alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Raymond Joe BIRCH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-78-657.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Dec. 6, 1979.

*1162Gary Beadles, Pauls Valley, for appellant.

Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., William S. Flanagan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

OPINION

CORNISH, Presiding Judge:

The appellant, Raymond Joe Birch, was convicted of Carrying a Firearm, After Former Conviction of a Felony, in the District Court of Garvin County, Case No. CRF-77-590. His sole assignment of error is that his trial was conducted as a one-stage proceeding, contrary to the holding in *Williams v. State,*Okl.Cr., 565 P.2d 46 (1977).

The facts in this case do parallel those in *Williams.*There, an officer stopped the appellant and arrested him for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, finding a loaded pistol on the floor of the car. We said in *Williams,*that a two-stage proceeding was required where punishment for an offense may be elevated in status because of a prior conviction of the defendant, but that in future cases a motion for a bifurcated proceeding should be filed before a plea is entered.1 The appellant asserts that requiring such a motion before pleading to an offense places an unfair burden on defendants who enter their plea prior to the appointment of counsel by the court.

Title 22 O.S.1971, § 464, provides for the appointment of counsel before arraignment. In some cases this Court has held it not to be error to arraign a defendant before assigning counsel, but none of those cases involved the situation presented here. See *Russell v. State,*41 Okl.Cr. 71, 270 P. 339 (1928); *Hudson v. State,*78 Okl.Cr. 160, 145 P.2d 774 (1944); *Martinez v. State,*Okl.Cr., 453 P.2d 304 (1969). When we required the filing of a motion prior to the entry of a plea in *Williams v. State,*supra, we anticipated that at that stage an accused would already have obtained or already have waived counsel. If, because of extenuating circumstances, the defense counsel does not enter the case until after a plea has been entered, the District Court should exercise its sound discretion with regard to allowing a motion for a bifurcated proceeding to be filed.

In this case, there is no indication in the record that the defense attorney ever attempted to file such a motion. The issue was first raised in the motion for a new trial. For that reason, we hold that the error was waived.

Accordingly, the judgment of guilt and the sentence of three (3) years is *AFFIRMED.*

BRETT, J., concurs.

BUSSEY, J., concurs in results.

1

. We further said in *Williams v. State,*supra, that where a motion for bifurcated proceeding is not filed before the plea is taken, the error is deemed waived. For an exception to the bifurcated trial rule see Marr *v. State,*Okl.Cr., 513 P.2d 324 (1973), which allows a single stage trial when a firearm is unloaded and carried in compliance with 21 O.S.1971, § 1289.7, which would be legal except for the fact that the person carrying the firearm is a felon.
# C_2012326EN.01039301.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/391 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/391

---

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

TITLE V

CITIZENS' RIGHTS

CITIZENS' RIGHTS

Article 44

Right to petition

Any citizen of the Union and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State has the right to petition the European Parliament.

