alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-08-0329-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

AUGUST 20, 2008

______________________________

ALLEN LEE BELL, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 106TH DISTRICT COURT OF GARZA COUNTY;

NO. 04-2216; HONORABLE CARTER T. SCHILDKNECHT, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

Appellant, Allen Lee Bell, appeals his conviction for sexual assault and sentence of

10 years incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice. Because of conflicting information contained in the clerk’s record for this cause,

we abate and remand to the trial court for clarification.

After a careful examination of the clerk’s record in this cause, we are unable to

determine the date sentence was imposed in open court. The Judgment indicates that

appellant was sentenced on June 8, 2008. Appellant’s notice of appeal is dated July 29,
2

2008. Based on the date of sentencing identified in the Judgment, appellant’s notice of

appeal was untimely filed. However, the clerk’s record also contains a copy of the trial

court’s docket, which states that the case was called and heard on July 8, 2008. Further,

there are two interlineations contained in the Judgment that change a pre-printed June 8

date to July 8. Because the date sentence is imposed in open court is essential in

determining the time in which an appeal may be perfected, see TEX. R.APP.P. 26.2(a), we

abate and remand the cause to the 106 District Court of Garza County for a determination th

of the appropriate sentencing date. See Flores v. State, No. 07-06-0349-CR, 2006

Tex.App. LEXIS 9081, at *1-*2 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 2006, no pet.). 

Upon remand, the trial court shall determine the date that sentence was imposed

in open court in this cause. The trial court shall also cause to be developed a

supplemental clerk’s record containing a finding of fact identifying the date upon which

appellant’s sentence was imposed in open court. The trial court shall cause the

supplemental clerk’s record to be filed with the clerk of this court on or before September

12, 2008. Should additional time be needed to perform these tasks, the trial court may

request same on or before September 12, 2008.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
Exhibit
      32








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 Zingo, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Holly Roseberry,
      Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
      to
      the best of my knowledge: (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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Holly
                RoseberryHolly RoseberryChief Executive Officer and
                Principal Financial
                  Officer





May
      21, 2007
<PAGE>



                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.15


                             SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE

                            PRENTISS PROPERTIES TRUST

                            1996 SHARE INCENTIVE PLAN


This Sixth Amendment to the Prentiss Properties Trust 1996 Share Incentive Plan
(the "Plan") as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, dated effective as
of May 6, 1997, the Second Amendment to the Plan, dated effective as of May 5,
1998, the Third Amendment to the Plan dated effective as of May 9, 2001, the
Fourth Amendment to the Plan dated effective as of October 15, 1996, and the
Fifth Amendment to the Plan dated effective as of October 23, 2002, hereby
amends the Plan as follows effective as of May 5, 2004:

1. Section 5.01 which describes the maximum aggregate number of shares issuable
under the Plan, is hereby amended by deleting the fourth sentence and inserting
in its place the following sentence:

"The maximum aggregate number of Shares that may be issued under this Plan is
6,500,000 Shares, subject to increase and adjustment as provided in this Article
V and Article XII."

2. As amended by the foregoing, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.

Dated: May 5, 2004

PRENTISS PROPERTIES TRUST


By:    /S/    THOMAS F. AUGUST
    Thomas F. August
    President and Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Doris Hutchins, Respondent, against Joseph D. McGoldrick, as State Rent Administrator, Appellant.

