alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|  Dated: | October 15, 2010       |  By: |  /s/ |  Juhani Taskinen             |
|--------------|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------------------------------|
|         |                        |      |      |  Juhani Taskinen             |
|         |                        |      |      |  Chief Executive Officer     |
|         |                        |      |      |                              |
|         | October 15, 2010  |  By: |  /s/ |  Trupti Mehta                |
|         |                        |      |      |  Trupti Mehta                |
|         |                        |      |      |  Principal Financial Officer |

----
#### Bozeman *v.*Bishop & Pritchard.

*A*donee of land having two children, and the conveyance made by the donor being to him by name and to his children without naming them, passed to the father and each of the children an estate for the life of the father, with remainder to the children; and the father’s life-estate in the premises was subject to levy and sale for his debts, the terms of the conveyance, so far as material, being as follows: “I, . . . do give, grant and convey, unto [B] and his lawful'children [certain lands], to have and to hold ... to them, the said [B] children, their heirs and assigns, to be for the use, support and maintenance of the said [B] and for the support and education of his children during the said [B’s] natural life, and at his death to be equally divided amongst his lawful children ; and should it become necessary for the interest of said children at any time, or for the interest of said [B], to sell or dispose of the said lands, the proceeds therefrom shall be invested in negro property, to be for the use of the said parties hereinbefore named; and at his the said [B’s] death, to be divided equally amongst his the said [B’s] children; the right and title to all of which I hereby relinquish and convey unto the said [B] and his children, free from the claims of myself and all other persons whatsoever.” . *Judgment affirmed.*

April 2, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Levy and claim. Before Judge Harris. Payette superior court. September term, 1892.

An execution against J. W. Bozeman was levied on land which was claimed by his daughter to whom he *460fa ad made a deed. The case turned upon the construction of the conveyance, quoted from in the head-note, dated September 16, 1859, to *J. W.*Bozeman and his children. Under the charge of the court, the jury found subject an undivided third-interest in the land, and claimant’s motion for a new trial was overruled.

Stewart & Daniel, for plaintiff in error.

Dorsey, Brewster & Howell, *contra.*
SHARON KELLER

 PRESIDING JUDGE

BARBARA P. HERVEY

BERT RICHARDSON

KEVIN P. YEARY

DAVID NEWELL

MARY LOU KEEL

SCOTT WALKER

MICHELLE M. SLAUGHTER

JESSE F. MCCLURE, III

 JUDGES

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

DEANA WILLIAMSON

CLERK

(512) 463-1551

SIAN SCHILHAB

GENERAL COUNSEL

(512) 463-1597

SUPREME COURT BUILDING, 201 WEST 14TH STREET, ROOM 106, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701

WEBSITE WWW.TXCOURTS.GOV/CCA

May 12, 2021

11th Court Of Appeals Clerk

Sherry Williamson

P. O. Box 271

Eastland, TX 76448

* Delivered Via E-Mail *

Re: Porter, Darrell Jan

CCA No. PD-0422-20 COA No. 11-19-00255-CR

Trial Court Case No. C-18-1229-CR

The court has issued an opinion on the above referenced cause number.

Sincerely,

Deana Williamson, Clerk

cc: District Attorney Ector County (Delivered Via E-Mail)

Darrell Jan Porter

District Clerk Ector County (Delivered Via E-Mail)

Stacey M. Soule (Delivered Via E-Mail)

Presiding Judge 244th District Court (Delivered Via E-Mail)

FILE COPY
Continuing Abatement Order filed January 23 , 20 20

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00088

- CR

____________ KIMBEL VERSHON CARTE R , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris Co un ty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1492023

CONTINUING ABATEMENT ORDER
Appellant is pro se . On January 23, 2019, appellant timely filed a notice of appeal from his judgment of conviction

. Since February 2019, we have issued
three orders to the trial court

. In our last order of December 17, 2019, this court
order ed the trial court to determine:

1. Whether appellant desire s to prosecute his appeal ; and, if so,2. Whether appellant is indigent and entitled to appointed counsel on appeal.
Our order provided that i f the trial court f ound that appellant desire d to prosecute his appeal and is indigent and entitled to appointed counsel on appeal, then the trial

court was to forward to the clerk of this court a supplemental clerk’s record containing th ose finding s and an order , if any, appointing appellate counsel . We
order ed the trial court to complete this process and forward the requested items within ten (10) days.
As of this date, no response from the trial court has been received.
The appeal remains abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this court. Th is

court also will consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Bourliot.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4057 

To protect the second amendment rights of individuals to carry firearms 

in units of the National Park System. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2006 

Mr. ALLEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To protect the second amendment rights of individuals to 

carry firearms in units of the National Park System. 

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 ‘‘National Park Second 

5 Amendment Restoration and Personal Protection Act of 

6 2006’’. 

