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

Honorable Henry Wade OpinionNo, M-115 District Attorney,Dallas County Dallas County Government Center Dallas, Texas Re: Would Article 458213, v.c.s be violated by a ‘he-dedication” of the two acre tract in question from its prior dedication for cemeterypurposesand its subsequent sale to a certain bank, as trustee of a certain Perpetual Care Endowqent Fund, and subsequentl.y thereafterbeing leased to a duly licensed Dear Mr. Wade: funeral establishment? By reoent letteryou have requestedan opinion of this offioewith regard to the above statedmatter. The only portion of Article 4582b, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, which is relevant to a determination of your request is Sectlon 4, Subseotion C, Paragraph 8, which is as follows:

“c
. Each funeral establishment shall be required to have a physical plant, equipment and personnel consisting of the following,

. . 8. A physical plant locatedat a fixed place and not located on any tax exempt properly or cemetery;”nmphasis added7.
A determinationof the validity of the proposedprocedure is a matter of ascertainingwhether the two acre tract will be tax exempt property or a cemetery; it itwere neither, there cou1.d be no violation of Article 4582b, (4) (C) (8). If, as you indicated in your letter, the dedication is removed by court order obtainedpursuant to proceedings initiatedunder

- 528 -Honorable Henry Wade, page 2, OpinionNo. M-115

Article 912a-11, Vernon's Civil Statutes, the propertywould lose its status as being tax exempt according to this Article, and thereby eliminate that question from our consideration.
We must next considerwhether or not such propertywould then be a cemetery. Article 912a-1 defines cemeteryas "aplace dedicated to and used and intended to be used for the permanent intermeni;of the human dead". Tb *us,the two acre tract in question,no longerbeing so dedicated,would no longer be a cemetery. The subsequent sale of such tract to a bank as trustee of a perpetual care fund is not prohibitedby Article 4582b; thus it would not be in violation thereof.
It is the opinion of this office that Article 458213, would not be violatedby a "de-dedication"of the two acre tract in question from its prior dedication for cemeterypurposes and its subsequent sale to a certain bank, as trustee of a certain Perpetual Care Endowment Fund, and subsequent lease thereafter to a duly licensed funeral establishment.' This opinionmust of necessity be 1imite.d to the fact situationherein presented.
SUMMARY _------ Article 4582b, Vernon's Civil Statutes, is not violated by a "de-dedicationof the two acre tract in question from its prior dedication for cemeterypurposesand its subsequent sale to a certainbank, as trustee of a certain Perpetual Care Endowment Fund, and subsequent lease thereafter to a duly licensed funeral establishment. very truly,"

MARTIN ney General of Texas Preparedby Charles 61. Bardwe AssistantAttorney General

- 529 -- -

Honorable Henry Wade, page 3, OpinionNo. M-115

APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Hawthorne Phillips, Chairman Kerns Taylor, Co-Chairman Brock Jones Marvih Sentell Brandon Bickett FieldingEarly STAFF LEGAL ASSISTANT A. J. Carubbi, Jr.

- 530 -
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         136,914
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  221,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               556,440
<PP&E>                                         194,411
<DEPRECIATION>                                 126,504
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 765,195
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          147,763
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       871,286
<OTHER-SE>                                   (308,742)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   765,195
<SALES>                                        762,283
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               762,283
<CGS>                                          394,425
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  716,613
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,193
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 42,477
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,615
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             30,862
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    30,862
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

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 StanCorp Financial Group, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Eric E. Parsons, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Exchange 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: August 7, 2007



|                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                               
|/s/    ERIC E. PARSONS                                         
|Eric E. Parsons Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ALBERTO MONTELONGO

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 16

- 00001

- C R

Appeal from the

243 rd District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20150D02224 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time within which to

file the brief until March 15 , 202 2

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Raquel Lopez

, the Appell ant ’s attorney, prepare the

Appell ant ’s brief and forward t he same to this Court on or before March 15 , 202 2

IT IS SO ORDERED this 15 th day o f February , 202 2

.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox , and Alley , JJ.
Exhibit 32  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 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 RedCell Power Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended JUNE 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date, the undersigned, being the 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:  1.the report fully complies with the requirements of 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Dated: October 18, 2006  /s/ Michael LaidlawMichael LaidlawPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### Digital Guide (Web Format)            **

2024-2025

Posted January 5, 2024

2023-2024

Posted December 7, 2022

2022-2023

Posted July 14, 2022

#### PDF Guide            **

2024-2025

2023-2024

2022-2023

2021-2022

2020-2021

## Previous Handbook Years

Maintained for Historical Purposes

2019-2020

2018-2019

2017-2018

2016-2017

2015-2016

2014-2015

2013-2014

2012-2013

2011-2012

2010-2011

2009-2010

2008-2009

2007-2008

2006-2007

2005-2006

2004-2005

2003-2004

2002-2003

2001-2002

2000-2001

1999-2000

1998-1999

1997-1998

1996-1997

1995-1996

## Additional Resources

Federal Student Aid Handbook Glossary

Foreign Schools Handbook

New School Guide Landing Page

FSA Assessments
#### Thomas Louis MURRAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-488.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Jan. 9, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# L_2005295EN.01003301.xml

| 11.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 295/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 295/33

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1840/2005

of 10 November 2005

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

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

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 4 to 10 November 2005 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 11 November 2005.

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

Done at Brussels, 10 November 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 174, 7.7.2005, p. 12.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last modified by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

3

---
#### John Brady, Respondent, *vs.*James H. Connelly, George *W.*Smith and John Cobrall, Appellant.

1. *Practice, civil*— Coimts—Verdict, eta__The rule that where a petition contains ' more than one count, there should be a separate verdict on each count, only applies where the counts are for separate and distinct causes of action.

2. *New trial*— Objections, *not appearing*— Result.—Objections not raised on motion for new trial will not be considered by tile Supreme Court.

*Appeal from the Platte County Circuit Court.*

*Allen H.*Vories, for Appellant.

J. *E. Merry man,*for Respondent.

Adams, Judge,

delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.

This was an action for damages for throwing down tbe wall of plaintiff’s store-house and thereby injuring his goods and house by negligently excavating tbe earth from below tbe foundation of bis bouse.

A verdict and judgment were given for tbe plaintiff, and a motion for a new trial was made and overruled and exceptions duly saved; and defendants have appealed to this court.

1. Tbe first point raised by tbe appellant here is that tbe verdict .of tbe jury, being general, cannot stand; that there *20were two counts in the petition and there should have been a separate verdict on each count. This rule only applies when the counts are for separate and distinct causes of action. There is no pretense here that there were several causes of action. It is conceded that there was but a single cause of action and although there are two counts in the petition, they are only separate statements of the same identical cause of action. The verdict therefore is right. (See Brownell vs. Pacific Railroad Company, 47 Mo., 239; Ranney vs. Bader, 48 Mo., 539; Newton vs. Miller, 49 Mo., 298.)

2. The next and only remaining point made by the appellant here is upon the instructions given for the plaintiff. The instructions do not seem to be objectionable ; but if they were they are not subject to review here. Although the defendant excepted to the ruling of the court when the instructions were given he did not afterwards raise the same objection in his motion for a new trial. The motion is not based on any error in this court in giving instructions. The object of a motion for a new trial is that the court may have the chance to correct any errors that were made upon the trial; and where instructions were objected to on the trial; this point must again be presented to the court so as to allow the error if any to be corrected without an appeal to this court.

Upon the whole record, I think the judgment was for the right party.

"Judgment affirmed.

Judge Vories not sitting. The other Judges concur.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1621 

To amend section 3661 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the 

consideration of acquitted conduct at sentencing. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2021 

Mr. COHEN (for himself and Mr. ARMSTRONG) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend section 3661 of title 18, United States Code, 

to prohibit the consideration of acquitted conduct at sentencing. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Prohibiting Punish5 ment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ACQUITTED CONDUCT AT SENTENCING. 

7 (a) USE OF INFORMATION FOR SENTENCING.— 

8 (1) AMENDMENT.—Section 3661 of title 18, 

9 United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘, ex10 cept that a court of the United States shall not conVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:57 Apr 28, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1621.IH H1621

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1621 IH

1 sider, except for purposes of mitigating a sentence, 

2 acquitted conduct under this section’’ before the pe3 riod at the end. 

4 (2) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by 

5 paragraph (1) shall apply only to a judgment en6 tered on or after the date of enactment of this Act. 