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, to review and set aside orders of the State Rent Administrator determining that apartments in a remodeled house owned by petitioner are subject to control and fixing maximum rents. Order granting application and vacating the determinations of the Administrator and denying his two consolidated cross motions to dismiss the proceeding, in part, as untimely, unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The State Residential Rent Law (§ 2, subd. 2, par. [g], as amd. by L. 1950, ch. 250, as amd.) and subdivision 5 of section 9 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations of the commission, in conformity therewith, unqualifiedly provide for decontrol of additional housing accommodations created by conversion between February *9461, 1947, and May 1, 1950. It is undisputed that the apartments in question come within this category so decontrolled. It is immaterial, therefore, that the converted apartments were subject to Federal rent control prior to May 1, 1950, and were without private bath. Subdivision (e) of section 36 of the regulations, providing for control where no registration statement had been filed as required by thé Federal act, is inapplicable. It is expressly provided in section 9 of the regulations that they shall not apply to the decontrolled housing within its scope, which, under subdivision 5 thereof, includes the accommodations under review. In any event, subdivision (c) of section 36 of the regulations must be construed as excepting the decontrol provisions of the rent law. The regulations, to be valid, must be consistent with the rent law. *(Matter of Nadler*v. *MeGoldrick,*278 App. Div. 851, affd. 303 N. Y. 742; *Matter of Koenig*v. *MeGoldrick,*281 App. Div. 663, 664.) It was within the province of the court to deny the motion to dismiss so much of the proceeding as sought review of the order of September 30, 1952. In addition to other factors warranting denial, the Administrator claims that a copy of the order was mailed to the attorney for petitioner, whereas the stamped notation on the order is to the effect that it was mailed to petitioner. No address is set forth' by the Administrator as that to which the copy was mailed and there is no affidavit by anyone to the effect that he mailed the copy of the order. Present — Nolan, P. J., Adel, Wenzel, MaeCrate and Schmidt, JJ. [See *post,*p. 1046.]
#### Diane Lewis, an Infant, by Dean J. Lewis, Her Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. City of Geneva, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. (Appeal from a judgment for plaintiff in an action for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff by reason of negligent supervision of playground.) Present — McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Van Duser, JJ.
#### Ray RAINS, Movant v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 24, 1950.

Bertram and Bertram and Bruce H. Phillips for movant.

A. E. Punk, Attorney General, and Wm. P. Simpson, Assistant Attorney General, for opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal denied. Judgment affirmed.
###### Editorial Note on Part 249

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 249 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 249.1001 Form SIP, for application for registration as a securities information processor or to amend such an application or registration.

This form shall be used for application for registration as a securities information processor, pursuant to section 11A(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78k-1(b)) and § 242.609 of this chapter, or to amend such an application or registration.

[70 FR 37632, June 29, 2005]

###### Editorial Note

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations affecting Form SIP, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Mary Cosenza, Appellant, against Guttilia Blouse Co. et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, by default. Present — Foster, P. J., Coon, Halpern, Imrie and Zeller, JJ.
### §14136e. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 14136e was editorially reclassified as section 40727 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
FORM 13F COVER PAGE

Report for the Calendar Year or Quarter Ended: September 30,2004

Check here if Amendment [   ]; Amendment Number:
This Amendment (Check only one.):  [   ] is a restatement.
                                   [   ] adds new holdings entries.

Institutional Investment Manager Filing this Report:

Name:    The Continental Corporation
Address: CNA Plaza
	 Chicago,IL 60685


13F File Number:  28-172

The institutional investment manager filing this report and the
person by whom it is signed hereby represent that the person
signing the report is authorized to submit it, that all
information contained herein is true, correct, and complete, and
that it is understood that all required items, statements,
schedules, lists, and tables, are considered integral parts of
this form.


Person Signing this Report on Behalf of Reporting Manager:

Name:  Lynne Gugenheim
Title: Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel
Phone: (312) 822 4921
Signature, Place, and Date of Signing:
November 15,2004
Chicago, Illinois,60685
I AM SIGNING THIS REPORT AS REQUIRED BY THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934

Report Type (Check only one.):

 [    ]              13F HOLDINGS REPORT.

 [  x ]              13F NOTICE.

 [    ]              13F COMBINATION REPORT.