---
# Table 1 Page 6

&"Arial,Regular"&10 &9 6	

# Table 2 Page 8

&"Arial,Regular"&9 8	

# Table 3 Page 9

&"Arial,Regular"&9 9	

# Table 4 Page 10

&"Arial,Regular"&9 10	

# Table 5A Page 11

&"Arial,Regular"&9 11	

# Table 5B Page 12 

&"Arial,Regular"&9 12	

# Table 5C Page 13

&"Arial,Regular"&9 13	

# Table 6A Page 15

&"Arial,Regular"&10 &9 15	

# Table 6B Page 16

&"Arial,Regular"&10 &9 16	

# Table 6C Page 17

&"Arial,Regular"&9 17	

# Table 6D Page 18

&"Arial,Regular"&9 18	

# Table 7A Page 19

&"Arial,Regular"&9 19	

# Table 7B Page 20

&"Arial,Regular"&9 20	

# Table 7C Page 21

&"Arial,Regular"&9 21&10	

# Table 8A Page 22

&"Arial,Regular"&9 22	

# Table 8B Page 23

&"Arial,Regular"&9 23&10	

# Table 9 Page 25

&"Arial,Regular"&9 25	

# Table 10 Page 26

&"Arial,Regular"&9 26	

# Table 11 Page 27

&"Arial,Regular"&9 27	

# Table 12 Page 28

&"Arial,Regular"&9 28	

# Table 13 Page 32

&"Arial,Regular"&9 32	

# Table 14A Page 34

&"Arial,Regular"&9 34	

# Table 14B Page 35

&"Arial,Regular"&9 35	

# Table 15A Page 38

&"Arial,Regular"&9 38	

# Table 15B Page 39

&"Arial,Regular"&9 39	

# Table 16A Page 40

&"Arial,Regular"&9 40	

# Table 16B Page 41

&"Arial,Regular"&9 41	

# Table 17A Page 43

&"Arial,Regular"&9 43	

# Table 17B Page 44

&"Arial,Regular"&9 44	

# Table 18 Page 45

&"Arial,Regular"&9 45	

# Table 19 Page 47

&"Arial,Regular"&9 47	

# Table 20 Page  48

&"Arial,Regular"&9 48	

# Table 21A Page 49

&"Arial,Regular"&9 49	

# Table 21B Page 50

&"Arial,Regular"&9 50	

# Table 21C Page 51

&"Arial,Regular"&9 51	

# Table 22 Page 52

&"Arial,Regular"&10 &9 52	

# Table 23 Page 53

&"Arial,Regular"&9 53	

# Table 24 Page 55

&"Arial,Regular"&9 55	

# Table 25 Page 56

&"Arial,Regular"&9 56	

# Table 26A Page 57

&"Arial,Regular"&9 57	

# Table 26B Page 58

&"Arial,Regular"&10 &9 58	

# Table 26C Page 59

&"Arial,Regular"&9 59	

# Table 26D Page 60

&"Arial,Regular"&10 &9 60	

# Table 26E Page 61

&"Arial,Regular"&10 61	

# Table 27B Page 65

&"Arial,Regular"&9 65	

# Table 27C Page 66

&"Arial,Regular"&9 66	

# Table 27D Page 67

&"Arial,Regular"&9 67	

# Table 27E Page 68

&"Arial,Regular"&9 68	

# Table 28 Page 69

&"Arial,Regular"&9 69	

# Table 29 Page 71

&"Arial,Regular"&9 71	

# Table 30A Page 72

&"Arial,Regular"&9 72	

# Table 30B Page 73

&"Arial,Regular"&9 73	

# Table 31A Page 74

&"Arial,Regular"&9 74	

# Table 31B Page 75

&"Arial,Regular"&9 75	

# Table 32 Page 76

&"Arial,Regular"&9 76	

# Table 33 Page 77

&"Arial,Regular"&9 77	

# Table 34 Page 78

&"Arial,Regular"&9 78	

# Table 35A Page 79

&"Arial,Regular"&9 79	

# Table 35B Page 80

&"Arial,Regular"&9 80	

# Table 35C Page 81

&"Arial,Regular"&9 81	

# Table 35D Page 82

&"Arial,Regular"&9 82	

# Table 35E Page 83

&"Arial,Regular"&9 83	

# Table 35F Page  84

&"Arial,Regular"&9 84	

# Table 35G Page 85

&"Arial,Regular"&9 85	

# Table 35H Page 86

&"Arial,Regular"&10 86	

# Table 36A Page  89

&"Arial,Regular"&9 89	

# Table 36B Page 90

&"Arial,Regular"&9 90	

# image1.png
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1214 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1214

  To prohibit certain funds from being transferred or reprogrammed to 
plan, develop, or construct a new physical barrier along the Southwest 
                    border, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2019

