alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Donald L. WOZNIAK, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. 3589.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Oct. 13, 1978.

*1148Carol Johnson, Birch, Horton, Bittner & Monroe, Anchorage, for appellant.

Charles M. Merriner, Asst. Dist. Atty., Joseph D. Balfe, Dist. Atty., Anchorage, Avrum M. Gross, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.

Before BOOCHEVER, C. J., and RABI-NO WITZ, CONNOR, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

On September 22, 1975, Donald Wozniak was convicted after pleading guilty to the crime of burglary not in a dwelling in violation of AS 11.20.100.1 He was sentenced to three years imprisonment with two and one-half years suspended. In imposing this sentence, Judge Singleton signed a Judgment and Order of Commitment which did not state that Wozniak would be subject to probation supervision following his six months imprisonment. On February 17, 1976, after a motion of the state, Judge Singleton executed an Amended Judgment which specified that Wozniak must abide by twelve general conditions of probation.

On the basis of an incident of check forgery, the state moved to revoke Wozniak’s probation. On October 15,1976, the superi- or court revoked probation and Wozniak was returned to jail. An application for post-conviction relief was denied on July 12, 1977. Wozniak appeals from this denial of post-conviction relief, contending that the amended judgment of February 17, 1976, was an illegal sentence and therefore Judge Singleton did not have the power to reinstate the suspended two and one-half years.

After reviewing the record in this case, we are convinced that the denial of the application for post-conviction relief should be affirmed, and we need not reach the question of the propriety of the amended judgment. The legislature has provided for a procedure to revoke suspended sentences in AS 12.55.110.2 Under that statute, to revoke a suspended sentence requires a showing of “good cause.” *Trumbly v. State,*515 P.2d 707, 709 (Alaska 1973). A violation of a particular specified condition of probation need not be shown in order to reinstate the suspended portion of a sentence. The forgery incident was sufficient “good cause” for the court to revoke the sentence earlier suspended.

The reinstatement of the two and one-half year suspended sentence is AFFIRMED.

1

. AS 11.20.100 states:

> *Burglary not in dwelling house.*A person who breaks and enters a building within the curtilage of a dwelling house but not forming a part of it, or who breaks and enters a building or part of it, or a booth, tent, railway car, vessel, boat, or other structure or erection in which property is kept, with intent to steal or to commit a felony in it, is guilty of burglary, and upon conviction is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than two nor more than five years.

2

. AS 12.55.110 provides:

> *Notice and grounds for revocation of suspension.*When sentence has been suspended, it shall not be revoked except for good cause shown. In all proceedings for the revocation of a suspended sentence, the defendant is entitled to reasonable notice and the right to be represented by counsel.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

THE CITY OF EL PASO, TEXAS, §

No. 08

- 13

- 00187

- CV

Appellant, §

Appeal from the

v. §

County Court at Law No. 3

HIGH RIDGE CONSTRUCTION,

INC.,

Appellee. §

§

§ of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2011DCV00361)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in part

of the judgment as to Appellant’s unconstitutional takings claim, we therefore reverse the trial

court’s order denying the plea to the jurisdiction and render judgment dismissing that claim.

Further, a s to Appellant’s breach of contract claim, we reverse the trial court’s order denying the

plea to the jurisdiction and remand to the trial court to allow Appellant to amend their pleadings

in accordance with this Court’s opinion. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court’s

judgment.

We further order that Appellant and Appellee each pay one

- half (1/2) the costs of this

appeal. T his decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 31S T DAY OF JU LY , 2014.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before Rodriguez, J., Barajas, C.J., and Chew, C.J. (Senior Judges)

Chew, C.J. (Senior Judge), sitting by assignment (concurring opinion), joined by Barajas, C.J.

(Senior Judge), sitting by assignment
USDA, APHIS, PPQ

2281 W Heyrend Way

Idaho Falls, ID 83401

Data Source:

USDA APHIS PPQ

USDA FSA

These data, and all the information contained therein, have been collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), or by its cooperators on APHIS’ behalf, for restricted

government purposes only and is the sole property of APHIS. See full disclaimer: www.aphis.usda.gov/help/map-disclaimer

United States

Department of

Agriculture

PALE CYST NEMATODE - IDAHO

Regulated Fields - January 10, 2020

0 2 4

Miles

0 2 4

Kilometers

Date Created:

1/9/2020

[

Document Path: S:\PCN\Projects\WebMap\2020_0110\PCN Web Map.aprx Coordinate System: GCS WGS 1984

