alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued September 13, 2012.

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-12-00732-CR

———————————

IN RE MATTHEW JAMES LEACHMAN, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

By petition for writ of mandamus, relator requests that this Court compel 

respondent to void a June 2008 order sealing all photographs in the file in the 

underlying case.1

 

1 Relator was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child by a jury in State v. 

Leachman, No. 786224 in the 248th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the 

Honorable Joan Campbell presiding. The conviction was appealed. This Court 

affirmed the conviction, and the Court of Criminal Appeals and the United States 

Supreme Court both denied review. See Leachman v. State, No. 01-98-01255-CR, 
2

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Brown.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

 

2006 WL 2381441, at *13 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 17, 2006, pet. 

ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2995 

(2008).
### §612c–5. Section 612c funds for purchase of fruits, vegetables, and nuts to support domestic nutrition assistance programs

#### (a) Funding for additional purchases of fruits, vegetables, and nuts

In addition to the purchases of fruits, vegetables, and nuts required by section 612c–4 of this title, the Secretary of Agriculture shall purchase fruits, vegetables, and nuts for the purpose of providing nutritious foods for use in domestic nutrition assistance programs, using, of the funds made available under section 612c of this title, the following amounts:

(1) $190,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.

(2) $193,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.

(3) $199,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.

(4) $203,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.

(5) $206,000,000 for fiscal year 2012 and each fiscal year thereafter.

#### (b) Form of purchases

Fruits, vegetables, and nuts may be purchased under this section in the form of frozen, canned, dried, or fresh fruits, vegetables, and nuts.

(Pub. L. 110–234, title IV, §4404, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1137; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title IV, §4404, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1899.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 enacted identical sections. Pub. L. 110–234 was repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

Section is comprised of section 4404 of Pub. L. 110–246. Subsec. (c) of section 4404 of Pub. L. 110–246 amended section 612c–4 of this title.

Section was enacted as part of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, and not as part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act which comprises this chapter.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Enactment of this section and repeal of Pub. L. 110–234 by Pub. L. 110–246 effective May 22, 2008, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–234, except as otherwise provided, see section 4 of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as a note under section 8701 of this title.

Section effective Oct. 1, 2008, see section 4407 of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as an Effective Date of 2008 Amendment note under section 1161 of Title 2, The Congress.
Exhibit 32



                    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

     The  undersigned  hereby  certifies,  pursuant  to, and as required  by, 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002,  that the Quarterly  Report of DCAP Group,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ended  June  30,  2004  fully  complies  with the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended,  and that  information  contained in such  Quarterly  Report on Form
10-QSB fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition and
results of operations of the Company.



Dated: August 12 2004                                /s/ Barry Goldstein
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Barry Goldstein
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
### §457. Separability

If any provision of this chapter is declared unconstitutional or the applicability thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the chapter and the applicability of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby, and nothing contained in this chapter is intended nor shall be construed, to modify or repeal any of the provisions of sections 291 and 292 of this title.

(July 2, 1926, ch. 725, §7, 44 Stat. 803.)
(May 11, 1964)

