition for a w rit of m andamus , challenging the trial court’s orders referring the case to arbitration “pursuant to the terms of the parties’ premarital agreement” and granting real party in interest David Tally McDonald’s summary

- judgment motions

. 1

1 The underlying case is In the Matter of the Marriage of Leslie Lynn McDonald and David Tally McDonald , Cause No. 2016

- 27310, in the 309th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Sheri Y. Dean presiding.2

W e d eny the petition and dismiss as moot relator’s motion for an emergency stay

. PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Lloyd

.
ACTIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE VIA ELECTRONIC BALLOT

JUNE 23, 2021

VOTED that the Executive Committee, on behalf of the Board of Regents pursuant to Board 

Bylaw 3.01, appoints Raul A. Anaya to the Board of Trustees of the National Museum of the 

American Latino for a two-year term, effective immediately.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                      ----------------------------------

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
SS&C Technologies, Inc. on Form S-8 (File numbers 333-07205, 333-07207, 333-
07211 and 333-07213) of our report dated February 25, 1998, except Note 14, the
Subsequent Events footnote, for which the date is March 20, 1998, on our audits
of the consolidated financial statements of SS&C Technologies, Inc. and
Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1997, and for the years ended December
31, 1995, 1996 and 1997, which report is incorporated by reference from the 1997
Annual Report to Stockholders in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


                                        Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.


Hartford, Connecticut
March 31, 1998
99th Congress, 2d Session Senate Document 99-30

VETO—S.J. RES. 316

MESSAGE

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

RETURNING

WITHOUT MY APPROVAL, S.J. RES. 316, A RESOLUTION THAT

WOULD HALT THE PROPOSED SALE OF DEFENSIVE MISSILES TO

SAUDI ARABIA

May 21, 1986.—Ordered to be printed

71-011 O

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1986
To the Senate of the United States:

I am returning herewith without my approval S.J. Res. 316, a 

resolution that would halt the proposed sale of defensive missiles to 

Saudi Arabia.

The U.S. defense relationship with Saudi Arabia was started by 

President Roosevelt in 1943 and endorsed by every President since. 

I cannot permit the Congress to dismantle this long-standing 

policy, damage our vital strategic, political and economic interests 

in the Middle East and undermine our balanced policy in that 

region.

The American people and their representatives should understand that this sale is in our interests. It is not just a favor to our 

friends in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, it is not being done at anyone's 

expense.

The security of Israel remains a top priority of this Administration. This sale will not endanger Israel's defenses, a fact that is underscored by Israel's decision not to oppose the sale.

Stability of the oil-rich Persian Gulf is another goal of great importance. In a region living in the shadow of the tragic and gruesome Iran-Iraq war, and threatened by religious fanaticism at its 

worst, we cannot afford to take stability for granted. Saudi willingness to stand up to Iranian threats has been key in preventing the 

spread of chaos. It has been Saudi Arabia's confidence in our commitment to its security that has allowed it to stand firm.

But Saudi Arabia produces no weapons of its own and we have 

not sold the Saudis new arms in almost 2 years. If we suddenly 

shut off that supply, it will weaken our own credibility, as well as 

the Saudis' ability to defend themselves. It would send the worst 

possible message as to America's dependability and courage.

Behind the scenes, the Saudis have aided the effort to combat 

terrorism, which is as much, if not more, of a threat to them as it 

is to us. Recently, they refused Qadhafi's requests for aid. Several 

times in recent months, they have been instrumental in offsetting 

unjust criticism of the United States and preventing radical states 

from undertaking joint action against our country.

The Saudis have proven their friendship and good will. They have 

assisted our efforts to support responsible governments in Egypt, 

Jordan, and Sudan. They have worked quietly in the search for 

peace in Lebanon, in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and in the Iran-Iraq 

war. They also provide impressive assistance to the government of 

Pakistan and to Afghan refugees.

In the long run this sale will be good for America, good for 

Israel, good for Saudi Arabia, and good for the cause of peace.

I ask members of both parties to sustain this veto and to join me 

in protecting our country's vital interest.

Ronald Reagan.

The White House, May 21, 1986.