7 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

8 Congress finds that— 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 4057 IS

1 (1) the second amendment to the Constitution 

2 provides that ‘‘the right of the people to keep and 

3 bear Arms, shall not be infringed’’; 

4 (2) section 2.4(a)(1) of title 36, Code of Fed5 eral Regulations, provides that ‘‘except as otherwise 

6 provided in this section and parts 7 (special regula7 tions) and 13 (Alaska regulations), the following are 

8 prohibited: (i) Possessing a weapon, trap or net (ii) 

9 Carrying a weapon, trap or net (iii) Using a weapon, 

10 trap or net’’; 

11 (3) the regulations described in paragraph (2) 

12 prevent individuals complying with Federal and 

13 State laws from exercising the second amendment 

14 rights of the individuals while at units of the Na15 tional Park System; 

16 (4) the existence of different laws relating to 

17 the transportation and possession of firearms at dif18 ferent units of the National Park System entraps 

19 law-abiding gun owners while at units of the Na20 tional Park System; and 

21 (5) the Federal laws should make it clear that 

22 the second amendment rights of an individual at a 

23 unit of the National Park System should not be in24 fringed. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
3 

•S 4057 IS

1 SEC. 3. USE OF FIREARMS IN UNITS OF THE NATIONAL 

2 PARK SYSTEM. 

3 Notwithstanding any other provision of law (includ4 ing regulations), the possession or carrying of a firearm 

5 at a unit of the National Park System in compliance with 

6 Federal law and the law of the State in which the unit 

7 of the National Park System is located shall not be prohib8 ited. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
#### State v. Miller

Case below: 183 N.C. App. - (1 May 2007)

No. 255A07

Def’s NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA06-727)

Dismissed *ex mero mo tu*06/27/07
#### Frener & Reifer America Inc., Appellant, v. Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, Respondent, et al., Defendant. Turner Construction Company, Additional Cross Claim and Counterclaim Defendant-Respondent, and U.S. Specialty Insurance Company, Additional Cross Claim and Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant.

[972 NYS2d 557]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J), entered June 28, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the motion of plaintiff Frener & Reifer America, Inc. and additional cross claim and counterclaim defendant U.S. Specialty Insurance Company insofar as it sought summary judgment on Frener’s breach of contract claims *533against defendant Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DASNY), granted the motion of defendant DASNY for summary judgment dismissing Frener’s breach of contract claims, and granted the cross motion of additional cross claim and counterclaim defendant Turner Construction Company for summary judgment declaring that Frener is obligated to indemnify Turner against the claim of Sure Iron Works (SIW), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action arising from the general contractor agreement between plaintiff Frener & Reifer and defendant DASNY, Frener & Reifer sought to obtain indemnification from DASNY for the financing costs of the surety bond the agreement required it to obtain, fees it paid to a consultant whom it claimed provided services related to the project, and any monies that defendant SIW claimed was due and owing.

The motion court correctly rejected these claims. The evidence established that DASNY had not agreed to pay for the financing costs of the surety bond; those costs were deemed part of the overhead and not recoverable by Frener & Reifer *(see Affirmative Pipe Cleaning/Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York,*159 AD2d 417 [1st Dept 1990]). The consultant fees were also not recoverable, as the evidence established that the fees paid were finder’s fees by Frener & Reifer to the consultant for helping locate business opportunities, including the contract here.

Insofar as defendant SIW claims that it is still owed money for the project, the motion court correctly found that the only amount due to SIW was $4,640 for shop drawings. Furthermore, Frener & Reifer was liable to additional cross claim and counterclaim defendant Turner, the construction manager who retained SIW as a subcontractor, for this amount and the motion court properly granted Turner summary judgment in its favor on that claim. It is uncontradicted that Frener & Reifer continued work on the project after a stop work order was issued by DASNY and before the contract was terminated, and that the work undertaken by Turner and SIW was at Frener & Reifer’s direction.

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, Renwick, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.
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.
 Federal Maritime Commission
 Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been reissued by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR Part 515. License No.
Name/address
Date reissued002375F
Action Customs Expediters, Inc., 115 Christopher Columbus Dr., Jersey City, NJ 07302
March 30, 2009.020655N
Quest Cargo, Inc., 8412 NW. 70th Street, Miami, FL 33166
March 30, 2009.
 Sandra L. Kusumoto, Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.