#### Andrew J. Di Paola et al., Respondents, v. City of Glen Cove et al., Appellants.

In an action pursuant to statute (General Municipal Law, § 51), in which plaintiffs seek: (1) to enjoin defendants from violating section 165.00 of the Local Finance Law, and (2) to declare void the 1964 budget of the City of Glen Cove because it had been improperly adopted by the defendants, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, County of Nassau, dated November 6, 1963, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint and for summary judgment pursuant to the Civil Practice Law and Rules (3211, subd. [a], par. 7; 3212). Order modified as follows: (1) by striking out the provision denying the motion in its entirety; and (2) by substituting therefor a provision denying the motion as to the first cause of action and granting the motion as to the second cause of action, with leave to servie an amended complaint. Such amended complaint may be served, if plaintiffs be so advised, within 30 days after entry of the order hereon. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. By their first cause of action, plaintiffs, pursuant to section 51 of the General Municipal Law, seek to enjoin defendants, comprising the Common Council of the City of Glen Cove, from using surplus proceeds of capital obligations for any purpose other than that for which the obligations were issued (Local Finance Law, § 165.00). Though this cause of action does not expressly allege waste or other public injury, we conclude that it is legally sufficient. From its allegations the inference may fairly be drawn that the marketability of the city’s capital obligations will be diminished by illegality which decreases funds from which the Legislature has assured payment (cf. *Altschul*v. *Ludwig,*216 N. Y. 459, 466-467). However, in our opinion, the second cause of action, which is also based on section 51 of the General Municipal Law, is insufficient. In that cause of action the plaintiffs allege only that, in violation of the city’s charter, the city’s 1964 budget was not adopted by defendants at a public meeting of which the public had been given notice and, hence, the budget is invalid. Based upon such allegation and upon such asserted invalidity, the plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration that the budget is void. An action for a declaratory judgment may not be maintained under the statute (General Municipal Law, § 51). That statute does not authorize such an action solely to adjudicate the validity of official *679acts and to declare void the results of such acts (cf. *Gaynor*v. *Rockefeller,*21 A D 2d 92). Even if such second cause of action be construed to allege an additional cause of action for an injunction, it is still insufficient; it fails to allege the requisite facts in order to bring it within the purview of the statute (General Municipal Law, § 51). And, in contrast to the first cause of action, no inference as to such facts may fairly be drawn. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Bologna, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, rendered September 5, 1978, which, after a hearing, revoked a sentence of probation which had been imposed upon defendant’s conviction of possession of gambling records in the first degree, and resentenced him to a term of imprisonment. Amended judgment affirmed. This case is remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). The record clearly establishes that defendant violated the condition of his probation which proscribed association with known gamblers. His conduct demonstrated a " 'calculated choice’ ” to associate with individuals who either had been previously convicted of gambling offenses or had been previously associated with defendant in gambling activities, including his former codefendant (see *United States v Albanese,*554 F2d 543, 546). Since defendant could not reasonably have believed that such conduct was permitted by the aforementioned condition of his probation, his contention that the condition was unduly vague must be rejected (see *United States v Albanese, supra; Birzon v King,*469 F2d 1241, 1242-1243). Defendant also claims that he was entitled to a hearing on his charge of discriminatory enforcement by Federal authorities who provided the evidence upon which the County Court’s finding of delinquency is based. However, the motives of the Federal authorities are irrelevant, since it was the court, and not the Federal authorities, who enforced the condition of probation. Defendant, while on probation, was in the legal custody of the County Court (see CPL 410.50, subd 1). That court had imposed the condition of probation which defendant subsequently violated, possessed the power to modify that condition (CPL 410.20, subd 1), and, upon a finding of delinquency, could in its discretion revoke, continue or modify the sentence of probation (CPL 410.70, subd 5). The Federal authorities merely notified the court and its agent, the probation department, of the violation of the condition of probation. They had no power to enforce the condition. Therefore, as a matter of law, defendant’s claim of discriminatory enforcement must fail. Rabin, J. P., Shapiro, Cohalan and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
AO 450 (Rev. 01/09) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

Northern District of Illinois

GHALEB AZROUI )

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No. 12 C 280

E TRADE SERVICES

Defendant

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

’ the plaintiff (name) recover from the

defendant (name) the amount of

dollars ($ ), which includes prejudgment

interest at the rate of %, plus postjudgment interest at the rate of %, along with costs.

’ the plaintiff recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits, and the defendant (name)

recover costs from the plaintiff (name)

.

X other: Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award is denied.

.

This action was (check one):

’ tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has

rendered a verdict.

’ tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision

was reached.

X decided by Judge Robert W. Gettleman on a motion for vacation of an

arbitration award.

.

Date: May 4, 2012 Thomas Bruton, CLERK OF COURT

/s/ George D. Schwemin

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case: 1:12-cv-00280 Document #: 28 Filed: 05/04/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:143
#### Shattuck School, Inc., appellant, v. James A. Davis, appellee.

Gen. No. 29,513.

Assumpsit for tuition and board for defendant’s minor son. Judgment for defendant. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Jacob H. Hopkins, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 3, 1925.

Arnd, Gavin, Cook & Griffin, for appellant; Frederick Arad, of counsel.

McKinney, Lynde & Grear, for appellee; Cornelius Lynde and Joseph M. Larimer, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### 1352.271-88 Guarantees.