7 (b) DEFINITIONS.—Section 3673 of title 18, United 

8 States Code, is amended— 

9 (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by 

10 striking ‘‘As’’ and inserting the following: 

11 ‘‘(a) As’’; and 

12 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(b) As used in this chapter, the term ‘acquitted con14 duct’ means— 

15 ‘‘(1) an act— 

16 ‘‘(A) for which a person was criminally 

17 charged and with regard to which— 

18 ‘‘(i) that person was adjudicated not 

19 guilty after trial in a Federal, State, or 

20 Tribal court; or 

21 ‘‘(ii) any favorable disposition to the 

22 person in any prior charge was made, re23 gardless of whether the disposition was 

24 pretrial, at trial, or post trial; or 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1621 IH

1 ‘‘(B) in the case of a juvenile, that was 

2 charged and for which the juvenile was found 

3 not responsible after a juvenile adjudication 

4 hearing; or 

5 ‘‘(2) any act underlying a criminal charge or ju6 venile information dismissed— 

7 ‘‘(A) in a Federal court upon a motion for 

8 acquittal under rule 29 of the Federal Rules of 

9 Criminal Procedure; or 

10 ‘‘(B) in a State or Tribal court upon a mo11 tion for acquittal or an analogous motion under 

12 the applicable State or Tribal rule of criminal 

13 procedure.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

September 3, 2013

h0826 

# Order

Clerk September 3, 2013

147090

PAYTRA WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 147090

COA: 307706

Wayne CC: 11

- 004678

- CZ

CHARLIE LeDUFF, THE DETROIT

NEWSPAPER PARTNERSHIP, L.P.,

and THE DETROIT NEWS, INC.,

Defendants

- Appellees.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 28, 2013

judg ment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 32.3



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 Dominos, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 27, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David A. Brandon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based
on my knowledge:



| | 1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ David A. BrandonDavid A. BrandonChief Executive Officer




Dated: May 10, 2005



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Dominos, Inc. and will be retained by
Dominos, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Walter Reese WESLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. M-438.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 20, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 30, 1970.

Tench, Goldin & Jones, Gainesville, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and J. Christian Meffert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant has appealed a judgment of conviction and sentence based upon a verdict rendered by the court sitting as the trier of the facts without a jury.

Appellant, an 18-year-old boy, was indicted for raping an 81-year-old woman. After his arrest but prior to trial he voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly confessed to having beaten and raped the victim as charged in the indictment. Based upon the court’s adjudication of guilt, appellant was sentenced to imprisonment in state prison for a period of 99 years.

In his appeal for reversal of the judgment here reviewed, appellant contends that he has been deprived of almost as many constitutional rights as there are amendments to the United States Constitution. The rights which appellant seeks to raise as a shield against punishment have been spawned during an era of judicial activism upon a false legal philosophy which places individual rights to immunization from the consequences of criminal acts above the right of society to be *125protected against the depraved acts of human predators who stalk the urban jungles of our nation.

We have carefully reviewed each of the contentions urged by appellant in light of the record before us and find them to be without basis in the evidence and unsupportable by applicable principles of law. The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., WIGGINTON, J., and McLANE, RALPH M., Associate Judge, concur.
EXHIBIT 10.9


PROMISSORY NOTE





$1,200.00
April 5, 2010Austin, Texas





FOR VALUE, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Restaurant Concepts of America, a Nevada company referred to as (“Borrower”), promises to pay to David Cho (“Lender”), or order, at Austin, Texas, or as otherwise instructed, the principal sum of one thousand two hundred dollars ($1,200.00) in lawful tender of the United States, together with simple interest thereon at an annual interest rate of eight percent (8%).





Terms of Repayment. This Promissory Note shall become due and payable together will all accrued interest on April 5, 2011.





Default.  Any one or more of the following events shall constitute a Default under the terms of this Note:





1)
Borrower fail to make timely payment when due.


2)
Borrower breaches an agreement or promise made to Lender, or fails to timely perform any obligation owing to Lender


3)
Borrower makes any representation or statement to Lender that is false or misleading in any material manner.


4)
Borrower becomes insolvent, or a receiver is appointed for any part of all of Borrower’s property, of Borrower makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or any proceeding is brought either by Borrower of against Borrower under any Bankruptcy or insolvency laws.





In the event of any default as described herein, Lender, without further protest, presentment or notice, may declare all sums due and payable, together with any interest then due.





Waiver.  Forbearance of any payment due of modification of any term of this Note by Lender in any manner shall not be deemed nor construed as a waiver of any other rights in favor of Lender under the terms of this Notice.





Legal.  This Note shall be construed in accordance with the laws of that State of Texas, which shall be the choice of jurisdiction and venue for purposes of enforcement of this Note.  If any action is brought to enforce any provision or collect on this Note, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reimbursement for all reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled.




Restaurant Concepts of AmericaBy:/s/ David ChoDavid Cho - President / CEO