[FR Doc. E9-11181 Filed 5-12-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 423 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to make a stillborn child an insurable 

dependent for purposes of the Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance 

program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 17, 2005 

Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mrs. LANDRIEU) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to make a stillborn 

child an insurable dependent for purposes of the 

Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF STILLBORN CHILDREN AS IN4 SURABLE DEPENDENTS UNDER 

5 SERVICEMEMBERS’ GROUP LIFE INSURANCE 

6 PROGRAM. 

7 (a) TREATMENT.—Section 1965 of title 38, United 

8 States Code, is amended— 
2 

•S 423 IS 

1 (1) in paragraph (10), by adding at the end the 

2 following new subparagraph: 

3 ‘‘(C) The member’s stillborn natural 

4 child.’’; and 

5 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

6 paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(11)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph 

8 (B), the term ‘stillborn natural child’ means a nat9 ural child— 

10 ‘‘(i) whose death occurs before expulsion, 

11 extraction, or delivery; and 

12 ‘‘(ii) whose— 

13 ‘‘(I) fetal weight is greater than 500 

14 grams; 

15 ‘‘(II) in the event fetal weight is un16 known, duration in utero exceeds 22 com17 pleted weeks of gestation; or 

18 ‘‘(III) in the event neither fetal weight 

19 nor duration in utero is known, body 

20 length (crown-to-heel) is 25 centimeters or 

21 more. 

22 ‘‘(B) The term does not include any fetus or 

23 child extracted for purposes of an abortion.’’. 

24 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 101(4)(A) 

25 of such title is amended by striking ‘‘section 1965(10)(B)’’ 
3 

•S 423 IS 

1 in the matter preceding clause (i) and inserting ‘‘subpara2 graph (B) or (C) of section 1965(10)’’. 

Æ
#### West Durham Lumber Co. v. Meadows

Case below: 179 N.C. App. 347

No. 606P06

1. Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA05-1181)

2. Defs (National Bank of Commerce) Conditional PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. Denied 11/08/07

2. Dismissed as Moot 11/08/07
#### In the Matter of Todd S., Respondent, v Lauri B., Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 349]

Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about June 8, 2011, which denied respondent mother’s objection to an order of filiation (same court, Matthew Troy, S.M.), entered on or about January 20, 2011, declaring petitioner to be the child’s father, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about November 16, 2010, which denied respondent’s motion to dismiss the paternity proceeding on the ground of equitable estoppel, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence presented at the hearing fails to establish that the best interests of the child will be served by estopping petitioner from asserting paternity *(see Matter of Gutierrez v Gutierrez-Delgado,*33 AD3d 1133 [3d Dept 2006]). The child, who was three years old at the time of the hearing, was shown to be well adjusted, intelligent, and secure in her family structure. The record does not support respondent’s contention that the child would be unduly traumatized or that her relationship with her half-sister or maternal uncle would be harmed by her learning the identity of her father.

Notwithstanding the child’s close relationship with her maternal uncle, the court appropriately weighed the absence of an alternative father figure or the existence of an operative parent-child relationship that would be disturbed by the *527establishment of petitioner’s paternity *(see Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D.,*7 NY3d 320, 326 [2006]; *Matter of Antonio H. v Angelic W.,*51 AD3d 1022 [2d Dept 2008]). Nor, under all the circumstances, did petitioner delay inordinately in seeking to establish his paternity *(compare Matter of Rudman v Rubenfeld,*300 AD2d 79 [1st Dept 2002]; *Terrence M. v Gale C.,*193 AD2d 437 [1st Dept 1993], *lv denied*82 NY2d 661 [1993]; *Matter of Mobley v Ishmael,*285 AD2d 648 [2d Dept 2001]; *Matter of Glenn T. v Donna U.,*226 AD2d 803 [3d Dept 1996]). Family Court appropriately considered the testimony of the competing expert witnesses, and properly excluded the report by respondent’s expert. Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, Renwick, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.
118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2379 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 616 East Main Street in St. Charles, Illinois, 

as the ‘‘Veterans of the Vietnam War Memorial Post 

Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2379 EH

1 SECTION 1. VETERANS OF THE VIETNAM WAR MEMORIAL 

2 POST OFFICE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 616 East Main Street in St. 

5 Charles, Illinois, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Veterans of the Vietnam War Memorial Post Office’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Veterans of the Viet11 nam War Memorial Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 2, 

2023. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2379 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostWar Memorial Post Office’’. Charles, Illinois, as the ‘‘Veterans of the Vietnam al Service located at 616 East Main Street in St.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Antonio PINEDO-URENO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-51490.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Oct. 25, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kenneth Del Valle, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*660Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Counsel appointed to represent Jose Antonio Pinedo-Ureno on appeal has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Pinedo-Ureno received a copy of counsel’s motion and has not filed a response. Our independent review of counsel’s brief and the record discloses no issue of arguable merit for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cíe. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Cesar M. Garcia, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IRIS International,Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does notcontain 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 thisannual report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annualreport; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed underour 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 annual report is beingprepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such valuation.

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially effect the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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 functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability 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: May 14, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,627
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,627
<PP&E>                                          73,781
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  78,408
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,765
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       137,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (69,357)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    78,408
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (8,744)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8,744)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,744)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>