alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

No. 05-14-01342-CV 

__________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS

AT DALLAS

__________________________________________________________________ 

BAYLOR UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, 

 APPELLANT, 

v. 

MARY GREESON, 

 APPELLEE

__________________________________________________________________ 

FROM THE

44TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT 

OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

__________________________________________________________________ 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

__________________________________________________________________ 

 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Jason P. Steed of Bell Nunnally & Martin 

LLP, whose information appears below, enters his appearance in this matter as 

additional counsel of record for Appellant Baylor University Medical Center. 

ACCEPTED

05-14-01342-CV

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS

1/27/2015 2:04:43 PM

LISA MATZ

CLERK

 FILED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 1/27/2015 2:04:43 PM LISA MATZ Clerk
2 

Jason P. Steed 

Texas Bar No. 24070671 

jsteed@bellnunnally.com 

Bell Nunnally & Martin LLP 

3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1400 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

(214) 740-1400 – Telephone 

(214) 740-1499 – Facsimile 

 Respectfully submitted, 

BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN LLP 

By: /s/ Jason P. Steed

Jay M. Wallace 

Texas Bar No. 20769200 

jwallace@bellnunnally.com 

Heather B. New 

Texas Bar No. 24007642 

hnew@bellnunnally.com 

Alana K. Ackels 

Texas Bar No. 24066760 

aackels@bellnunnally.com 

Jason P. Steed 

Texas Bar No. 24070671 

jsteed@bellnunnally.com 

3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1400 

Dallas, Texas 75204-2429 

Telephone: (214) 740-1400 

Telecopy: (214) 740-1499 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT 
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing pleading was served upon the persons listed below in the manner 

indicated on the date indicated. 

William J. Dunleavy 

Law Offices of William J. Dunleavy, P.C. 

825 Market Street 

Building M, Suite 250 

Allen, Texas 75013 

Via Efile.txcourts.gov 

& Facsimile # 972-996-4501 

DATED this the 27th day of January, 2015. 

 /s/ Jason P. Steed

Jason P. Steed 

2007861_1.DOCX / 8245.3
11172.

#### Gardner *v.*The State.

Decided March 2, 1920.

Conviction of manslaughter; from Marion superior court — Judge Howard. November 15, 1919.

*W. D. Crawford,*for plaintiff in error.

*C. F. McLaughlin, solicitor-general,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

1. When the instructions complained of are read, in connection with the remainder of the charge of the court, there is no error in them.

2. Under the faets of the ease the court did not err in failing to give in charge of the jury section 75 of the Penal Code of 1910, which declares that “all other instances which stand upon the same footing of reason and justice as those enumerated shall be justifiable homicide.” Besides, the complaint is that the judge, after charging a certain proposition of law of which no complaint is made, erred in not giving the language of this section therewith. This court and the Supreme Court have in numerous cases held that an exception to a correct charge because of the failure to give in the same connection some other pertinent legal proposition is not a good assignment of error. *Conley*v. State, 21 *Ga. App.*134 (1) (94 S. E. 261), and cit.

3. The court did not err in refusing to give to the jury the requested instruction embodied in the fourth ground of the motion for new trial.

4. The 'alleged newly discovered evidence in this case is cumulative, and it is not probable that it would produce a different result on another trial. It consists of a threat made by deceased against the defendant. On the trial the defendant introduced evidence of such a threat; so it appears that a new witness was discovered instead of new evidence. It is simply more evidence of the same kind to the same point. Civil Code 1919, § 1088; *Brinson*v. *Faircloth,*88 *Ga.*185 (1), 187 (1) (7 S. E. 923) ; *Burgess*v. *State,*93 *Ga.*304 (20 S. E. 331); *Hayne*v. *Candler,*99 *Ga.*214 (25 S. E. 606) ; *Jinks*v. *State,*117 *Ga.*716 (44 S. E. 814).

5. There is ample evidence to support the verdict.

*Judgment afprrmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
Two options are available for printing these stickers. Both options are equivalent and only one set need be 

downloaded.

They may all be printed on pre-cut 8" circular sticker sheets to simplify purchasing. This allows all of the stickers to be 

printed on the one type of sticker sheet but some will need to be trimmed after printing. Instructions and trim lines are 

marked on the relevant pages. 

