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

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-14-00292-CV 

IN RE SCOTT ALAN ODAM 

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

 

August 27, 2014 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Appearing pro se, relator Scott Alan Odam electronically submitted a petition for 

writ of mandamus. Rather than tender the required filing fee or an affidavit of indigence, 

he argued in his pleading the filing fee was not applicable to him. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 

(requiring payment of fees).

In an August 1, 2014, letter to relator, we addressed his failure to pay the filing 

fee. We found none of his asserted grounds for exemption were meritorious and 

ordered relator to either pay the filing fee or establish indigence according to appellate 

rule 20.1 within fourteen days. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1 (indigence). Failure to comply 
2

with this order, we told relator, would result in dismissal of the proceeding without 

further notice.

More than the fourteen days have passed and relator has not complied with our 

order. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed. TEX. R. APP. P. 

42.3(c).

James T. Campbell

 Justice
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Ecoland International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending May 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David A. Wallace, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/David A. WallaceBy: David A. WallaceChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerDated: September 13, 2011
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report  included  in  this  Form  10-K,  into  the  Company's  previously  filed
Registration Statements, File Numbers 33-47479,  33-879650,  33-96436, 33-97760,
33-99792,  33-99794,  333-000140,   333-001070,  333-3424,  333-5781,  333-7097,
333-10681,  333-18003,  333-87908,  33-97710, 333-18347,  333-21095,  333-22725,
333-25209, 333-28251 and 333-42129.

                                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
April 7, 1998
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(S)

                           VARSITY SPIRIT CORPORATION
                            2525 Horizon Lake Drive
                               Memphis, TN 38133
                             Memphis, TN 38184-1609
                                  901-387-4370
                               Fax: 901-387-4356

June 4, 1996

Jeffrey G. Webb
2525 Horizon Lake Drive
Memphis, TN 38133

RE: Extension of Employment Agreement

Dear Jeff:

     This is to confirm the extension of the term of the Employment Agreement,
dated as of September 29, 1989, by and between you and Varsity Spirit
Corporation. Section 1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to provide
as follows:

     1. Employment. The Company agrees to employ Executive and Executive accepts
such employment for the initial period beginning as of the date hereof
(September 29, 1989) and ending on September 28, 1997, subject to possible
earlier termination pursuant to paragraph 1(d) hereof (the "Employment Period").

     Please indicate your agreement with the amendment set forth above by
executing this extension agreement in the space provided below and returning an
executed copy of this agreement to the undersigned.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Jeffrey G. Webb

Jeffrey G. Webb
President
Varsity Spirit Corporation

Accepted and agreed to this day of June, 1996

[NAME OF EMPLOYEE]

/s/ Jeffrey G. Webb
---------------------
(Signature)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           6,435
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,935
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 731,735
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,797
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,777
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,656,055
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   731,735
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,686,496
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,686,496)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,686,496)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.195)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.195)


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
RULE 13a-14(b) OR 15d-14(b) AND
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    the Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Exchange Act; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respect, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: November 13, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Stephen NagelPresident and Chief Financial Officer
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and Graphs |
|---------------------|-----------------------------|

| Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable) | Description of Proposed Provision:      Beginning in 2010, make all earnings subject to the OASDI payroll tax and give benefit credit using an PIA formula that is extended to provide less credit for those with AIMEs higher than the current-law maximum AIME level. The high end of the benefit formula, applied to 2009, would be: 15 percent of AIME between $4,482 and $8,900 ($106,800 divided by 12), plus 3 percent of AIME over $8,900. |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                           |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2009 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified November 4, 2009 |
1Pursuant 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-40809

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY CARMOUCHE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:98-CR-149-1

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

February 25, 2000

Before JONES, DUHÉ, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Anthony Carmouche has appealed the sentence which he received

upon pleading guilty of possessing lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD)

with intent to distribute it. We AFFIRM.

Carmouche contends that the district court clearly erred by

attributing to him, as relevant conduct, a quantity of

methamphetamine which he possessed about 17 months prior to his

commission of the offense of conviction. The district court did

not err by crediting the uncontradicted statement of the

confidential informant that he had regularly purchased LSD from

Carmouche during the two-year period preceding the date of the
offense of conviction. See United States v. Lokey, 945 F.2d 825,

839 (5th Cir. 1991). Carmouche’s methamphetamine possession was

relevant conduct because it was part of the same course of conduct,

i.e., his trafficking in controlled substances. See U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.3(a)(2); United States v. Robins, 978 F.2d 881, 889-90 (5th

Cir. 1992).

