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

JUDGMENT RENDERED JA NUARY 29, 2020

NO. 03

- 18

- 00655

- CR

Andrew Charles Gibson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 403RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE , JUSTICES TRIANA AN D SMITH AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction r en d ered by the trial court. Having reviewed

t he re cord and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment of conviction

. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of

conviction

. Because appellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is

made.
Exhibit 4.1



THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


240 Greenwich
Street, 22W Floor, New York, NY 10286


 


 


 


December 2, 2022


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


SmartTrust 593 (the “Fund”)


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York Mellon
is acting as trustee for the Fund, consisting of the unit investment trust (the “Trust”) included in the Registration
Statement relating to the Fund. We enclosed a list of the securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated
therein reflect our evaluation of such securities as of close of business on December 1, 2022, in accordance with the valuation method
set forth in the applicable Standard Terms and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New
York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations of the Trust securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-267532) filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the sale of the Units of the Trust and to the filing of this
consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/  Margarita
Kalantarova


Margarita Kalantarova


Vice President
EXHIBIT 23.1CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No. 333-130082 on FormS-8 of CSB Bancorp, Inc., Form S-3 of CSB Bancorp, Inc. Share Owner Dividend Reinvestment Plan andin the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of The Commercial & Savings Bank of Millersburg ProfitSharing and 401(k) Savings Retirement Plan and Trust of our report dated March 7, 2007, relating toour audit of the consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K ofCSB Bancorp, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006./s/S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.    Wexford, Pennsylvania
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-41347

JOHN ADI,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

WILLIE GREASON, JR., Chief Deputy Marshal of 

the United States Marshals Service for the Southern District of Texas;

CHIEF DEPUTY MARSHAL; 

GILES W. DALBY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; 

LACY, Warden CCA/Liberty County Jail; 

J. RASBEARY, Warden; SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS; 

RONALD G. THOMPSON, Regional Director; 

UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS, South Central Region; 

UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE,

Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

No. 1:05-CV-798

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 6, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-41347

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

2

Before JONES, Chief Judge, SMITH and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John Adi, federal prisoner # 24680-079, appeals the denial and dismissal

of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus. He claims that the delay between his sentencing and imprisonment violated his constitutional rights.

Adi was released from federal prison on September 20, 2008, and his parole expired in September 2009; the issues he raises on appeal have thus been rendered

moot by the completion of his term. See Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278

(5th Cir. 1987).

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED as moot.
----

| 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/ Clayton W. Williams |
|-------------------------|
| Clayton W. Williams     |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| February 28, 2011       |
|                    |
|                    |
| /s/ Michael L. Pollard  |
| Michael L. Pollard      |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| February 28, 2011       |
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3243 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3243

 To prohibit certain Federal agencies from requiring that any employee 
 of such an agency receive a COVID-19 vaccine, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 18, 2021

    Mr. Lee introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit certain Federal agencies from requiring that any employee 
 of such an agency receive a COVID-19 vaccine, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Our Federal Workforce 
from Forced COVID-19 Vaccination Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST AGENCY VACCINE MANDATES.

    (a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``agency'' means an 
executive department, agency, or independent establishment that is 
subject to the requirements of Executive Order 14042 (86 Fed. Reg. 
50985; relating to ensuring adequate COVID safety protocols for Federal 
contractors).
    (b) Prohibition.--No agency may require any employee of the agency, 
or any individual working on or in connection with a contract or 
subcontract with respect to the agency, to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DECEMBER 31,
1996 FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               35,589
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        33,313
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                          37,179
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    112,027
<PP&E>                                               12,817
<DEPRECIATION>                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      124,925
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                61,349
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                189
<OTHER-SE>                                          (97,378)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        124,925
<SALES>                                             140,321
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    140,321
<CGS>                                                92,613
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        92,613
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     57,323
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    9,555
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (19,170)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           (448)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (18,722)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (18,722)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (0.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.99)
                                               


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 63704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30198]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-59-000]