Alternatively, the round stickers may be printed on pre-cut 8" circular sticker sheets while the rectangular stickers are 

printed four-to-a-sheet. These will not need to be trimmed, however it is necessary to purchase and track two 

different types of sticker sheets.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                       1
<CASH>                                         163,154     
<SECURITIES>                                   0        
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,297,760   
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (123,525)    
<INVENTORY>                                    177,499     
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,662,891   
<PP&E>                                         5,217,521   
<DEPRECIATION>                                (3,596,444)  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,289,740   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,753,672   
<BONDS>                                        175,000     
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0        
<PREFERRED>                                    0        
<COMMON>                                       725    
<OTHER-SE>                                    (583,393)    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,289,740   
<SALES>                                        2,053,346   
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,200,094   
<CGS>                                          0        
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,344,115   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               4,611,438   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0        
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             312,364     
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                176,090     
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (595,713)    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (59,161)     
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0        
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                1,014,758   
<CHANGES>                                      0        
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,786,561   
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.23        
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.23        
                                              


</TABLE>
11348.

#### GEORGIA NORTHERN RAILWAY CO. *v.*BATTLE.

Decided May 11, 1920.

Rehearing denied July 29, 1920.

Whether the presumption of negligence on the part of the railroad company, which arose on proof of the killing of the plaintiff’s stock by a train of the company, was successfully rebutted was the only issue in the case; and the evidence authorized a finding against the defendant.

Action for damages; from Colquitt superior court — Judge Thomas. January 23, 1920.

*W. F. Way,*for plaintiff in error.

*Parker. Gilson & Roddenbery, J. B. Fussell,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

This is a suit for damages against a railroad company for killing stock. It is admitted that the stock were killed, and the only issue is whether or not the railroad company successfully rebutted the presumption of negligence that arose against it upon proof of the killing. The evidence for the railroad company tended to show that the engineer and the fireman were in the exercise of all ordinary care and diligence, and that the killing of the stock was not due to any negligence of the defendant or its employees, but there was some evidence to contradict this, and the judge, who by agreement passed upon the case without the intervention of a jury, having decided that the presumption against the railroad was not overcome by the evidence, this court will allow his finding on the facts to stand.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., concurs. Luke,*J., *dissents.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

GEORGE WILLIAM CARSON, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 351 MAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 28th day of September, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000363

16-SEP-2016

01:38 PM
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Kay Carter, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (principal financial officer) of Whitehall Limited,
Inc. certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Whitehall Limited, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

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

4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of
the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on
such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely 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 or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.



|                         |  |                            
|------------------------ |  | ---------------------------
|Date: September 11, 2006 |  |                            
|                         |  | /s/ Kay Carter             
|                         |  | Kay Carter, Chief Financial
|                         |  | Officer and Treasurer
11319.

#### Ogain *v.*Imperial Cafe Incorporated.

Decided June. 16, 1920.

Action for damages; from Pulton superior court— Judge Pendleton. December 8, 1919.'

The action was for damages on account of personal injuries alleged to have been caused by slipping and falling when the plaintiff— a waitress in the defendant’s café-—’Stepped upon “a great wad or chunk of butter” on a tile floor in an unlighted and dark part of the café. The petition as amended alleges, in brief, that she commenced work in the café at *f*o’clock a.m. on the 30th of June, 1919, and in the course of her work and at the direction of the manager of the café she went from the place of serving meals and delivering lunches to get for guests small pitchers of cream which were on a table where other servants were washing dishes at a place behind a partition in a corner at the back of the café, that the lights were all out in that place, and the shadow of a tall counter was upon the floor at the door opening into it, so that she could not see under her feet when she stepped upon the butter and grease and slipped and fell near the table on which were the *416cream pitchers; that she was without negligence, because she was doing exactly what she was directed to do by the person who was in charge of the café at the time, and, on account of the darkness, could not see; that she was a stranger and had just come into the café as a servant, a few minutes before that time, and knew nothing of the café, except as she was told by the management, and had no opportunity to protect herself, and could not by reasonable diligence have known of the condition of the floor where she fell. It is alleged that the defendant knew “ the circumstances and the unsafe condition and the darkness,” and was negligent in not having the café in a suitable condition to make it safe for the plaintiff to wait upon the guests as she was directed, in not having lights in the café so that she could see the place described, where she was directed to walk, and in not having the table out in the light where it could be seen and easily approached, and in directing her to go to the table when it was in an unsafe condition, which was unknown to her.

