alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 17

- 00089

- CR

MICHAEL TAPIA , Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2015

- 74

- C1

ORDER S AND ORDER ON REHEARING

We dismissed this appeal on March 22, 2017 because the notice of appeal was
untimely filed. Appellant’s motion for rehearing wa s due April 6, 2016. Appellant filed
a motion for extension of time to file his motion for rehearing, requesting a 15 day

exten sion. Before we could rule on the motion, appellant filed his motion for rehearing,
entitled “Motion for Rehearing and En Banc Reconsideration Pursuant to Tex. R. of App.

Proc. 49., 49.1,” on April 19, 2017.Tapia v. State Page 2

A ppellant’s motion for extension of time to f ile a motion for rehearing is granted;
the motion for rehearing is due as of the date i t was filed.
Along with the motion for rehearing, appellant also filed a Motion for
Appointment of Appeal Counsel and a Motion for Leave to File regarding the number of
copies of any motions filed. None of these motions were served as required by Rule 9.5
of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 9.5. However, we use Rule 2
to dispense with the service requirement and move to a disposition of appellant ’s

motions. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 2.
Appellant’s “Motion for Rehearing and En Banc Reconsideration Pursuant to Tex.
R. of App. Proc. 49., 49.1” is denied. Appellant’s Motion for App ointment of Appeal

Counsel and Motion for Leave are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Motion for extension of time granted Motion for rehearing denied Motion for appointment of counsel dismissed as moot Motion for leave dismissed as moot Order issued and filed April 2 6 , 2017
**Exhibit 7**

 

**Computation of consolidated ratio of earnings to fixed charges**

 

The following table sets out the calculation of the ratios of earnings to fixed charges (unaudited) for the periods indicated.

 
| ** **                                                                    | ** ** | **Year Ended 30 September** | ** ** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|--------------------------------------------|------------|
| ** **                                                                    | ** ** | ** **                                 | ** ** |
| (in $AUD millions, unless otherwise indicated)       | ** ** | **2013**                                   | ** ** | **2012** | ** ** | **2011** | ** ** | **2010** | ** ** | **2009** | ** ** |
| Profit   before income tax                                                    |       | 9,865                                      |       | 8,862 |   | 8,514 |   | 8,038 |   | 6,096 |   |
| Add fixed   charges                                                           |       | 20,332                                     |       | 24,549 |   | 26,270 |   | 22,470 |   | 18,945 |   |
| Less   minority interest in subsidiaries that have not incurred fixed charges |       | (74                                        | )          | (66 | ) | (68 | ) | (66 | ) | (71 | ) |
| **Earnings before tax and fixed charges**                                     |       | 30,123                                     |       | 33,345 |   | 34,716 |   | 30,442 |   | 24,970 |   |
|                                                                          |       |                                       |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest   expense                                                            |       | 20,144                                     |       | 24,371 |   | 26,102 |   | 22,309 |   | 18,800 |   |
| Portion of   rent estimated to represent interest expense                     |       | 188                                        |       | 178 |   | 168 |   | 161 |   | 145 |   |
| **Fixed charges**                                                             |       | 20,332                                     |       | 24,549 |   | 26,270 |   | 22,470 |   | 18,945 |   |
|                                                                          |       |                                       |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| **Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (%)**                                    | ** ** | **1.48**                                   | ** ** | **1.36** | ** ** | **1.32** | ** ** | **1.35** | ** ** | **1.32** | ** ** |

 

----
#### Reverend J. E. MURRAY, on Behalf of Himself and All Other Taxpayers or Residents of the City of South Miami, Florida, Assessed a Garbage Service Charge or Tax by the City of South Miami, Florida, Appellant, v. CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, Florida, a Municipal Corporation, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. En Banc.

Feb. 23, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
CERTIFICATE OF TRUST

                                       OF

                             WRP CONVERTIBLE TRUST I

     THIS Certificate of Trust of WRP CONVERTIBLE TRUST I (the "Trust") is being
duly executed and filed on behalf of the Trust by the undersigned,  as trustees,
to form a business  trust under the  Delaware  Business  Trust Act (12 Del. C. `
3801 et -- seq.) (the "Act").

     1. Name. The name of the business trust formed by this Certificate of Trust
is WRP CONVERTIBLE TRUST I.

     2. Delaware  Trustee.  The name and business  address of the trustee of the
Trust in the State of Delaware  are  Wilmington  Trust  Company,  Rodney  Square
North,  1100  North  Market  Street,  Wilmington,  Delaware  19890-00001,  Attn:
Corporate Trust Administration.

     3.  Effective  Date.  This  Certificate  of Trust shall be  effective  upon
filing.


     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate of
Trust in accordance with Section 3811(a)(1) of the Act.

               WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, as trustee

               By:  /s/   Kathleen A. Pedelini
                    --------------------------
                    Name:  Kathleen A. Pedelini
                    Title:  Administrative  Account Manager


                    RODNEY F. DUBOIS,  as trustee


               By:  /s/ Rodney F. Du Bois
                    --------------------------


                    JAMES J. BURNS, as trustee

               By:  /s/ James J. Burns
                    --------------------------
#### Irene Humphreys, Plaintiff, v. Board of Education of the City of New York et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Queens County,

February 5, 1957.