As prescribed in 48 CFR 1371.119, insert the following clause:

# Guarantees (APR 2010)

(a) In the event any work performed or materials furnished by the contractor under this contract prove defective or deficient within ____ days from the date of redelivery of the vessel, the contractor, as directed by the Contracting Officer and at its own expense, shall correct and repair the deficiency to the satisfaction of the Contracting Officer.

(b) The Government shall be entitled to rely upon any guarantee secured by the contractor or any sub-contractor covering work done or materials furnished which exceeds the ____day period until its expiration.

(c) With respect to any individual work item identified and listed as incomplete at the redelivery of the vessel, the guarantee period shall run from the date of completion of such item.

(d) If and when practicable, the Government shall afford the contractor an opportunity to effect such corrections and repairs.

(1) If the Contracting Officer determines it is impracticable or is otherwise not advisable to return the vessel to the contractor, or the contractor fails to proceed promptly with any such repairs as directed by the Contracting Officer, the Contracting Officer may direct that the repairs be performed elsewhere, at the contractor's expense.

(2) Where corrections and repairs are to be made by other than the contractor due to nonreturn of the vessel to the contractor, the contractor's liability may be discharged by an equitable deduction in the price of the contract.

(e) The contractor's liability shall only extend for an additional ____ day guarantee period on those defects or deficiencies which it corrected. However, this clause does not limit the responsibility or relieve the liability of the contractor under the Liability and Insurance clause.

(f) At the Contracting Officer's option, defects and deficiencies may be left in their uncorrected condition. In that event, the contractor and the Contracting Officer shall agree on an equitable deduction in the contract price. Failure to agree upon an equitable reduction shall constitute a dispute under the Disputes clause of this contract.

(g) The rights and remedies of the Government provided in this clause are in addition to and do not limit any rights afforded to the Government by any other clause of the contract. If a defect or deficiency that exists at the time of redelivery of the vessel was not discovered by a reasonable inspection and is discovered after the expiration of the time frame stated in this clause, it is not subject to the time limitations stated in this clause.

(End of clause)

[75 FR 10570, Mar. 8, 2010; 75 FR 14496, Mar. 26, 2010]
Appeal No. 74-173.

#### Vogue Ring Creations, Inc. *v.*Joel Wishengrad.

*Herbert J. Abedon,*for plaintiff-appellant. *Jackvony & De Conti, Louis V. Jackvony, Jr., Daniel J. Donovan,*for defendantappellee.

Motion of defendant-appellee to affirm judgment entered in Superior Court pursuant to Rule 16 (g) denied.
Exhibit 32(g)

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
FOR PPL MONTANA, LLC'S 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of PPL Montana, LLC (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered Report"), I, the principal executive officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that:

| |  | The Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                   
| | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |   |                                                                                                                                                             
| |  | The information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|Date:  March 1, 2004 | /s/ James H. MillerJames H. Miller
President
PPL Montana, LLC
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION www.edgaradvantage.com




[SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LETTERHEAD]


April 14, 2000


Board
of Directors

Protective Life Insurance Company

2801 Highway 201 South

Birmingham, Alabama 35223


Directors:



    We
hereby consent to the reference to our name under the caption "Legal Matters" in the statement of additional information filed as part of post-effective amendment number 9 to the
registration statement on Form N-4 (File No. 33-70984) filed by Protective Life Insurance Company and Protective Variable Annuity Separate Account with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In
giving this consent, we do not admit that we are in the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933.



	 	Sincerely,
	 

 	 

SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP
	 

 	 

By: /s/ DAVID S. GOLDSTEIN

	 	David S. Goldstein
#### D. V. Frione and Company, Inc. *v.*Harbor Construction Corporation et al.

*Howard F. ZoarsJci,*for the appellee (Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company).

*William F. Gallagher,*for the appellant (named defendant).

Argued January 7

decided January 7, 1975

The motion by the Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company to dismiss the appeal of the named defendant from the Superior Court in New Haven County is denied.
Exhibit 10.34

                        SALES CONTRACT OF ANTHRACITE COAL
                        ---------------------------------


This  contract  is  made  and  entered  into  by  and  between   Shandong  Haize
Nanomaterials Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Party A) and Feicheng Longxin
Materials  Storage & Transportation  Co., Ltd (hereinafter  referred to as Party
B);  whereas  the needs of Party A's  production  and the  result of the  public
bidding, Party A agrees to sign this Sales Contract of Anthracite Coal dated the
first day of June,  2005.  The specific  terms and  conditions are stipulated as
follow:

I.   The Supply Quantity of Anthracite Coal

The yearly  quantity of anthracite  coal supplied by Party B to Party A shall be
3,000 tons, and the contract period shall be a full year.