*415Luke, J.

The petition did not set forth a legal cause of action for damages, and it was not error to sustain the general demurrer thereto. This case is controlled by *Day*v. *Graybill,*24 *Ga. App.*524 (101 S. E. 759),.and cases cited. See also Civil Code (1910), § 3131.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*

*416Citations by counsel:

Park’s Ann. Code, § 3131; 145 *Ga.*732; 92 *Ga.*495; 11 *Ga. App.*836; 18 *Ga. App.*189, 190; 19 *Ga. App.*521; Id. 714; 24 *'Ga. App.*524.

*James & Bedgood, John H. Hudson,*for plaintiff.

*McCallum & Sims,*for defendant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FORM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000839437
<NAME> AMFAC/JMB HAWAII, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          11,326
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,172
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     37,888
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                66,386
<PP&E>                                         393,863
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,451
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 517,437
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,680
<BONDS>                                        312,032
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                   (135,669)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   517,437
<SALES>                                         71,415
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,673
<CGS>                                           60,489
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   74,138
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   952
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,290
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (23,707)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,720
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,987)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,987)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (14.9)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (14.9)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Magnitude  Information Systems,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the
"Form  10-QSB"),  I, Joerg H. Klaube,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,
certify, as of the date hereof,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the best of
my  knowledge,   that  the  Company's   Form  10-QSB  fully  complies  with  the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information  contained in the Form 10-QSB,  fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  May 12, 2005                  /s/  Joerg H. Klaube
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Joerg H. Klaube, Chief Financial Officer
IEC-EX10.1_2014.09.30. 10-K/A






Exhibit 10.1


    




IEC ELECTRONICS CORP.
2011 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN
AMENDMENT 1


This Amendment amends the 2011 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “Plan”) of IEC Electronics Corp. (the “Corporation”) which Plan was approved by the stockholders of the Corporation on February 1, 2012.  This Amendment was approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Corporation pursuant to authority granted by Sections 2.09 and 10.01(a) of the Plan.




Section 2.09 of the Plan is amended to read in its entirety as follows:


2.09    Enrollment Period means, with respect to a given Purchase Period, (i) that period beginning on February 20, or if later, three days after the Corporation publicly releases its earnings for its first fiscal quarter, and ending the last day of February, or (ii) that period beginning on August 20, or if later, three days after the Corporation publicly releases its earnings for its third fiscal quarter, and ending the last day of August, in each case during which Employees may elect to participate in order to purchase Stock at the end of that Purchase Period in accordance with the terms of this Plan.  The duration and timing of Enrollment Periods may be changed or modified by the Committee




Adopted by the Compensation Committee of the Corporation on May 21, 2014
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 74772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29329]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (14-128)]


Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Pre-Patent License

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of intent to grant exclusive pre-patent license.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 
37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant 
an exclusive pre-patent license in the United States to practice the 
invention described and claimed in U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 
U.S. 13/723,598, Bearingless Flywheel Systems, Winding and Control 
Schemes, and Sensorless Control, LEW 18891-1, to Power Tree 
Corporation, having its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. 
The field of use will be limited. The patent rights in this invention 
as applicable have been assigned to the United States of America as 
represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration. The prospective exclusive license will comply with the 
terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

DATES: The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within 
fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, NASA receives 
written objections including evidence and argument that establish that 
the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements 
of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Competing applications completed and 
received by NASA within fifteen (15) days of the date of this published 
notice will also be treated as objections to the grant of the 
contemplated exclusive license.
    Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made 
available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by 
law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 
U.S.C. 552.

ADDRESSES: Objections relating to the prospective license may be 
submitted to Intellectual Property Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, MS 
21-14, NASA Glenn Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Rd, Cleveland, OH 
44135. Phone (216) 433-5754. Facsimile (216) 433-6790.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kaprice Harris, Attorney, Office of 
Chief Counsel, MS 21-14, NASA Glenn Research Center, 21000 Brookpark 
Rd, Cleveland, OH 44135. Phone (216) 433-5754. Facsimile (216) 433-
6790. Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing 
can be found online at https://technology.grc.nasa.gov.

Sumara M. Thompson-King,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2014-29329 Filed 12-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P