alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered August 27 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 00336
- CR No. 05
- 15
- 00337
- CR
CHARLES ANTHONY WILL IAMS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dall as County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F11
- 49252
- V , F11
- 49253
- V



### O RDER Appellant was convicted of two offenses of violating the conditions of his civil commitment as a sexually violent predator. In the statement of facts, appellant identifies the compla ining witness of one of the underlying sexual assaults by her full name. Accordingly, we STRIKE appellant’s brief.
We ORDER appellant to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of this order, an amended brief that identifies the complaining witness of the under lying sexual assault by initials only.
We ORDER Peri Wood, official court reporter of the 292nd Judicial District Court to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of this order, State’s Exhibit no. 5, a CD.We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to Per i Wood, official court reporter,

292nd Judicial District Court, and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 46914]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18523]



[[Page 46914]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1772-DR]


Minnesota; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Minnesota (FEMA-1772-DR), dated June 25, 2008, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 5, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Minnesota is hereby amended to include the following 
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of June 25, 2008.

    Cook County for Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 [FR Doc. E8-18523 Filed 8-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

VTT TECHNICAL RESEARCH CENTRE OF 

FINLAND LTD.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

SITIME CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2020-2189

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California in No. 4:19-cv-01174-YGR, 

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

WILLIAM WOODFORD, Avantech Law, LLC, Minneapolis, MN, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented 

by JOHN A. DRAGSETH, Fish & Richardson PC, Minneapolis, 

MN; MICHAEL R. HEADLEY, Redwood City, CA. 

 DAVID A. JAKOPIN, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 

LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also 

represented by ROBERT M. FUHRER, McLean, VA; KENNETH 

E. KELLER, San Francisco, CA.

Case: 20-2189 Document: 36 Page: 1 Filed: 06/10/2021
 ______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (MOORE, Chief Judge, SCHALL and 

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

June 10, 2021

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 20-2189 Document: 36 Page: 2 Filed: 06/10/2021
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 601 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 601

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to revise certain provisions 
             relating to audits of vocational institutions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 20, 1995

  Mr. Frank of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was 
  referred to the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to revise certain provisions 
             relating to audits of vocational institutions.

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

SECTION 1. FINANCIAL AND COMPLIANCE AUDITS.