*Emanuel L. Gordon*for Sidney Goldensohn.

*Frederick J. Britton*for Margaret Kraft, defendant.

Samuel Rabin, J.

The plaintiff and her husband were legally separated in March, 1955. In February, 1956 the husband withdrew the plaintiff’s name as beneficiary of his pension fund and substituted the individual defendant’s name. Thereafter the husband died and plaintiff brought this action to receive the proceeds of said fund on the theory that the husband was incompetent when the change of beneficiaries was made.

*595A subpoena was served on the physician who attended the deceased husband, and this application is made by him to vacate it.

The will of the deceased, which names the individual defendant executrix has not been offered for probate.

Section 352 of the Civil Practice Act provides that a physician shall not be allowed to disclose any information which he acquired in attending a patient in a professional capacity and which was necessary for him to act in that capacity.

Section 354 of the Civil Practice Act provides in part as follows: ‘1 But a physician or surgeon or a registered professional or licensed practical nurse, upon the trial or examination, may disclose any information as to the mental or physical condition of a patient who is deceased, which he acquired in attending such patient professionally, except such confidential communications as would tend to disgrace the memory of the patient and such facts as would tend to disgrace his memory, when the provisions of section three hundred and fifty-two have been expressly waived on such trial or examination by the personal representatives of the deceased patient ’ ’.

Since the decedent’s will has not been probated and no letters of administration issued, the decedent has no ‘1 personal representatives ” within the meaning of section 354. The words ‘ ‘ personal representatives ’ ’ as used in section 354 apply only to executors and administrators. *(Sulz*v. *Mutual Reserve Fund Life Assn.,*145 N. Y. 563, 574.)

Accordingly, since there is no one competent to waive the privilege in any of the manners specified in section 354, section 352 stands as a complete bar and the application to vacate the subpoena is granted.

Submit order.
EXHIBIT 21

A.G. EDWARDS, INC.

REGISTRANTS SUBSIDIARIES

The following listing includes the registrants directly-owned subsidiaries and indirectly-owned subsidiaries (certain subsidiaries that are not significant are omitted from the listing), all of which are included in the consolidated financial statements:

|                                    |  | State of        |              |                          
|----------------------------------- |  | --------------- | ------------ | -------------------------
|                                    |  | Incorporation/  |              |                          
|Name of Company                     |  |                 | Organization |                          
|A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.           |  | Delaware        |              | Registrant               
|A.G. Edwards Technology Group, Inc. |  | Missouri        |              | A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.
|A.G. Edwards Hedging Services, Inc. |  | Nevada          |              | Registrant               
|A.G. Edwards Trust Company FSB      |  | Federal Charter |              | Registrant               
|A.G.E. Properties, Inc.             |  | Missouri        |              | Registrant               
|AGE Investments, Inc.               |  | Delaware        |              | Registrant               
|Beaumont Insurance Company          |  | Vermont         |              | AGE Investments, Inc.    
|A.G. Edwards Capital, Inc.          |  | Delaware        |              | Registrant               
|AGE Capital Holding, Inc.           |  | Delaware        |              | Registrant               
|AGE International, Inc.             |  | Delaware        |              | Registrant               
|A.G. Edwards & Sons (UK) Limited    |  | United Kingdom  |              | AGE International, Inc.  
|Gallatin Asset Management, Inc.     |  | Delaware        |              | Registrant               

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7317

CARL M. RICHARDSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-460-7) Submitted: January 18, 2000 Decided: March 7, 2000 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl M. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* To the extent that Richardson asserts new claims in his informal brief in this court, we conclude those claims are either procedurally defaulted or not cognizable for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States , 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). 2 PER CURIAM: Carl M. Richardson appeals the district courts order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Richardson v. Angelone, No. CA-99-460-7 (W.D. Va. Aug. 28, 1999). * We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### WILLIAM BOORSTEIN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. GEORGE HOWARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND TRADING AS LYCEUM FUR SHOP, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Submitted October 7, 1947

Decided January 6, 1948.

*360Before Justices Bodine, Heher and Wachenfeld.

For the plaintiff-appellant, *William*Boorstein, *pro se.*

For the defendant-respondent, no appearance.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Wachenfeld, J.

Appellant, alleging fraud, seeks to re-

dover $150 paid to settle a claim arising from purchase of clothing made by his wife.

On September 29th, 1943, George Howard sold to Mrs. William Boorstein, the estranged wife of the appellant, a fur coat for $385, taking a one-third down payment, leaving a balance of $256.67. A month later Howard billed the appellant' for the coat and several dresses and instituted suit for collection. Appellant, having been informed of the part payment, settled the claim for $150. Four months later he found a copy of the original invoice for the coat, addressed to Mrs. Boorstein, on which was written, “Balance to be paid in cash.” Interpreting this to mean the coat was not purchased on his credit, he'demanded the return of the $150, for which sum this action was brought. The District Court, sitting without a jury entered judgment for the respondent.

