alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
June 19, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JERAMIAH CLARK, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00959-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having 

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in judgment. The Court 

orders the judgment AFFIRMED, and that this decision be certified below for 

observance.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.23

                               September 27, 2001

Raining Data Corporation
17500 Cartwright Road
Irvine, CA 92614

         Re:      Secured Promissory Note dated November 30, 2000

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         Reference is made to that certain Secured Promissory Note dated
November 30, 2000 made by Raining Data Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), in the principal amount of $18,525,416.67, payable to the order of
Astoria Capital Partners, L.P. (the "Note").

         In connection with the purchase by the undersigned of an aggregate of
1,760,000 shares of common stock, $.001 par value, of the Company (the "Shares")
on or about September 27, 2001, the undersigned hereby waives the application of
the second paragraph of Section 1 of the Note with respect to the issuance by
the Company of the Shares, with the effect that the term "Offering" as used in
Sections 1 and 2 of the Note shall not include the issuance by the Company of
the Shares. All other provisions of the Note shall remain in full force and
effect.

                                        Very truly yours,


                                        ASTORIA CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.P.

                                        By:      /s/ Richard W. Koe
                                            ----------------------------------

                                        Name:       Richard W. Koe
                                               -------------------------------

                                        Title:      General Partner
                                               -------------------------------





                                       5
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Funding For Research 

# Scientific Review and Grants Management Branches

## Scientific Review

The Scientific Review Branch coordinates, manages, and executes initial scientific and technical merit reviews of research and research training grant applications, cooperative agreements, and contract proposals within NIDCD. The scope of these reviews encompasses the basic and clinical sciences related to diseases and disorders of communication including hearing, balance, smell, taste, voice, speech, and language.

The Scientific Review Branch uses two chartered initial review groups. The first is the Communication Disorders Review Committee (CDRC), which is composed of 21 members and may be supplemented by temporary members. The CDRC has primary responsibility for the review of applications for multiple project grants, institutional training grants, career development awards, and conference grants. The second chartered committee is a Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) that allows the expertise at each review meeting to be tailored for the particular grant applications or contract proposals under evaluation. These SEPs are used to review the Institute's Requests for Proposals, Requests for Applications, the Small Grant program, the High Impact: Feasibility Studies program, and other specialized needs.

## Grants Management

The Grants Management Branch (GMB) directs and coordinates all business-related and financial management activities associated with the review, negotiation, award, administration, and termination of grants and cooperative agreements. Staff of the Grants Management Branch participate in policy development and implementation regarding the financial and administrative management of grants and cooperative agreements. Staff also provide technical advice and assistance to ensure that awards are managed in accordance with applicable statutes, regulations, and policies (NIH Grants Policies).

### Extramural Program Codes

The Program Classification Code is composed of eight characters of which the NIDCD uses only the first two. The code definitions appear below.

May 13, 2022

## Serving on an NIDCD Review Panel

If you are interested in serving on an NIDCD review panel, please fill out this form.
The District Court of the 1st Judicial District. County of Lewis and Clark.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. JOEY CASTLEBERRY, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. ADC-08-332 DECISION

On July 8, 2009 the defendant was sentenced a commitment to the Montana Department of Corrections for a term of five (5) years, for violation of the conditions of a deferred sentence for the offense of Count III: Theft, a felony. The Department may place the defendant into an appropriate community-based program, facility, or a State correctional institution with the *4Court’s recommendation that the defendant be placed at MASC for determination of placement in an appropriate program.

On February 4, 2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Bert Certain. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 4 th day of February, 2010.

DATED this 23rd day of February, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
## Contact Information

Bethesda MD20892

sally.villalobos@nih.gov

March 2024

Back to Top
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 24.3


                            SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

The undersigned constitutes and appoints Vince Hren, or the Chief Financial
Officer of Microtest, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and each of them, his true
and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent with full power of substitution and
resubstitution, for him and in his name, place, and stead, in any and all
capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1999, for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission by
Microtest, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with any and all amendments to
such Form 10-K, and to file the same with all exhibits thereto, and all
documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
granting to such attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary
to be done in and about the premises, as fully and to all intents and purposes
as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that such
attorneys-in-fact and agents, or each of them, may lawfully do or cause to be
done by virtue hereof.