    Section 487(c)(1)(A)(i) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
U.S.C. 1094(c)(1)(A)(i)) is amended by striking ``on at least an annual 
basis,'' and inserting ``at least once every 2 years''.
                                 <all>
```
#### The Cleveland Ry. Co. *v.*Crooks.

(No. 23259

Decided April 27, 1932.)

*282*Messrs. Squire, Sanders <$> Dempsey*and *Mr. Donald M. Marshman,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Merman E. Kohen*and *Mr. Leonard S. Danaceau,*for defendant in error.

Stephenson, J.

The Court of Appeals did not pass on the motion for judgment on the pleadings and the record does not disclose that it was requested so to do.

It held that the operative facts embraced in the opening statement of counsel for plaintiff below presented a *prima facie*case.

We think the Court of Appeals was right. The petition in the trial court certainly stated a cause of action, and the statement of counsel was as broad and comprehensive as the petition, if not more so.

We are in accord with the law that the relation of carrier and passenger ceases when the person of the passenger parts company with the carrier’s vehicle, but the Court of Appeals very properly held that the railroad company owed this passenger an antecedent duty to do nothing that would tend to subject the passenger to anything more than the usual and ordinary perils of traffic; that if it created a condition that had such a tendency, a question of fact was made for the jury.

We have considered the law as announced in *Mahoning & Shenango Railway & Light Co.*v. *Leedy,*104 Ohio St., 487, 136 N. E., 198; *Reining, Admx.,*v. *Northern Ohio Traction & Light Co.,*107 Ohio St., 528, 140 N. E., 84; and *Cleveland Ry. Co.*v. *Sebesta,*121 Ohio St., 26, 166 N. E., 898, and we must agree with the Court of Appeals that there is a marked distinction between the operation of a street car, which runs on a fixed track and must stop on that track, and operation of a motor bus that has at least one-half the highway at its disposal.

The safe and sane point for the stoppage of a motor-bus, whether the stop be regular or irregular, is at the *283curb, where there can be no danger to the passenger who is alighting from vehicular traffic.

There was a question in this case, sufficiently pleaded and stated, as to whether or not the street railway company by stopping its motorbus- in the street, ten feet from the curb, did not create a dangerous condition constituting negligence, and it was a question of fact for the jury, and the Court of Appeals did not err in its ruling. The Court of Appeals is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Marshall, C. J., JoNes, Matthias, Day, AlleN and KiNkade, JJ., concur.
#### Ex Parte Lige Shacklett

No. 25281.

April 25, 1951.

Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing Denied (Without Written Opinion) June 13, 1951.

Hon. Ned Price, Judge Presiding.

*Alex P. Pope,*Tyler, for appellant.

*R. S. Burruss,*County Attorney, Tyler, and *George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

MORRISON, Judge.

Relator is confined in the Smith County jail following conviction in each of four cases charging a misdemeanor.

Relator presented to Honorable Ned Price, County Judge of Smith County, his application for habeas corpus alleging that he is afflicted with and suffering from a disease of such a nature that any species of confinement will endanger his life.

This appeal is from the judgment entered by Judge Price at the conclusion of the hearing, remanding relator to the custody of the sheriff until the fines and costs in said convictions are paid or satisfied.

The statement of facts fully supports the finding of the trial judge that relator failed to show that confinement would endanger his life.

Where the confinement is after conviction, it must be shown that any confinement would endanger the life of the prisoner before he is entitled to release. See Art. 137, C.C.P.; Thomas *218v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 562; Ex Parte Tittle, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 597; 40 S.W. 598.

The facts further support the trial court’s finding that the treatment prescribed by relator’s private physician, both medicines and diet, could be received by relator while confined in jail. Under such circumstances, relator is not entitled to release. See Ex Parte Lynch, 150 Tex. Cr. R. 239, 200 S.W. 2d 828.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No

. 201 800068

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v. 

### JARED S. JOHANSEN Corporal ( E

- 4 ) , U

. S

. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________ Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Lieutenant Colonel Michael D. Libretto, USMC

. Convening Authority: C ommand ing General, 2d Marine Aircraft Wing, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Cherry Point, NC

. Staff Judge Advocate’ s Recommendation: Lieutenant Colonel

Edward J. Danielson, USMC

. For Appellant : Commander Mark Takla
, JAGC, USN

.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________ Decided 31 Ma y 2018

_________________________ Before H UTCHISON , S AYEGH , and S TINSO N , Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justic e, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court
#### William D. Mann, Appellant, v. Peter F. Collier and Robert J. Collier, Respondents.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion.
STATEMENT OF MANAGING DIRECTOR


PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE








Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Richard J. DeGarmo, Managing Director of Biofuels Power Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that:





The Company’s Form 10-Q Report for the six months ended June 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Richard J. DeGarmo


Richard J. DeGarmo, Managing Director


Dated: November 22, 2010
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To the Shareholders of Protection One, Inc.:

As
independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Form 10-K/A-2 of our report dated March 10, 2000 (except with respect to the matter
discussed in Note 2, as to which the date is February 1, 2001), into the Company's previously filed Registration Statement File Numbers 033-83494, 033-99220, 033-95702, 033-97542, 333-02828,
333-02892, 333-20245, 333-24493, 333-50383, 333-64021, 333-77295, 333-30328 and 333-40158.

Arthur
Andersen LLP
Kansas City, Missouri
February 1, 2001

---
#### William B. Franklin and George Isham Scott, Respondents, v. Joseph H. Hoadley and Joseph Leiter, Appellants, Impleaded with Cyrus Field Judson.

■—Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion.
Exhibit 32.2




                  Certification of Principal Financial Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


I, Dennis L. Bergquist, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of
Molecular Diagnostics, Inc. (the "Registrant"), certify, to the best of my
knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the
period ended September 30, 2003 of the Registrant (the "Report"), that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all
            material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Registrant.

