alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OFFICEOFTHEATTORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable W. fns O*Danlel 

cbvemor or Texar 

hatla, Texa8 

Dear Sir: 

oa808./ /,/y \ 

letter oi X8y 5, 

8 t0 the OCll8titUp 

n 1 Of thi8 bill 

dlotion heretotoro 

ty 00~ or ylri0n 

Oountg Jubge oi Marion 

6 aounty Oourt 8hsu hare 

on aounty of ml1 orlIalnal 

rdeme8nor Over rhloh the 

On ~Oullty TeXa8, now ha8 

9 jLWi8diotfOn Ot 8aid OOUTt8 

all be oonourrent, prodded 

n of the Di8trlot Court of 

8hd.l be and rmain a8 1101 

ande~in no riles affected by th18 

t ths jurirdiotlon 

ty Judge of J&Ion 

U&b Odly t0 tbO8S 

are enter8d by 

the detendant in any Oa8ta9 of ml868meanor riled 

in 8aib OOUrt. 

The quoatlon rhloh you 8ubmit in your latter 18 

*whether or not thi8 sot YlOlate8 the oon8titutional prori81on8 in T8felmOO to th6 jtUi8dlotion Of OOuntJr OOUFtIlr* 
Honotable W. Lee O'Danlel, &y 6, 1939, Page II 

&trwldes 

htiC.10 v, 80OtiOU &?i, Of the COII8t~tUtiOli Of ?0Xa8 

a8 fO11OW8: 

-ha b&$8hturo 8hl.l hato power, by looal or 

general law, to inoNa8e, didni8h or oh8ugo the 

OiYll ad Or~nd jnri8diotion Of COUnty cO~t8; 

ind In oa8e8 of any 8uoh oh-0 of juri8diotlon, 

the bgi8latUre 8h811 8180 OOIifoW the jUri8diOtiOR 

Of the Othar OOUI’t8 t0 8uOh 0han@.' 

1s YJ k pointsa oat that uudor 350080 Bill MO. 872, 

tad ~uri8dlotlon or the oouuty wntrt la 4opon4oat upon the 

plo8 whloh ruy bo ontored by the dofondait. It tho the oi 

dotaratUOd Only when the dsfenduat 18 oadod upon to titer 

hi8 plOa. fs tho defMdAUt ont0r8 a plOa Of not mty, 

the ooart rlll bo wlthout JPri8dlotlon and 8ll prior prooedding8 ~- 

io the 08urt dll b0 r8naoroa row. 

*o do not tina any 8tatute oontain~ proti8iOIW 

rimtl8r to &use Biu Ho. 872 nor any deoirions roforrLPlg to. 

W 8lmllar statutory prOr18lOlA8. 

Uu4ar Art1010 5, 88otlon at, of th8 cou8titution 

~quotoa *bore, the b@818ttAH 18 girem very broad pOwor8.with 

mforenoe~ to the regulation of the $xrl8&lotfon or 0ounty 

0OUl-t8 Md ~0 .do aOt find 0Ily ~Y181Oll Of th0 aO~t.itUtiOn 

prohlbklw the &&SlAtttro from lieiting tho OOUUty OOUrt’8 

jUFi8diOtiOlt in the War PrOYidsd in mU80 Bm 190. 878. 

Yo u a r l e ooordl*~ add804 that It 1s 6mr .o@inlon that EOu80 

Bill PO. 878 doe8 ndt riolate 0ny ooMtitutioM1 proYi81On8 

ln mierenoe tq the jtmi8dfotioa of the ooanty OOort8.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-75,981

EX PARTE WILEY BURLESON, JR., Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. CR95-105 IN THE 22 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ND

FROM COMAL COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleaded guilty to forgery, and was

sentenced to sixty years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction. 

Applicant contends that his sentence is illegal, and his counsel ineffective for allowing him

to plead guilty in exchange for an unauthorized sentence. Because Applicant pleaded guilty to a

third degree felony, enhanced by one prior felony conviction to second degree punishment range, he

should have been subject to a maximum sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment.
The trial court determined that Applicant’s sixty-year sentence is unauthorized. Applicant

is entitled to relief. Ex parte Huerta, 692 S.W.2d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). The trial court

recommends that Applicant’s sentence be reformed. However, because Applicant pleaded guilty

pursuant to a plea agreement, his judgment and sentence must be set aside.