List of Other Managers Reporting for this Manager:

The securities on which The Continental Corporation exercises
shared investment discretion have been reported upon by CNA Financial
Corporation on behalf of The Continental Corporation.
<Page>
§ 34.3 Hybrid instrument exemption. ( a ) A hybrid instrument is exempt from all provisions of the Act and any person or class of persons offering, entering into, rendering advice or rendering other services with respect to such exempt hybrid instrument is exempt for such activity from all provisions of the Act (except in each case section 2(a)(1)(B)), provided the following terms and conditions are met: ( 1 ) The instrument is: ( i ) An equity or debt security within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Securities Act of 1933; or
( ii ) A demand deposit, time deposit or transaction account within the meaning of 12 CFR 204.2 (b)(1), (c)(1) and (e), respectively, offered by an insured depository institution as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act; an insured credit union as defined in section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act; or a Federal or State branch or agency of a foreign bank as defined in section 1 of the International Banking Act;
( 2 ) The sum of the commodity-dependent values of the commodity-dependent components is less than the commodity-independent value of the commodity-independent component;
( 3 ) Provided that: ( i ) An issuer must receive full payment of the hybrid instrument's purchase price, and a purchaser or holder of a hybrid instrument may not be required to make additional out-of-pocket payments to the issuer during the life of the instrument or at maturity; and
( ii ) The instrument is not marketed as a futures contract or a commodity option, or, except to the extent necessary to describe the functioning of the instrument or to comply with applicable disclosure requirements, as having the characteristics of a futures contract or a commodity option; and
( iii ) The instrument does not provide for settlement in the form of a delivery instrument that is specified as such in the rules of a designed contract market;
( 4 ) The instrument is initially issued or sold subject to applicable federal or state securities or banking laws to persons permitted thereunder to purchase or enter into the hybrid instrument.
§ 270.15a-1 Exemption from stockholders' approval of certain small investment advisory contracts. An investment adviser of a registered investment company shall be exempt from the requirement of sections 15(a) and 15(e) of the Act (54 Stat. 812; 15 U.S.C. 80a-15) that the written contract pursuant to which he acts shall have been approved by the vote of a majority of the outstanding votingsecurities of such company, if the following conditions are met: ( a ) Such investment adviser is not an affiliated person of such company (except as investment adviser) nor of any principal underwriter for such company.
( b ) His compensation as investment adviser of such company in any fiscal year of the company during which any such contract is in effect either ( 1 ) is not more than $100 or
( 2 ) is not more than $2,500 and not more than 1 ⁄ 40 of 1 percent of the value of the company's net assets averaged over the year or taken as of a definite date or dates within the year.
( c ) The aggregate compensation of all investment advisers of such company exempted pursuant to this section in any fiscal year of the company either ( 1 ) is not more than $200 or
( 2 ) is not more than 1 ⁄ 20 of 1 percent of the value of the company's net assets averaged over the year or taken as of a definite date or dates within the year.
[Rule N-15A-1, 6 FR 2275, Jan. 8, 1944]
#### In the Matter of Summer Y.-T., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Richard Y. et al., Respondents; Administration for Children’s Services, Appellant.

[819 NYS2d 743]

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about June 27, 2005, which dismissed, after a fact-finding hearing, the neglect petition against respondent parents with respect to their daughter, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The petition posits neglect of Summer Y.-T. on respondent parents’ failure to adequately care for her three older siblings, resulting in a finding of neglect with respect to those children in January 2002. However, Family Court found that, by the summer of 2003, the parents were participating in mandated counseling services and adequately preparing for Summer’s birth by, among other things, repairing and improving their apartment with the assistance of building management. Regarding their care of the infant Summer, the court noted that the parents had raised three children from infancy without state intervention and that every evaluation indicated that the parents’ limitations did not impair their ability to adequately care for children.

The presentment agency failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject child was in imminent danger due to parental failure to exercise a minimum degree of care *(Nicholson v Scoppetta,*3 NY3d 357 [2004]). A derivative finding of neglect would not have been proper inasmuch as the parents’ conduct toward their other children was not so egregious as to support a conclusion that they lacked the requisite judgment to function as adequate parents *(cf. Matter of Vincent*M., 193 AD2d 398 [1993]). Nor is the evidence that they suffer from developmental delays sufficient to support a per se finding of neglect *(Matter of Daniel C.,*47 AD2d 160, 166 [1975]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

ANTHONY ROBINSON,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 316 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
El Departamento de Agricultura de los 

EE.UU. 

El Departamento de Agricultura de los EE.UU.

¡Ayude a mantener a Estados Unidos libre de esta 

enfermedad mortal! Comprenda cómo se propaga 

el virus y contribuya a la protección contra este. 