 Ms. Velazquez (for herself, Mr. Gonzalez of Texas, Mr. McGovern, Mr. 
Cisneros, Ms. Moore, Mr. Espaillat, Mrs. Demings, Mrs. Watson Coleman, 
 Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Lawson of Florida, and Mr. Serrano) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
   and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Financial 
Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit certain funds from being transferred or reprogrammed to 
plan, develop, or construct a new physical barrier along the Southwest 
                    border, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Disaster Relief Funds Act 
of 2019''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF CERTAIN FUNDS FOR A NEW PHYSICAL BARRIER 
              ALONG THE SOUTHWEST BORDER.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds 
appropriated or otherwise made available by Public Law 115-56, Public 
Law 115-123, Public Law 115-72, or Public Law 115-254 to the Department 
of Homeland Security or Department of Housing and Urban Development for 
activities relating to disaster relief or recovery may be transferred 
or reprogrammed to plan, develop, or construct a new physical barrier 
along the Southwest border of the United States. Furthermore, none of 
the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Corps of 
Engineers by Public Law 115-123 may be transferred or reprogrammed 
under section 2293 of title 33, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
# L_2012112EN.01002101.xml

| 24.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 112/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 112/6

---

ACT

ACT

concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community

PART FOUR

TEMPORARY PROVISIONS

TEMPORARY PROVISIONS

TITLE II

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Article 22

1.   The term of office of the Judge of the Court of Justice and the Judge of the General Court appointed from Croatia upon its accession in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 19(2) of the TEU shall expire, respectively, on 6 October 2015 and 31 August 2013.

2.   For the purpose of judging cases pending before the Court of Justice and the General Court on the date of accession in respect of which oral proceedings have started before that date, the full Courts of the Court of Justice and the General Court or the Chambers thereof shall be composed as before accession and shall apply the Rules of Procedure in force on the day preceding the date of accession.

---
EXHIBIT 31.3



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, William L. Bridgford, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No.1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Bridgford Foods Corporation; and                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
|2. | Based on my knowledge, this Amendment No.1 to Annual Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Amendment No.1 to Annual Report.



Date: February 27, 2017



|/s/ WILLIAM L. BRIDGFORD      | 
|----------------------------- | 
|William L. Bridgford          | 
|Chairman of the Board         | 
|(Principal Executive Officer) |
# L_2012112EN.01002101.xml

| 24.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 112/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 112/6

---

ACT

ACT

concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community

PART ONE

PRINCIPLES

PRINCIPLES

Article 5

Croatia shall participate in the Economic and Monetary Union from the date of accession as a Member State with a derogation within the meaning of Article 139 of the TFEU.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         7149693
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4822717
<ALLOWANCES>                                     71722
<INVENTORY>                                    4311104
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              16372323
<PP&E>                                         1461368
<DEPRECIATION>                                  690314
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                17602155
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1333826
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        174967
<OTHER-SE>                                    16030684
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  17602155
<SALES>                                       16437840
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              16437840
<CGS>                                          4232570
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  7801826
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                8636014
<INCOME-TAX>                                   3226537
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            5409477
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   5409477
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .31
        


</TABLE>
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

[DESCRIPTION] Exhibit 27 Financial Data Schedule for 1998.
              This form contains summary financial information
              extracted from Form 10K for California-Engels
              Mining Company for the year ended 12/31/98 and is
              qualified in its entirety by reference to such
              financial statements.
[TEXT]
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. Dollars
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                        DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       YEAR
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
       
<S>                                                 <C>
<CASH>                                                 10,128
<SECURITIES>                                           23,546
<RECEIVABLES>                                          77,478
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       20,940
<PP&E>                                                260,107
<DEPRECIATION>                                         18,700
<depletion>                                             2,896 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        350,531
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   3,272
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                              190,284
<OTHER-SE>                                            156,975
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          350,531
<SALES>                                                33,258
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       43,314
<CGS>                                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          38,838
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        26,209
<INCOME-TAX>                                            3,981
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    22,228
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                           22,228
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           0.029
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0.029
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40974 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus EZEQUIEL GODINEZ-CERVANTES, also known as “El Guero”, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-96-CR-284-1