DATED: 3/2/00

                                                 /s/  Steven G. Mihaylo
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Steven G. Mihaylo
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Rosanne M . Barker , Appellant

No. 06

- 22

- 00076

- CV v.

Sam Houston State University , Appellee Appeal from the 278th District Court of
Walker County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No.
1929437 ). Mem orandum Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Stevens

, Justice
van Cleef and Justice Rambin participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court
below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We f urther order that the appellant, Rosanne M . Barker , pay all costs incurred by reason
of this appeal.

RENDERED JUNE 2 2 , 2023 BY ORDER OF THE COURT SCOTT E. STEVENS CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         297,290
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  119,257
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    176,654
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               798,858
<PP&E>                                       1,230,329
<DEPRECIATION>                               (451,459)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,698,839
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,096,761
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       137,882
<OTHER-SE>                                     344,268
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,698,839
<SALES>                                        267,933
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               267,933
<CGS>                                          228,847
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  228,847
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,115,667
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              42,899
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,119,492)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,119,492)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,119,492)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)
        

</TABLE>
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 Quarterly Report of A-Fem Medical Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Walter
Witoshkin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to my 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 operations of the Company.


                                                 /s/ Walter Witoshkin
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Walter Witoshkin,
                                                 Chief Executive Officer

Date:    September 1, 2005


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 24798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12129]


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

 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1620]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status; Grafil, Inc. (Carbon 
Fiber), Sacramento, CA

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for ``* * * the 
establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the 
United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for 
other purposes,'' and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant 
to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of 
entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results 
in a significant public benefit and is in the public interest;
    Whereas, the Sacramento-Yolo Port District, grantee of FTZ 143, has 
made application to the Board for authority to establish special-
purpose subzone status at the carbon fiber manufacturing plant of 
Grafil, Inc., located in Sacramento, California (FTZ Docket 37-2007, 
filed 8/14/2007);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the 
Federal Register (72 FR 48612, 8/24/07); and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
the Board's regulations would be satisfied, and that approval of the 
application would be in the public interest, if approval were subject 
to the condition listed below;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby grants authority for subzone 
status for activity related to the manufacture of carbon fiber at the 
Grafil, Inc., facilities, located in Sacramento, California (Subzone 
143D), as described in the application and Federal Register notice, 
subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 
400.28, and also subject to the condition that approval is for an 
initial period of five years, subject to extension upon review.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of May 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-12129 Filed 5-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 26, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, July 26, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16I0252. RICHARD CAFFEE v. THE STATE.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 15M1838
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 12.1



                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
          (Amounts in thousands of dollars, except ratio information)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                     YEAR ENDED FEBRUARY 28(29),
                                    ----------------------------

                                       1996             1997
                                     --------         --------
<S>                                  <C>              <C>
1.      Loss
        Pre-tax Loss                 (79,184)         (98,679)
        Interest Expense 1            12,899           15,839
                                     -------          -------   
                                     (66,285)         (82,840)
                                     =======          =======        

2.      Fixed Charges
        Interest Expense 1            12,899           15,839
                                     =======          =======        

3.      Ratio (1 divided by 2)        N/A(A)           N/A(A)
                                     =======          =======        
</TABLE>


(A)     Earnings are inadequate to cover fixed charges. The amount of the
        deficiency is $79,184, and $98,679 for the year ended February 28(29),
        1996 and 1997, respectively.





-------------------------
1       Consists of interest on debt and imputed interest on capital 
        leases.
#### Marcia Francis, Appellant, v Gladstone A. Francis, Respondent.

[975 NYS2d 13]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelida Malave*455Gonzalez, J.), entered October 19, 2012, which awarded plaintiff $868.66 biweekly in temporary maintenance, and denied plaintiffs request for counsel and appraisal fees, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the award of temporary maintenance vacated, and the matter remanded for a reconsideration of the award in light of the directives of Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5-a), and for a reconsideration of the request for counsel and appraisal fees.

