alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
M A N D A T E

TO THE COUNTY COURT of WHARTON COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 5th day of

February, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

DANIEL ZALMAN, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-13-00471-CR (Tr.Ct.No. 57,007)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal,

concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court orders

the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 27th day of July, 2015.

Cecile Foy Gsanger, CLERK

FILE COPY
# Result 20
<PAGE>


                         Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-306-04) pertaining to the Non-Statutory Stock Option Plan for the
Directors and the Stock Incentive Plan of The Franklin Holding Corporation of
our report dated February 17, 2000, with respect to the financial statements of
Franklin Capital Corporation (formerly The Franklin Holding Corporation)
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.



                                                ERNST & YOUNG  LLP



New York, New York
March 20, 2000


                                 Exhibit 23 (ii)
S04A1705.

#### RICE v. THE STATE.

(606 SE2d 261)

Thompson, Justice.

This is the second appearance of this case in our Court. Previously, in *Rice v. State,*277 Ga. 649 (594 SE2d 335) (2004), we affirmed the denial of Rice’s “motion to vacate and correct null and void sentence” because the motion, in which Rice attacked the voluntariness of his guilty plea, was filed after the expiration of the term of court in which Rice was sentenced. In so doing, we observed that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion and that Rice should seek a writ of habeas corpus.

*708Decided November 22, 2004.

Charles J. Rice, *pro se.*

*Robert E. Keller, District Attorney, Clifford A. Sticher, Assistant District Attorney, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General,*for appellee.

Thereafter, Rice filed a motion for an out-of-time appeal asserting he should not have received a life sentence for armed robbery.1 The trial court denied the motion and Rice appealed.

The trial court did not err in denying the motion for an out-of-time appeal. Such a motion is not appropriate unless a defendant’s right of direct appeal is frustrated. *Smith v. State,*266 Ga. 687 (470 SE2d 436) (1996). Because a direct appeal cannot be taken from a guilty plea on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel unless that issue was developed through a post-plea hearing, *Aikens v. State,*241 Ga. App. 816 (527 SE2d 916) (2000), it cannot be said that Rice’s right of appeal was frustrated. Simply put, Rice had no right of appeal. It follows that Rice’s remedy, as we pointed out before, lies in a habeas corpus proceeding. See generally *Wharton v. Jones,*248 Ga. 265 (282 SE2d 310) (1981).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 Although it is difficult to ascertain the gist of Rice’s argument, he appears to be asserting that trial counsel was ineffective because the sentence was imposed in violation of a plea agreement.
# Requests Report

# image3.emf

# image4.emf

# image5.emf

# image6.emf

# image1.emf

# image2.emf

# image7.png
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DECEMBER 31,
1995 FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          34,385
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,403
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               100,485
<PP&E>                                          17,167
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 520,873
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,265
<BONDS>                                         80,919
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     309,023
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   520,873
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               280,258
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  220,652
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,301
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 54,305
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,555
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             52,750
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    52,750
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.73
        

</TABLE>
A\nToTh) fOl Afi> fsrf^Tnh* Of TTM£ T/> fZ/.f PD %L

To Tfi£ Ho^otAb^ Cootr

Comes poiP 'So'Sk^tK Ar&ry AffeUafik ?t> Se g^ -WS

jU*s fO^xon -Cor On extension o£- -f^ Qf^QEI^Eh^H"

^ -p JUL 23 2015

Or\ •fc/7zci0er-'J7*- 20// Ajfelhnh Can ^c^^Mfe^tCtoriC^^fc/

A4--iL\^ \\y\<L- t\g_ ^ Afyirvg -\r> 60/hpJ^ Corf€c4- d-VW.Q/?^

(/JU\rk \s n<">^ e^P^cW/y 4-y^ic eX4vcU^4 .

