alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Motion granted; Order filed October 25 , 2016

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00945

- CV

____________ DAVID B.T. MYRICK, J R., EDNA ARCHER, HAD EN BEARDSLEY, AND

SARAH KATHRYN PACHEC O , Appellant s

V.
LINDA MOODY, ELIZABE TH MOODY AND W.L. MOODY , V , Appellee s

On Appeal from the Probate Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR

- 0076077



### ORDER
This is an appea l from a judgment signed October 8 , 2015. On October 7,
2016
, David B.T. Myrick, Jr., filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as to his claims

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is GRANTED.
Appell ant David B.T. Myrick, Jr., is ordered DISMISSED from the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Busby, Donovan, and Brown

.
Exhibit 31.1 

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

I, Philip Sawyer, certify that: 

 

1.            I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Invuity, 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: March 20, 2017 

 

|   | By:    |   | /s/ Philip Sawyer                     |
|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |   |   | Philip Sawyer                         |
|   |   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   |   | (Principal Executive Officer)         |

 

 

----
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CESAR SAVIEL SALINAS-TINOCO,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

'

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-13-00310-CR

Appeal from the

Criminal District Court No. 7

of Dallas County, Texas 

(TC# F-1222231-Y)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief 

until August 19, 2014. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Rosalind A. Kelly, the Appellant’s Attorney, 

prepare the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before August 19, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22

nd day of July, 2014.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez, JJ.
#### Hamilton & Company *v.*Moore.

There was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying a con- ' tinuance. The evidence of general custom was admissible, and the verdict of the jury was not without evidence to support it. The superior court did not err in overruling the *certiorari.*

August 6, 1894.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Certiorari.*Before Judge Henry. Floyd superior court. September term, 1893.

Moore sued Hamilton & Co. for the value of a bale of cotton delivered to them as warehousemen, and which he claimed was destroyed by fire through their negligence, that they neglected to insure it as was their duty, *708etc. On conflicting evidence plaintiff obtained a verdict in the justice’s court, which was sustained on *certiorari.*The assignments of error were, in refusing to grant a continuance for the absence of Foster, a witness resident of the county, who had been subpoenaed; in admitting testimony that it was the custom of warehousemen to insure all cotton placed in their hands, over objection that this was incompetent, there being a special contract shown by the warehouse receipt; and that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence. As to the absent witness, one of defendants testified that Foster was not absent by his leave or consent, that he hoped to have him present at the next term, that the showing was not made for delay, that he knew only from hearsay what Foster would swear, saw him the day before and talked with him, but said nothing to him about the case, did not tell him it stood for trial on the next day, and never did talk to him about it. Plaintiff’s attorney stated, that the case was continued from the previous term for Foster’s absence, and asked that he be attached. Defendants’ counsel objected to this, and stated that he would have Foster present at the next term.

Harper Hamilton and Wrights & Harper, for plaintiffs in error. G. A. H. Harris, *contra.*

The warehouse receipt was an acknowledgment of receipt of the cotton, “ subject to this receipt only on paying customary charges and all advances (acts of providence and fire excepted).” Under the head of “ charges,” the receipt had several items, embracing weighing, insurance, etc. The only charge entered was opposite the word “weighing.” At the top of the receipt were the words, “Insure your cotton.” There was testimony for defendants, that it was the duty of the holder of the receipt to insure the cotton ; and that this was the general custom among warehousemen.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.13

                     BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY FINANCE CORPORATION

                                OFFER TO EXCHANGE

        $400,000,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ITS 5.10% SENIOR NOTES DUE 2014
             UNCONDITIONALLY GUARANTEED BY BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC.,
                           WHICH HAVE BEEN REGISTERED
 UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, FOR ANY AND ALL 5.10% SENIOR NOTES DUE 2014,
              UNCONDITIONALLY GUARANTEED BY BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC.

Instructions from Beneficial Owner

      The undersigned acknowledge(s) receipt of your letter and the enclosed
Prospectus and the related Letter of Transmittal in connection with the offer by
the Company to exchange the Exchange Notes for Outstanding Notes.

      This will instruct you to tender the principal amount of Outstanding Notes
indicated below held by you for the account of the undersigned, upon the terms
and subject to the conditions set forth in the Prospectus and the related Letter
of Transmittal.