II.  The Quality

Standards of the Supplied Coal The anthracite  coal supplied by Party B to Party
A shall be up to the quality standards of Party A and detailed provisions on the
quality standards will be attached.

III. The Price of the Anthracite Coal

For the moment,  RMB 720 yuan per ton and the price shall fluctuate in line with
market conditions.

IV.  Mode of Transportation

Party B shall be responsible for all transportation cost.

V.   Delivery and the Computing Mode of Losses

     (1)  The weighing done by Party A shall be the final, and Party B shall ask
          for the payment upon the weighing slip.

     (2)  Party A shall check the quality of the  anthracite  coal  delivered by
          Party B in each truck.

VI.  Method of Payment

In principle, the mode of payment shall be cash on delivery; it can also be paid
on a rolling  basis for each month.  But the longest term for  delaying  payment


<PAGE>

shall not be more than 65 days.  Party A shall pay off all payments within three
months after the termination of the cooperation of the two parties.

VII. Breach Liability

This Contract shall become  effective as of the date when it is signed.  The two
parties  shall be abide by and perform it. If there are some  general  questions
arise,  the two parties  shall  settle  them  through  negotiations.  If the two
parties fail to settle them through  negotiations,  they can be submitted to the
People' Court of Tai'an City to decide.

VIII. This Contract is in duplicate, and each party has one copy.

PARTY A:                                    PARTY B:
Shandong Haize Nanomaterials Co.,           Feicheng Longxin Materials Storage &
Ltd                                         Transportation Co., Ltd

/s/ Lu Zhilei                                /s/ Gao Sheng
---------------------------------           ------------------------------------
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE                        AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
1009.7004 Procedure. IRS contracting officers shall not proceed with award, at any dollar value, until a tax check has been performed on the apparent successful offeror. See IRS Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI) 9.1. ( a ) The contracting officer, regardless of an offeror's response in paragraph (a)(1) of the provision 52.209-5, Certification Regarding Responsibility Matters, paragraph (b)(1) of the provision at FAR 52.209-11, or paragraphs (h) and (q)(2)(i) of the provision at FAR 52.212-3 (see FAR 9.104-5(b)), shall request a tax check through the IRS designated point of contact. The request shall include only the information required for purposes of conducting the tax check.
( b ) If the result of the tax check demonstrates the offeror as having a delinquent Federal tax liability, the contracting officer shall— ( 1 ) Confirm the offer includes a signed and dated consent to disclosure (see 1052.209-70, Notice and Consent to Disclose and Use of Taxpayer Return Information), the absence of which may remove the offeror from eligibility to receive an award under the solicitation because taxpayer return information of the offeror may not be disclosed.
( 2 ) If the consent to disclosure is completed in the offer, notify the authorized representative(s) of the offeror that a delinquent Federal tax liability exists and therefore the offeror is ineligible for award. ( i ) If upon notification the offeror provides the contracting officer with documentation, within the timeframe specified by the contracting officer, that demonstrates the offeror's tax status as being paid-in-full or that an approved payment agreement is in place, the contracting officer will coordinate with the appropriate office within IRS to validate the tax status. If the offeror is found to be tax compliant, the contracting officer will notify the offeror of such. Assuming the offeror meets all other standards of responsibility, the offeror is eligible for award.
( 3 ) Notify, in accordance with IRS PGI 9.1, the Department of the Treasury official responsible for suspension and debarment for purposes of requesting a determination in accordance with FAR 9.104-5(a)(2) and FAR 9.104-5(b)(3) respectively before an award to that contractor can be made.
( c ) If the result of the tax check demonstrates the offeror as tax compliant then the offeror is eligible for award, assuming all other standards of responsibility have been met.
( d ) The contracting officer shall include in the contract file documentation that verifies the tax check was conducted and if the results confirm a delinquent Federal tax liability existed at the time of award, confirmation that the offeror was notified of such.