alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Dupree *v.*Drake, receiver.

A receiver appointed pending an action by or against the party for whose effects he was appointed receiver, cannot enter an appeal in the action in his own name as receiver without first having himself made a party thereto, inasmuch as no one has a right to appeal except parties to the case in which the appeal is entered. The court erred in not dismissing the appeal. Code, §3615. Let the appeal be dismissed. t

*Judgment reversed. Cross-bill of exceptions dismissed.*

April 2, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Appeal. Before Judge Hunt. Henry superior court. April term, 1898.

Suit was brought in the county court by the Farmers Co-operative Manufacturing Company against C. W. Dupree, on a promissory note. Judgment was rendered for the defendant, and an appeal to the superior court was taken by B. H. Drake, as receiver for the Farmers. Co-operative Manufacturing Company. "When the case was called, defendant moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the receiver was no party to 'the action in the county court, and therefore had no right to enter the appeal, he not having been made a party at the time-the appeal was' entered and nothing, appearing on the *457face of the papers connecting him with the case in anyway. The motion was overruled, and the court allowed, an amendment making the receiver a party plaintiff,, over defendant’s objection that there was no proof of' his appointment as receiver and that no case was properly pending in court to which he could legally he made^ a party.

E. J. Reagan, for plaintiff in error.

T. E. Patterson, *contra.*
Dragon Waiver



 Exhibit 10.67 
  
 October 7th, 2004 
  
 Steven J. Davis, General Counsel 
 Molecular Imaging Corporation 

9530 Towne Centre Drive, Suite #120 
 San Diego, California 92121

  

	Re:	Securities Purchase Agreement 

  
 Dear Steve: 
  
 Reference is made to the Securities Purchase Agreement dated as of July 12, 2002 (the “Agreement”) by and among Molecular Imaging Corporation (the “Company”), Ivan Bradbury and
Integrated Healthcare Management, S.A., as such Agreement was assigned to Dragon Nominees Limited (“Purchaser”). 
  
 Effective as of the date that Mr. Kenneth Frederick becomes the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, Dragon agrees to waive its rights under Sections 4.06 (a), (b),
(c) and (d) of the Agreement with respect to the nomination of a Purchaser Designee (as defined in the Agreement) to the Company’s Board of Directors, until the first to occur of (i) the date which is six (6) months after the effective date
that Mr. Frederick becomes CEO or (ii) the date which Mr. Frederick is no longer a member of the Company’s Board of Directors. 
  
 Sincerely, 
  

			
	Dragon Nominees Limited
		
	By:	 	/S/    IVAN
BRADBURY        

  
 Acknowledged and Agreed: 

 

			
	Molecular Imaging Corporation
		
	By:	 	/S/    STEVEN J.
DAVIS
#### In the Matter of Eric Tolliver, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[962 NYS2d 828]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was allegedly observed having sex with a visitor and, accordingly, was charged in a misbehavior report with violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting sexual acts and the creation of a disturbance. He was found guilty as charged following a tier III disciplinary hearing, and that determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

Meaningful review by this Court is precluded because the hearing transcript is incomplete in significant respects *(see Matter of White v Fischer,*73 AD3d 1372, 1373 [2010]; *Matter of La Van v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs.,*47 AD3d 1153, 1153 [2008]). The missing testimony included, among other things, that of a correction officer who was working in the visiting area and observed no improper behavior on the part of petitioner. Inasmuch as that testimony was requested by petitioner and was cited by the Hearing Officer as a factor *1240considered in rendering the determination of guilt, the failure to record it requires annulment *(see Matter of La Van v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs.,*47 AD3d at 1153; *Matter of Douglas v Goord,*24 AD3d 922, 923 [2005]). We are unpersuaded by petitioner’s contention that expungement is required here and, thus, remit the matter for a new hearing *(see Matter of Hayes v Fischer,*95 AD3d 1587, 1588 [2012]; *Matter of Auricchio v Goord,*273 AD2d 571, 572 [2000]).