Relief is granted. The judgment in Cause No. CR95-105 in the 22nd Judicial District Court

of Comal County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the trial court to answer the charge

against him.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: September 10, 2008

Do Not Publish
# C_2017030EN.01000701.xml

| 30.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Nelsons GmbH v Ayonnax Nutripharm GmbH, Bachblütentreff Ltd

(Case C-177/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer information and protection - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Nutrition and health claims made on foods - Transitional measures - Article 28(2) - Products bearing trade marks or brand names existing before 1 January 2005 - ‘Bach flower’ remedies - European Union mark RESCUE - Products marketed as medicinal products before 1 January 2005 and as foodstuffs after that date))

(2017/C 030/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nelsons GmbH

Applicant:

Defendants: Ayonnax Nutripharm GmbH, Bachblütentreff Ltd

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 28(2), first sentence, of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 107/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that that provision applies in the situation in which a foodstuff bearing a trade mark or brand name was, before 1 January 2005, marketed as a medicinal product and then, although having the same physical characteristics and bearing the same trade mark or brand name, as a foodstuff after that date.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 29.6.2015.

1

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 August 13, 2021

b0810

Order 

Clerk

August 13, 2021

163275 & (32)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 163275

COA: 357514

Washtenaw CC: 18-000596-FC

JACOB LANGSTON-PORTER LABELLE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The 

application for leave to appeal the July 12, 2021 order of the Court of Appeals is considered 

and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this 

case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. We further ORDER 

that trial court proceedings are stayed pending the completion of this appeal.

MCCORMACK, C.J., did not participate due to her preexisting relationship with a 

party.
#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States

No. 6111.

Invoice dated Sonneberg, Germany, February 10, 1939.

Certified February 14, 1939.

Entered at Boston, Mass., March 7, 1939.

Entry No. 9971.

(Decided March 2, 1945)

*Sharretts & Hillis (Edward P. Sharretts*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

OLIVER, Presiding Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has-been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, that the facts and circumstances rejating to the item of 10 per centum commission in the case listed in the annexed schedule, identified on the invoice with “xx” in green ink and the initials T. A. McC. of Examiner Timothy A. McCarthy, are in all material respects the same as the facts and circumstances relating to the item of 10 per centum commission specified in the invoices relating to glass tree ornaments, novelties, and figures covered by *357reappraisements 113038-A, 113040-A, and 113468-A of the F. W. Woolworth Co. and passed upon by the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in *United States*v. *S. S. Kresge Co., B. Shackman & Co., Rice & Co. Corp., Strauss-Eckardt Co., Inc., F. W. Woolworth Co.,*26 C. C. P. A. 349, 352, wherein the court held that “A purchasing commission, charged for the handling of merchandise, is not a proper part of dutiable value.”

> It is further stipulated and agreed that on the date of exportation of the merchandise involved in the case listed in the annexed schedule, identified on the invoices with “xx” in green ink and the initials T. A. McC. of Examiner Timothy A. McCarthy, articles such and similar thereto were freely offered for sale and sold to all purchasers in the. principal markets, of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States at the *per se*unit invoice prices, plus 3)4 per centum social assessments for insurance, vacation, and holiday costs, plus packing, as invoiced, and that there was no higher foreign value.

> As to all other items, the appeal is abandoned.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the record in *United States*v. *S. S. Kresge Co. el al.,*26 C. C. P. A. 349, 352, be incorporated herein and that the said appeal to reappraisement is submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to he the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise represented on the invoice by the items marked “xx” in green ink and the initials T. A. McC. of Examiner Timothy A. McCarthy, and that such values are the *per se*unit invoice prices, plus 3% per centum social assessments for insurance, vacation, and holiday costs, plus packing, as invoiced.

The appeal having been abandoned insofar as it relates to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Case No. 5,532.

#### GOOD v. SPRIGG.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 172.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

June Term, 1819.

Bills and Notes — Discharge of Indorser.

An indorser, who has been discharged by the laches of the plaintiff, is not bound by a promise to pay, unless he knew, at the time of his promise, the' fact of laches.

Assumpsit against the indorser.

Mr. Jones, for defendant,

contended that the defendant was not bound by his promise to pay, not knowing that demand of payment had not been made of the maker, and that it was- incumbent on the plaintiff to show that the promise was made by the •defendant with a knowledge of that fact

And so decided.