T 01 N

R 33 E

T 01 N

R 34 E

T 01 N

R 35 E

T 01 N

R 36 E

T 01 N

R 37 E

T 01 N

R 38 E

T 01 S

R 33 E

T 01 S

R 34 E

T 01 S

R 35 E

T 01 S

R 36 E

T 01 S

R 37 E

T 01 S

R 38 E

T 01 S

R 39 E

T 02 N

R 33 E

T 02 N

R 34 E

T 02 N

R 35 E

T 02 N

R 36 E

T 02 N

R 37 E T 02 N

R 38 E

T 02 S

R 33 E

T 02 S

R 34 E

T 02 S

R 35 E

T 02 S

R 36 E

T 02 S

R 37 E

T 02 S

R 38 E

T 02 S

R 39 E

T 03 S

R 33 E

T 03 S

R 34 E

T 03 S

R 35 E

T 03 S

R 36 E

T 03 S

R 37 E

T 03 S

R 38 E

T 03 S

R 39 E

AMMON

BASALT

BLACKFOOT

FIRTH

IDAHO FALLS

SHELLEY

Regulated Fields

Idaho Idaho

Bonneville County

Bingham County
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM The
Company's unaudited consolidated balance sheets, consolidated statements of
operations, and consolidated statements of cash flows AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q for the fiscal period ending June
30, 2000
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      20,069,284
<SECURITIES>                                43,349,913
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,288,953
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    315,935
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            65,138,733
<PP&E>                                       1,105,553
<DEPRECIATION>                                  64,339
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              67,693,292
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,062,221
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    94,060,613
<OTHER-SE>                                (38,627,747)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                67,693,292
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               942,627
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  440,828
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,941,727
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,439,928)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,439,928)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,439,928)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)


</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 15, 2023

No. 04-23-00054-CR

IN RE Martin Barron GALVAN

Original Proceeding1

ORDER

On January 30, 2023, relator filed a motion to dismiss his petition for writ of mandamus. 

We GRANT the motion and DISMISS the petition for writ of mandamus. The stay imposed on 

January 13, 2023 is LIFTED.

It is so ORDERED on February 15, 2023.

_____________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

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

court on this 15th day of February, 2023.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 12553CR, styled State of Texas v. Martin Barron Galvan, pending in the 

County Court, Kinney County, Texas, the Honorable Todd Alexander Blomerth presiding.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED AS
PART OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,427
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,285
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 4,071
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     26,058
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          54,717
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            55,985
<LOANS>                                        184,603
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,430
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 285,597
<DEPOSITS>                                     238,415
<SHORT-TERM>                                     6,276
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,328
<LONG-TERM>                                     11,036
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,262
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,281
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 285,597
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,395
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,202
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   104
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,701
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,562
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,806
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,896
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       98
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,585
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,531
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,531
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,116
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.31
<LOANS-NON>                                        841
<LOANS-PAST>                                       528
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,349
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       23
<RECOVERIES>                                         7
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,430
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,002
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            428
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21

               Subsidiaries of American HealthChoice, Inc.


                     Subsidiary                            Clinic
   1.  AHC Chiropractic Clinics, Inc., a         Bandera, Wurzbach, San Pedro
         Texas corporation                         & Katy Chiropractic
       AHC Physicians Corporation, Inc., a       San Pedro & Southcross
         Texas corporation                         medical
       AHC Physicians Corporation, Inc., a       Peachtree, Conyers &
         Georgia corporation                       McDonough medical
       Total Medical Diagnostics, Inc., a
         Delaware corporation                    Inactive
       Nationwide Sports and Injury, Inc., a
         Texas corporation                       Bandera Physical therapy
       United Chiropractic Clinics of Uptown,
         Inc., a Louisiana corporation           Uptown
       New Orleans East Chiropractic Clinics,
         Inc., a Louisiana corporation           New Orleans East
       AHC Clinic Management, L.L.C., a Texas
         limited liability company               Inactive
       AHI Management, Inc., a Texas
         corporation                             Corporate office
       Diagnostic Services, Inc., a Texas
         corporation                             Inactive
       Katy Sports Injury and Rehab,
         Incorporated, a Texas corporation       Inactive
       Pacific Chiropractic (San Pedro),
         Incorporated, d/b/a United Chiropractic
         Clinic, a Texas corporation             Inactive
       Apple Chiropractic Clinic of Wurzbach,
         Incorporated, a Texas corporation       Inactive
       Valley Family Health Center, L.L.C., a
         Texas limited liability company         Valley Family chiropractic
November 4, 1999

21716

#### Raquel v. Raquel

Affirmed
# C_2019016EN.01005602.xml

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/56

---

Action brought on 29 October 2018 — Reaktor Group v EUIPO (REAKTOR)

(Case T-650/18)

(2019/C 16/67)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Reaktor Group Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: L. Laaksonen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of the word mark REAKTOR as a European Union trade mark — Application for registration No 13 752 522

