alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### WILLIAM J. BATE *vs.*JOSEPH BURR, Jr.

If one sell goods to an agent lmowing the principal and give credit to the agent, he cannot afterwards charge the principal.

Additio probat minoritatem; thus A. B., means A. B., the elder, where there are two of the same name; but this may be explained otherwise, according to the fact.

Interest is calculated from the expiration of the credit, where that is agreed on ; otherwise by the usage.

This was an action of assumpsit for goods sold and delivered, to wit: certain fruit and ornamental trees.

It appeared from the evidence in the case, that the goods were purchased at two several times by Joseph Burr, the father, for the defendant, his son, who informed plaintiff they were for his son. The plaintiff entered them on the first occasion to Joseph Burr; on the last to Joseph Burr, jun., and he presented the bills to the father, but afterwards altered the first entry by the addition of the word “jun.” Joseph Burr, the father, had failed.

*Rogers, jr.,*

contended, that under this proof plaintiff could not recover. If a person selling goods to an agent, choose to give credit to the agent instead of the principal, he cannot recover against the principal. (23 *Law Lib.*114.)

*Gilpin, for*plaintiff,

replied that the entry to Joseph Burr was sufficient to charge Joseph Burr, jun. The addition of senior or junior is no part of the name, and a declaration against Joseph Burr, jun., would be sustained by proof of a sale charged to Joseph Burr. The question is to whom in fact the credit was given. But this fact derives no elucidation from an entry to Joseph Burr, which may mean either senior or junior. The proof is that the trees were purchased *by*the father for the son ; so declared at the time; the son has the trees, and has never paid for them.

*Rogers*

replied, that the principle of law was additio probat minoritatem ; and Joseph Burr, without any thing more, meant Joseph Burr, sen.

Booth, *Chief Justice,*

charged.—If at the time of sale the seller knows that the person dealing with him is an agent, and also knows who the principle is; and, with that knowledge, chooses to make the agent his debtor, he cannot afterwards, on the failure of the agent, turn round and charge the principal; having once made his election when he had the power of choosing between the one and the other. *131
      *(Addison*vs. *Gandasequi,*4 *Taunt.*574; *Patterson*vs. *Gandasequi,*15 *East*62.)

*Gilpin,*for plaintiff.

*Rogers,*for defendant.

Interest is to be calculated from the time of the expiration of the credit, when a credit is agreed on by the parties; or is established by usage. Where there are two persons of the same name, father and son, as Joseph Burr, senior, and Joseph Burr, junior, an entry to Joseph Burr would mean the father, without explanation; but if Joseph Burr, the son was meant, that will explain and correct the entry, and the proof of it would sustain a claim against the son.

Verdict for plaintiff.
#### Arnold DOBY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. FF-461.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 30, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 1978.

Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Patti Englander, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

SMITH, Judge;

Appellant Doby, an inmate at Union Correctional Institute, was convicted of possession of marijuana and introduction of contraband into a state correctional facility after prison officers found envelopes of the drug secreted in his wheelchair upon Doby’s return from a furlough. Doby contends the evidence was insufficient to show he knew the marijuana was in his chair. We agree.

When the premises on which contraband is found are not in the defendant’s exclusive control the State must prove the defendant knew of the contraband. *Rutskin v. State,*260 So.2d 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); *Frank v. State,*199 So.2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967). Doby’s uncontradicted testimony showed a number of other inmates often had access to the wheelchair out of his presence. The State’s own witnesses established that Doby would not have become aware of the envelopes simply by sitting in the chair. No direct evidence connected Doby to the envelopes. The evidence suggesting Doby knew of the marijuana is entirely circumstantial, and that evidence also reasonably supports an inference that Doby was unaware of it. To support a conviction circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. *Davis v. State,*90 So.2d 629 (Fla.1956). The trial court should have granted Doby’s motion for judgment of acquittal.

REVERSED.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
this schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Krupp
Realty Fund 7 financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1996 and is
qualified in ts entirety by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,177,332
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  185,867
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               487,894
<PP&E>                                      29,193,001<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                            (14,188,500)<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,855,594
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          853,850
<BONDS>                                     12,562,165<F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,439,579<F4>
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,855,594
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,688,515<F5>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,574,400<F6>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,103,602
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,513<F7>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F7>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F7>
<FN>
<F1>Represents apartment complexes of $19,190,834, retail centerof $9,714,873 and
deferred mortgage costs of $287,294.
<F2>Includes accumulated depreciation of (14,097,123) and amortization of deferred
mortgage cost of (91,377).
<F3>Represents mortgage notes payable.
<F4>Represents total equity (deficit) for the General and Limited Partners of
($248,136) and ($3,687,715), respectively.
<F5>Includes all revenues of the Partnership.
<F6>Includes operating expenses of $1,781,759, real estate taxes of $466,876
and depreciation and amortization of $1,325,765.
<F7>Net income allocated $210 to the General Partners and $10,303 to the limited
partners for the years ended 12/31/96.  Average net income per unit of limited
partner interest is .35 on 27,184 units outstanding.
</FN>