Rose, J.E, Lahtinen, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the determination is annulled, without costs, petition granted and matter remitted to respondent for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.
**Facebook****Email**Print**Facebook****Email下載PDF

                  -                  概述, 症状, & 起因               
                  -                  诊断, 治疗, & 采取的步骤               
                  -                  更多信息               

## 需要記住的有關類風濕性關節炎的要點

                            - 類風濕性關節炎 是一種慢性(長期)疾病,大多數情況下會造成關節疼痛、腫脹、僵直和喪失功能。
                            - 類風濕性關節炎可能讓您感覺異常疲倦,偶爾會發燒,而且食欲下降。
                            - 治療方法可包括藥物、醫生持續醫療服務和手術。
                            - 治療的目的是幫助緩解疼痛和腫脹,預防、減緩或停止關節和器官損傷以及幫助您參加日常活動。
                            - 許多事情可以幫助您應對類風濕性關節炎,包括在休息和運動之間達到平衡,保持健康體重,照護自己的關節,與醫生和親朋好友交談以及管理壓力。

## 何謂類風濕性關節炎?

類風濕性關節炎 是一種慢性(長期)疾病,大多數情況下影響關節,例如腕關節、手、腳、脊柱、膝蓋和下頜。類風濕性關節炎造成的炎症可導致關節:
                          - 疼痛。
                          - 腫脹。
                          - 僵直。
                          - 喪失功能。

因為是免疫系統攻擊健康的關節組織,類風濕性關節炎是一種自身免疫性疾病。正常情況下,免疫系統幫助保護身體免於發生感染和疾病。

類風濕性關節炎可能讓您感覺異常疲倦,偶爾會發燒,而且食欲下降。類風濕性關節炎還可能造成心、肺、血液、神經、眼睛和皮膚的其他醫療問題。

治療可以幫助患者過上充實的生活。

## 哪些人會患上類風濕性關節炎?

某些風險因素會增加患上類風濕性關節炎的機率。這些風險因素包括:
                          - 年齡。 類風濕性關節炎可見於所有年齡;但患病風險會隨著年齡的增長而增加。
                          - 性別。 與男性相比,類風濕性關節炎更常見於女性。
                          - 家族史。 如果有家人患有類風濕性關節炎,則您的患病風險會增加。
                          - 吸煙。 長期吸煙者患上類風濕性關節炎的風險會增加。
                          - 肥胖。 肥胖可能會增加患病風險,並限制病情的改善程度。
                          - 牙齦病。

## 類風濕性關節炎 有哪些症狀?

類風濕性關節炎的常見症狀包括:
                            - 休息和行動時關節疼痛,以及關節觸痛、腫脹和發熱。
                            - 關節僵直超過30分鐘。
                            - 感覺異常疲倦或精力不足。
                            - 偶爾低燒。
                            - 食欲不振。

類風濕性關節炎可發生在任何關節;但更常見於手腕、手和腳。通常身體兩側都有症狀。例如,如果您的右手有類風濕性關節炎,那麼您的左手很可能也有。

某些人的類風濕性關節炎發病緩慢,僅影響數個關節。但如果不加以治療,或者治療無效,則類風濕性關節炎可以加重,並影響更多關節。這可導致更嚴重的損傷和殘疾。有時候,類風濕性關節炎症狀會由於觸發因素引起的急性發作而加重。觸發因素包括:
                            - 壓力。
                            - 活動過度。
                            - 突然停藥。

## 類風濕性關節炎 的病因是什麼?

醫生並不知道是什麼原因造成免疫系統攻擊身體的關節和其他組織。基因、環境因素和性荷爾蒙組合可能是病因。

**Facebook****Email**Print**Facebook****Email下載PDF

#### Learn about Research

Find a Clinical Trial  

#### View/Download/Order Publications

Download this topic as a PDF

**Facebook****Email**Print**Facebook****Email

Last Reviewed:             November 2022
#### William M. ESTEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jean HILL, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 08-35490.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 4, 2009.

Filed May 14, 2009.

Amy Baggio, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDOR-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Inge D. Wells, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.

*590Before: W. FLETCHER, BEA and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

William Estey appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm. The state court’s finding of fact that Estey went to the police station voluntarily, expecting questioning to ensue, was not unreasonable in light of the evidence before the court. The evidence in the record to the contrary is not so probative that the trial court was required to address it directly in its findings of fact. *Cf. Taylor v. Maddox,*366 F.3d 992, 999-1008 (9th Cir.2004). Though some facts point toward a finding of custody, we cannot say that, in light of its factual finding, the state court’s determination that Estey was not in custody was objectively unreasonable. *See Yarborough v. Alvarado,*541 U.S. 652, 665, 124 S.Ct. 2140, 158 L.Ed.2d 938 (2004).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9til Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-KSB AND THE ACCOMPANYING NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1995
<CASH>                                              18
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      724
<ALLOWANCES>                                        49
<INVENTORY>                                      1,085
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,307
<PP&E>                                           1,834
<DEPRECIATION>                                     903
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,936
<BONDS>                                          7,637
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,071
<OTHER-SE>                                    (22,344)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,300
<SALES>                                          2,993
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,993
<CGS>                                            2,250
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,169
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 742
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,918)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,919)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (681)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,600)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.80)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ernest Grant, Appellant.

