alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William D. TAYLOR, Sr. *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 99-1471

12 S.W.3d 238

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered March 16, 2000

*Hurst Law Offices,*by; Q. *Byrum Hurst, Jr.,*for appellant.

No response.

PER CURIAM.

This is a Rule 37 appeal. *See*Ark. R. Crim. P. 37. Appellant William D. Taylor, Sr., moves the court to supplement the record of the Rule 37 proceedings with the record prepared for appeal from the original judgment of conviction in case No. 97-01240. *See Taylor v. State,*334 Ark. 339, 974 S.W.2d 454 (1998).

 The motion is denied. It is not necessary to consolidate the Rule 37 record with the record of the original trial, because the record of the original trial is already on file with this court. *See Dryman v. State,*327 Ark. 375, 938 S.W.2d 825 (1997). It is neces*655sary, though, for the appellant in a Rule 37 appeal to abstract the material portions of the trial record. *Id.*

We note that the record in the Rule 37 appeal was lodged on December 16, 1999, and that appellant has been granted three extensions of time in which to file his brief. The first extension was granted on January 24, 2000, based on the heavy trial schedule of appellant’s counsel. The second extension was granted on February 22, 2000, based on an assertion that appellant’s counsel’s computer had “crashed” and that he had lost the abstract. The third extension was granted March 8, 2000, also based on the computer crash, with the deadline for the brief set for March 23, 2000. This means that appellant’s brief will be filed more than three months after the record was lodged in this appeal. There will be no more extensions for filing the appellant’s brief granted in this case.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57467-57468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23439]


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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Update To Notice of Financial Institutions for Which the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation Has Been Appointed Either Receiver, 
Liquidator, or Manager

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

ACTION: Update Listing of Financial Institutions in Liquidation.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation (Corporation) has been appointed the sole receiver for the 
following financial institutions effective as of the Date Closed as 
indicated in the listing. This list (as updated from time to time in 
the Federal Register) may be relied upon as ``of record'' notice that 
the Corporation has been appointed receiver for purposes of the 
statement of policy published in the July 2, 1992 issue of the Federal 
Register (57 FR 29491). For further information concerning the 
identification of any institutions which have been placed in 
liquidation, please visit the Corporation Web site at http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html or contact the 
Manager of Receivership Oversight in the appropriate service center.

    Dated: September 13, 2010.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Pamela Johnson,
Regulatory Editing Specialist.

                                           Institutions in Liquidation
                                             [In alphabetical order]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          FDIC Ref. No.                  Bank name               City                 State          Date closed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10286............................  Horizon Bank........  Bradenton...........  FL.................     9/10/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 57468]]

[FR Doc. 2010-23439 Filed 9-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 80 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S6687]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                      MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

  Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to 
the Senate by Mr. Thomas, one of his secretaries.

                          ____________________
```
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 57476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23537]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), 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: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel, National Research Service Award Institutional 
Research Training Grants (NRSA T32).
    Date: October 20, 2010.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: St. Gregory Hotel, 2033 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20036.
    Contact Person: Rebecca C Steiner, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of 
Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd, Room 
6149, MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20892-9608, 301-443-4525, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#166562737f78736464567b777f7a38787f7e38717960"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2e5d5a4b47404b5c5c6e434f47420040474600494158">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, 
Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, 
Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist 
Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 14, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-23537 Filed 9-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 31.3

CERTIFICATION

I, Bruce C. Cozadd, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of Jazz Pharmaceuticals Public Limited Company (formerly known as Azur Pharma Public
Company Limited); and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                                     
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------
|Date: April 27, 2012 |  | By: |  | /S/    BRUCE C.
COZADD              
|                     |  |     |  | Bruce C. Cozadd                     
|                     |  |     |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

BRUCE EZELL

,

Appellant,

v.

SCOTT R. CRAWLEY

,

Appelle e

. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00 238

- CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 2

of Travis County, Texas

( TC # C

- 1

- CV

- 20

- 003262 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appell ant’ s third motion for extension of time within which to

file the brief until February 12, 2021 . NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE THE APPELL ANT ’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ordered that the Hon. Evan A. Johnston, the Appellant’s attorney, prepare the

Appellant’s Brief and forward the same to this Court on or before February 12, 2021

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2 2nd day of January, 2021

.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley , JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 98 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 98

  Expressing the sense of Congress that provisions that provoke veto 
    threats from the President should not be included on bills that 
appropriate funds for the implementation of recommendations of the Base 
                  Closure and Realignment Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 2007

 Mr. Tiahrt (for himself, Mrs. Drake, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Smith 
  of Texas, Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Kline of 
    Minnesota, and Mr. Calvert) submitted the following concurrent 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of Congress that provisions that provoke veto 
    threats from the President should not be included on bills that 
appropriate funds for the implementation of recommendations of the Base 
                  Closure and Realignment Commission.

Whereas Congress and President George W. Bush approved the final recommendations 
        of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission under the 2005 
        round of defense base closure and realignment;
Whereas these recommendations propose major changes in the positioning of United 
        States military personnel;
Whereas the Department of Defense is moving rapidly to implement these 
        recommendations;
Whereas the communities near military installations that are slated to receive 
        major troop increases have already invested time and capital in making 
        preparations for upcoming increases in population; and
Whereas funding these recommendations on an annual basis is absolutely necessary 
        for their implementation and the economic confidence of the communities 
        that are expecting increases in population: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),  
That it is the sense of Congress that Congress should not include 
provisions that provoke veto threats from the President in bills that 
appropriate funds for the implementation of recommendations of the Base 
Closure and Realignment Commission.
                                 <all>
```
#### John E. Wood v. S. Samuels.

