alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals for the

First District of Texas at Houston

Order

Appellate case name: In re Sandra Nze

Appellate case number: 01-15-00526-CV

Trial court case number: 14-CCV-53717

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 3 ofFort Bend County

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is denied.

Judge's signature:Isi Michael Massengale

Acting for the Court

Panel consists ofChiefJustice Radaek and Justices Massengale and Lloyd.

Date: June 25, 2015
Court of Appeals, First District

301 Fannin Street

Houston, Texas 77002-2066

\T

TJ9%m
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony R. De Marco, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 325]

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, Jr., J.), rendered May 29, 2002, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of sodomy in the second degree, sexual abuse in the first degree (three counts), attempted sodomy in the second degree and sexual abuse in the second degree.

*1046Originally indicted on 21 counts (including three B felonies and six C felonies) for alleged sexual misconduct perpetrated upon three children, defendant ultimately was found guilty following a jury trial of six counts (three D felonies, one E felony and two misdemeanors). He now appeals contending that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. We are unpersuaded and, thus, affirm.

The well-settled standard for a claim of ineffective assistance is “whether counsel’s performance ‘viewed in totality’ amounts to ‘meaningful representation’ ” *(People v Turner,*5 NY3d 476, 480 [2005], quoting *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; *see People v Henry,*95 NY2d 563, 565 [2000]). This standard is not “amenable to precise demarcation” and necessarily hinges upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case *(People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; *see People v Taylor, 1*NY3d 174, 177 [2003]; *People v Satterfield,*66 NY2d 796, 798-799 [1985]). “[A] reviewing court must avoid confusing ‘true ineffectiveness with mere losing tactics and according undue significance to retrospective analysis’ ” *(People v Benevento, supra*at 712, quoting *People v Baldi, supra*at 146). In short, “[t]he Constitution guarantees a defendant a fair trial, not a perfect one” *(People v Henry, supra*at 565).

The purported errors ascribed to trial counsel include, among others, failing to use a peremptory challenge as to a juror after County Court denied counsel’s request to strike her for cause, failing to object to leading questions (although such questions are not identified), and cross-examining the children witnesses in a respectful fashion rather than “demoniz[ing]” them. These and the other alleged errors asserted by defendant are, at best, speculative and reflect efforts to second-guess trial strategy. Indeed, review of the record reveals that counsel made appropriate motions, successfully precluded the prosecution from inquiring about defendant’s prior convictions, conducted a meaningful voir dire of prospective jurors, made cogent opening and closing statements, effectively cross-examined witnesses, interjected appropriate objections, presented evidence in support of defendant, and obtained dismissal or acquittal of numerous charges, including the most serious ones.

Cardona, EJ., Spain, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
October 20, 2011



### JUDGMENT



## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

WHITTEN ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A ALLYN MED ICAL SERVICES , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00621

- CV V.

JOYCE DOTY , Appellee

____________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment
signed by the court below on May 17, 2011. Having considered the motion and found it
meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reas on of this appeal be paid by

WHITTEN ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A ALLYN MED ICAL SERVICES

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
CHIEF JUSTICE

 ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

 NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

 DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

 GINA M. BENAVIDES

 GREGORY T. PERKES

 NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

 CECILE FOY GSANGER

NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FLOOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361-888-0416 (TEL)

361-888-0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLOOR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 78539

956-318-2405 (TEL)

956-318-2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa

Court of Appeals 

Thirteenth District of Texas 

July 14, 2015

Hon. Soledad M. Valenciano

SPIVEY VALENCIANO, PLLC

McAllister Plaza

9601 McAllister Freeway, Ste. 130

San Antonio, TX 78216

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Alan T. Ozuna

Denton, Navarro, Rocha & Bernal

701 E Harrison, Suite 100

Harlingen, TX 78550

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. James Kenneth Spivey

SPIVEY VALENCIANO, PLLC

McAllister Plaza

9601 McAllister Freeway, Ste. 130

San Antonio, TX 78216

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Eddie Lucio

Law Office of Eddie Lucio

422 E. Harrison Avenue

Harlingen, TX 78550

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Ricardo J. Navarro

Attorney at Law

701 E. Harrison, Suite 100

Harlingen, TX 78550

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Robert L. Drinkard

Attorney at Law

701 E. Harrison Avenue, Ste. 100

Harlingen, TX 78550

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13-13-00340-CV

Tr.Ct.No. 2013-DCL-03282-I

Style: PARTNERS DEWATERING INTERNATIONAL, L.C. v. CITY OF RIO 

HONDO

Appellee’s motion for rehearing and motion for reconsideration en banc in the 

above cause were this day DENIED by this Court.