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 371 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 371

Requesting the President to designate April 1994 as ``National Savings 
                                Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 24, 1994

 Mr. LaRocco submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
             the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Requesting the President to designate April 1994 as ``National Savings 
                                Month''.

Whereas the United States cannot prosper without the savings and investment of 
        our people;
Whereas American savings amounted to more than 6 percent of our Gross Domestic 
        Product (GDP) in 1981, but equaled less than 3.5 percent of GDP last 
        year;
Whereas our failure to save means that the United States has to borrow money 
        abroad;
Whereas the United States has become a debtor nation, importing more than 
        $500,000,000,000 from other countries in the past year in contrast to a 
        net export position of nearly $400,000,000,000 in 1980;
Whereas productivity cannot grow and our standard of living cannot rise without 
        adequate domestic savings; and
Whereas it is incumbent upon us, for the future well-being of our Nation, to 
        bring these facts to the attention of the American people: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the President is hereby authorized and requested to 
issue a proclamation drawing attention to the importance of savings and 
investment in America and designating the month beginning on April 1, 
1994, as ``National Savings Week''.

                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification

I, Frank A. Lodzinski, certify that:

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of GeoResources, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended September 30,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frank A. Lodzinski, 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 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/ Frank A. LodzinskiFrank A. LodzinskiChief Executive OfficerNovember 12, 2008
|EXHIBIT 10.1                                                                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE
TO THE
CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION 
AND 
GARY A. MYERS, DATED MARCH 15, 1999

|WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Georgia-Pacific Corporation (the "Board") desires to amend the Change of Control Agreement between Georgia-Pacific Corporation and Gary A. Myers, dated March 15,
1999 ("Agreement") to expand the definition of "Change in Control."
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|NOW THEREFORE, the Board hereby amends the Agreement as follows:                                                                                                                                                                                                        
|1.    Section 1(c) of the Agreement is amended by adding the following to the end thereof:                                                                                                                                                                              

| | "(v)    Consummation of the Transaction as defined in the Board Resolution approving Project Forest dated July 18, 2000, and as contemplated in the Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among Plum Creek Timber Company, Inc., Georgia-Pacific
Corporation, and the Spincos (as defined therein) dated July 18, 2000."
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# C_2021415EN.01000101.xml

| 13.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 415/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 415/1

---

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2020-2021 SESSION

Sittings of 11 to 13 November 2020

TEXTS ADOPTED

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF B.L.C.,

A JUVENILE

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-10-00186-CV

Appeal from

289th District Court

of Bexar County, Texas

(TC # 2007-JUV-02757)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The appeal is before the Court for a determination whether it should be dismissed. Finding

there is no appealable order, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.1

On September 19, 2007, the State file a petition alleging Appellant engaged in delinquent

conduct by committing indecency with a child by sexual contact. By its petition, the State sought

a determinate sentence. A jury found that Appellant engaged in delinquent conduct as alleged in the

petition. The jury found that Appellant was in need of rehabilitation, sentenced him to five years in

the Texas Youth Commission with possible transfer to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Institutional Division, and recommended that he be placed on probation outside of his home. 

Shortly before Appellant’s eighteenth birthday, the State filed a motion to transfer the

determinate sentence probation to an adult district court. The trial court signed an order on March

5, 2010 transferring Appellant’s juvenile determinate sentence probation to a criminal district court

pursuant to Section 54.051 of the Texas Family Code. TEX.FAM.CODE ANN. §54.051 (Vernon

This case was transferred from the Fourth Court of Appeals to the Eighth Court of Appeals pursuant to a

1

docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX.GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (Vernon 2005).
2008). The transfer became effective on Appellant’s eighteenth birthday, April 2, 2010. See

TEX.FAM.CODE ANN. §54.051(d). On May 14, 2010, the trial court held a hearing on Appellant’s

written objections to changes in the conditions of probation, but the court declined to amend the

conditions. Appellant thereafter filed notice of appeal stating an intention to challenge matters raised

by written motion and ruled on by the trial court on May 14, 2010. 

