alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
July 10, 2012



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CHRISTOPHER JAMES ST ARKS , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00848

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

### MANDATE



## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 11

- 00848

- CR

Christopher James Starks, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appealed from the 174th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1294911). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice McCally. Justices Frost and Busby also participating.

TO THE 174TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals on July 10, 2012 , the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment was determined. Our Court o f Appeals made its order in these
words:

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

.

We furth er order this decision certified below for observance.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this behalf and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS , the Hon. Adele Hedges, Chief Justice of our Fourteenth Court of Appeals, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Houston, .

CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE, Clerk
#### CLARK v. SANGER CLINIC, P.A.

No. 205P01

Case below: 142 N.C. App. 350

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 May 2001. Conditional petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 dismissed as moot 3 May 2001.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                        Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-3 No. 33-85334) of Polyphase Corporation and in the related Prospectus and in
the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-03333, No. 33-82008 and No. 33-
72458) pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan and various stock option
agreements of our report dated December 11, 2000, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Polyphase Corporation included
in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 30, 2000.



                                                           ERNST & YOUNG LLP

December 21, 2000
Dallas, Texas
#### EVANGELINE SCOTT DANCY, Employee v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Employer, SELF/FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY

No. 436A00

(Filed 4 May 2001)

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 139 N.C. App. 553, 534 S.E.2d 601 (2000), reversing an opinion and award entered by the North Carolina Industrial Commission on 26 February 1999 and remanding the case for further proceedings. Heard in the Supreme Court 17 April 2001.

*Ralph G. Willey, RA., by Ralph G. Willey, III, for plaintiff - appellant.*

*Brooks, Stevens & Pope, P.A., by Michael C. Sigmon and Matthew P. Blake, for defendant-appellants.*

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

Justice EDMUNDS did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

    Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
      As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned
President of Ironton Iron, Inc. (the "Company") and Vice President of Finance
and Chief Financial Officer of INTERMET Corporation, which is the owner of all
of the issued and outstanding common stock of the Company, hereby certify, based
on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Robert E. Belts
---------------------
Robert E. Belts
May 10, 2004
|Exhibit 4.71
|------------



Power of Attorney



I, Zhengyu Chen, the shareholder of Beijing Star World Technology
Company Limited (“Beijing Star World”), hold 30% equity interest in Beijing Star World. I, hereby, authorize
Qizhi Software (Beijing) Co., Ltd.(“Qizhi Software ”) to exercise all the shareholder rights in connection
with my 30% equity interest in Beijing Star World and irrevocably authorize Qizhi Software to exercise the following rights during
the term of this power of attorney:



I hereby authorize Qizhi Software, as my attorney-in-fact, to
exercise on my behalf, all the shareholder rights in connection with my 30% equity interest in Beijing Star World in accordance
with laws and the Articles of Association of Beijing Star World, including but not limited to: the right to propose to summon shareholders’
meetings, to receive notice regarding convening and agenda of shareholders’ meetings, to attend shareholders’ meetings
and to exercise the voting rights attached to my 30% equity interest in Beijing Star World at the shareholders’ meeting (including
voting on matters such as designation and appointment of directors, general manager, chief financial operator and other senior
management of Beijing Star World, dividends distribution plan and etc., as my authorized representative on the shareholders’
meeting), sell or transfer my 30% equity interest in Beijing Star World.



Qizhi Software is entitled to appoint another individual designated
by its board of directors (or executive directors) to exercise the rights authorized by Beijing Star World under this power of
attorney.



Unless the early termination of Business Operation Agreement
jointly executed by Beijing Star World, Qizhi Software, Jianming Dong Zhenyu Xie and I, no matter for whatever reasons, the term
of this power of attorney is ten (10) years upon the signing date of this power of attorney. If this power of attorney is expired,
I shall agree to extend the term of this power of attorney as requested by Qizhi Software.



[The remainder of this page intentionally
left blank]











[This is the signature page]





|Authorizer:             | 
|----------------------- | 
|Zhengyu Chen            | 
|                        | 
|/s/ Zhengyu Chen        | 
|Date: December 17, 2009 | 
|                        | 







|Authorizee:                        | 
|---------------------------------- | 
|Qizhi Software (Beijing) Co., Ltd. | 





|(Chop): | /s/ [Company Stamp of Qizhi Software (Beijing) Co., Ltd.] | 
|------- | --------------------------------------------------------- | 





|Legal Representative/Authorized Representative: | /s/ Hongyi Zhou | 
|----------------------------------------------- | --------------- | 





|Date: December 17, 2009 | 
|----------------------- |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>            5
<MULTIPLIER>         1
       