      The undersigned represents that (i) the Exchange Notes acquired pursuant
to the Exchange Offer are being obtained in the ordinary course of the
undersigned's business, (ii) the undersigned is not engaging, does not intend to
engage, and has no arrangement or understanding with any person to participate
in the distribution of such Exchange Notes, (iii) the undersigned is not an
"affiliate," as defined under Rule 405 of the Securities Act, of the Company and
(iv) the undersigned is not acting on behalf of any person or entity that could
not truthfully make these statements. If the undersigned is a broker-dealer, it
acknowledges that it will deliver a copy of the Prospectus in connection with
any resale of the Exchange Notes.

                                                         Sign Here

                                           _____________________________________
                                                        Signatures(s)

<PAGE>

Securities which are to be tendered:

Tender all of the Outstanding Notes

     Aggregate Principal Amount*

 [ ] Outstanding Notes ____________

______________________________________
        Name(s) (Please Print)

______________________________________
            Address

______________________________________
            Zip Code

______________________________________
   Area Code and Telephone No.

Dated:__________________, 200[_]

--------------
* Unless otherwise indicated, it will be assumed that all of the Outstanding
Notes listed are to be tendered.

                                       2
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 94 (Monday, May 18, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23109]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11477]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2006-23742; Directorate Identifier 2005-NE-53-AD; 
Amendment 39-15896; AD 2009-10-01]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney (PW) JT9D-7R4 Series 
Turbofan Engines; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting airworthiness directive (AD) 2009-10-01, 
which was previously published in the Federal Register. That AD applies 
to PW JT9D-7R4 series turbofan engines. In the Federal Register, the AD 
number in the CFR citation of the headings section is incorrect. This 
document corrects that AD number. In all other respects, the original 
document remains the same.

DATES: Effective May 18, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Riley, Aerospace Engineer, Engine 
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New 
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6b060a1900451902070e122b0d0a0a450c041d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e78a86958cc9958e8b829ea7818686c9808891">[email protected]</span></a>; telephone (781) 238-7758; fax (781) 238-7199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 5, 2009 (74 FR 20580), we published a 
final rule AD, FR Doc, E9-10145, in the Federal Register. That AD 
applies to PW JT9D-7R4 series turbofan engines. We need to make the 
following correction:


Sec.  39.13  [Corrected]

0
On page 20580, in the second column, in the Headings Section, in the 
CFR citation, in the third line, ``AD 2009-10-06'' is corrected to read 
``AD 2009-10-01''.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 7, 2009.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft 
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-11477 Filed 5-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


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

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. 

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

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Research Resources Initial Review Group; Comparative Medicine Review Committee; CMRC.                     

*Date:*                         February 18, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         Hilton Washington/Rockville, & Executive Meeting Center, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.                     

*Contact Person:*                         Bonnie B. Dunn, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, National Center for Research Resources, or National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., 1 Democracy Plaza, Room 1074, MSC 4874, Bethesda, MD 20892-4874, 301-435-0824,                         *dunnbo@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research; 93.371, Biomedical Technology; 93.389, Research Infrastructure, 93.306, 93.333, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 13, 2009. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-1154 Filed 1-21-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1




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 Annual Report of SURFACE COATINGS, INC. on Form 10-K for the years ending December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 his knowledge:




1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





/s/ RICHARD PIETRYKOWSKI

Richard Pietrykowski CEO

Dated: March 30, 2010



/s/ RICHARD PIETRYKOWSKI

Richard Pietrykowski

CFO

Dated: March 30, 2010





This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES

OF

FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR HOLDINGS I, LTD.



|                                            |  |                              
|------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Name                                        |  | State/Country ofIncorporation
|Freescale Semiconductor Holdings II, Ltd.   |  | Bermuda                      
|Freescale Semiconductor Holdings III, Ltd.  |  | Bermuda                      
|Freescale Semiconductor Holdings IV, Ltd.   |  | Bermuda                      
|Freescale Semiconductor Holdings V, Ltd.    |  | Delaware / USA               
|Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.               |  | Delaware / USA               
|Freescale Semiconductor Malaysia Sdn Bhd.   |  | Malaysia                     
|Freescale Semiconductor Hong Kong Limited   |  | Hong Kong                    
|Freescale Semiconductor EME&A SA            |  | Switzerland                  
|Freescale Semiconductor Singapore Pte. Ltd. |  | Singapore                    
|Freescale Semiconductor Israel Limited      |  | Israel                       
|Freescale Semiconductor UK Limited          |  | United Kingdom               
|Tohoku Semiconductor Corporation            |  | Japan                        
|Freescale Semiconducteurs France SAS        |  | France
#### Ellis v. International Harvester Co.

