alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD–1770–10

JERI LEIGH BARRON, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

COLLIN COUNTY

MEYERS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

DISSENTING OPINION

The issue here is the distinction between jury-charge error and insufficiency of the

evidence. Appellant claimed to the court of appeals that the trial court erred by

overruling his objection to the jury charge. The court of appeals agreed that there was

error and conducted a harm analysis. Barron v. State, No. 05-09-00589-CR, 2010 Tex.

App. LEXIS 4147 (Tex. App.–Dallas May 27, 2010) (not designated for publication).

The State asked us to determine whether the court of appeals conducted a proper harm
Barron dissent–Page 2

analysis. After re-analyzing harm under Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1984), the majority affirms the judgment of the court of appeals.

My interpretation of Almanza is that jury-charge error results from a mistake of

law in the charge, or when the charge allows conviction on a theory not alleged in the

indictment. Here, there is no such mistake; there is simply no evidence to support the

theory of guilt that was submitted to the jury. Therefore, this case should not be analyzed

under Almanza. For example, it is not “charge error” when a trial court submits to the

jury a lesser-included offense that was not raised by the evidence. Such situations require

an analysis of the sufficiency of the evidence, not an Almanza analysis.

The court of appeals said that there was no evidence that Appellant ingested any

medication, so the instruction that Appellant could be found guilty of intoxication due to

the synergistic effect of alcohol and drugs was not raised by the evidence. The court of

appeals did not say that this was jury-charge error. The problem is that rather than

1

saying that there was insufficient evidence of drug use to support the conviction for DWI

under the theory presented in the jury charge and leaving it at that, the court of appeals

went on to do an unnecessary Almanza harm analysis.

I agree with the court of appeals’s analysis of the issue, and I agree with the

 The court of appeals properly determined that “the issue we must decide here is whether 1

the ‘synergistic effect’ instruction was raised by the evidence, not whether such a charge

permitted conviction on a theory not alleged in the charging instrument.” Barron, 2010 Tex.

App. LEXIS 4147 at *3. The court concluded that “the ‘synergistic effect’ instruction was not

raised by the evidence, and that the trial court erred by so instructing the jury.” Id. 
Barron dissent–Page 3

majority that the court of appeals conducted an incorrect harm analysis. However, instead

of re-doing the harm analysis, I would send this case back to the court of appeals for a

determination of whether the evidence was sufficient to convict Appellant of DWI for

consumption of alcohol alone. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

Meyers, J.

Filed: November 9, 2011

Publish
(No. 77-CC-1246

#### Stepehn A. Johnson, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed September 28, 1977.*

Per Curiam.

Claimant, an inmate of an Illinois penal institution, has brought this action to recover the value of certain items of personal property of which he was allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that his property was lost, misplaced, stolen or destroyed while he was imprisoned, and that the loss of his property was proximately caused by the negligence of employees of the State of Illinois.

In *Bargas v. State, 32*Ill.Ct.Cl__, this Court held that the State of Illinois does not owe a duty to inmates *236of its penal institutions to safeguard property which inmates keep in their cells. In the companion case of *Doubling v. State, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.1,*we further held that only where the State takes actual physical possession of the property of an inmate, as during the course of his transfer between penal institutions, does a duty arise to use reasonable care in protecting the inmate’s property.

The complaint in this action does not allege that Claimant’s property was delivered to agents of the State, but rather that the property disappeared or was damaged in Claimant’s cell. Under our reasoning in *Bargas v. State, supra,*and *Doubling v. State, supra,*the complaint herein fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

It is therefore ordered that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
#### Philadelphia Mortgage & Trust Company, appellee, v. Jane G. Hutchins et al., appellants.

Filed December 5, 1900.

No. 9,319.

Mortgage Foreclosure: Confirmation: Time. A mortgage foreclosure sale may be confirmed, though the .sheriff did not make the sale, within sixty days from the time he received a copy of the decree.

Appeal from the district court for Lancaster county. Heard below before Holmes, J.

*Affirmed.*

*A. B. Go froth,*for appellants.

*S. L. Qeisthardt, contra.*

Normal, C. J.

This is an appeal from an order confirming a sale of real estate. The :nly objection urged against the sale is that the same was not made and the order of sale, returned until the expiration of more than sixty days after its date. The order of sale was nothing more than a certified copy of tie decree, and the fact that the sale was made and the order of sale was returned more than *3sixty days after, the sheriff received the copy of the decree did not invalidate the sale. *Amoskeag Savings Bank v. Robbins,*53 Nebr., 776. The order is

Affirmed.
ex4_1.htm


    
      
        

      

    

    
      Exhibit
        4.1

      
 

      No.
        NY

      


      Shares

      


      APCO
        ARGENTINA INC.