<S>                         <C>   
<PERIOD-TYPE>               3-MOS            
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1998                     
<CASH>                                       112132
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                185716
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                  178008
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            1337554    
<PP&E>                                      1589152                            
<DEPRECIATION>                              1385128
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1790738    
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        132655
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                       3350
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                        0                    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1790738
<SALES>                                      266040
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             294652 
<CGS>                                        216049
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                347351  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              241
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (52699)  
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                (52699)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (.02)            
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.02)
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

§ No. 08

- 1 4

- 00 2 23

- C R IN RE : DOUGLAS WAYNE JENKINS, § AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDI NG

Relator. § IN MANDAMUS § § §
MEMORANDUM OPINION
D ouglas Wayne Jenkins , Relator , has filed a petition for writ of mandamus against the Honorable Pedro Gomez, Judge of the 112th District Court of Pecos County, Texas , asking that
we order Respondent to rule on a petition for writ of habeas corpus

. We deny mandamus relief. A party seeking a writ of mandamus in a criminal case must make two showings: (1) that there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm; and (2) that the act the relator seeks to compel is ministerial rather than di scretionary in nature. See e.g. Board of Pardons and Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth District , 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995) (orig. proceeding); In re State of Texas , 304 S.W.3d 581, 583 (Tex.App.

-- El Paso 2010, orig. p roceeding). Although mandamus will not issue to compel a particular result in what is manifestly a discretionary decision, mandamus may be appropriate to impel consideration of a motion or the issuance of a ruling, the doing of which is not discretionary.2

White v. Reiter , 640 S.W.2d 586, 593

- 94 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982); State ex rel. Rodriguez , 196 S.W.3d 454, 458 (Tex.App.

- - El Paso 2006, orig. proceeding). Relator asks us to compel Respondent to rule on a pending Article 11.07 writ application.
The Court o f Criminal Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction in final post

- conviction habeas corpus proceedings. T EX .C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 201 3 ); Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District , 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex.Crim.App. 2013); In re McAfee , 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex.App.

-- Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). Any complaints about
action or inaction on a pending Article 11.07 writ application must be brought by mandamus to the Court of Criminal Appeals. In re McAfee , 53 S.W.3d a t 717

. Accordingly, we deny the relief requested.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice August 6, 2014 Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ. (Do Not Publish)
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-184561) of SandRidge Mississippian Trust I of our report dated March 16, 2017 relating to the financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K.

 

 
|                      | /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers   LLP |
|---------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                      | PricewaterhouseCoopers   LLP          |
|                      |                                  |
|                      |                                  |
| Oklahoma   City, Oklahoma |                                  |
| March 16,   2017     |                                  |

 

----
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer ofSerologicals Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that the Company’sQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 3, 2005 (the “Report”)as filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: August 12, 2005

 
|   |   | /s/ Harold W. Ingalls                                |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Harold W. Ingalls                                    |
|   |   | Vice President, Finance and  Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
News United States Air Force
 Rescue assets preposition for Hurricane Irma reliefPublished Sept. 11, 2017
                        
                        By 23rd Wing Public Affairs
                        
                        
                        23rd Wing Public Affairs
                **MOODY AIR FORCE BASE, Ga. (AFNS) --**
                Moody Air Force Base aircraft and rescue assets relocated to Columbus AFB, Mississippi, Sept. 9, 2017, before Hurricane Irma’s arrival.
The aircraft and rescue assets will remain at Columbus AFB before re-engaging with other Moody AFB assets to assist the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and other first responder agencies, during upcoming Hurricane Irma relief operations in the Southeast.
“It allows for a more efficient deployment of resources,” said Staff Sgt. Travis Harrelson, 23rd Civil Engineer Squadron emergency manager.
With assets postured farther west, resources can be utilized in the relief effort sooner, Harrelson explained.
“We want to make sure that vital rescue assets are available for post-recovery actions,” said Master Sgt. Terri Adams, 23rd CES emergency management section chief. “We’re ensuring they are in a safe ride-out location so that they can launch as soon as the recovery order is given.”
Similarly to what occurred less than two weeks ago with Hurricane Harvey, rescue assets and Airmen from the 23rd Wing have been tasked to support Hurricane Irma relief operations.Humanitarian 



rescue 



Moody AFB 



Columbus AFB 



relief 



23rd Wing 



HH-60 PaveHawk 



23rd Civil Engineer Squadron 



preposition 



hurricane irma
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: May 19Published May 19, 2017
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Traci Keller
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** -- On this look around the Air Force, the F-35 Lightning II pilot minimum weight restriction has been lifted and May is Mental Health Awareness Month. Hosted by Staff Sgt. Traci Keller. 
For previous episodes, click here.
Related stories:
- Air Force to Release F-35 Weight Restrictions
-Don’t suffer alone – mental health disorders have effective treatmentsATAF 



Mental health awareness month 



resiliency 



pilot shortage 



weight restriction 



F-35 



Lightning II 



Mental health 



Wingman
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 6047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2209]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5375-N-05]


Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and 
surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible 
use to assist the homeless.