^c>ui4 gjmnls 4i.s /oaa|ion AnA e_^Wu\s V\V^ dr^d

line t?D &<**/$ 4o g;^ J^geikA -apparWvly ^o p^

-V-1—r»miQvrws~fMai ixmm^^^

JUL 27 TO

Ahfli Acosta. Clerk ^e<,Qc<^]Xol/y. ^olo(*vvlte<4;

7>o£h Art?*;/ /~/7-/S

PrencU ^o(ver^Son i)mV

\207f f/1 ^23

A<ne;**•&. '711,01
#### Misael Herrera et al., Plaintiffs, v Nicholas Krumszyn et al., Defendants. Beach Lane Management, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v First Federal Savings & Loan Association of Rochester et al., Third-Party Defendants, and Paul Eisland, as Receiver, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 60]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered November 29, 2005, which denied third-party defendant Eisland’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by the infant plaintiffs as a result of exposure to lead paint inside premises at 2504 Olinville Avenue in the Bronx. In 1993, when plaintiffs moved in, the premises were owned by the Krumszyn defendants. Three years later, a foreclosure action was commenced against those owners, and the property was eventually sold at foreclosure in 1998 to Olinville Associates, which hired Beach Lane Management to manage it. Third-party defendant Eisland was appointed *497receiver for the property in 1996, and continued to serve in that capacity until his discharge in early 2000.

There are triable issues of fact as to whether Eisland had constructive notice of a hazardous lead condition while he served as receiver of the property *(see*General Obligations Law § 9-101; *Munoz v Mael Equities,*2 AD3d 118 [2003]). Eisland’s remaining contentions are not preserved for appellate review, and, in any event, are without merit. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Tom, Saxe, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.
EXHIBIT 31.2





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


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





I, Michael J. Sallmann, Vice President - Finance and Secretary of Criticare Systems, Inc., certify that:





1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Criticare Systems, Inc.;





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





3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:





(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;





(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and





(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and







|
|
|
|
|

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and





(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.








Date:  September 29, 2003








/s/ Michael J. Sallmann


______________________________


Michael J. Sallmann


Vice President  Finance and Secretary





2
Exhibit 31.1  CERTIFICATION  I, Larry Reid, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cleartronic, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. I am the only certifying officer responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5. I have disclosed,
  based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
  to the registrants auditors and the Board of Directors:  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  Date: May 14, 2010  /s/ Larry Reid Larry Reid, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 23.1







                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-3  No.  333-07415)  of  Boddie-Noell  Properties,  Inc.  and  in  the  related
Prospectus  of our report dated  January 9, 1997,  with respect to the financial
statements and schedule of Boddie-Noell Properties, Inc. included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.




                                                     /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

                                                     Ernst & Young LLP

Charlotte, North Carolina
March 26, 1997
                                       43
<PAGE>
IMMUCELL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY

                                     Exhibit 23.1

                         Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


<PAGE>


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of
ImmuCell Corporation on Form S-8 of our report dated January 29, 1999 on our
audits of the consolidated financial statements of ImmuCell Corporation and
Subsidiary as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and for each of the three years in
the period ended December 31, 1998, which report is included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Portland, Maine
March 26, 1999


<PAGE>


                   IMMUCELL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY

                              Exhibit 27.1

           Financial Data Schedule (Filed Only Electronically)


<PAGE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

____________________________________

:

CHRISTINE MCCARTHY, :

:

Plaintiff, : Civil Action No. 10-6559 (FSH)

:

v. :

:

KELNER, PECORARO, KELNER, P.C., : ORDER ON INFORMAL 

ET AL., : APPLICATION

:

Defendants. :

____________________________________:

This matter having come before the Court by way of letter dated July 21, 2011, regarding

a discovery dispute concerning the deposition of the defendants’ accountant that the defendants

seek to have resolved;

and the Court having issued Orders dated January 28, 2011 and April 6, 2011 that

specifically set forth the format in which the parties are required to raise discovery disputes;1

 The Court set forth a specific format for raising discovery disputes that requires the 1

parties to both confer and work together in good faith to resolve and present discovery disputes. 