Carmouche contends that the district court reversibly erred by

denying him sentencing credit for acceptance of responsibility, as

provided by U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. The district court based its ruling

on findings that Carmouche had failed to truthfully admit the full

extent of his involvement in the offense of conviction; that he

falsely denied relevant conduct, i.e., another sale of LSD; and

that Carmouche made false representations concerning a pistol which

was in a vehicle where some of the negotiations occurred. These

findings are amply supported by the testimony of the undercover

officer at Carmouche’s sentencing hearing, which also corroborated

relevant information provided by the confidential informant. Such

misrepresentations disqualify a defendant from receiving credit for

acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Salinas, 122

F.3d 5, 7 (5th Cir. 1997). 

AFFIRMED.
#### J. H. CROWDER v. THE MURRAY CONSTRUCTION CO., Inc.

(Filed 10 November, 1926.)

Appeal and Error — Burden of Proof — Harmless Error.

Tbe defendant cannot successfully complain that in tbe trial court be was not required to take the burden of the issue in question.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Webb, J.,*at June Term, 1926, of Rock-ingham.

Civil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury to plaintiff’s automobile, tried in tbe Forsyth County Court on the following issues :

“1. Was the automobile of the plaintiff damaged by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.

“2. Did the plaintiff, by his own negligence contribute to the injury, as alleged in the answer? Answer: No.

“3. What damage, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant? Answer: $350.” . ■

On appeal to the Superior Court the cause was remanded for another hearing for errors in the admission of evidence and in the charge. From this order the plaintiff appeals.

*A. W. Bunn, Humphrey & Gwyn for plaintiff.*

*Bwinh, Clement, Hutchins & Feimster for defendant.*

Stact, C. J.

A perusal of the record leaves us with the impression that the assignments of error, based on exceptions to the admission of evidence, are without substantial merit. We deem it unnecessary to discuss them, as they present no new question of law.

His Honor sustained an exception to the charge on the ground that the defendant was not definitely required to handle the laboring oar on the second issue, in that, the judge of the county court simply told the jury “if they were satisfied by the greater weight of the evidence that the plaintiff, by his own negligence, proximately brought about his injury, they would answer the second issue Yes; otherwise No,” without saying whether the burden of proof, with respect to the issue of contributory negligence, was on the plaintiff or the defendant.

Without deciding whether there was error in the instruction as given, we think it is sufficient to say that, even if erroneous, the defendant is not in position to take advantage of it. The defendant has the burden of proof on the issue of contributory negligence, and, if he were not *503required to carry it, tbe plaintiff alone could complain, not tbe defendant. *Fleming v. R. R.,*160 N. C., 196.

We find no reversible error appearing on tbe record, bence tbe order remanding tbe cause for another bearing will be

Reversed.
#### W. J. TEEL v. L. E. KNOTT.

(Filed 25 March, 1931.)

Justices of the Peace E b — Application for writ of recordari held properly refused in this case.

Where the appellant from the judgment of a justice of the peace has given notice of appeal and paid the justice’s fee, together with the clerk’s fee for docketing the appeal, but no appeal has been docketed in the Superior Court and no fee received by the clerk nor notice of appeal given him, and application for a writ of *recordari*after the lapse of ten terms of the Superior Court is properly denied. *Helsabeck v. Grubbs,*171 N. C., 337, cited and applied; *Blacker v. Bullard,*196 N. C., 696, cited and distinguished.

*522Appeal by defendant from *Small, J.,*at September Term, 1930, o-f Pitt.

Petition for *recordari*to bring case from court of justice of the peace to Superior Court of Pitt County for trial *de novo. ,*

The case was properly before the justice of the peace, who heard it and rendered judgment therein, 31 August, 1929, in the presence of the parties and their counsel. The defendant, through his counsel, in open court, gave notice of appeal, and paid to the justice his fee, together with the clerk’s fee for docketing the appeal. No appeal has yet been docketed in the Superior Court of Pitt County, ten regular terms of which intervened between the rendition of the judgment in the justice’s court and the filing of application for *recorda/ri,*10 September, 1930. The clerk of the Superior Court has received no notice of the appeal, and no fee for docketing same has been paid or tendered to him.