To determine temporary maintenance, the motion court had to apply Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5-a), which had become effective on October 12, 2010. While the motion court properly followed the calculations provided in that section to arrive at a presumptive award of temporary maintenance, it did not address the fact that defendant was paying the carrying costs on the marital residence, where both parties still reside, and that plaintiff specifically requested an order directing that defendant continue to pay those costs, as well as her unreimbursed medical expenses *(see Khaira v Khaira,*93 AD3d 194, 197 [1st Dept 2012]; *Woodford v Woodford, 100*AD3d 875, 877 [2d Dept 2012]; *see also H.G. v N.K.,*40 Misc 3d 1242[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51529[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2013]). Significantly, this Court has viewed the “formula adopted by the new maintenance provision as covering all the spouse’s basic living expenses, including housing costs” *(Khaira,*93 AD3d at 200). Accordingly, we vacate the award and remand the matter for a reconsideration of the award in light of the directives of Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5-a).

We note that in reconsidering the award of temporary maintenance, the motion court should consider the payment of these carrying costs on the marital residence, half of which should be credited to defendant in calculating the award. The court should also articulate any other factors it may consider in deviating from the presumptive award, including plaintiffs medical condition and her inability to work. Any award of maintenance should be made effective as of the date of application *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]; *Nacos v Nacos,*96 AD3d 579 [1st Dept 2012]; *H.K. v J.K.,*32 Misc 3d 1226[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51429[U], *6 n 4 [Sup Ct, NY County 2011]).

Given the rebuttable presumption that counsel fees shall be awarded to the less monied spouse (Domestic Relations Law § 237), we also remand for a reconsideration of plaintiff’s request for counsel and appraisal fees. The motion court’s denial of those requests was based on the now vacated award and a mathematical error in the calculation of the parties’ respective incomes following the award of temporary maintenance. *456Concur — Andrias, J.E, Acosta, Saxe, Renwick and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Liza P., Respondent, v Kevin P., Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 463]

*518Order, Family Court, Bronx County (James E. d’Auguste, J.), entered on or about February 29, 2012, which granted petitioner mother custody of the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Family Court properly determined that it had jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76 (1) (b). Florida could not have jurisdiction because, although it was the child’s home state at the time the proceeding commenced, neither the child nor either party resided there. Furthermore, the mother and child resided in New York and had a family network here, and substantial evidence was available in this state regarding the child’s care.

Although respondent father commenced a proceeding in Florida prior to the commencement of the New York proceeding, Family Court correctly found that Florida could not have jurisdiction in substantial conformity with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act because neither the child nor the parties were residing there *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 76 [1] [a]). In any event, having learned of the Florida proceeding, the court fulfilled its obligation pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-e by attempting to communicate with the Florida court *(see Vanneck v Vanneck,*49 NY2d 602, 610-611 [1980]; *cf. Cynthia Marie S. v Allen Wayne L.,*228 AD2d 249 [1st Dept 1996]).

We have considered the father’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Saxe, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. § 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002* In connection with the Quarterly Report of IEA Income Fund VIII (the
Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the
undersigned, Dennis J. Tietz, the President and Chief Executive Officer of
Cronos Capital Corp., the General Partner of the Registrant, and John Kallas,
the Chief Financial Officer of Cronos Capital Corp., certify, based on their
knowledge, that:  (i)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and(ii)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operation of the Registrant. May 14, 2004 By
    
    /s/ Dennis J. TietzDennis J. Tietz, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Cronos Capital Corp.,General Partner of the Registrant/s/ John KallasJohn Kallas, Chief Financial Officer of
CronosCapital Corp., General Partner of the
Registrant
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.    *
    
    This certification, required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, other than as required by Section 906, shall not be deemed to be
filed with the Commission or subject to the rules and regulations
promulgated by the Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, or to the liabilities of Section 18 of said Act.
## Contact Information

Bethesda MD20892

strachar@mail.nih.gov

June 2022

Back to Top