Very truly yours,

Cecile Foy Gsanger, Clerk

CFG:dot
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 22.1

                          List of Subsidiaries

The following companies are subsidiaries of the Company and are included in the
consolidated financial statements of the Company:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NAME                                          Jurisdiction of Organization  Percentage of Voting Securities Owned
----                                          ----------------------------  -------------------------------------
<S>                                           <C>                           <C>
American Locker Security Systems, Inc.             Delaware                              100%
American Locker Company, Inc.                      Delaware                              100%
American Locker Company of Canada, Ltd.            Dominion of Canada                    100% (1)

Canadian Locker Company, Ltd.                      Dominion of Canada                    100% (2)
American Locker Security Systems                   Virgin Islands                        100% (1)
 International
Security Manufacturing Corporation                 Delaware                              100%
ALTRECO, Incorporated                              Delaware                              100%
</TABLE>

(1) Owned by American Locker Security Systems, Inc.

(2) Owned by American Locker Company of Canada, Ltd.
**Exhibit No. 31.2**

**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**

 

I,Russell M. Gifford, certify that:

1.               I have reviewed this annualreport on Form 10-KSB of Barnwell Industries, Inc.;

2.               Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3.               Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

4.               The small business issuer’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

a)              Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;

b)             Evaluated the effectivenessof the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

c)              Disclosed in this report anychange in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.               Thesmall business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to thesmall business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small businessissuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)              All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the smallbusiness issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

b)             Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the small business issuer’s internal controls over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  | December 19, 2005 |                    | /s/ Russell M. Gifford |
|--------|-------------------|-------------------------|------------------------|
|   |              | Russell M. Gifford      |
|   |              | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 76 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 76

 Expressing support for the designation of a ``Women's Health Research 
                                 Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 24, 2019

 Ms. Schakowsky submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
                to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing support for the designation of a ``Women's Health Research 
                                 Day''.

Whereas women constitute 50.8 percent of Americans;
Whereas women across races, ethnicities, socioeconomic statuses, and age groups 
        experience many diseases and disorders differently than men;
Whereas the incidence, prevalence, symptomology, and severity of disease may 
        differ between men and women across races, ethnicities, socioeconomic 
        statuses, and age groups;
Whereas women and men have fundamental biological differences;
Whereas women across races, ethnicities, socioeconomic statuses, and age groups 
        vary in the risks and benefits of medical therapies;
Whereas for many years, women across races, ethnicities, socioeconomic statuses, 
        and age groups were underrepresented in biomedical and clinical 
        research;
Whereas the improvement of women's health relies on sex- and gender-based 
        biomedical and clinical research;
Whereas the promise of individualized medicine cannot be realized without sex- 
        and gender-based parity in research;
Whereas, on January 25, 2016, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) 
        implemented a policy requiring federally funded investigators to 
        consider sex as a biological variable in preclinical research; and
Whereas this policy ushered in a new era of inclusivity and parity in women's 
        health research: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) expresses support for the designation of a ``Women's 
        Health Research Day''; and
            (2) supports efforts to--
                    (A) recognize the importance of biomedical and 
                clinical research to women's health and well-being to 
                advancing human health;
                    (B) increase awareness of the value of sex- and 
                gender-based biomedical research; and
                    (C) encourage individuals, including researchers 
                and patients, to advocate on behalf of sex- and gender-
                inclusive research across races, ethnicities, 
                socioeconomic statuses, and age groups.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.1

 

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENTAUDITORS 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-72850, 333-42492, 333-83687, 333-52551, 333-30727, 333-16209, 333-07003, 33-47618, 33-47619, 33-51578 and 33-89582) of Concerto Software Inc. of our reports dated January 24, 2003, with respect tothe consolidated financial statements and schedules of Concerto Software, Inc. included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002. 

