alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### United States *v.*Cota.

*(District Court, W. D. Michigan, N. D.*

July 24, 1883.)

Note of Decision.

Information for carrying on the business of a retail liquor dealer without the payment of the special tax.

*J. W. Stone,*U. S. Atty., for the United. States.

*E. C. Clark,*for defendant.

Before Hon. S. L. Withey, District'Judge.

The evidence in this case showed that the defendant kept a boarding-house and had a bar where he sold cider and an article known as “ Reed’s gilt-edge tonic,” by the glass or drink, to all persons who called for the same; that the tonic was sold in considerable quantities, by the glass or drink, to persons who drank it as a beverage as other liquors are drank, and that persons became intoxicated thereby; that said tonic was generally sold at saloons and drinking-places in that vicinity, and contained a large percentage of distilled spirits.

It was claimed on the part of the government that the evidence showed that this tonic was “ compound liquors,” within the meaning of the *third*subdivision of section 3244, Revised Statutes, and that the manufacturer of such compounds was liable to pay a rectifier’s special tax, and that the defendant was guilty under the- information for selling the same in the rhanner shown by the evidence. ;

The court charged the jury that if the article sold was a medicine and contained spirits simply to preserve its medicinal qualities, ánd was sold and taken as a medicine in good faith, that the defendant should be acquitted. But if the jury found from the evidence that the article was a compound containing such a quantity of spirits as to be intoxicating, and was sold by the defendant as a beverage, he knowing its intoxicating quality, and was drank by persons *not*as a medicine, but as a *beverage, because*of its intoxicating and stimulating qualities, then, no matter by what name it was known or called, the defendant was guilty as charged.

The jury returned a verdict ,of guilty, and the defendant was fined $300, and sentenced to imprisonment in the custody of the marshal for 30 days.
**Exhibit 23.1**

CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our report dated February 23, 2007, accompanyingthe consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of TapestryPharmaceuticals, Inc. and subsidiaries (a Delaware corporation) (collectively,the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 27,2006.  We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of theCompany on Form S-8 (No. 333-05561), Form S-8 (No. 333-75551),Form S-8 (No. 333-52008), Form S-8 (No. 333-73470),Form S-8 (No. 333-120081), Form S-8 (No. 333-128121), Form S-8(No. 333-133812), Form S-3 (No. 333-82810), Form S-3(No. 333-112774), Form S-3 (No. 333-107817) and Form S-3 (No.333-133811).
| /s/GRANT THORNTON LLP |   |
|-----------------------|--------|
|                  |
|                  |
| Denver, Colorado      |
| February 23, 2007     |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000822084
<NAME> INNERDYNE, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       6,115,701
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,072,226
<ALLOWANCES>                                   131,011
<INVENTORY>                                  1,385,861
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,031,371
<PP&E>                                       4,156,684
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,318,917
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,914,105
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,184,827
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       219,697
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,114,893
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,914,105
<SALES>                                      9,263,439
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,496,781
<CGS>                                        2,763,050
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,011,035
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              50,626
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                568,339
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            558,339
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   558,339
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02


</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-22-00126-CR

Albino CEDILLO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 63rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-0019-CR

Honorable Steve Hilbig, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, Cedillo’s challenge to the aggravated 

sexual assault of a child count is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction and the remainder of the

judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

SIGNED September 13, 2023.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
EXHIBIT (23)







INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

Stockholders and Board of Directors
E.mergent, Inc.
Golden Valley, Minnesota

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-56767 on Form S-3 and in Registration Statement No. 333-87605 on Form S-8 of
our report dated March 1, 2002 on the financial statements of E.mergent, Inc.
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of E.mergent, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2001.

/s/  Deloitte & Touche LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 21, 2002
EXHIBIT 10.5

SUMMARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

The cash compensation of non-employee directors of WMS Industries for
calendar year 2007 remains unchanged from calendar year 2006, specifically:



|                                              |  |          |  |      |        
|--------------------------------------------- |  | -------- |  | ---- | -------
|Board of Directors Annual Retainer:           |  | Chairman |  | =  $ | 500,000
|                                              |  | Members  |  | =  $ | 30,000 
|                                              |  |         
|Committee Annual Retainers:                   |  |          |  |      |        
|Audit and Ethics Committee                    |  | Chairman |  | =  $ | 30,000 
|                                              |  | Members  |  | =  $ | 25,000 
|                                              |  |         
|Compensation Committee                        |  | Chairman |  | =  $ | 10,000 
|                                              |  | Members  |  | =  $ | 5,000  
|                                              |  |         
|Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee |  | Chairman |  | =  $ | 7,500  
|                                              |  | Members  |  | =  $ | 5,000  
|                                              |  |         
|Gaming Compliance Committee                   |  | Member   |  | =  $ | 10,000
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/Self Employed Issue Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Thursday, July 23, 2009. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Janice Spinks at 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6098. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/Self Employed Issue Committee will be held Thursday, July 23, 2009, at 8:30 a.m. Pacific Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Janice Spinks. For more information please contact Ms. Spinks at 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6098, or write TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174 or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various IRS issues. 

Dated: May 27, 2009. 

Shawn F. Collins, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. E9-12769 Filed 6-1-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
No. 832.