(l)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MICHAEL W. MALTER, #96533

ROBERT G. HARRIS, #124678

JULIE H. ROME-BANKS, #142364

Binder & Malter, LLP

2775 Park Avenue

Santa Clara, CA 95050

Telephone: (408)295-1700

Facsimile: (408) 295-1531

Email: julie@bindermalter.com

Attorneys for Creditor

Brookview MHP Investors, LLC dba

Thunderbird Mobile Home Park

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, DIVISION 3

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION, 

and, 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC

COMPANY,

 Debtors.

9 Affects PG&E Corporation

9 Affects Pacific Gas and Electric

Company

: Affects both Debtors

Case No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11 (Lead Case)

(Jointly Administered)

Date: June 26, 2019

Time: 9:30 a.m. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I declare that:

I am employed in the County of Santa Clara, California. I am over the age of

eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled cause; my business address is

2775 Park Avenue, Santa Clara, California 95050. On June 12, 2019, I served the

following:

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEBTORS’ MOTION PURSUANT TO FRBP

4001(d) TO APPROVE STIPULATION WITH CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES

COMMISSION IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE PAGE 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2501-1 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 15:45:30 Page 1

of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

on the interested parties in said cause, by electronically through the Court’s CM/ECF

electronic noticing system on the following parties in this bankruptcy case:

Attorneys for Debtors:

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

Stephen Karotkin, Esq.

Email: stephen.karotkin@weil.com

Ray C. Schrock, PC, 

Email: ray.schrock@weil.com

Theodore E. Tsekerides, Esq.

Email: theodore.tsekerides@weil.com

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153

Attorneys for Debtors:

KELLER & BENVENUTTI LLP

Tobias S. Keller, Esq.

Email: tkeller@kellerbenvenutti.com

Jane Kim, Esq.

Email: jkim@kellerbenvenutti.com

650 California Street, Suite 1900

San Francisco, CA 94108

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that

this declaration was executed at Santa Clara, California on June 12, 2019.

/s/ Trang Do

Trang Do

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE PAGE 2

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2501-1 Filed: 06/12/19 Entered: 06/12/19 15:45:30 Page 2

of 2
906 CERTIFICATION

EXHIBIT 32.1


          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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Applied DNA
Sciences, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended December 31, 2003,, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Larry Lee, Chief Executive 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 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 the
Company.

                                                  /s/ Larry Lee
                                                      ------------
                                                      Larry Lee
                                                      Chief Executive Officer


Date:  February 18, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2620 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2620

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2000 Vassar Street in Reno, Nevada, as the ``Barbara F. Vucanovich 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 24, 2000

  Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. Bryan) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2000 Vassar Street in Reno, Nevada, as the ``Barbara F. Vucanovich 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2000 Vassar Street in Reno, Nevada, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Barbara F. Vucanovich Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Barbara F. 
Vucanovich Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
ACTIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE VIA ELECTRONIC BALLOT

FEBRUARY 16, 2023

VOTED that the Executive Committee, on behalf of the Board of Regents pursuant to Board 

Bylaw 3.01, authorizes the Secretary to submit to Congress a federal budget request for 

appropriated funds for fiscal year 2024 as part of the President’s budget in the amount of 

$1,241.0 million, as negotiated with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and 

authorizes the Secretary to inform OMB and Congress fully about the implications of the 