¿Necesita más información? www.aphis.usda.gov

El Departamento de Agricultura de los EE.UU. 

es un proveedor, empleador y prestador que 

ofrece igualdad de oportunidades.

Servicio de Inspección de Sanidad de Plantas y Animales

Programa de asistencia número 2237-1S • Emitido en marzo de 2019

El Departamento de Agricultura de los EE.UU.

 INFORME SOBRE 

LOS CERDOS ENFERMOS

1-866-536-7593

PIG

PELLETS

PIG

PELLETS

G

TS

VIAJEROS 

INTERNACIONALES

VEHÍCULOS 

Y EQUIPOS 

CONTAMINADOS

PIENSO 

CONTAMINADO

ALIMENTACIÓN 

CON BASURA

CERDOS 

SALVAJES

CERDOS ENFERMOS

ROPA Y CALZADO 

CONTAMINADOS

PESTE PORCINA AFRICANA

La peste porcina africana 

(PPA o ASF por sus siglas en 

inglés) es una enfermedad 

viral que afecta a los cerdos 

domésticos y salvajes. Se 

propaga fácilmente y mata 

a la mayoría de los cerdos 

que la contraen. Nunca se 

encontraron casos de PPA 

en Estados Unidos. 

Las personas no pueden 

contraer PPA, pero pueden 

acarrearla en la ropa, 

los zapatos y los equipos. 

Un brote en los Estados 

Unidos tendría efectos 

económicos devastadores 

para la industria porcina.

No propague esta 

enfermedad mortal

Es fácil propagar la PPA sin siquiera saberlo.

El virus puede quedar en la ropa o en los equipos y sobrevivir 

durante meses en los productos porcinos. Esté atento a estas 

vías potenciales y considérelas cuando cree o actualice sus 

planes de bioseguridad.
### §13892. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 13892 was editorially reclassified as section 12252 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 237 (Friday, December 10, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71825-71826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27115]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commerical property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Arthritis and 
Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel Research 
Project (R01).
    Date: January 18, 2005.
    Time: 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Yan Z Wang, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal 
and Skin Diseases, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Suite 820, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 594-4957, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#80f7e1eee7f9b1c0ede1e9ecaeeee9e8aee7eff6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f7809699908ec6b79a969e9bd9999e9fd9909881">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, 
Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)


[[Page 71826]]


    Dated: December 6, 2004.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-27115 Filed 12-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Frederick Spillman, Alias Robert Sunderland, Frederick Leo Spellman and Fred Williams, Appellant.

Judgment of the County Court, Queens County, convicting appellant of the crimes of burglary, larceny and possession of a loaded revolver and burglar’s instruments, affirmed. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Schmidt and Murphy, JJ., concur; Beldock, J., concurs in the affirmance as to the third, fifth and sixth counts (possession of a loaded revolver), but dissents as to the first, second and fourth counts (third degree burglary, petit larceny, and possession of burglar’s instruments), and votes to modify the judgment of conviction so as to dismiss the first, second and fourth counts, with the following memorandum: The burglary of the Fealy home and the larceny of the revolver therefrom allegedly took place on September 15, 1948, while Mrs. Fealy was away from home attending her husband’s funeral. The revolver was the only item stolen when the house was burglarized. Defendant was arrested in the early morning of November 8, 1948, at which time he allegedly stated that he had bought the gun from one Moore about three weeks before (according to one detective) or about six or seven weeks before (according to the lieutenant of detectives who questioned him). This possession of the revolver by defendant is the only connection between defendant and the burglary and larceny on September 15, 1948. There is no proof that defendant ever knew Fealy, or knew that Fealy had died, or knew that Fealy had had a gun. Possession of a revolver (which is so easily passed from one person to another) weeks after a burglary or larceny is, in my opinion, insufficient by itself to warrant conviction of those crimes. The obituary notices introduced into evidence appeared in the newspapers of November 4 and 5, 1948, and had nothing to do with Fealy’s death on September 12, 1948. It is my further opinion that, under the circumstances of this ease, the claw hammer and rubber gloves are not burglars’ tools.