      INCORPORATED
        UNDER THE LAWS OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS

      Ordinary
        Shares of U.S. $0.01 par value each

      


      THIS
        IS
        TO CERTIFY THAT

      


      is
        the
        registered holder of

      


      CUSIP
        037489 10 1

      


      shares
        in
        the above-named Company subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association
        thereof. This certificate is not valid unless countersigned by the Transfer
        Agent and registered by the Registrar.

      Given
        under the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers.

      


      Dated
        this day
        of           20

      


      SECRETARY

      


      CHAIRMAN
        OF THE BOARD AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

      


      COUNTERSIGNED
        AND REGISTERED:

      THE
        BANK
        OF NEW YORK

      (NEW
        YORK)

      TRANSFER
        AGENT

      AND
        REGISTRAR,

      BY

      AUTHORIZED
        OFFICER

       

      
        
          
          

        

        
          
          

          
            

          

        

        
          
          

        

      

       

      FOR
        VALUE
        RECEIVED, ______________hereby sell, assign and transfer unto

      


      Shares
        of
        the issued Share Capital represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby
        irrevocably constitute and appoint

      


      Attorney
        to transfer the said shares on the books of the within-named Company with
        full
        power of substitution in the premises.

      


      Dated:__________________,
        20_____________

      


      In
        Presence of

      


      NOTICE:
        The signature to this assignment must correspond

      with
        the
        name as written upon the face of the certificate in

      every
        particular, without alteration or enlargement or any

      change
        whatever.
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM







To the Board of Directors

Paramco Financial Group Inc.

(a Delaware corporation)



We have made a review of the consolidated unaudited balance sheet of Paramco Financial Group Inc., as of March 31, 2004 and December 31, 2003, and the related consolidated unaudited statements of operations and cash flows for the three months period ended March 31, 2004 and 2003 and from inception (April 22, 1996) to March 31, 2004, in accordance with the standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of management.



We conducted our review in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical review procedures and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit in accordance with Public Company Oversight Board, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the consolidated financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.



Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying interim financial statements referred to above for them to be in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

/s/ Clyde Bailey P.C.



San Antonio, Texas January 18, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5426 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5426

 To require the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study on the 
        unsafe use of electric scooters, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 12, 2019

  Mr. Sires introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study on the 
        unsafe use of electric scooters, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. STUDY ON THE UNSAFE USE OF ELECTRIC SCOOTERS.