National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

December 6, 1995.
    Take notice that on November 30, 1995, National Fuel Gas Supply 
Corporation (National), pursuant to Section 12.5 of the General Terms 
and Conditions of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, 
tendered for filing as a limited application, pursuant to Section 4 of 
the Natural Gas Act, a proposed direct bill to recover unassigned gas 
costs effective on January 1, 1996.
    National states that the proposed limited Section 4 application 
provides for the recovery of unassigned gas costs incurred by National 
from the time it restructured its services on August 1, 1993, until the 
time CNG Transmission Corporation, Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation, and Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company implemented their 
restructured services.
    National further states that $184,647.89 of unassigned gas costs 
billed by those pipelines during that period, including interest, are 
to be recovered from National's customers pursuant to the allocation 
method set forth on Sheet Nos. 167 through 179 of National's tariff.
    National further states that copies of this compliance filing were 
served upon the company's jurisdictional customers and the regulatory 
commission's of the States of New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Delaware, 
Massachusetts, and New Jersey.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 214 or 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211). Pursuant to Section 154.210 
of the Commission's regulations, all such motions or protests must be 
filed not later than 12 days after the date of the filing noted above. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriated action to be taken but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-30198 Filed 12-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Motion G ranted ; Brief filed January 18, 2022 Stricken; and Order filed

August 4 , 20 2 2

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 2 0

- 00 083

- C R

____________ KENIA LASHAN WILKINS , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 339 th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1536960



### ORDER
Appellant’s brief includes charging documents as attachments, in association with a witness who testified during appellant’s trial. Those documents reference a
victim’s date of birth and the address and date of birth of the witness

. The S tate has filed a motion requ esting redaction of these references . The motion is GRANTED
and the brief is STRICKEN.
Appellant is ordered to file a brief within 10 days of the date of this order that
does not include unredacted references to a victim’s date of birth and the witness’s
address and date of birth.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Zimmerer, and Hassan.
Exhibit 13.2











PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with this Annual Report of Star Bulk Carriers Corp. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George Syllantavos, the Principal 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 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.





A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.





Date: March 30, 2011





/s/  George Syllantavos


George Syllantavos


Principal Financial Officer
WILLIE MAE THORNTON

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 4248

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 7, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Gary L. Bergosh

, Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Megan Lynne Long, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Robert Charles Lee, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS

, C.J., WETHERELL and BILBREY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
#### R. E. WADE v. W. H. LANE, THOMAS E. DARDEN and TOWN OF DUNN.

(Filed 28 September, 1927.)

Appeal by defendants, *W.*H. Lane and Thomas E. Darden, from *Harris, J.,*at Chambers, 26 March, 1927. From Haenett. Affirmed. This is an action in which the provisional remedy of injunction is asked.

*James Best for plaintiff.*

*Young & Young for defendants, Lane and Darden.*

Pee OuRiam.

On tbe record, as to material facts, there is serious conflict. Tbe court below continued tbe restraining order, or injunction, until tbe final bearing, requiring plaintiff to give bond to defendants for any damages they may sustain. See *Wentz v. Land Co.,*193 N. C., p. 32. Tbe judgment below is

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**Independent Auditors’ Consent**

 

The Board of Directors 

Genaera Corporation: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement Nos. 33-52882, 33-71984, 333-10889, 333-62073, and 333-69824 on Form S-8 and registrationstatement No. 333-73798 on Form S-3 of Genaera Corporation (formerly Magainin Pharmaceuticals Inc.) of our report dated February 13, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Genaera Corporation and subsidiary as of December 31, 2003and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ equity and comprehensive loss, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, which report appears in the December31, 2003 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Genaera Corporation. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP

 

Princeton, New Jersey 

March 24, 2004
Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

-3.61 -4.35 2.37 2.47 66% 57%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2023 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary

Social Security Administration

September 15, 2023

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

Current law

[percent of payroll]

Change from current law

[percent of payroll] Shortfall eliminated

Proposed Provision: E2.14. Apply OASDI 12.4 percent payroll tax rate on earnings above $250,000 

starting in 2025, and tax all earnings once the current-law taxable maximum exceeds $250,000. Provide 

benefit credit for earnings above the current-law taxable maximum that are subject to the payroll tax, using 

a secondary PIA formula. This secondary PIA formula involves: (1) an "AIME+" derived from annual 

earnings from each year after 2024 that were in excess of that year's current-law taxable maximum; and 

(2) a formula factor of 2 percent on this newly computed "AIME+".