THE COURT

CRANCH, Chief Judge,

doubting whether the burden of •proof, as to that fact, was not on the defendant
Skip Navigation

#         Archive-It      

Login

      - HOME
      - EXPLORE
      - LEARN MORE
      - CONTACT US

### The leading web archiving service for collecting and accessing cultural heritage on the web 

Built at the Internet Archive

        - Explore
        - Federal Depository Library Program Web Archive
        - SmartGrid.gov

#  SmartGrid.gov 

**Collected by:** Federal Depository Library Program Web Archive 

**Archived since:**Sep, 2018

**Description:**
The mission of SmartGrid.gov is to provide information about Smart Grid and government-sponsored Smart Grid projects. SmartGrid.gov offers inciteful information that will help consumers and stakeholders further understand the basics and the range of Smart Grid technologies, practices and benefits.

**Subject:**    	    Government - US Federal,     	    Science & Technology,     	    Environment & Energy

**Creator:**    	    U.S. Department of Energy,     	    Office of Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability

**Language:**    	    English

**Collector:**    	    U.S. Government Publishing Office

## Narrow Your Results

### 

            There are no further ways to narrow your results.           

Sites for this collection are listed below. Narrow your results at left, or enter a search query below to		      find a site, specific URL or to search the text of archived webpages.
Clear

              - Sites
              - Search Page Text

Page 1 of 1  (3 Total Results)

**Sort By:**
                - Title (A-Z)
                - Title (Z-A)
                - URL (A-Z)
                - URL (Z-A)

### URL:     https://www.buzzsprout.com/1463236/

	  	Loading Wayback Capture Info...	  

Loading video data...

### URL:     https://www.buzzsprout.com/677039/

	  	Loading Wayback Capture Info...	  

Loading video data...

### URL:     https://www.smartgrid.gov/

	  	Loading Wayback Capture Info...	  

Loading video data...

Page 1 of 1  (3 Total Results)

Archive It

#### Archive-It 

*Built at the Internet Archive*
2014 Archive-ItThe leading web archiving service for collecting and accessing  cultural heritage on the web 

      - Home
      - Learn More         - About Archive-It
        - News/Press
        - Meet the Team
        - Publications
      - Contact Us
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 9
 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 9
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 9
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 9
EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 9
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 9
 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 9
EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 9
EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 9
Case No. 6,627.

#### The GONDAR.

[Blatchf. Pr. Cas. 649.] 1

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

July 17, 1863.

Prize — Violation of Blockade — Additional Proof.

1. Vessel and cargo acquitted of a violation of, or of an- attempt to violate, the blockade.

2. Further proof ordered as to the neutral ownership ..of the vessel and cargo at the time of capture.’

' [Appeal from the district court of the United States for the Southern district of New York. .

[In admiralty. Libel by the United States against the ship Gondar and cargo for an alleged violation of the blockade. The vessel and her cargo were condemned in the district court (Case No. 5,526), and the claimant appeals.]

NELSON, Circuit Justice.

This vessel was captured.at Beaufort, North Carolina, May 2, 1862, at the same time with the ship Alliance, already considered, and the decision turns very much on the principles involved in that case. [Case No. 246.] The vessel commenced her voyage in July, 1861, at Liverpool, with a cargo of salt and pig-iron, for the port' of Nassau, or any port-of the United States, and back to Liverpool. She arrived at Beaufort on the 27th of August following, and discharged her cargo. There was no actual blockade of that port at the time, nor until several days afterward. She commenced taking in her homeward cargo on the 1st of September, and completed her lading on the 14th. It consisted of resin and spirits of turpentine. In the meantime a blockade of the port had been" established,' and the vessel remained in port awaiting its removal, until she was captured. There is ho evidence of any intention to break the blockade by the master, or of any act done by him with such intent The vessel is claimed by J. B. Armstrong and H. Gerard, residents and merchants of Liverpool, and' British subjects. The claim is put in by the master in behalf of the owners. The cargo is claimed by one of these *575parties, ,T. It. Armstrong. The British regis-' ter of February 11, 1861, is in the names of the above parties. The documentary proofs as to tho property in the cargo shows it to be in J. R. Armstrong. I shall give the same direction to this ease that I did to the case cf The Alliance [supra], and make an order-for further proofs as to the property in the vessel and cargo at the time of capture.

[Both cases were heard upon the proofs as ordered, the decrees of the district court in each case being reversed, and the property restored to its owners. Case No. 5,528.]
No. 49881.

Suit 4475.

#### United *States*v. *E. H. Bailey & Co.*

C. D. 821 reversed October 30, 1944, C. A. D. 291.
(a) A review of Toyota Motor Credit Corporation’s activities and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of May 11, 2016 (the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”), among Toyota Auto Finance Receivables LLC, as seller, Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, as servicer (in such capacity, the “Servicer”) and sponsor, and Toyota Auto Receivables 2016-B Owner Trust, as issuer, during the period from May 11, 2016 to December 31, 2016 has been made under my supervision.
  (b)  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.
 
  
 By: /s/ Wei Shi
No. 53242.

#### Kawahara Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 549901-G, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the durikono passed upon in Abstract 52550, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<PAGE>   1


                       UGI UTILITIES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
        COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES - EXHIBIT 12.1
                             (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Nine
                                                  Months
                                                  Ended                            Year Ended September 30,
                                                 June 30,        -------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2001             2000            1999            1998            1997
                                              ---------------    -----------     -----------     -----------    --------------
<S>                                           <C>                <C>             <C>             <C>            <C>
EARNINGS:
Earnings before income taxes                        $ 78,188      $  82,882        $ 63,139        $ 57,007          $ 63,275
Interest expense                                      14,333         18,135          17,317          17,383            16,696
Amortization of debt discount and expense                187            218             215             200               176
Interest component of rental expense                     979          1,318           1,539           1,624             1,887
                                              ---------------    -----------     -----------     -----------    --------------
                                                    $ 93,687      $ 102,553        $ 82,210        $ 76,214          $ 82,034
                                              ===============    ===========     ===========     ===========    ==============

FIXED CHARGES:
Interest expense                                    $ 14,333      $  18,135        $ 17,317        $ 17,383          $ 16,696
Amortization of debt discount and expense                187            218             215             200               176
Allowance for funds used during
      construction (capitalized interest)                 23             17              36              39               114
Interest component of rental expense                     979          1,318           1,539           1,624             1,887
                                              ---------------    -----------     -----------     -----------    --------------
                                                    $ 15,522      $  19,688        $ 19,107        $ 19,246          $ 18,873
                                              ===============    ===========     ===========     ===========    ==============

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                      6.04           5.21            4.30            3.96              4.35
                                              ===============    ===========     ===========     ===========    ==============
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Valspar Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 27, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William L. Mansfield, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I, Paul C. Reyelts, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934; and



2.         The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/   William L. MansfieldWilliam L. MansfieldChairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerSeptember 5, 2007






/s/   Paul C. ReyeltsPaul C. ReyeltsExecutive Vice President(Chief Financial Officer)September 5, 2007






---
---

Exhibit 99.16

Summary of Mortgage Contract of Maximum Amount ( the
Contract) Entered into by and between Shenzhen BAK
Battery, Co., Ltd (the Mortgager) and Longgang Branch,
Shenzhen Development Bank Co., Ltd (the Creditor) on December 21,
2009

Main contents:

- Contract number: Shenfa Longgang Edizi 20091221001-1;
- In order to guarantee the indebtedness of Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd.
  (the Obligor) towards the Creditor under the Comprehensive Credit Facility
  Agreement of Maximum Amount (reference no.: Shenfa Longgang Zongzi
  20091221001) from December 31, 2009 to December 14, 2010, the Mortgager agrees
  to pledge its property to the Creditor.
- Scope of Guaranty:The guaranty shall cover all of the loan
  principal, interest, penalty interest, breach of contract compensation,
  damages, undertaking fee and all the expenses such as litigation cost,
  lawyers fee, notification cost and public notice cost etc. which is incurred
  to the Creditor in realizing its creditors right.
- Collaterals:The Mortgager agrees to pledge its 2,554 machineries
  and equipments with an aggregate value of RMB 138.04 million to the Creditor.

Headlines of the articles omitted:

- Payment on demand
- Undertakings of the Mortgager
- Validity of the
Creditors Right
- Occupancy of Collaterals
- Insurance of Collaterals
- Mortgage Registration
- Realizing of Creditors Right
- Declaration and guaranty of the Mortgager
- Amendment
of the Contract
- Effectiveness and Disputation settlement
- Supplement
articles

---
No. 54930.

#### W. A. Haller Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 130006-K (Philadelphia).

*333Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 44264.

#### Protest 9002—K of Julius Laschinger, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

An analysis indicated that the sausage contains meat other than pork. On the record presented the protest was overruled.