Date:  November 20, 2003

                                                 /s/ Dennis L. Bergquist
                                                 -----------------------------
                                                 Dennis L. Bergquist


NOTE:  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Molecular Diagnostics, Inc. and will be retained by Molecular
Diagnostics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by law,
be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONOF THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

I, Garen Bohlin, certifythat:

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sirtris Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge,this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financialreporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f))  for the registrant and have:

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

Date: August 13, 2007
| /s/ Garen Bohlin                                        |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Garen Bohlin                                            |
| Chief Operating  Officer  (principal financial officer) |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wayne Webster, Also Known as Gerald Jones, Appellant.

*778[677 NYS2d 492]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated November 3, 1997 *(.People v Webster,*244 AD2d 369), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 9, 1996.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see, Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.
July 7, 2016



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

PINNACLE PREMIER PRO PERTIES, INC. AND PI NNACLE REALTY

ADVISORS, INC , Appellant s
NO. 14

- 15

- 01037

- CV V.
GHISLAIN BRETON, CAT HERINE DENICOURT AND DAVID ANDREIS , Appellee s

________________________________ Today the Court heard the parties ’ joint motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on September 9, 2015. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.

We further order that mandate be issued immediat ely.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit 23.1
  
   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
   We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-142712 and Registration Statement No. 333-55836 on Forms S-8, and Registration Statement No. 333-116972, as amended, on Form S-3, of our reports dated December 8, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of
The Pantry, Inc., and the effectiveness of The Pantry, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Pantry, Inc., for the fiscal year ended September 24, 2009.
  /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
   Charlotte, North Carolina
   December 8, 2009
onb-ex41_368.htm



Exhibit 4.1

Description of Capital Stock

 

General

 

The following is a summary of information concerning capital stock of Old National Bancorp (the “Company”). The summaries and descriptions below do not purport to be complete.  It is subject to and qualified in its entirety by reference to our Articles of Incorporation and By-laws, each of which are incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of which this Exhibit 4.1 is a part.  We encourage you to read our Articles of Incorporation, our By-laws and the applicable provisions of the Indiana Code.

 

Common Stock

 

Shares Outstanding. The Company is authorized to issue up to 300,000,000 shares of common stock without par value (the “Common Stock”).

 

Dividends. Holders of shares of Common Stock are entitled to receive dividends when, as and if declared by the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) out of funds legally available for that purpose. 

 

Voting Rights. Each share of Common Stock is entitled to one vote on all matters submitted to a vote of stockholders. Holders of shares of Common Stock do not have cumulative voting rights. This means a holder of a single share of Common Stock cannot cast more than one vote for each position to be filled on the Board. It also means the holders of a majority of the shares of Common Stock entitled to vote in the election of directors can elect all directors standing for election and the holders of the remaining shares will not be able to elect any directors.

 

Other Rights. In the event of any liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the Company, holders of shares of Common Stock are entitled to ratable distribution of the remaining assets available for distribution to stockholders. The shares of Common Stock are not subject to redemption by operation of a sinking fund or otherwise. Holders of shares of Common Stock are not currently entitled to pre-emptive rights.

 

Fully Paid. The issued and outstanding shares of Common Stock are fully paid and non-assessable. This means the full purchase price for the outstanding shares of Common Stock has been paid and the holders of such shares will not be assessed any additional amounts for such shares. Any additional shares of Common Stock that the Company may issue in the future will also be fully paid and non-assessable.

 

Preferred Stock

 

The Company is authorized to issue up to 2,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock from time to time in one or more series and with such rights and preferences as determined by the Board with respect to each series.  There are no shares of Preferred Stock currently outstanding.

 

Transfer Agent 

 

The Company’s transfer agent is Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company.

 

Nasdaq Listing

 

The Common Stock is listed on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol “ONB.”
#### ITEM COMPANY, Limited, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Aaron LUBRITZ (doing business as the L & L Shop), Defendant and Appellant.

No. 13560.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Dec. 14, 1931.

Jos. Rosenberg, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Deutsch & Kerrigan, of New Orleans, for appellee.

JANVIER, J.

Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in the city of New Orleans in the publication of newspapers, sues defendant for $370, claiming that to be the balance due on a contract for advertising.

Defendant is in the clothing business in New Orleans and was induced by a solicitor for plaintiff to sign a contract, which forms the basis of this suit.

Defendant contends that, at the time .he signed the document, the blank spaces therein were not filled in, and that he instructed the solicitor to fill in the spaces to the effect that he would pay $5 per week, whereas the contract, as it appears in the record, stipulates for the payment of $10 per week for 400 weeks.

The trial court came to the conclusion that, at the time defendant signed the contract, it was properly filled in, and that he was liable for the balance remaining due in accordance therewith.

A reading of the record convinces us that the finding of the trial judge was correct. .

The judgment appealed from, is affirmed at the cost of appellant.

Affirmed.
#### Henry A. Taylor, Appellant, v. George Edward Heyl, alias George Edward *933Heyl-Dia, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Ho opinion.