DATES: Effective Date: February 5, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7262, Washington, 
DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and 
speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-
free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1988 
court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans 
Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a 
weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus 
Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for 
suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the 
purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been 
determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

    Dated: January 28, 2009.
Mark R. Johnston,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.
[FR Doc. 2010-2209 Filed 2-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
MP

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0475

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOSEPH ALTON HAFLICH,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, and

good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including December 22, 2021, within which to prepare, serve, and file its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 15 2021

11/15/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0475
#### FELIX LOUIS LUGO v. TOWNSHIP OF FRANKLIN.

March 29, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Reta Mae MURRY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 45774.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 7, 1973.

Charles Fairweather, Amarillo, for appellant.

Tom Curtis, Dist. Atty., John J. Wheir and Kerry Knorpp, Asst. Dist. Attys., Amarillo, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and *119Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ROBERTS, Judge.

This appeal is taken from a conviction for the offense of murder with malice. Punishment was assessed at five years’ confinement.

The only ground of error asserted on appeal is the failure of the trial court to charge the jury on the issue of murder without malice. Appellant’s only objection to the charge was made orally. Such an objection is not sufficient to preserve error for review by this Court. Arts. 36.14 and 36.19, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.; Curry v. State, 468 S.W.2d 455 (Tex.Cr. App.1971); Seefurth v. State, 422 S.W.2d 931 (Tex.Cr. App.1968).

The judgment is affirmed.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LUIS LEBRON.

September 17, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2517 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2517

     To prohibit bonuses to senior-level IRS executives until all 
      Congressional requests for documents, including electronic 
   communications, related to the investigation of IRS targeting of 
                        taxpayers are complete.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 24, 2014

  Mr. Cornyn introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To prohibit bonuses to senior-level IRS executives until all 
      Congressional requests for documents, including electronic 
   communications, related to the investigation of IRS targeting of 
                        taxpayers are complete.

    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 ``Holding the IRS Leadership 
Accountable Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON BONUSES UNTIL IRS COMPLIES WITH CONGRESSIONAL 
              DOCUMENT REQUESTS.

    The Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall not provide any 
performance award (including bonuses, step increases, and leave time) 
to senior-level executives of the Internal Revenue Service until such 
time as the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration certifies 
that the Internal Revenue Service has provided all documents, including 
all electronic communications, requested by the relevant congressional 
committees in due course of their investigation into the targeting of 
certain taxpayers who applied for designation as an organization 
described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
                                 <all>
```
#### Moses C. Myers v. Bernard Kaichen.

*Libel and slander*— Reply *to newspaper communication,*

A communication to a newspaper, called out as an answer to a libelous article published against the party sending it, and not going beyond what was fairly to be expected of a man who might very well have been exasperated, instead of being good-naturedly contemptuous, will not support an action for libel.

Error to Alpena. [Kelley, J.)

Argued June 5, 1889.

Decided June 14, 1889.

Case for libel. Plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

*Turnbull & Dafoe,*for appellant.

*Shields & McNamara,*for defendant.

Campbell, J.

Plaintiff sued defendant in an action of libel for an article which purported to be and was in fact-called out as an answer to a libelous article published by plaintiff against defendant, and which contained reflections on defendant’s motives, of an offensive character. The only language in defendant’s article which used any word which is ever actionable in itself charged plaintiff with forging a rabbi’s name to a published article. But as it appeared *273in the article itself that this merely referred to a newspaper communication, which, as it appeared, was a mere courteous disclaimer of a desire to receive a public benefit, this was not an offensive charge as made. And beyond this defendant’s answer was nothing more than his own explanation and denial of the facts alleged by plaintiff, made in terms much less, offensive than plaintiff’s article, and much better natured. It was invited by what plaintiff said, and did not go beyond what was fairly to be expected of a man who might very well have been exasperated, instead of being good-naturedly contemptuous. It cannot be said that defendant went further in his comments than under the circumstances might be expected. • The court below rightly held that no cause of action was made out.

We have purposely avoided quotation, because we do not think the reports of this Court should be made a medium for circulating, small scandal that ought not to interest the public.

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
#### NATHAN WITKIND v. HELEN SCOTT.

February 11, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.