President’s budget for the mission and priorities of the Smithsonian.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Veeramuthu P. Gounder, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Argante R. Grippa and Tew G.A. Grippa, Respondents.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Veeramuthu P. Gounder, appellant pro se.Desena &amp; Sweeney LLP (Shawn P. O'Shaughnessy), for respondents.</p><p>Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Terrence C. O'Connor, J.), entered March 15, 2016. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>Plaintiff commenced this action to recover the principal sum of $25,000 for damages sustained to his vehicle when, while on the Long Island Expressway in Queens, New York, his vehicle rear-ended a vehicle operated by defendant Argante R. Grippa and owned by defendant Tew G.A. Grippa. After a nonjury trial on the issue of liability, the court granted defendants' motion for a directed verdict and dismissed the complaint.</p><p>It is well established that "a rear-end collision into a lawfully-stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of liability in favor of the operator of the stationary vehicle and imposes a duty of explanation on the operator of the moving vehicle" (<i>Parise v Meltzer</i>, 204 AD2d 295, 295 [1994]; <i>see also Johnson v Phillips</i>, 261 AD2d 269 [1999]). If the operator of the moving vehicle does not come forward with any evidence to rebut the inference of negligence, the operator of the stationary vehicle may be properly awarded judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability (<i>see Leonard v City of New York</i>, 273 AD2d 205 [2000]).</p><p>Here, defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by proffering the testimony of defendant Grippa, which established that defendants' vehicle had been stopped or was stopping because of traffic when it was struck in the rear by the vehicle driven by plaintiff. There was no evidence presented by plaintiff to show that there was any fault on the part of defendant Grippa. Plaintiff only testified that defendants' vehicle stopped short. "A claim of a sudden stop by the leading vehicle, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence" (<i>Byrne v Calogero</i>, 96 AD3d 704, 705 [2012]). There being no triable issue of fact raised as to liability, defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability (<i>see Szczerbiak v Pilat</i>, 90 NY2d 553 [1997]).</p><p>Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.</p><p>WESTON, J.P., PESCE and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: November 03, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         246,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 246,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,839
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     186,161
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   246,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2**
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
I, Ernest A. Bates, M.D., certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of American SharedHospital Services;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, 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 the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officers 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, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; and
b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986;] and
c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
d) Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (or the fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting;
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlsover financial reporting.        August 13, 2004 /s/ Ernest A. Bates, M.D.      Ernest A. Bates, M.D.Chief Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Willis and Bray Argued at Norfolk, Virginia

DAVID L. LINDSEY

v. Record No. 2553-93-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY CHIEF JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MAY 30, 1995

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY Glen A. Tyler, Judge James C. Hawks for appellant. Margaret Ann B. Walker, Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

David L. Lindsey appeals his conviction of distribution of cocaine in violation of Code § 18.2-248. Lindsey argues that the trial judge abused his discretion by denying Lindsey's motion for a continuance of his trial so he could be represented by privately retained counsel. We disagree and affirm Lindsey's conviction. "[B]road discretion is afforded the trial court in determining whether a continuance to obtain counsel should be granted. `[O]nly an unreasoning and arbitrary "insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for delay" violates the right to the assistance of counsel.'" Bolden v.

Commonwealth , 11 Va. App. 187, 191, 397 S.E.2d 534, 536 (1990)(citation omitted), cert. denied , 112 S. Ct. 382 (1991).

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.- 2 - A criminal defendant's right, if he can provide counsel for himself, to be represented by an attorney of his own choosing is only a qualified right, and the opportunity guaranteed to a defendant to secure counsel of his choice is only "a fair one." Paris v. Commonwealth , 9 Va. App. 454, 460, 389 S.E.2d 718, 721 (1990) (citation omitted). "`The limit of the right is necessarily found in the countervailing state interest . . . in proceeding with prosecutions on an orderly and expeditious basis.'" Id. Lindsey had a court-appointed attorney assigned to his case on September 30, 1993. Lindsey's December 8, 1993 trial date was set on November 19, 1993. Two days prior to trial, Lindsey retained private counsel. The motion for continuance was made on the day of trial. The Commonwealth was ready to proceed and its summonsed witnesses, one of whom was from out of town, were present and ready to testify. Lindsey failed to make a "justifiable request for a delay." "In order to justify a continuance `by the last minute change of counsel, exceptional circumstances must exist.'" Feigley v.

Commonwealth , 16 Va. App. 717, 721, 432 S.E.2d 520, 523 (1993). No exceptional circumstances are shown in the record. Lindsey gave no reason for his failure to retain counsel only two days

before court. Moreover, Lindsey has not shown that the denial of a continuance prejudiced his case. The record discloses that Lindsey's court-appointed counsel was well prepared for trial,- 3 - that he had sought and obtained discovery and had prepared a motion in limine which he argued at the trial. Further, Lindsey's only witness testified at the trial. Accordingly, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by denying appellant's motion for a continuance. Affirmed.