Upon the foregoing findings, which appear in the judgment of the Superior Court, the application for writ of *recordari*was denied.

*B. T. Martin for plamtiff.*

*Jo<Ivn Rill Payior for defendant.*

Stacy, C. J.

Affirmed on authority of *Helsabeck v. Grubbs,*171 N. C., 337, 88 S. E., 473, and *MacKenzie v. Development Co.,*151 N. C., 276, 65 S. E., 1003.

*Blacker v. Bullard,*196 N. C., 696, 146 S. E., 807, is distinguishable.

Affirmed.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 373 

To strengthen the use of patient-experience data within the benefit-risk 

framework for approval of new drugs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 23, 2021 

Mr. WICKER (for himself and Ms. KLOBUCHAR) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To strengthen the use of patient-experience data within the 

benefit-risk framework for approval of new drugs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Better Empowerment 

5 Now to Enhance Framework and Improve Treatments Act 

6 of 2021’’ or the ‘‘BENEFIT Act of 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 373 IS

1 SEC. 2. STRENGTHENING THE USE OF PATIENT-EXPERI2 ENCE DATA WITHIN BENEFIT-RISK FRAME3 WORK. 

4 Section 569C of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos5 metic Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb–8c) is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (a)(1)— 

7 (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘; 

8 and’’ and inserting a semicolon; 

9 (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the 

10 period and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

11 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(C) as part of the risk-benefit assessment 

13 framework in the new drug approval process de14 scribed in section 505(d), considering relevant 

15 patient-focused drug development data, such as 

16 data from patient preference studies (benefit17 risk), patient reported outcome data, or patient 

18 experience data, developed by the sponsor of an 

19 application or another party.’’; and 

20 (2) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ‘‘, includ21 ing a description of how such data and information 

22 were considered in the risk benefit assessment de23 scribed in section 505(d)’’ before the period. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
| (1)    |        | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and                                                              |
|--------|--------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |
| (2)    |                                 | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report. |

| July 25, 2011 |       |                    |   |
|---------------|--------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|          |                           |                    |   |
|          |                           | /s/ Steven D. Bonham    |   |
|          |                           | Steven D. Bonham        |   |
|          |                           | Chief Financial Officer |   |

|        A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
** **

**Exhibit 31.3**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Mark G. Foletta,certify that:

 

1.         I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1to Form 10-K of Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and

 

2.         Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report.

 

 
| Date: April 19,  2010 |     |                                  |
|----------------------------|----------|---------------------------------------|
|                       |     |                                  |
|                       | By:      | /s/ Mark G. Foletta                   |
| * *                   | * * | *Senior  Vice President, Finance and* |
| * *                   | * * | *Chief  Financial Officer*            |

 

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 26, 2016

No. 04-15-00136-CV

Gerald HARRINGTON, M.D.,

Appellant

v.

Sandra SCHROEDER and Duane J. Ramos, Individually and as All Heirs to the Estate of 

Sylvia Ramos, Deceased,

Appellees

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-06284

Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

The court has considered the appellant's motion for en banc reconsideration, and the 

motion is DENIED.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 26th day of April, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
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 -0.02 -0.01 -1% -0%

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: Level of Monthly Benefits

Current law

[percent of payroll]

Change from current law

[percent of payroll] Shortfall eliminated

Proposed Provision: B5.7. Beginning for those newly eligible in 2026, reconfigure the special minimum 

benefit: (a) The number of years of work (YOWs) is determined as total quarters of coverage divided by 4, 

ignoring any fraction. Childcare years are granted to parents who have a child under 6, with a limit of 5 

such years. (b) At implementation, set the PIA for 30+ YOWs equal to 100 percent of the monthly HHS 

poverty level for the year prior to eligibility. For workers between 11 and 29 YOWs, reduce the special 

minimum by 3 1/3 percentage points per YOW so that at 29 YOWs the minimum would be 96 2/3% of 

poverty, ..., down to 11 YOWs at 36 2/3% of poverty. No minimum for 10 or fewer YOWs.

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
ACCEPTED

06-15-00143-CR

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

12/1/2015 4:49:26 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 12/2/2015 8:24:00 AM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 17, 2022. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, March 17, 2022 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A22D0264. TEDDY B. ALGER v. ATLANTA AUTO RESTORATION, LLC.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2021SUCV831