Moreover, the required format assists the Court to efficiently resolve the disputes and ensures

that the necessary information is presented in a concise fashion. The Orders require that

Counsel shall confer in a good faith attempt to informally resolve any and all

discovery disputes before seeking the Court’s intervention. Should such informal

effort fail to resolve the dispute, the matter shall be brought to the Court's

attention via a joint letter that sets forth: (a) the request, (b) the response; (c)

efforts to resolve the dispute; (d) why the complaining party believes the

information is relevant and why the responding party’s response continues to be

deficient; and (e) why the responding party believes the response is sufficient. No

further submissions regarding the dispute may be submitted without leave of

Court. If necessary, the Court will thereafter schedule a telephone conference to

resolve the dispute.

(Sched. Order, Jan. 28, 2011, ECF No. 11; Am. Sched. Order, Apr. 6, 2011, ECF No. 13.)

Case 2:10-cv-06559-FSH-PS Document 19 Filed 07/25/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 79
and it appearing that the July 21, 2011 letter was not submitted in the format required for

raising discovery disputes;

and for the reasons set forth herein;

IT IS ON THIS 22nd day of July, 2011

ORDERED that the request for relief embodied in the defendants’ letter dated July 21,

2011 denied without prejudice;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the discovery disputes (other than those arising during

the course of depositions) raised in the dated July 21, 2011 letter shall be presented, no later than

July 28, 2011 at noon via the joint letter protocol.

s/Patty Shwartz 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-06559-FSH-PS Document 19 Filed 07/25/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 80
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1074 

To reinstate Federal Pell Grant eligibility for individuals incarcerated in 

Federal and State penal institutions, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 9, 2019 

Mr. SCHATZ (for himself, Mr. LEE, and Mr. DURBIN) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To reinstate Federal Pell Grant eligibility for individuals 

incarcerated in Federal and State penal institutions, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Restoring Education 

5 And Learning Act of 2019’’ or the ‘‘REAL Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT OF FEDERAL PELL GRANT ELIGI7 BILITY. 

8 Section 401(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

9 (20 U.S.C. 1070a(b)) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1074 IS

1 (1) by striking paragraph (6); 

2 (2) by redesignating paragraph (7) as para3 graph (6); and 

4 (3) in paragraph (2)(A)(ii), by striking 

5 ‘‘(7)(B)’’ and inserting ‘‘(6)(B)’’. 

6 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

7 The amendments made by section 2 shall be effective 

8 for academic year 2019–2020 and succeeding academic 

9 years. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
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 BNP Residential Properties, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, D.
Scott Wilkerson, 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:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.

It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.




   /s/ Philip S. Payne
Philip S. Payne
Chairman of the Board of Directors and
Chief Financial Officer

March 3, 2005


                                      248
<PAGE>
#### Edward PIORKOWSKI, Plaintiff, v. SOCONY VACUUM OIL COMPANY, Inc., Defendant.

No. 455.

District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania.

Sept. 10, 1940.

Louis A. Fine, of Honesdale, Pa., for plaintiff.

Philip V. Mattes, of Scranton, Pa., for defendant.

WATSON, District Judge.

This case is before the Court for determination of a motion for a bill of particulars.

This case involves a complaint and a motion similar to that in Alex. Lasicki v. Socony Vacuum Oil Company, Inc., 1 F. R.D. 384, wherein I have this day filed an opinion; hence, the same rules apply as are discussed in that opinion.

It is ordered that the motion for a bill of particulars be, and it is hereby, dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

KENNETH A. LEWIS,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 108 EAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
Order entered July 21, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00855-CV

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, Appellant

V.

KINGMAN HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-04363-2013

ORDER

On the Court’s own motion, this case is REMOVED from submission on September 8, 

2015. The case will be reset for submission in due course.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE