alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
,.. .i >~ i’

. ,.~.

Honorable John R. Coffee Onlnlon No. WW-370 County Attorney Howard County Big Spring, Texas

Dear Mr. Coffee:: Re: Whether the Commissioners'Court has the authority to contractwith a person or firm to maintain the County Courthouse. You have requested our opinion as towhether the Commissioners'Courthas the authority to contractwith a person or a firm for the maintenance of the Howard County Courthouse. You state that such firm or person would hire and fire their own employees for the maintenance and repair of the Howard County Courthouse, and the contracting person or firm alone would be responsible to the Commlssioners'Court.

Article 2351, Vernon's Civil Statutes,provides in part as follows:"Each commissioners court shall:

“7. Provideand keep In repair courthouses, jails and all necessary public buildings." In construing the powers and duties of the Commissioners'Court, the courts of this State have said:

"The Constitution does not confer ‘onthe commissioners courts 'generalauthority over the county business' and such courts can exercise only suchpowers as the Constitution itself or the statuteshave 'specifically conferred upon them.'
. . .While the commissioners courts have a broad discretion in exercisingpowers expressly conferred on them, nevertheless the legal basis for any action by any such court must be,ultimatelx : found in the Constitutionor the statutes. Canales v. Laughlih~3,;::147 Tex.~leg, 214 S.W.2dHonorable John R. Coffee, Page 2 (w-3'0)

451 (1948). Article 2351c,Vernon's Civil Statute?.provides that in countieshaving a population of more..Ithan 500,000 the Commissioners'Court may designatea building superlntendentwho shall appoint all necessary employees subject to confirmationby the Commissioners'Court. The Article furtherprovldes,that the Court shallhave the right to dischargeany such employees at any time for cause, However, this Article is not applicable to your situation since the County does not have a population of over 500,000, but even this Articleprovides that the Commissioners' Court shall have the ultimate right to discharge any employee for cause. This Articleby implicationprovides that there can be no delegation of the right to hire and fire janitorialemployees.

It has been held in Attorney General's Opinions No. O-2444 (1940)and No. 0-6085 (1944) that the Commlssioners' Court has the authority to employ and discharge Cou&house janitors, elevator operatorsand similar employees.

Therefore, In view of the foregoing,we are of the opinion that the CommissionersICourt has no authority to delegate the maintenance of the County Courthouse to any individual or firm.

SUMMARY

The Commissioners'Court has no authority to delegate the maintenance of the County Courthouse to any individualHonorable John R. Coffee, Page 3 (w-370)

or firm. Yours very truly,

WILL WILSON AttorneyGeneral of Texas

Llnward Shivers Assistant IS :pfk warn APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Geo. P. Blackburn, Chairman Cecil C. Rotsch J. Mark McLaughlin J. Milton Richardson John H. Mlnton, Jr. RRVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEYGENERAL BY: W. V. Geppert
#### § 440.1 Scope of part.

This part establishes financial responsibility and allocation of risk requirements for any launch or reentry authorized by a license or permit issued under this subchapter.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      14,511,999
<SECURITIES>                                21,002,216
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,514,683
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            45,530,400
<PP&E>                                       1,331,498
<DEPRECIATION>                                 595,446
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              54,413,166
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,593,692
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        89,292
<OTHER-SE>                                  47,730,182
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                54,413,166
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,145,131
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,033,694
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,142,932
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,401
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,081,546
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,170,987
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,910,559
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,910,559
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18


</TABLE>
#### § 19.5 Certification.

Prior to obtaining the requested records pursuant to a formal written request, a senior official designated by the head of the requesting Departmental unit shall certify in writing to the financial institution that the Departmental unit has complied with the applicable provisions of the Act.
# EUR-Lex - 31998D0088 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998D0088

**98/88/EC: Commission Decision of 15 January 1998 amending Commission Decision 97/252/EC drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of milk and milk products for human consumption (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 017 , 22/01/1998 P. 0031 - 0032 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 15 January 1998 amending Commission Decision 97/252/EC drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of milk and milk products for human consumption (Text with EEA relevance) (98/88/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Decision 95/408/EC of 22 June 1995 on the conditions for drawing up, for an interim period, provisional lists of third country establishments from which Member States are authorised to import certain products of animal origin, fishery products or live bivalve molluscs (1), as last amended by Decision 97/34/EC (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,

Whereas Commission Decision 95/340/EC (3), as last amended by Decision 96/584/EC (4), determines the countries from which Member States are to authorise imports of milk and milk-based products;

Whereas health and veterinary certification requirements for imports of milk and milk-based products from the countries on that list were set by Commission Decision 95/343/EC (5), as last amended by Decision 97/115/EC (6);

Whereas Commission Decision 97/252/EC (7), as last amended by Decision 98/87/EC (8), determines provisional lists of third country establishments from which Member States are to authorise imports of milk and milk products for human consumption;

Whereas the Commission has received lists of establishments from Croatia with guarantees that they meet the appropriate Community health requirements and that should an establishment fail to do so its exports to the Community may be suspended;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Decision 97/252/EC is supplemented by the Annex to this Decision covering Croatia.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 15 January 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 243, 11. 10. 1995, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 13, 16. 1. 1997, p. 33.

(3) OJ L 200, 24. 8. 1995, p. 38.

(4) OJ L 255, 9. 10. 1996, p. 20.

(5) OJ L 200, 24. 8. 1995, p. 52.

(6) OJ L 42, 13. 2. 1997, p. 16.

(7) OJ L 101, 18. 4. 1997, p. 46.

(8) See page 28 of this Official Journal.

ANEXO - BILAG - ANHANG - ÐÁÑÁÑÔÇÌÁ - ANNEX - ANNEXE - ALLEGATO - BIJLAGE - ANEXO - LIITE - BILAGA

País: CROACIA / Land: KROATIEN / Land: KROATIEN / ×þñá: Êñïáôßá / Country: CROATIA / Pays: CROATIE / Paese: CROAZIA / Land: KROATIË / País: CROÁTIA / Maa: KROATIA / Land: KROATIEN

>TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 31998R1983 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998R1983

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1983/98 of 17 September 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2273/93 determining the intervention centres for cereals **

*
Official Journal L 256 , 18/09/1998 P. 0010 - 0010 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1983/98 of 17 September 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2273/93 determining the intervention centres for cereals

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 923/96 (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,

Whereas the intervention centres are determined in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2273/93 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1877/97 (4); whereas some Member States have asked for that Annex to be amended; whereas those requests should be acceded to;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2273/93 is amended as follows:

1. in the 'France` section, the amendments are as follows:

>TABLE>

2. in the 'Österreich` section:

- the 'Absdorf-Hippersdorf` centre becomes 'Absdorf`,

- the 'Palterndorf-Dobermannsdorf` centre becomes 'Dobermannsdorf`,

- the 'Siebenbrunn-Leopoldsdorf` centre becomes 'Untersiebenbrunn`;

3. in the 'Suomi` section, the 'Mustio` centre becomes 'Mustio-kirkniemi`.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 17 September 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1. 7. 1992, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 126, 24. 5. 1996, p. 37.

(3) OJ L 207, 18. 8. 1993, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 265, 27. 9. 1997, p. 33.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

SAMUEL ORTIZ-LOPEZ, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D13-1126 

 ) 

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

________________________________ ) 

Opinion filed November 21, 2014. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Emmett Lamar 

Battles, Judge. 

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and 

J.L. "Ray" LeGrande, Special Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Dawn A. Tiffin, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. 

MORRIS, Judge. 

 Samuel Ortiz-Lopez appeals his judgment and sentence for first-degree 

murder. We conclude that the trial court's denial of his motion for continuance did not 

result in a palpable abuse of discretion. See Chavez v. State, 48 So. 3d 1022, 1024 

(Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (citing M.D.B. v. State, 952 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)). 
-2- 

Likewise, we conclude that there was no abuse of discretion in the admission of 

testimony concerning Ortiz-Lopez's prior possession of a firearm. Cf. Agatheas v. 

State, 77 So. 3d 1232 (Fla. 2011). 

 Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

* * T he H on orabl e J am es K . S i ng l et on , S eni or U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ct Judge f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A l a s ka , s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on. T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** * w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J OS E MANU E L AR E NA S - AR AN DA , a. k . a. Jo se M . A ren as, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 12- 10013 D. C . No . 4 : 1 0 - c r - 0 3 0 7 2 - C KJ ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona J a m e s K . S i ngl e t on, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng ** S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r10, 2012 *** B efo re: W A R D L A W , C L IF T O N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Jose M anuel A re nas- A rand a app ea l s f rom the 48 -m on th sent ence i m po se d



# FI LED SEP 24 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 10013 2 fol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty- pl eaconv i ct i on for r ee ntryaf t erdepo rt at i on , i n v i ol at i on of 8 U . S. C. § 1 3 2 6 . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. A r e n a s - A r an d ac o n te n d s th a t h is s e n te n c e is s ub s tan tiv e lyu n r e a s o n ab le in l i ghtof s e ve r a l m i t i ga t i ng f

a c t or s a nd be c aus e he w a s s e nt e nc e d t o onl ys i x m onths f orapr i orm i s de m e a nori m m i gr a t i on c onvi c t i on. I n l i ghtof the t ot a l i tyof

the c i r c um s t a nc e s , i nc l udi ng A r e na s - A r anda ’ s e i ghtpr e vi ous de port a t i ons , the s e n te n c e 1 5 m o n th s b e lo w th e G u id e lin e s r an g e is s ub s tan tiv e lyr e a s o n ab le . See 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) ; G al l v. U ni ted States , 55 2 U . S . 38 , 51 (200 7). AF F I RME D.
Exhibit 99 -  Cross Reference to Proxy Statement Incorporated by
              Reference

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                Definitive Proxy Statement to be Filed
                                                                  by Registrant for Annual Meeting of
Form 10-K for Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 1995		 Stockholders to be Held May 15, 1996
-----------------------------------------------------------  --------------------------------------------
<S>                                                          <C>

PART III

ITEM 10. - Directors and Executive Officers of the           Directors and Executive Officers
           Registrant                                        pp. 2-4

                                                             Compensation of Directors and
                                                             Executive Officers
ITEM 11. - Executive Compensation                            pp. 5 et. seq.

                                                             Related Transactions
ITEM 13. - Certain Relationship and Related Transactions     pp. 4 and 8

<PAGE>

</TABLE>
§ 1902.41 Decision. ( a ) Within a reasonable time generally within 120 days after the expiration of the period provided for the submission of written data, views, and arguments on the issues on which no hearing is held, or within a reasonable time, generally not to exceed 120 days after the certification of the record of a hearing, the Assistant Secretary shall publish his decision in the Federal Register. His decision shall state whether or not an affirmative 18(e) determination has been made for the State plan or any separable portion thereof, or whether he intends to withdraw approval of the plan or any portion thereof pursuant to part 1955 of this chapter. The action of the Assistant Secretary shall be taken after consideration of all information, including his evaluations of the actual operations of the plan, and information presented in written submissions and in any hearings held under this subpart.
( b ) Any decision under this section shall incorporate a concise statement of its grounds and purpose and shall respond to any substantial issues which may have been raised in written submissions or at the hearing.
( c ) All decisions concerning the Assistant Secretary's determination under section 18(e) of the Act shall be published in the Federal Register.
[40 FR 54782, Nov. 26, 1975, as amended at 80 FR 49904, Aug. 18, 2015]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 7, 2016

No. 04-16-00591-CV

IN RE David Gordon LEWIS

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Relator, David Gordon Lewis, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and alternative 

application for writ of habeas corpus and an emergency motion for stay on September 16, 2016. 

This court requested a response and issued a stay. Having considered Relator’s petition and the 

response filed by the real party in interest, this court has determined that Relator is entitled to the 

relief requested. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is CONDITIONALLY 

GRANTED. The stay ordered by this court on September 16, 2016, is hereby LIFTED.

The Honorable William R. Palmer is ORDERED to vacate the September 16, 2016 order 

granting real party in interest’s motion for enforcement. The writ will issue only if we are notified 

that Judge Palmer has not done as directed within fifteen days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED on December 7, 2016.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 7th day of December, 2016.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 15-521-CCL, styled In the Matter of the Marriage of David Gordon Lewis 

and Debra Lewis and In the Interest of W.G.L. and E.G.I., Children, pending in the County Court at Law, Kendall 

County, Texas, the Honorable William R. Palmer Jr. presiding.
#### Edward Stack, Resp’t, *v.*Charles P. Weatherwax, App’lt.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,*

*Filed May 27, 1889.)*

Promissorry notes—What sotetcient consideration.

In an action on a promissory note, the plaintiff, at defendant’s request executed and delivered to defendant a satisfaction piece of a certain judgment recovered by plaintiff, against a third person. *Held,*that this was a consideration, if the parties so agreed, for the defendant’s note.

Appeal from a judgment entered on a verdict directed by the court, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

This action was brought on a promissory note made and delivered to the plaintiff by the defendant.

The defendant admits the making and delivery of the note, but alleges that the same was made without consideration therefor, and that defendant executed the same under duress.

The action was tried at the Montgomery county circuit court, before Justice Tappan and a jury, June 11, 1888. At the close of the evidence the court directed the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff, and a judgment was entered thereon for the recovery and costs, amounting to $170.65.

It appears from the evidence that the plaintiff had a judgment against Ostrom Van Loon, the defendant’s son-in-law, on which there was due for principal, interest and costs, $103; that the plaintiff had tried to collect the judgment by execution; that the defendant came to the plaintiff and stated that if he would satisfy the judgment against his son-in-law, Van Loon, he would give plaintiff his note, payable in six months, for eighty dollars, in payment of the judgment; that they wept to the law office of Mr. Reynolds *91at Amsterdam, who, at the request o£ the parties, drew the note in suit and a satisfaction of the Van Loon judgment; that the defendant then signed the note, delivered it to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff signed and acknowledged the satisfaction of the judgment and delivered it to the defendant, who handed it to Mr. Reynolds and requested him to get the Montgomery county clerk’s certificate attached, showing that he, Reynolds, was a notary. The clerk’s certificate was obtained.

*Edward J. Maxwell,*for app’lt; *Louis H.*Reynolds, for resp’t.

Pee Curiam.

There was no sufficient evidence of duress to go to the jury.

The defense of want of consideration was not sustained. Contemporaneously with the execution of the note, the plaintiff executed, acknowledged and left for the defendant a satisfaction piece of the judgment recovered by the plaintiff against Van Loon. Whether Van Loon was solvent or not at that time, this was a consideration, if the parties so agreed, for the defendant’s note.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
§ 65.35 Knowledge requirements. Each applicant for an air traffic control tower operator certificate must pass a written test on— ( a ) The flight rules in part 91 of this chapter:
( b ) Airport traffic control procedures, and this subpart:
( c ) En route traffic control procedures;
( d ) Communications operating procedures;
( e ) Flight assistance service;
( f ) Air navigation, and aids to air navigation; and
( g ) Aviation weather.
#### Sigmund Saril, Pl’ff and Resp’t, *v.*William H. Payne, Def't and App’lt.

*New York Common*Pleas,

*General Term,*

*Filed April 1, 1889.)*

Arrest—Effect of omission of venue in affidavit on which order WAS BASED.

The affidavit, on which the order of arrest was based, contained no venue, *i e.,*it left out the words: “ City and county of New York, *ss." Meld,*mis was a jurisdictional defect and all the proceedings were *coi'am nonjudice*and void.

*487Appeal by this defendant from the order o- the general term of the city court of Mew York, affirming an order of the special term of that court, denying a motion, on behalf of the defendant, to vacate an order of arrest granted herein on January 12, 1888.-The affidavit, upon which the order of arrest was granted, left out the words: “ City and county of Mew York, ss.”

*L. Laflin*Kellogg, for app’lt; *Franklin Bien,*for resp’t.

Per Curiam.

The question raised upon this appeal is one of jurisdiction and not of irregularity. The affidavit upon which the order of arrest was granted, was the basis of the judge’s-action; if defective, the proceeding must fall. The lack of venue has been decided to make an affidavit a nullity. *Thomas*v. *Burhans,*61 N. Y., 63 ; *Lane*v. *Morse,*6 How., 394; *Cook*v. *Staats,*18 Barb., 407; *Vincent*v. *The People,*5 Park. Cr. Rep., 88; *Thurman*v. *Cameron,*24 Wend., 87.

The case of *Cook*v. *Whipple*(55 N. Y, 150), allowed an amendment to a confession of judgment where the venue was omitted, but we do not think this rule should be extended, in the absence of any authority upon the subject, in cases where personal liberty is involved.

We think, upon the authority of the court of appeals already expressed, that leave to make a further appeal to them upon this subject, is entirely unnecessary, as the decisions cited clearly show what would be the ultimate result of such application.
#### § 102.11 Signature; sworn; declaration.

Charges must be in writing and signed, and either must be sworn to before a notary public, Board agent, or other person duly authorized by law to administer oaths and take acknowledgments or must contain a declaration by the person signing it, under the penalty of perjury that its contents are true and correct (see 28 U.S.C. 1746).