On July 19, 2010, we sent Appellant notice of our intent to dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction. Appellant’s counsel has filed a written response conceding that Appellant did not file

notice of appeal from the transfer order, and even if he had, the transfer order is not appealable. We

agree. See In the Matter of J.H., 176 S.W.3d 677, 679 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2005, no pet.). 

Additionally, counsel correctly states that the trial court’s refusal to amend the conditions of

probation is not appealable. See Basaldua v. State, 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977).2

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

September 29, 2010 

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.

The Court commends counsel for filing a candid and thorough response to the inquiry.

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
FOUND IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE, AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> CANADIAN
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1.3813
<CASH>                                          72,254
<SECURITIES>                                       590
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,344
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     51,485
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               199,035
<PP&E>                                         573,376
<DEPRECIATION>                                  79,818
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 763,876
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           70,291
<BONDS>                                        241,728
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       378,989
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,351
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   763,876
<SALES>                                        106,463
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               106,463
<CGS>                                          127,992
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  127,992
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,070
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (63,784)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,582)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (60,202)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (60,202)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.43)
        

</TABLE>
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 pane l unani 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 ROSA RODRI GU EZ - RAM I RE Z, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N os . 07- 74504 N o s . 08- 73093 A ge nc yN o. A 079- 022- 168 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i ons f

orR e vi e w of

O r de r s of

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls 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. I n the s e c ons ol i da t e d pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w , R os aR odr i gue z - R am i r e z , ana t i ve an dci t i zen o f M ex i co , p et i t i o n s fo r rev i ew o f th e B o ardo f Im m i g rat i o n A p p eal s’ (“ B IA ”) orders di sm i ss i ng her app ea l fr om an i m m i grat i on j ud ge’ s r em ov alorder, an dd e n y in g h e rm o tio n to r e o p e n . W e h av e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . 

# FI LED SEP 17 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 74504 2 W e r e vi e w f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the de ni a l of am ot i on t o r e ope n, and r e vi e w de n o v o qu e s tio n s o f

law . Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 40 0 F . 3d 78 5, 79 1-92 (9th C i r. 2005) . I n N o. 07- 74504, w e gr antthe pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w and r e m and. I n N o. 08- 7 3 0 9 3 , we d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he a ge nc ydi d nothave the be ne f i tof ourde c i s i on i n R ob les -U rrea v. H older , 67 8 F . 3d70 2, 71 1 (9th C i r. 20 12 ), w hen i tdet erm i ned thatR od ri gu ez Rami r e z ’ s c o n v i c t i o n f

o rmi s p r i s i o n o f

af e l o n yw a s c a t e g o r i c a l l yac r i me in v o lv in g m o r a l tu rp itu d e . W e th e r e f o r e r e m an dto a llo w th e a g e n c yto c o n du c t a m o d if ie dc a te g o r ic a l an a ly s is o f R o d r ig u e z - R am ir e z ’s c o n v ic tio n an d , if approp ri at e, consi der her appl i cat i on s f or re l i ef . In li g h t o f o u r d isp o siti o n , w e n ee dn o t rea ch R o d rig u ez -R am irez ’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s in N o . 0 7 - 7 4 5 0 4 . T h e B IA d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n ind en yin g R o d rig u ez -R am irez ’s m ot i on t o reopen b ec ause she di d n otsubm i tany new , m at er i alevi dence thatw as previ ou sl y notavai l abl e andcoul d n othave been di sc ov er ed or pres ent ed ather p r io rh e ar in g . See 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (1). I n No . 0 7 - 7 4 5 0 4 : P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W GR AN T E D; R E M A N D E D . I n No . 0 8 - 7 3 0 9 3 : P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-21-00351-CV

YUMIN ZHAO, Appellant

V.

TWO STEPPIN TOWING, Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from County Court at Law 

No. 2

of Denton County (CV-2021-00500-JP)

October 20, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice 

Sudderth

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

It is further ordered that Yumin Zhao shall pay all costs of this appeal, for 

which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1075

To designate the Federal building in Fredericksburg, Virginia, as the ‘‘Samuel

E. Perry Postal Building’’, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 7, 1993

Mr. WARNER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To designate the Federal building in Fredericksburg, Virginia, as the ‘‘Samuel E. Perry Postal Building’’, and

for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF SAMUEL E. PERRY POSTAL

4 BUILDING.

5 The Federal building located at 600 Princess Anne

6 Street in Fredericksburg, Virginia, (commonly known as

7 the ‘‘Main Post Office’’) shall be designated as the ‘‘Sam8 uel E. Perry Postal Building’’.
2

•S 1075 IS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

4 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

5 a reference to the ‘‘Samuel E. Perry Postal Building’’.

Æ