    (a) Study Required.--The Secretary of Transportation, acting 
through the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, shall conduct a study on--
            (1) the behavior of individuals using electric scooters 
        while under the influence of alcohol or drugs;
            (2) the involvement of electric scooters in traffic 
        accidents; and
            (3) the effects on pedestrian, scooter user, and motorist 
        safety resulting from--
                    (A) the lack of laws governing the use of electric 
                scooters; and
                    (B) a lack of required training on the safe 
                operation of electric scooters prior to an individual 
                using such a scooter.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration shall submit to Congress a report containing Federal, 
State, and local policy recommendations based on the findings of the 
study required by this section.
                                 <all>
```
#### Lou Ann Millette, a Minor, by Patrick Millette, Her Father and Next Friend, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Donald Adcock, Defendant-Petitioner.

Gen. No. 67-45. (Abstract of Decision.)

Second District.

September 25, 1968.

Rehearing denied November 4,1968.

Opinion by PRESIDING JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON. Not to be published in full.
<pre>
EXHIBIT 10.6

                2007 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT OF ROBERT A. SPIGNO
                           AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

        THIS AMENDMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered into effective the 1st day
of April 2007 by and between ConectiSys, Inc., a Colorado corporation
("CONECTISYS"), ("Employer"), and Robert A. Spigno ("Employee").

        The following amendments to the language of the paragraphs as noted
herein are hereby amended to the initial signing of the Employment Agreement,
dated October 2, 1995 and all amendments thereafter, as follows: This amendment
is effective April 1, 2007:

        1. Employment and term. Employer hereby employs Employee and Employee
hereby accepts employment from Employer to perform the duties set forth for a
term of one year beginning on April 1, 2007 until April 1, 2008.

        All other terms and conditions shall remain in effect for the duration
of the agreement.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be
duly executed as of the day and year first above written.

Employee: /s/ Robert A. Spigno
          --------------------
          Robert A. Spigno

Employee: /s/ Rodney W. Lighthipe
          -----------------------
          Rodney W. Lighthipe
          ConectiSys Corp.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 2,255

 2,413

 2,213

 1,859

 1,328

 908

 1,050

 1,650

 1,553

 1,639

 2,025

 1,285

 1,881

 1,888

 1,361

 1,439

 1,077

 782

 547

 1,466

 922

 1,299

 1,392

 894

 677

 627

 995

 507

 610

 616

 263

 262

 280

 258

 266

 264

 230

 232

 237

 233

 276

 318

 335

 306

 283

 309

 270

 272

 272

 265

 261

 267

 281

 248

 289

 257

 250

 247

 253

 243

 690

 712

 633

 540

 435

 415

 385

 445

 468

 410

 472

 490

 549

 576

 482

 484

 429

 362

 336

 387

 371

 402

 470

 380

 376

 358

 356

 299

 317

 323

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

SEPTEMBER 2005 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: October 4, 2005

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 8,045

 7,919

 7,884

 7,827

 7,745

 7,649

 7,489

 7,427

 7,423

 7,363

 7,298

 7,164

 7,220

 7,220

 7,012

 6,784

 6,580

 6,402

 6,303

 6,275

 6,261

 6,218

 6,220

 6,190

 6,094

 5,962

 5,769

 5,492

 5,327

 5,166

 575

 566

 563

 559

 553

 546

 535

 531

 530

 526

 521

 512

 516

 516

 501

 485

 470

 457

 450

 448

 447

 444

 444

 442

 435

 426

 412

 392

 381

 369

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
#### Robert P. Adrian et al., Respondents, v. City of New York, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY

 414.17

 414.19

 414.05

 413.99

 413.91

 413.86

 413.96

 414.14

 414.48

 415.17

 415.74

 416.02

 416.23

 416.23

 416.23

 416.17

 416.48

 416.89

 416.78

 416.38

 415.94

 415.55

 415.30

 415.23

 415.35

 415.95

 416.82

 417.52

 417.72

 417.92

 418.14

 640,014

 640,185

 638,985

 638,471

 637,786

 637,358

 638,214

 639,757

 642,674

 648,609

 653,528

 655,949

 657,767

 657,767

 657,767

 657,248

 659,934

 663,494

 662,538

 659,067

 655,257

 651,887

 649,730

 649,126

 650,161

 655,344

 662,886

 668,977

 670,722

 672,468

 674,390

 2,464

 2,305

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 3,732

 4,980

 4,940

 4,867

 4,810

 0

 0

 0

 4,889

 4,910

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 2,436

 2,426

 0

 0

 2,441

 2,426

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

SAN LUIS RESERVOIR FEDERAL December 19, 2012

DAILY OPERATIONS

OCTOBER 2012 RUN DATE:

FEDERAL

CHANGE CHANGE

PACHECO

PUMP

TOTALS 34,376 0 8,769 115,392

FEDERAL

PUMP ADJ

FEDERAL

GEN

 0

 171

-1,200

-514

-685

-428

 856

 1,543

 2,917

 5,935

 4,919

 2,421

 1,818

 0

 0

-519

 2,686

 3,560

-956

-3,471

-3,810

-3,370

-2,157

-604

 1,035

 5,183

 7,542

 6,091

 1,745

 1,746

 1,922

 365

 371

 405

 395

 336

 315

 311

 321

 312

 287

 291

 288

 288

 277

 292

 289

 316

 317

 288

 280

 230

 256

 189

 235

 223

 211

 201

 216

 218

 197

 249

1,728

1,910

6,025

5,551

1,907

2,034

1,507

1,798

3,150

4,253

4,363

4,325

4,399

8,848

4,339

4,108

3,835

4,268