(No. 1684, Op. Book No. 2, p. 93.)

Appeal from Falls County.

Opinion by

Walker, R. S., P. J.

§ 922. *Charge of the court; may explain admission of evidence.*The court is not allowed to charge upon the weight of evidence, but may explain to the jury the reasons upon which it is admitted. [Howerton v. Holt, 23 Tex. 60.] An instruction which advises the jury that a certain class of testimony before them may be properly weighed by them in determining a fact in issue is in fact explaining to them the purpose for which it was admitted, and that it may be legitimately considered by them in the formation of their verdict.

§ 923. *Partnership; charge of court.*Where an issue in the case was whether or not plaintiff and defendant had been partners in buying and selling cotton, the court charged the jury as follows: “In determining whether or not the parties were partners, you may consider the manner in which the business was conducted, the authority exercised by the plaintiff in buying and selling the cotton, and all the facts and circumstances in evidence.” This charge was held to be unobjectionable.

§ 924. *Verdict; province of jury.*“It is the peculiar province of the jury to judge of the credibility of the witnesses and weigh the evidence, and their verdict will not be set aside as against the evidence merely because the court might, from an examination of the evidence, arrive at a result different from that found by the jury.” [Briscoe v. Bronaugh, 1 Tex. 326; Cummins v. Rice, 19 Tex. 225; Patton v. Gregory, 21 Tex. 513; Montgomery v. Culton, 23 Tex. 156; Baldridge v. Gordon, 24 Tex. 288.]

§ 925. *Argument of counsel; rules governing.*Eule 39 for the government of district courts prescribes that ■“ arguments on the facts should be addressed to the jury* *520when one is impaneled in a case that is being tried, under the supervision of the court. Counsel shall be required to confine the argument strictly to the evidence and to the arguments of opposing counsel.” Eule 4.1 imposes upon the court the dutjr of enforcing the rules as to arguments when they are violated, without waiting for objections to be made. Where the argument is upon a legal proposition addressed to the court, there is no limitation by the rules restricting counsel to the pleadings and evidence. Counsel has the right to address an argument upon the law of the case to the judge, with a view to instructions to be asked upon his own hypothesis as to the legal deductions which arise upon the case before the court. A departure from the legitimate bounds of this-right, or an abuse of it by an improper discussion of fact-snot involved in the proper illustration of the legal point-under discussion, or allusions made unnecessarily and within hearing of the jury, would fall within the spirit, at least, of the inhibition contained in rule 30, and the court should promptly regulate the conduct of counsel under such circumstances by taking the appropriate action to prevent the impropriety.

June 23, 1880.

Affirmed.
#### W. E. Blake v. M. J. Miller, Adm’r.

(No. 1259, Op. Book No. 2, p. 525.)

Appeal from Stephens County.

Opinion by

Walker, R. S., P. J.