Case below: 179 N.C. App. 741

No. 580P04-2

1. Pit’s NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA04-1114)

2. Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1.Dismissed *Ex Mero Motu*01/25/07

2. Denied 01/25/07
#### Rodgers & Winn *v.*Wynne.

It is not apparent from the record that the court committed any error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

April 9, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Levy and claim. Before Judge Butt. Talbot superior court. March term, 1893.

Jesse J. Bull, for plaintiffs.

*Judgment affirmed.*
| (1)   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                         |   |                                                                      |
|----------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                         |   |                                                                      |   |
| March 31, 2010      | By:    | /s/ Nana Baffour                                                     |   |
|                                         |   | Nana Baffour CEO & Co-Executive Chairman(Principal Executive Officer) |   |
|                                         |   |                                                                      |   |
|                                         |   |                                                                      |   |
#### Robert Lim et al., Appellants, v Joel Kolk, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[975 NYS2d 344]

*519Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), entered December 3, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant Joel Kolk’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As the motion court noted, the fraud cause of action accrued in December 2005 when the last allegedly fraudulent check was issued from the deceased’s bank account. Plaintiffs, who claim they were unaware of the alleged fraud, were authorized to investigate and obtain the deceased’s financial records in May 2007. Thus, with reasonable due diligence, plaintiffs could have uncovered the alleged fraud at that time. Accordingly, the cause of action for fraud, brought more than two years from the date the alleged fraud could have been discovered and more than six years after the actual fraud occurred, is time barred *(see*CPLR 213 [8]; *Gutkin v Siegal,*85 AD3d 687, 687-688 [1st Dept 2011]). Plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty claim, based on allegations of actual fraud, is subject to the six-year limitations period *(Kaufman v Cohen,*307 AD2d 113,119 [1st Dept 2003]). Consequently, the court properly found that this claim is also time barred. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, BeGrasse and Gische, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-7520 ALLEN STEPHON MARSHBURN, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-33, CA-97-78-4-BO) Submitted: September 22, 1998 Decided: November 19, 1998 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSELAllen Stephon Marshburn, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________OPINION PER CURIAM: Allen Stephon Marshburn appeals from the district court's orders dismissing his motions filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), as barred by the one-year limitation period imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (effective Apr. 24,1996), and denying his motion for reconsideration. Marshburn's conviction became final in April 1992. B ecause Mars hburn's conviction became final prior to implementation of the one-year limitation period, Appellant had until April 23, 1997, in which to file his § 2255 motion. See Brown v. Angelone , 150 F.3d 370, 375-76 (4th Cir. 1998). Marshburn's § 2255 motion was dated under the penalty of perjury on April 22, 1997, and filed in the district court on April 25, 1997. We conclude that Marshburn's motion was not time-barred. See Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (notice of appeal is deemed filed when it is delivered to prison officials); see also Burns v. Morton , 134 F.3d 109, 113 (3d Cir. 1998) (applying Houston to the filing of habeas petition); Lewis v. Richmond City Police Dep't , 947 F.2d 733, 735-36 (4th Cir. 1991) (applying Houston to filing of civil rights complaint for statute of limitations purposes). Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability on this issue, vacate the district court's order, and remand for further proceedings.We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
2
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 695 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 695

         To suspend temporarily new shipper bonding privileges.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 4, 2005

 Mr. Cochran (for himself and Mr. Byrd) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To suspend temporarily new shipper bonding privileges.

    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 ``New Shipper Review Amendment Act of 
2005''.

SEC. 2. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF NEW SHIPPER BONDING PRIVILEGES.

    Clause (iii) of section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1675(a)(2)(B)(iii)) shall not be effective during the 3-year 
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

    Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of the 
Treasury, the United States Trade Representative, and the Commissioner 
of Customs and Border Protection, shall submit to the Committee on 
Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House 
of Representatives a report containing--
            (1) recommendations on whether the suspension of the 
        effectiveness of section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Tariff Act of 
        1930 should be extended beyond the date provided in section 2 
        of this Act; and
            (2) assessments of the effectiveness of any administrative 
        measures that have been implemented to address the difficulties 
        giving rise to section 2 of this Act, including--
                    (A) problems in assuring the collection of 
                antidumping duties on imports from new shippers;
                    (B) administrative burdens imposed on the 
                Department of Commerce by new shipper reviews; and
                    (C) the use of the bonding privilege by importers 
                from new shippers to circumvent the effect of 
                antidumping duty orders.
                                 <all>
```