- - - - - - - - - - May 6, 1998 Before DUHE, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ezequiel Godinez-Cervantes (Godinez) appeals his sentence following a guilty plea conviction for aiding and abetting the distribution of heroin and distribution of heroin. Godinez argues that the district court erred in its method of upward departure. Godinez did not make this challenge in the court below; therefore, we review for plain error. See United States v. Maldonado , 42 F.3d 906, 909-12 (5th Cir. 1995); see alsoNo. 97-40974 -2- United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1995)( en banc )( citing United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 731- 37 (1993)). Because the district court was not required to give reasons for the extent of its departure under § 5K2.0 and the court specified the reasons the interim criminal history categories were inadequate pursuant to § 4A1.3, Godinez has not demonstrated plain error. See United States v. Lee , 989 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Lambert , 984 F.2d 658, 663 (5th Cir. 1993)( en banc ). Godinez also argues that the district court, by taking into account his escape status when upwardly departing, erroneously relied on a factor adequately considered by the guidelines. Godinez also did not raise this argument in the district court; therefore, we review for plain error. Further, Godinez contends that the district court erred in considering unreliable hearsay testimony Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Agent James Spurr in upwardly departing. Because Godinez raised this contention in the district court, we review for clear error. See United States v. Edwards , 65 F.3d 430, 432 (5th Cir. 1995). Inasmuch as the district court also considered separately adequate for its departure the underrepresentation of Godinez’s criminal history score, based on his unscored prior convictions, which alone would have given him 21 criminal history points and a U.S. Sentencing Guideline imprisonment range of 324-405 months, the record reflects that the district court would have imposedNo. 97-40974 -3- the same sentence absent its reliance on Agent Spurr’s testimony or Godinez’s escape status; therefore, the district court did notNo. 97-40974 -4- commit clear or plain error determining its upward departure.
See Koon v. United States , 116 S. Ct. 2035, 2053-54 (1996).
AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

MARVIN MCMILLAN,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 554 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART SIX

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

TITLE III

ENHANCED COOPERATION

ENHANCED COOPERATION

Article 333

(ex Articles 27a to 27e, 40 to 40b and 43 to 45 TEU and ex Articles 11 and 11a TEC)

(ex Articles 27a

e

b

a

1.   Where a provision of the Treaties which may be applied in the context of enhanced cooperation stipulates that the Council shall act unanimously, the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with the arrangements laid down in Article 330, may adopt a decision stipulating that it will act by a qualified majority.

2.   Where a provision of the Treaties which may be applied in the context of enhanced cooperation stipulates that the Council shall adopt acts under a special legislative procedure, the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with the arrangements laid down in Article 330, may adopt a decision stipulating that it will act under the ordinary legislative procedure. The Council shall act after consulting the European Parliament.

3.   Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to decisions having military or defence implications.

---
Order entered April 16, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-08-01584-CV

TXU PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P. 

N/K/A LUNINANT ENERGY COMPANY, L.L.C., Appellant

V.

FPL ENERY, LLC, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 04-10314

ORDER

We GRANT appellees’ April 14, 2015 unopposed motion for an extension of time to file 

a supplemental brief. Appellees shall file their supplemental brief by MAY 22, 2015.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
**Exhibit31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Randall K. Gausman, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this Form 10-Q/AAmendment No.1 of Tut Systems, Inc.;

 

2.                                    Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 
| Date:  September 2, 2004 |     |     |                                                                                                               |
|--------------------------|----------|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     |     |     |                                                                                                               |
| * *                 | *By:*    | * * | */s/ Randall K. Gausman*                                                                                           |
| * *                 | * * | * * | *Randall K. Gausman,*                                                                                              |
| * *                 | * * | * * | *Vice-President, Finance and Administration,  Chief Financial Officer and Secretary (Principal Financial Officer)* |