[971 NYS2d 891]

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), imposed October 27, 2011, pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009, codified in CPL 440.46, resentencing him to a determinate term of imprisonment of 15 years, to be followed by a period of post-release supervision of 3 years, upon his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in resentencing the defendant to a determinate term of imprisonment of 15 years, to be followed by a period of postrelease supervision of three years *(see*Penal Law §§ 70.70 [4] [b] [i]; 70.45 [2] [d]). In view of the defendant’s disciplinary history while incarcerated, his past criminal record, and his history of committing crimes while on parole, a further reduction of the defendant’s sentence is not warranted *(see*CPL 440.46 [3]; *People v Medina,*81 AD3d 853 [2011]; *People v Almanzar,*43 AD3d 825 [2007]; *People v Newton,*48 AD3d 115 [2007]; *see also People v Overton,*86 AD3d 4 [2011]). Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
Skip to main content An icon that symbolizes the United States Department of Transportation logo. United States Department of Transportation
        Report a Safety Problem

  Toggle navigation
      National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationHomepage

    Ratings
                                Recalls
                                Risky Driving
                                Road Safety
                                Vehicle Safety
      
            More Info

                      Briefing Room
          
                        
            Importing a Vehicle
          
                                      
            
            Data
          
                        
            Research
          
                        
            Laws & Regulations
          
                    
                      Vehicle Manufacturers
                      State Governments
                      Enforcement & Justice General Motors LLC’s Request to Extend Certain Sufficient Supply and Launch Deadlines


Download file: General Motors LLC’s Request to Extend Certain Sufficient Supply and Launch Deadlines
 NHTSA Information
              
              About NHTSA
          Careers & Internships
          Contact Us
          Recall Information
          Report a Safety ProblemInformation For
              
              Vehicle Manufacturers
          State Governments
          Enforcement & JusticeNHTSA Sites
              
        SaferCar App
          TrafficSafetyMarketing.gov
          EMS.gov
          911.gov
            Website Information
              
        Web Policies & Notices
          Accessibility
          FOIA
          Privacy Policy
          Information Quality
          Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
          No Fear Act Data
          Ethics
          Civil Rights
          Office of Inspector General
          OIG Hotline
          BusinessUSA
          USA.gov
          WhiteHouse.gov

            National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
              1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
                Washington, D.C. 20590
              888-327-4236888-275-9171 (TTY)
              Twitter
                LinkedIn
                Facebook
                Youtube
                Instagram
        Submit Feedback >
EXHIBIT 15


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street N.W.
Washington D.C.  20549

RE:           Lund International Holdings, Inc.
              Registrations on Form S-8 and Form S-3



We are aware that our report dated July 29, 1998 on our reviews of the interim
consolidated financial information of Lund International Holdings, Inc. (the
Company) for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 1998 and 1997, and
included in the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the six months ended
June 30, 1998, is incorporated by reference in the Company's Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-46263, 33-64083 and 33-37160).
Pursuant to Rule 436(c), under the Securities Act of 1933, this report should
not be considered part of the Registration Statements prepared or certified by
us within the meaning of Section 7 and 11 of that Act.



                                                 /s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
                                                 PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP



Minneapolis, Minnesota
August 14, 1998
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 27

, 20 12

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14

- 1 1

- 0 1034

- CV

____________

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY , Appellant

V.

WALLACE L. MEEKS, JAMES M. GRAHAM, JR. AND TOMMY C.

THOMPSON , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 61st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011

- 33406



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed October 28, 2011 . The clerk’s record

was filed December 16, 2011 . The reporter’s record was filed December 15, 2011 . No

brief was filed.

On February 2 , 20 12 , this c ourt issued an order stating that unless appellant

submitted a brief on or before March 2

, 20 12 , the c ourt would dismiss the appeal for want

of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(b).2

Appellant filed no response. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justice s Seymore, Brown, and Boyce

.
## NO. 12

- 1 3

- 00 0 40

- C R

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

GARY HALLIGAN

, § APPEAL FROM THE 7 TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant, Gary Halligan, pleaded guilty to the offense of burglary of a vehicle.