§ 1213. *Privity of contract; merger of note into judgment.*Blake sued Miller, as administrator of the estate of A. Miller, deceased, upon a claim against the estate, which Miller, as administrator, had rejected. The claim as alleged in the petition was as follows: A. Miller agreed in writing with one Playter to pay certain liabilities of Playter, among which was a certain note of which Playter and others were the makers, and which note Blake alleged belonged to him, and he claimed that by virtue of A. Miller’s said undertaking with Playter, his *696estate was liable to pay said note to him. Among other defenses set up was the one that this note had been merged into a judgment, and had been paid. Verdict and judgment for defendant. *Held,*the plaintiff does not show a good cause of action in his petition. There- was no privity of contract in the agreement between A. Miller and Playter which gave to a third party, a creditor of Playter, a cause or right of action against Miller for a breach of or failure to comply with the same. Playter alone had a right to complain of its breach, and it is not alleged or pretended that Playter had assigned Miller’s obligation to Blake. It further appears from the evidence in the case that the note which Blake claimed that he owned had been sued upon and merged into a judgment, and that the judgment had been satisfied. Therefore, after the payment of the judgment, no further liability could exist by reason of the note. This was not a suit on the part of Blake as one of the makers of the note for contribution.

November 30, 1881.

Reversed and remanded.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7011

JIMMY ALLEN ROBERTS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

FRANK L. PERRY, Secretary of Prisons, North Carolina Department of Public 

Safety; LYNN OLLIS, Mailroom Supervisor, Mountain View Correctional Institute; 

FNU GREAR, Corrections Officer, Mountain View Correctional Institute; MIKE 

SLAGLE, Superintendent, Mountain View Correctional Institute,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (1:16-cv-00385-FDW)

Submitted: October 17, 2019 Decided: October 22, 2019

Before MOTZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmy Allen Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Allen Roberts appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants 

summary judgment in Roberts’ civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) 

and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to 

2000cc-5 (2012). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s 

brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Roberts’ informal brief does not challenge the basis 

for the district court’s disposition, Roberts has forfeited appellate review of the court’s 

order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Slower NCO Promotions, New AFMC Leader, Sexual Assault SeparationsPublished July 15, 2022
                        
                        By Senior Airman Garrett Hess
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS) --**
                In this week’s look around the Air Force discusses rebalancing enlisted ranks to address experience levels, Air Force Materiel Command has a new leader, and there’s new criteria for separating sexual offenders. (Hosted by Staff Sgt. Mikayla Daly)





For previous episodes, click **here** for the Air Force TV page.
Related links:**- Air Force expects lower enlisted promotion rates****- Richardson: Teamwork, collaboration key to AFMC success****- DAF strengthens discharge process for sexual offenders**USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



ATAF 



Around the Air Force 



AFTV
News United States Air Force
 VA to expand Fry scholarship to surviving spousesPublished Oct. 29, 2014
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                The Department of Veterans Affairs announced it will begin accepting applications by mail Nov. 3, for the Fry Scholarship under newly expanded eligibility criteria to include surviving spouses of service members who died on active duty. The expanded criteria for the Fry Scholarship is the latest in a series of VA actions to implement provisions of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 ("Choice Act").
Specifically, Section 701 of the Choice Act expands the Fry Scholarship to include the surviving spouses of service members who died in the line of duty after Sept. 10, 2001. Prior to the expansion, only children of those who died in the line of duty were eligible for this benefit.
"We can never fully repay the debt we owe to these families who have lost a loved one," said VA Secretary Robert McDonald. "It is a privilege to provide educational benefits that will make a positive difference in their lives."
The Fry Scholarship was created to honor Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry, of Lorena, Texas. Fry had one week left in his tour in Iraq in 2006, when he volunteered to continue working for seven more hours disarming explosive devices, despite having already sustained an injury to his hand. He made the ultimate sacrifice on March 8, 2006, in Anbar province, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated. He left behind a widow and three young children.
The Fry Scholarship will entitle eligible spouses to up to 36 months of the full, 100-percent level of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, which includes a tuition and fee payment, a monthly housing allowance and stipend for books and supplies. Some spouses currently eligible for or already receiving benefits under the Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance program may now be eligible for the Fry Scholarship.
All surviving spouses eligible for DEA and the Fry Scholarship must make an irrevocable election for terms beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2015.
VA will identify surviving spouses eligible for both programs and send them a letter with comparative information on the benefits available and instructions on how make an election. Information about these two programs is available on VA's website and the GI Bill website www.benefits.va.gov/gibill. The VA call center (888-GIBILL-1) also will be able to help individuals understand the differences between the two programs.*(Information courtesy of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs)*survivors 



family 



VA 



Fry Scholarship 



Choice Act 



spouses Related Links
        The GI Bill
Exhibit 31.3



Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Andrew C. Sagliocca, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Esquire Financial Holdings, Inc.; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: | April 30, 2020 | /s/ Andrew C. Sagliocca               | 
|----- | -------------- | ------------------------------------- | 
|      |                | Andrew C. Sagliocca                   | 
|      |                | President and Chief Executive Officer |