4,143

3,743

3,614

3,794

3,709

6,599

4,250

3,923

3,978

-500

2,612

3,565

3,614

ELEV STORAGE

 47,626

 252,657

 254,567

 260,592

 266,143

 268,050

 270,084

 271,591

 273,389

 276,539

 280,792

 285,155

 289,480

 293,879

 302,727

 307,066

 311,174

 315,009

 319,277

 323,420

 327,163

 330,777

 334,571

 338,280

 344,879

 349,129

 353,052

 357,030

 356,530

 359,142

 362,707

 366,321

FEDERAL

STORAGE

COMMENTS : 

VALUES IN ACRE-FEET

 250,929

0

0

6,000

6,000

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

0

0

0

0

0

9,000

4,500

4,500

0

0

4,000

4,000

4,000

4,000

4,000

7,000

5,000

2,000

2,000

0

3,000

1,500

1,500

81,600
Case 20-12535-BFK Doc 5 Filed 11/16/20 Entered 11/16/20 17:07:22 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 15
Case 20-12535-BFK Doc 5 Filed 11/16/20 Entered 11/16/20 17:07:22 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 15
Case 20-12535-BFK Doc 5 Filed 11/16/20 Entered 11/16/20 17:07:22 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 15
Case 20-12535-BFK Doc 5 Filed 11/16/20 Entered 11/16/20 17:07:22 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 15
Case 20-12535-BFK Doc 5 Filed 11/16/20 Entered 11/16/20 17:07:22 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 15
Case 20-12535-BFK Doc 5 Filed 11/16/20 Entered 11/16/20 17:07:22 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 15
Case 20-12535-BFK Doc 5 Filed 11/16/20 Entered 11/16/20 17:07:22 Desc Main

Document Page 7 of 15
Case 20-12535-BFK Doc 5 Filed 11/16/20 Entered 11/16/20 17:07:22 Desc Main

Document Page 8 of 15
Case 20-12535-BFK Doc 5 Filed 11/16/20 Entered 11/16/20 17:07:22 Desc Main

Document Page 9 of 15
Case 20-12535-BFK Doc 5 Filed 11/16/20 Entered 11/16/20 17:07:22 Desc Main

Document Page 10 of 15
Case 20-12535-BFK Doc 5 Filed 11/16/20 Entered 11/16/20 17:07:22 Desc Main

Document Page 11 of 15
Case 20-12535-BFK Doc 5 Filed 11/16/20 Entered 11/16/20 17:07:22 Desc Main

Document Page 12 of 15
Case 20-12535-BFK Doc 5 Filed 11/16/20 Entered 11/16/20 17:07:22 Desc Main

Document Page 13 of 15
Case 20-12535-BFK Doc 5 Filed 11/16/20 Entered 11/16/20 17:07:22 Desc Main

Document Page 14 of 15
Case 20-12535-BFK Doc 5 Filed 11/16/20 Entered 11/16/20 17:07:22 Desc Main

Document Page 15 of 15
Case 20-34576-KLP    Doc 158    Filed 09/21/21    Entered 09/21/21 16:22:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 1 of 12

Case 20-34576-KLP    Doc 158    Filed 09/21/21    Entered 09/21/21 16:22:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 2 of 12

Case 20-34576-KLP    Doc 158    Filed 09/21/21    Entered 09/21/21 16:22:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 3 of 12

Case 20-34576-KLP    Doc 158    Filed 09/21/21    Entered 09/21/21 16:22:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 4 of 12

Case 20-34576-KLP    Doc 158    Filed 09/21/21    Entered 09/21/21 16:22:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 5 of 12

Case 20-34576-KLP    Doc 158    Filed 09/21/21    Entered 09/21/21 16:22:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 6 of 12

Case 20-34576-KLP    Doc 158    Filed 09/21/21    Entered 09/21/21 16:22:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 7 of 12

Case 20-34576-KLP    Doc 158    Filed 09/21/21    Entered 09/21/21 16:22:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 8 of 12

Case 20-34576-KLP    Doc 158    Filed 09/21/21    Entered 09/21/21 16:22:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 9 of 12

Case 20-34576-KLP    Doc 158    Filed 09/21/21    Entered 09/21/21 16:22:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 10 of 12

Case 20-34576-KLP    Doc 158    Filed 09/21/21    Entered 09/21/21 16:22:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 11 of 12

Case 20-34576-KLP    Doc 158    Filed 09/21/21    Entered 09/21/21 16:22:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 12 of 12
Exhibit 99.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS


I, Edward C. Heisler, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Future Carz, Inc.;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

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


Date: September 20, 2002               /s/ Edward C. Heisler
                                       -------------------------------------
                                       Edward C. Heisler
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 20

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear by T.D. ATF-235, 66 FR 5473, Jan. 19, 2001, and T.D. ATF-463 and T.D. ATF-462, 66 FR 42733, 42736, Aug. 15, 2001.

#### § 20.25 Permits.

The appropriate TTB officer must issue permits for the United States or a Governmental agency as provided in § 20.241 and industrial alcohol user permits, Form 5150.9, required under this part.

[T.D. ATF-435, 66 FR 5474, Jan. 19, 2001]
Exhibit 99.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Robert Van
Buskirk, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 29, 2003 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Sirenza Microdevices, Inc.



|By: |  |  |  | /s/    Robert Van Buskirk        
|--- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------
|    |  |  |  | Name:    Robert Van Buskirk      
|    |  |  |  | Title:    Chief Executive Officer



Date: August 13, 2003



I, Thomas Scannell, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 29, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Sirenza Microdevices, Inc.



|By: |  |  |  | /s/    Thomas Scannell           
|--- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------
|    |  |  |  | Name:    Thomas Scannell         
|    |  |  |  | Title:    Chief Financial Officer



Date: August 13, 2003