alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed July 22, 2015. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 01580

- CV
RICHARD J. DEAGUERO , Appellant V. VINCE FUDZIE, INDIVI DUALLY, AND TMV, LLC D/B/A T RIUNE , Appellees
On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 11305


### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Brown, and Justice Stoddart Opinion by Justice Brown The fi ling fee, docketing statement, and clerk’s record in this case are past due. By postcard dated December 18, 2014, we notified appellant the $1 9 5 filing fee was due. We directed appellant to remit the filing fee within ten days and expressly cautioned app ellant that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal. Also by postcard dated December 18,
2015, we notified appellant the docketing statement had not been filed in this case. We directed appellant to file the docketing statement within te n days. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so might result in dismissal of this appeal. By letter dated March 25, 2015, we informed appellant the clerk’s record had not been filed because appellant had not paid for or made arrangements to pay for t he clerk’s record. We directed appellant to provide verification of payment or arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record or written documentation that appellant had been found to be entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellant th at– 2

– failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, filed the docketing statement, provided the required documentation, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5; 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c).

141580F.P05 /Ada Brown/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE– 3

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

RICHARD J. DEAGUERO, Appellant

No. 05

- 14

- 01580

- CV V.

VINCE FUDZIE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND TMV, LLC D/B/A TRIUNE, Appellees On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 11305. Opinion delivered by Justice Brown. Chie f Justice Wright and Justice Stoddart participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellees VINCE FUDZIE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND TMV, LLC D/B/A TRIUNE recover their costs of this appeal from appellant RICHARD J. DEAGUERO.

Judgment entered this 22nd day of July, 2015.
# American Time Use Survey

"The American Time Use Survey (ATUS) news release provides nationally representative estimates of how Americans spend their time, including data on the full range of nonmarket activities-such as childcare, housework, and socializing-along with market activities such as paid work. This release is issued annually. For more information, visit the American Time Use Survey home page at www.bls.gov/tus/. "

- 34% of employed persons do some work at home on days they work in 2022
- On days they work, 38% of employed persons do some work at home in 2021
- Percent of employed persons working at home on days worked nearly doubled in 2020
- 24% of employed persons do some work at home on days they work in 2019
- 89% of full-time employed persons work on an average weekday in 2018
- 82% of employed persons worked on an average weekday in 2017
- On days they work, 22% of employed persons do some work from home in 2016
- In 2015, 38% of workers in management do some work from home on days they work
- In 2014, 23% of employed do some or all of their work at home on days they work
- In 2013, adult workers with young kids have 1 hour less leisure per day than those without
- On days they worked, 23% of employed do some or all of their work at home in 2012
- On days they provided eldercare, persons spent an average of 3.1 hours providing this care
# 2019
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 554 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 554

  To suspend temporarily the duty on Chemical NR Ethanol-based (iron 
                          toluene sulfanate).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2003

  Mr. DeMint introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on Chemical NR Ethanol-based (iron 
                          toluene sulfanate).

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

SECTION 1. CHEMICAL NR ETHANOL-BASED.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:
      

``    9902.34.11    Chemical NR       Free              No change         No change         On or before 12/
                     Ethanol-based                                                           31/2005          ''
                     (iron toluene                                                                             .
                     sulfanate) (60%
                     ethanol (CAS
                     No. 64-17-5),
                     33% p-
                     Toluenesulfonic
                     acid (CAS No.
                     6192-52-5), and
                     7% feric oxide
                     (CAS No. 1309-
                     37-1))
                     (provided for
                     in subheading
                     2912.12.00)....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5418 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into new and renewal 

contracts with the City of Aurora, Colorado, or an enterprise of the 

City, for the use of excess capacity water in the Fryingpan-Arkansas 

Project. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 19, 2004 

Mr. TANCREDO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into 

new and renewal contracts with the City of Aurora, 

Colorado, or an enterprise of the City, for the use of 

excess capacity water in the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CONTRACTS FOR USE OF EXCESS CAPACITY 

4 WATER IN THE FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS 

5 PROJECT. 

6 The Secretary of the Interior may enter into new and 

7 renewal contracts with the City of Aurora, Colorado, or 

8 an enterprise of the City, for a term not to exceed 50 years 
2 

•HR 5418 IH 

1 for the use of excess capacity in the Fryingpan-Arkansas 

2 Project for the purpose of diverting, storing, impounding, 

3 pumping, exchanging, or conveying nonproject water for 

4 irrigation, domestic, municipal and industrial, or any 

5 other beneficial purpose. 