Appellant and his counsel signed written plea admonishments, an agreement to stipulate

testimony, a judicial confession, and a plea bargain agreement that included an agreed punishment

recommendation. The trial court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for five years, and

certified that this “is a plea bargain case, and the defendant has no right of appeal[.]” The trial

court’ s certification is signed by the trial court, Appellant, and Appellant’s counsel. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2).

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2) limits a defendant’s right to appeal in a plea

bargain case when he pleads guilty and his punishment does not exceed the punishment

recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id

. Under t hose

circumstances, the defendant may appeal only (1) matters raised by written motion and ruled on

before trial or (2) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal. Id

. Here, the trial court

sentenced Appellant in accordance with the agreed reco mmendation by the State. The trial court

did not give Appellant permission to appeal, and the clerk’s record does not contain any pretrial2

motions. Therefore, we conclude that the certification of the right of appeal filed by the trial court

is supported by the record and that Appellant has no right to appeal because he was sentenced

pursuant to the agreed terms of a plea bargain and did not satisfy either of the exceptions stated in

Rule 25.2(a)(2). 1 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal “without further a ction.” See Chavez v.

State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

Opinion delivered April 24 , 2013.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1 Appellant also expressly waived his right to appeal.3 

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 24 , 2013

NO. 12

- 13

- 00040

- CR

GARY HALLIGAN

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

Appeal from the 7th Judicial District Court

of Smith County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 007

- 1417

- 12 )

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being

considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed ; and that this decision be certified to the court

below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J. , and Hoyle , J.
June 23, 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

FAHD SAAD TANASH , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00463

- 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 the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### In the Matter of Roman Kevilly, Appellant, v Susan Connell, Superintendent, Oneida Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Submitted December 27, 2010;

decided February 10, 2011

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely *(see*CPLR 5513 [b]).
EXHIBIT 32.1 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

The undersigned, Wayne P. Garten, President and Chief Executive Officer and John W. Swatek, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer  of Hanover Direct, Inc. (the “Company”),  each hereby certify that to his knowledge the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 25, 2004 of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period specified. 

 

Signed at the City of Weehawken, in the State of New Jersey, this 21st day of February, 2006. 

 

 
| /s/ Wayne P. Garten

Wayne P. Garten

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

/s/ John W. Swatek

JohnW. Swatek

Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 976

AN ACT

Striking the Specific Privatization Criteria in ORBIT for

Intelsat Separated Entities (New Skies) and Inmarsat

and Other Technical Corrections.

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

2

S 976 ES

1 SECTION 1. SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR INTELSAT SEPARATED

2 ENTITIES AND INMARSAT MODIFIED.

3 (a) AMENDMENT.—The Communications Satellite

4 Act of 1962 (47 U.S.C. 701 et seq.) is amended—

5 (1) by striking section 623 (47 U.S.C. 763b),

6 and

7 (2) in section 624 (47 U.S.C. 763c), by striking

8 ‘‘In securing the privatizations’’ and all that follows,

9 and inserting ‘‘In securing the privatization of

10 Inmarsat required by section 621, and thereafter,

11 the United States shall preserve space segment ca12 pacity of the GMDSS.’’

13 (3) in section 621 (5)(D)(ii) (47 U.S.C. 763),

14 by striking ‘‘(I)’’ and by striking ‘‘, or (II) have any

15 direct financial interest’’ and all that follows through

16 the end of the subparagraph, and inserting ‘‘;’’.

17 (4) in section 621 (5)(D)(iv) (47 U.S.C. 763),

18 by striking ‘‘(I)’’ and by striking ‘‘, or (II) have any

19 direct financial interest’’ and all that follows through

20 the end of the subparagraph, and inserting ‘‘.’’.

21 (b) SATELLITE SERVICE REPORT.—The Commission

22 shall review competitive market conditions with respect to

23 domestic and international satellite communications serv24 ices and shall include in an annual report an analysis of

25 those conditions. Such analysis shall include an identifica26 tion of the number and market share of competitors in
†

3

S 976 ES

1 domestic and international satellite markets, including an

2 analysis of whether there is effective competition in the

3 market for domestic and international satellite services,

4 and shall include a list of any foreign nations in which

5 legal or regulatory practices restrict access to the market

6 for satellite services in such nation in a manner that un7 dermines competition or favors a particular competitor or

8 set of competitors.

9 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

10 subsection (a) shall be effective as of the date of enact11 ment of this section.

Passed the Senate April 29 (legislative day, April

28), 2005.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 976

AN ACT

Striking the Specific Privatization Criteria in

rections.Skies) and Inmarsat and Other Technical CorORBIT for Intelsat Separated Entities (New