#### Seago, Administratrix, *v.*New York Central Railroad Co.

See *ante,*p. 781.
#### Harjeet SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-74401.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2009.*

Filed May 26, 2009.

Hilari Allred, Esquire, Robert Bradford Jobe, Esquire, Law Offices of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Robert F. Adams, Esquire, Melissa Lynn Neiman-Kelting, OIL, Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Harjeet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Singh v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir.2006), and we grant the petition for review.

The IJ did not adequately explain the adverse credibility determination. *See id.*(the agency must identify specific and cogent reasons for an adverse credibility finding); *Bandari v. INS,*227 F.3d 1160, 1166 (9th Cir.2000) (the IJ must explain the significance of any perceived discrepancies). For one thing, in concluding that Singh’s testimony was “confusing, contradictory and evasive,” the BIA failed to address Singh’s contention that his testimony was not competently translated. *See Sagaydak v. Gonzales,*405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir.2005) (“the BIA [is] not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner.”); *He v. Ashcroft,*328 F.3d 593, 598 (9th Cir.2003) (“faulty or unreliable translations *631can undermine the evidence on which an adverse credibility determination is based”). Accordingly, we remand for the agency to reconsider its adverse credibility determination on an open record. *See Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555*F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir.2009); *see also INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage                     *de novo*, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                

                    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at                     *www.ffiec.gov/​nic/​*.                

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 22, 2009.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta**                     (Steve Foley, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:                

*1. First America Holdings Corporation*, Osprey, Florida; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of MRCB Holdings, Inc., Palmetto, Florida, and thereby engage in operating a savings association, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(4)(ii) of Regulation Y.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 21, 2009.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E9-12276 Filed 5-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Order filed December 10 , 2019.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14

- 19

- 00237

- CR

____________

RYAN COLEMAN , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 337th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial C ourt Cause No. 1619943



### ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due May 10, 2019

. See Tex. R. App.

P. 35.1. On July 11, 2019, this court ordered the court reporter to file the record

within 30 days. The complete record has not been filed with th e court. Volumes 1,

7, 9, and 10 are missing from the record. B ecause the complete reporter’s record

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.We orde r Ar lene Webb

, the substitute court reporter, to file the record in

this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. No further extension will be

entertained absent exceptional cir cumstances. The trial and appellate courts are

jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex.

R. App. P. 35.3(c). If d oes not timely file the record as ordered, we may issue an

order directing the trial court to co nduct a hearing to determine the reason for the

failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain, and Hassan.
[935 NE2d 791, 909 NYS2d 1]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Timoteo Ramirez, Appellant.

Decided September 16, 2010

*825APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Schlather, Stumbar, Parks & Salk, LLP,*Ithaca *(Diane V. Bruns*of counsel), for appellant.

*Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney,*New York City *(Grace Vee*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s argument, the Appellate Division properly concluded that the verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable jury could have inferred that defendant constructively possessed the drugs and drug paraphernalia located in an apartment in which defendant himself was found *(see generally People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]).

Moreover, although the record is silent as to whether Supreme Court showed the jury note to counsel as required in *826
      *People v O’Rama*(78 NY2d 270 [1991]), defense counsel had notice of the contents of the note and the court’s response, and failed to object at that time, when the error could have been cured. Accordingly, defendant’s claim is unpreserved for review *(see People v Starling,*85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]; *see also People v Kadarko,*14 NY3d 426, 429-430 [2010]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-50335 

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN DANIEL SANCHEZ-RIOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. P-98-CR-264-ALL

- - - - - - - - - -

July 21, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Juan Daniel Sanchez-Rios

(Sanchez) has requested leave to withdraw and, in accordance with

this court’s prior order, has filed a supplemental brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Sanchez filed a

supplemental response to the motion. He argues that the evidence

was insufficient to support the acceptance of his guilty plea to

illegal reentry of a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a) and that he should not have been arrested or indicted

for this charge. Sanchez also asserts that his counsel provided
No. 99-50335 

-2-

ineffective assistance by failing to raise this issue before the

district court. 

Our independent review of Dobbs’ briefs, Sanchez’ responses,

and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. We

do not address Sanchez’ ineffective assistance argument because

this issue was not raised in the district court and the record on

this issue has not been adequately developed. See United States

v. Bounds, 943 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the

motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Clarence G. Simmons, III, Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(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/ Clarence G. Simmons, III Clarence G. Simmons, III Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer February 28, 2008
AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed January 12, 2015.

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00356-CR

PAUL LEWIS WARREN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-81292-2013

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Stoddart

Opinion by Justice Evans

Paul Lewis Warren appeals from the revocation of his community supervision for felony 

driving while intoxicated . See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 49.04(a), 49.09(b)(2) (West Supp. 

2014). The trial court assessed punishment at two years’ imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. On 

appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and 

without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no 

arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 

[Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of 
-2-

his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 

S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts and counsel in 

Anders cases).

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree 

the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably 

support the appeal.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/ David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

140356F.U05
-3-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

PAUL LEWIS WARREN, Appellant 

No. 05-14-00356-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 380th Judicial District 

Court of Collin County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 

380-81292-2013).

Opinion delivered by Justice Evans, 

Justices Francis and Stoddart participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered January 12, 2015.