Æ
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the references to our firm in the Post-Effective Amendment to the Registration Statement on Form N-1A of Saturna Investment Trust and to the use of our reports dated January 28, 2015 on the financial statements and financial highlights of the Sextant Growth Fund, Sextant International Fund, Sextant Core Fund, Sextant Short-Term Bond Fund, Sextant Bond Income Fund, Sextant Global High Income Fund and Idaho Tax-Exempt Fund, each a series of shares of Saturna Investment Trust. Such financial statements and financial highlights appear in the 2014 Annual Reports to Shareholders, which are incorporated by reference.

*/s/ TAIT, WELLER & BAKER LLP*

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

March 27, 2015
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 5, 2020

ORDER

This appeal is DISMISSED. Costs of this appeal are taxed against appellants. 

It is so ORDERED on August 5, 2020.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of August, 2020.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court
# 1993

# 1994

# 1995

# 1996

# 1997

# 1998

# 1999

# 2000

# 2001

# 2002
EXHIBIT 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of Occam Networks, Inc. on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-39928, 333-55520, 333-72194, 333-91070, 333-91072, and 333-108009) of our report dated March 25,
2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K.



|                        |  |                                |  | 
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------ |  | 
|                        |  | /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
|                        | 
|Los Angeles, California |  |                               
|March 30, 2005          |  |
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 09, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, November 09, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18D0154. LINDSEY NELSON JR. v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 01CR59
Case 3:10-cr-00534-PGS Document 12 Filed 04/07/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 32
Case 3:10-cr-00534-PGS Document 12 Filed 04/07/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 33
#### SALAMON v. INDEMNITY INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

June 9, 1950.

Duncombe *&*Pleasants, New York City, for plaintiff.

George A. Garvey, New York *City,*for defendant.

*233IRVING R. KAUFMAN, District Judge.

The defendant has moved the Court for an order compelling the plaintiff to answer questions propounded to her on the taking of her deposition on oral examination on February 17, 1950.

The questions asked relate to any statements made by the deceased to plaintiff, his wife, as to whether he had told her that he had a pain in the area of his chest, or that he had gone to a certain doctor for. a heart condition. Plaintiff claimed privilege and refused to answer.

Under New York law a wife cannot be compelled to disclose a confidential communication made to her by her husband during marriage. New York Civil Practice Act, § 349. The privilege is not lost by termination of the marital relation, whether by divorce or death of one of the parties. See 5 Chamberlayne’s Modern Law of Evidence, Section 3698.

The question then is: What is a confidential communication ? Confidential communications are those communications that are “expressly made confidential, or such as are of a confidential nature, or induced by the marital relation”. Parkhurst v. Berdell, 1888, 110 N.Y. 386, 393, 18 N.E. 123, 127, 6 Am.St.Rep. 384. Plaintiff contends that all conversations by a husband to a wife relating to treatment by a physician are confidential since there is a privilege attached to communications between a physician and his patient. Section 352, New York Civil Practice Act. The Court does not believe that this automatically follows.

The privilege attached to the physician-patient relationship belongs solely to the patient or his personal representatives, and this privilege may be waived by the patient or his representatives. Waiver of this privilege would not thereby waive the right to withhold any confidential communications made to the patient’s spouse regarding treatment. The physician-patient and husband-wife privileges are therefore separate privileges and must be individually evaluated and applied. The fact that the cloak of privilege is thrown over conversations with one’s doctor, lawyer or clergyman is of probative value, however, to show that these conversations are in the vast majority of cases of a highly confidential nature, and are usually disclosed only to one’s spouse.

The Court believes that any conversations between the decedent and his wife relating to chest pains or his visits to a doctor are confidential communications induced by the marital relationship. Plaintiff need not answer those questions at this time; she has a privilege to remain silent, and has not waived this right.