The record falls far short of establishing fraud. The sales of clothing were made to appellant’s wife, for which he made payment in settlement of' the amount due. There was no misrepresentation of fact which justifies interference with that settlement or the judgment.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1277 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to clarify the treatment 

of payment under the Medicare program for clinical laboratory tests 

furnished by critical access hospitals. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 3, 2007 

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to clarify 

the treatment of payment under the Medicare program 

for clinical laboratory tests furnished by critical access 

hospitals. 

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 ‘‘Critical Access to Clin5 ical Lab Services Act of 2007’’. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 1277 IS

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF PAYMENT FOR CLINICAL LAB2 ORATORY TESTS FURNISHED BY CRITICAL 

3 ACCESS HOSPITALS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1834(g)(4) of the Social 

5 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(g)(4)) is amended— 

6 (1) in the heading, by striking ‘‘NO BENE7 FICIARY COST-SHARING FOR’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘TREATMENT OF’’; and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following new sen10 tence: ‘‘For purposes of the preceding sentence and 

11 section 1861(mm)(3), clinical diagnostic laboratory 

12 services furnished by a critical access hospital shall 

13 be treated as being furnished as part of outpatient 

14 critical access services without regard to whether— 

15 ‘‘(A) the individual with respect to whom 

16 such services are furnished is physically present 

17 in the critical access hospital at the time the 

18 specimen is collected; 

19 ‘‘(B) such individual is registered as an 

20 outpatient on the records of, and receives such 

21 services directly from, the critical access hos22 pital; or 

23 ‘‘(C) payment is (or, but for this sub24 section, would be) available for such services 

25 under the fee schedule established under section 

26 1833(h).’’. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•S 1277 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 subsection (a) shall apply to cost reporting periods begin3 ning on or after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
#### Kathleen Shirley KENNEDY, Appellant, v. Walter L. KENNEDY, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

Feb. 16, 1954.

Rehearing Denied March 12, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Case 1:11-cr-00312-WJM Document 17 Filed 11/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5
Case 1:11-cr-00312-WJM Document 17 Filed 11/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 5
Case 1:11-cr-00312-WJM Document 17 Filed 11/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 5
Case 1:11-cr-00312-WJM Document 17 Filed 11/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 5
Case 1:11-cr-00312-WJM Document 17 Filed 11/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 5
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BRITNI HIATT,

Appellant,

v.

STEVE MATHIEU,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-1429

[February 15, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Caryn Siperstein, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2021-DR005965-XXXX-MB.

Jean M. Henne of Jean M. Henne, P.A., Winter Haven, for appellant.

Adam Richardson of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, 

for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Wage & Investment Reducing Taxpayer Burden (Notices) Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted via telephone conference call. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Wednesday, November 19, 2008. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sallie Chavez at 1-888-912-1227, or 954-423-7979. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Wage & Investment Reducing Taxpayer Burden (Notices) Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Wednesday, November 19, 2008, at 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time via a telephone conference call. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979, or write Sallie Chavez, TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Sallie Chavez. Ms. Chavez can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979, or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

*The agenda will include:*                     Various IRS issues.                 

Dated: September 26, 2008. 

Roy L. Block, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

 [FR Doc. E8-23640 Filed 10-6-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-24-00390-CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding

352nd District Court of Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 352-343813-23

Before Womack, Birdwell, and Walker, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN RE FLYPSI, INC., Relator
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered “Relator’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus,” “Real 

Party in Interest’s Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus,” and “Relator’s Reply 

in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandamus” and is of the opinion that relief should 

be denied. Accordingly, “Relator’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus” is denied.

Per Curiam

Delivered: September 5, 2024
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 197 (Thursday, October 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 59640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23783]



[[Page 59640]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Environmental Health Sciences Review 
Committee; EHS Training Grants Review Meeting.
    Date: November 12-13, 2008.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Sheraton Chapel Hill, One Europa Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 
27517.
    Contact Person: Linda K Bass, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Nat'l. Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 
P.O. Box 12233, MD EC-24, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 
541-1307.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.115, 
Biometry and Risk Estimation--Health Risks from Environmental 
Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety 
Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund Hazardous Substances--Basic 
Research and Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower Development 
in the Environmental Health Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to 
Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, Applied Toxicological Research 
and Testing, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 1, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
 [FR Doc. E8-23783 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Case 1:11-po-00105-DW Document 32 Filed 05/01/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7
Case 1:11-po-00105-DW Document 32 Filed 05/01/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 7
Case 1:11-po-00105-DW Document 32 Filed 05/01/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 7
Case 1:11-po-00105-DW Document 32 Filed 05/01/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 7
Case 1:11-po-00105-DW Document 32 Filed 05/01/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 7
Case 1:11-po-00105-DW Document 32 Filed 05/01/12 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 7
Case 1:11-po-00105-DW Document 32 Filed 05/01/12 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 7