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Income rates under current law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under current law

Cost rates with this provision

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Current law With this provision
#### D. C. McCOTTER v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILROAD CO.

(Filed 30 September, 1925.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Barnhill, J.,*at May Term, 1925, of Pamlico.

Civil action tried upon tbe following issue:

“Did tbe defendant negligently fail to furnish car fit and suitable for .the transportation of tbe potatoes shipped by plaintiff as alleged in tbe complaint? Answer: No.”

From a judgment on tbe verdict in favor of defendant, tbe plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.

*Z. V. Rawls for plaintiff.*

*Moore & Dunn for defendant.*

Pee Cueiam.

Tbe evidence is conflicting on tbe main issue of liability; it is solely a question of fact; tbe jury has determined tbe matter against tbe plaintiff; there is no reversible error appearing on tbe record; tbe exceptions relating to tbe exclusion of evidence, and tbe one to tbe charge, must be resolved in favor of tbe validity of tbe trial; tbe verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.
#### GEORGE LLOYD (Claimant) v. ADDIE BONEY LETSON and Husband, WILLIAM RALPH LETSON (Owners).

(Filed 20 March, 1957.)

Appeal by defendants from *Paul, J.,*November 1956 Term of ONSLOW.

Plaintiff seeks payment for materials alleged to have been purchased by defendants for the construction of a motel in Jacksonville and to impose a lien on defendants’ property on which the motel was constructed.

Defendants admitted purchasing materials to the amount of $23.80 for which they tendered payment. They denied purchasing any other materials and allege that the motel was constructed under a contract with one Kelly, and if in fact plaintiff furnished any materials entering into the construction of the motel other than the $23.80, the materials were sold and delivered to contractor Kelly and not to defendants. Judgment was entered on the verdict and defendants appeal.

*Beasley & Stevens for plaintiff appellee.*

*Jones, Reed & Griffin for defendant appellants.*

PER Curiam.

The liability of defendants was made to depend on the answer to the question: Who purchased plaintiff’s goods — defendants, as asserted by plaintiff, or Kelly, the contractor, as asserted by defendants? The jury answered the issue submitted to it in accord with the contention of plaintiff. Scrutiny of the record and briefs fails to disclose error of any legal questions justifying discussion.

No error.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7587-7588]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3042]



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

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS


Notice of Meeting

    The Commission of Fine Arts' next meeting is scheduled for 16 
February 1995 at 10:00 a.m. in the Commission's offices in the Pension 
Building, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 441 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 
20001 to discuss various projects affecting the 
[[Page 7588]] appearance of Washington, DC including buildings, 
memorials parks, etc.; also matters of design referred by other 
agencies of the government.
    Inquiries regarding the agenda and requests to submit written or 
oral statements should be addressed to Charles H. Atherton, Secretary, 
Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address or call the above number.

    Dated in Washington, DC, 30 January 1995.
Charles H. Atherton,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-3042 Filed 2-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6330-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1858

JOHN PAUL TURNER, a/k/a Pops,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

AUGUSTA COUNTY LIBRARY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District 

Judge. (7:11-cv-00361-SGW)

Submitted: November 2, 2011 Decided: November 15, 2011

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Paul Turner appeals the district court’s orders

dismissing this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1415(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2006), and denying his motion for 

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Turner v. Augusta County Library, No. 

7:11-cv-00361-SGW (W.D. Va. July 27, 2011; Aug. 4, 2011). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### John W. Velie, Respondent, v. The Newark City Fire Insurance Company, Appellant, Imleaded, etc.

Judgment‘affirmed, with costs, on payment of costs below and of appeal in ten days defendants may withdraw demurrer and answer over.

Opinion by

Learned, P, J.