Motion of defendant denied.
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 1-2 Filed 05/10/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 14
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 1-2 Filed 05/10/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 15
Exhibit 21.1



Subsidiaries of Microtune, Inc.



|                                         |  |                             
|---------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|Name of Entity                           |  | Jurisdiction of Organization
|Microtune, (GP) L.L.C.                   |  | Delaware                    
|                                         | 
|Microtune, (LP) L.L.C.                   |  | Delaware                    
|                                         | 
|Microtune (Texas), L.P.                  |  | Texas                       
|                                         | 
|Microtune (San Diego), Inc.              |  | California                  
|                                         | 
|HMTF Acquisition (Bermuda) Ltd.          |  | Bermuda                     
|                                         | 
|HMTF Erste Beteilingungs GmbH            |  | Germany                     
|                                         | 
|Microtune Verwaltungs GmbH               |  | Germany                     
|                                         | 
|Microtune GmbH & Co. KG                  |  | Germany                     
|                                         | 
|Microtune (Japan), Inc.                  |  | Delaware                    
|                                         | 
|Transilica Singapore Pte Ltd             |  | Singapore                   
|                                         | 
|Microtune (Taiwan), Ltd.                 |  | Taiwan                      
|                                         | 
|Microtune (Korea), Ltd.                  |  | Korea                       
|                                         | 
|Microtune RF-Technologies (Phils.), Inc. |  | Philippines                 
|                                         | 
|NSF-Technologies (Phils.), Inc.          |  | Philippines
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<RESTATED>                       
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         30,573
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  207,870
<ALLOWANCES>                                   26,938
<INVENTORY>                                    28,687
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               555,211
<PP&E>                                         174,909
<DEPRECIATION>                                 71,501
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,530,162
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          339,353
<BONDS>                                        1,649,643
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          447,478
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       780,561
<OTHER-SE>                                     (719,075)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,530,162
<SALES>                                        352,291
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               352,291
<CGS>                                          80,098
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  80,098
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               251,715
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             34,341
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (14,231)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,685)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (12,546)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,554)
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (14,100)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.20)
        


</TABLE>
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 17 Filed 02/23/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 56
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 542

To repeal the reservation of mineral rights made by the United States when 

certain lands in Livingston Parish, Louisiana, were conveyed by Public 

Law 102–562. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2003

Mr. BAKER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Resources 

A BILL

To repeal the reservation of mineral rights made by the 

United States when certain lands in Livingston Parish, 

Louisiana, were conveyed by Public Law 102–562.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF RESERVATION OF MINERAL 

4 RIGHTS, LIVINGSTON PARISH, LOUISIANA. 

5 (a) AMENDMENTS.—Section 102 of Public Law 102–

6 562 (106 Stat. 4234) is amended—

7 (1) by striking ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—’’; 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘and subject to the reservation 

9 in subsection (b),’’; and 
2

•HR 542 IH 

1 (3) by striking subsection (b). 

2 (b) IMPLEMENTATION OF AMENDMENT.—The Sec3 retary of the Interior shall execute the legal instruments 

4 necessary to effectuate the amendment made by sub5 section (a)(3).

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 35889]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17305]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (09-068)]


Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public 
Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration announces a meeting of the Review of U.S. Human Space 
Flight Plans Committee.

DATES: Wednesday, August 5, 2009, 8 a.m.-12 noon (EDT).

ADDRESSES: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1530 P Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20005, Telephone: (202) 939-1138.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Philip R. McAlister, Office of 
Program Analysis and Evaluation, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, Washington, DC 20546. Phone 202-358-0712.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public up to 
the seating capacity of the room. It is imperative that the meeting be 
held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key 
participants. The agenda topics for the meeting include:
    <bullet> Vision for Space Exploration Background.
    <bullet> Mars Society Views on U.S. Human Space Flight Program.
    <bullet> Science-related Briefings.
    <bullet> Arianespace Briefing.
    <bullet> Public Comment.

P. Diane Rausch,
Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-17305 Filed 7-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          21,653
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,470
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,900
<INVENTORY>                                      1,050
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,977
<PP&E>                                          48,897
<DEPRECIATION>                                  40,036
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,730
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,485
<BONDS>                                         44,595
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            21
<OTHER-SE>                                    (75,149)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  (75,128)
<SALES>                                          6,486
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,644
<CGS>                                            4,739
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,413
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                39,481
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,566
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (48,228)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (48,228)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (48,228)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (2.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.45)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-6636

ZANDELL HAYES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

P. DOUGLAS TAYLOR, Warden; T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK,

Attorney General of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-94-322-3-17)

Submitted: January 30, 1996 Decided: February 16, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Zandell Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Hayes v.

Taylor, No. CA-94-322-3-17 (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 1995). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# File information

# All data

# Appendix 1

# Appendix 2