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

 

Boston, Massachusetts 

March 25, 2003
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 SGS International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 (the
Report), the undersigned each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  |  | 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.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                |  |  |  |                                                
|--------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------
|August 13, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ HENRY R. BAUGHMAN                          
|                |  |  |  | Henry R. Baughman                              
|                |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
|                |  | 
|August 13, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ James M. Dahmus                            
|                |  |  |  | James M. Dahmus                                
|                |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
@article{1213741,
  author = {Jeffrey Schwartz and Sergiy Krylyuk and Devon Jakob and Albert Davydov and Andrea Centrone},
  title = {Mid-Infrared, Near-Infrared, and Visible Nanospectroscopy of Hydrogen-Intercalated MoO3},
  year = {2023},
  number = {127},
  month = {2023-08-21 04:08:00},
  publisher = {The Journal of Physical Chemistry C},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936418},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.3c05114},
  language = {en},
}
KEV/U Eaud'iTT Mi-Ar-iwi-r\ mi WTH£ COURT ft£ /^^/!LS

3; _ ZTL ... -,;S»5r

©OUBT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ' ^^^^"^^l

m STA-re df Te**s JUL 15 2015 S*w ^^r^&s«

O *v CO.'-- 3~3pT

;W

=1 ^> ^liH

APPBLUANJTS <WOT|OM TO e^TcNJO T>AA£ TO gs«C>~---^-ESd

m

APp6U-A.»OT- ^AoVES THArt TH15 Hort0S.AC>Le OOV^LT <&tMfr$l

Time To Pice Per.r,ow for, Oiac«*rioMAie/ ^ex9,^SJ9^^'^^APPEAL:

Support <?f= H»s R£^uesT showss ' JUL 212015

I. Afpect-ivMT- ,& A i^rreo sfrtteS crniEtf ^ itfoth^AgMflieierk *Pf>eu-AN7 ,<. ,oOT A uAwyeiL>

3. fcPPet^r Mor.or, ^ teHe*ru^ Was DffNif* JuWfe «r *>,r

Cast. D ^^ AM 6Y-T6nt»o»J IMTHJS

pe«W Pko^ 4is tbt>PciA,reo coursecc^

TLetY O* «A..i.Po5TAU AAA,,. f=0<L PCCUM^TS. ^^K

-7. Appslww? Ha5 BNco^Te^Bf> zevous A*c6« t* ^utr \A^atWx

T**? stats T^*. *F T^-fts CDe^-r AttoRm^y

fcPpgU-/V*T Has Nct RECeu/c-D ^ P»C6/S>
10. APP0LCAMT THFx>ae>M DUL6 D»«-iA»V,T HAS &GGN UNSUCCESSFUL,

WOBTA.MiMf. THC ^coao. APPftt-vt WAS A(V/sJ?J> fcV

II. APWSU^MT W,cu w* THE Co*e.r **Pc^ To p^V,oe

Trig R.g£oje.o Ttf PnpiDa.i?is Zsc_.

A>Q. </7-/r-oozs-i •-^g.

^V/aJ Ba<-oYtt f\pp£LLAkJT
iroCA«z.cmATi5o i^ Ttip lO?Z2. £>~rpcre j5>(l. ^A^ftivy *x ^njt

0^ f^6 Tt>A^ pe^, OT- 6>iAAf>o^L> ^AC-pfte »m ttlPAUHO

^o^ntV T^»a^ VC^PY Amp DgXU^Ji-e UMD^jl. p^NAL-TV

P,*^ oocy^cr -to -pie G,£ST Of- jwY AeiCrpY

^'X'BCvA-r^JO £>iO T-rliS -the "2^ Da7 o^ 'ShlX 7-0)5"

^

j/^v/i^ l3>AuonT APPELLANT

^DiNJG^r2-f) TX n%S*T7~
Cadoja - neeves xusrice csntbik.

1>00 DO'-OjtOS/V ST, SlAlTf 2>Z£0

San Afo-rtfMio t*- 'T^aosVIA Ia^. AAAI

£in-&ETihihs i

"jWY 7- 2-0/€"

Uomop-k&u*. KerTH £. Home c^emc

fO\AF-TW CcVUtf OP APPEALS

TMkc Co\MZX No. 1oi\ -L2.'1\Z\

ICBV)m gALOfTT

foes id wo, nytu'a')

Lopez stat? Tail

rz-03 et c/gouo ru>.
ft . rt

IIjuL*' W5

4

y - «-> /&**

i**« i°i

4 z

"Z, "

A.

U)

J

!£>

^i ST

-"4 rv .-. Q

,^.CJ^ \m

\

5 ^

^

o

^ u — -^

. r

$ o

ft

::SP«-::

O

(Vj

1.1"!

o

ili

In

—.
* 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. 98-21015

Summary Calendar

 

JOSEPH EUGENE JACKSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FRED BECKER; WALTER STENSLAND; 

BRIDGETT BURCH,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-97-CV-869

- - - - - - - - - -

November 17, 1999

Before GARWOOD, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joseph Eugene Jackson, Texas prisoner # 673561, appeals from

the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendant

prison officials in his civil rights complaint brought pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He argues that the district court erred in

granting summary judgment on his excessive-force and denial-ofaccess-to-the-courts claims. We have reviewed the record and the

briefs of the parties, and we conclude that there exists no

genuine issue of material fact concerning Jackson’s claims. The 
No. 98-21015

-2-

facts Jackson alleges do not establish that prison officials used

excessive force or denied him access to the courts. Accordingly,

the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

The district court’s orders denying Jackson’s motion for a

stay of the summary judgment ruling pending discovery and his

postjudgment motion for declaratory relief also are AFFIRMED.
#### Samuel Nazario, Respondent, v Anthony L. Kohtio, Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 841]

Summary judgment was properly denied in this action where *430plaintiff alleges he was injured when he was struck by defendant’s motor vehicle while crossing the street. Defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law since there exist triable issues as to whether defendant exercised due care to avoid the collision *(see*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146), and whether plaintiff was comparatively negligent by failing to exercise due care while admittedly crossing the street at a point other than an intersection or a crosswalk *(see*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1152 [a]; *Ryan v Budget Rent a Car,*37 AD3d 698 [2007]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AND EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b)
AND 15d-14(b)


(Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Neuralstem, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John Conron, certify,
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 my knowledge and
belief:





(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 the operation of the
      Company.





/s/ John
    ConronJohn
      ConronChief
      Financial Officer
              (Principal
      Financial Officer)
              Neuralstem,
      Inc.




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 aned 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.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3993

___________

Robbin Irene Oliver, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

State of Oklahoma; Brad Henry, *

Governor; County of LeFlore; Rob *

Wallace, District Attorney for LeFlore * Appeal from the United States

County, Oklahoma; City of Heavener * District Court for the

Municipal Court; City of Heavener * Western District of Arkansas.

Municipal Police; Drew Edmondson, *

Attorney General for the State of *

Oklahoma; Terry Amend, Attorney * [UNPUBLISHED]

for the City of Heavener, Oklahoma; *

Doug Smuck, Municipal Court Judge; *

Tommi J. West, Municipal Court Clerk; *

Derek Woodral; Loren Haberson; *

Joseph Guzman; Douglas Schmuck, *

Attorney for the Oklahoma Department *

of Health and Human Services; Danita *

Williams, Judge, District Court for *

LeFlore County, Oklahoma, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 21, 2005

Filed: July 8, 2005

___________

Before SMITH, McMILLIAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable Beverly Stites Jones, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas.

-2-

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robbin Oliver appeals the district court’s1

 preservice dismissal of her 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 complaint. We summarily affirm, but given Oliver’s statement to the district

court that she did not intend that certain material she submitted to the district court

be construed as part of her complaint, we modify the dismissal to be without

prejudice as to defendants Judge Danita Williams and Attorney Douglas Schmuck.

We deny all pending motions.

______________________________