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 August 2018 in Case R 2626/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 August 2018 in Case R 2626/2017-2 in so far as the Second Board of Appeal, by the contested decision, dismissed EU trade mark application 13752522 REAKTOR (‘the REAKTOR mark’) for certain goods and services applied for in classes 9, 41 and 42 on the basis of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation; and allow the application concerning the REAKTOR mark to be published and registered in its entirety for all the goods and services applied for; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 August 2018 in Case R 2626/2017-2 in so far as the Second Board of Appeal, by the contested decision, dismissed EU trade mark application 13752522 REAKTOR (‘the REAKTOR mark’) for certain goods and services applied for in classes 9, 41 and 42 on the basis of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation; and allow the application concerning the REAKTOR mark to be published and registered in its entirety for all the goods and services applied for;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the applicant the costs incurred in respect of the appeal before the General Court of the European Union and the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the applicant the costs incurred in respect of the appeal before the General Court of the European Union and the Board of Appeal;

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
### SCWC-14-0001107 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. CHARLES LEE, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-14-0001107; 5DCW-13-0000125) ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C . J . , N a k a y a m a , M c K e n n a , P o l l a c k , a n d W i l s o n , J J . )



### Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant’s application for writ of certiorari, filed on September 8, 2017, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, October 17, 2017. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-14-0001107 17-OCT-2017 08:30 AM
May, 19,1999

21783, 21784

#### Doe, In re

Affirmed
#### State v. Emura

18102

12/12/94

Affirmed
#### Yamada v. Yamada

18626

1/22/98

Affirmed and Reversed' in part
# C_2020271EN.01001301.xml

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 — China Construction Bank Corp. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Groupement des cartes bancaires

(Case C-115/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Opposition - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Assessment of the similarity of the signs at issue - Assessment of the distinctive character of the earlier mark)

(2020/C 271/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: China Construction Bank Corp. (represented by: A. Carboni and J. Gibbs, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and D. Botis, acting as Agents), Groupement des cartes bancaires (represented by: C. Herissay-Ducamp, lawyer)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 December 2018, China Construction Bank v EUIPO — Groupement des cartes bancaires (CCB) (T-665/17, EU:T:2018:879); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 December 2018, China Construction Bank v EUIPO — Groupement des cartes bancaires (CCB) (T-665/17, EU:T:2018:879);

| 2. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 June 2017 (Case R 2265/2016-1); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 June 2017 (Case R 2265/2016-1);

| 3. | Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by China Construction Bank Corp. in the present appeal and half of the costs incurred by China Construction Bank Corp. in the proceedings at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by China Construction Bank Corp. in the present appeal and half of the costs incurred by China Construction Bank Corp. in the proceedings at first instance;

| 4. | Orders the Groupement des cartes bancaires to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by China Construction Bank Corp. in the proceedings at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Groupement des cartes bancaires to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by China Construction Bank Corp. in the proceedings at first instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---
(b) (2)

(b) (2)
(b) (2)

(b) (2)

(b) (2)
(b) (2)

(b) (2)

(b) (2)
(b) (2)

(b) (2)
(b) (2)

(b) (2)
(b) (2)

(b) (2)

(b) (2)
(b) (2)
(b) (2)
(b) (2)

(b) (2)

(b) (2)
(b) (2)

(b) (2)

(b) (2)

(b) (2)

(b) (2)
(b) (2)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael ZAPOTITLA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-41664.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Larry Chris lies, Rockport, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Court-appointed counsel for Rafael Zapotitla-Lopez (Zapotitla) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Zapotitla was sent a copy of counsel’s motion and brief, but has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, coun*70sel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Infestación

Lesión

HORMIGA DEL 

FUEGO IMPORTADA 

(HFI)

Adulto

Ampollas 

provocadas por 

las picaduras de 

la hormiga del 

fuego importada 

en el brazo de una 

víctima

Hormigas del fuego 

importadas caminando 

sobre madera

Color marrón 

rojizo o negro

Extremadamente 

agresivas cuando 

son perturbadas

Entre un octavo y un 

cuarto de pulgada de largo
Para obtener más información, visite: 

Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos

Servicio de Inspección Sanitaria de Animales y Plantas

El Departamento de Agricultura de EEUU es un proveedor y empleador que ofrece igualdad de 

oportunidades. Material del programa núm. 2125-IFA-S Publicado en juno de 2013

PLAGASHAMBRIENTAS.COM

ELDAÑO QUE CAUSA

Las hormigas del fuego importadas se alimentan de los brotes 

y frutos de numerosos cultivos, especialmente maíz, soya, 

quimbombó y cítricos. También pueden rodear árboles jóvenes. 

Sus nidos grandes se encuentran en los campos y provocan daños 

e interferencias a los equipos agrícolas durante el cultivo y la 

cosecha. Las hormigas del fuego importadas responden rápida 

y agresivamente a las perturbaciones y sus ataques dificultan las 

actividades de los trabajadores del campo. Una sola hormiga del 

fuego puede picar varias veces a su presa; los animales jóvenes y los 

recién nacidos son especialmente sensibles a su veneno.

LO QUE USTED PUEDE HACER

• Averigüe si está en un área en cuarentena por la presencia de la 

hormiga del fuego importada. Visite www.aphis.usda.gov, entre 

su código postal en el campo de búsqueda y haga clic en el botón 

"Buscar". 

• Conozca las restricciones que aplican a los fardos de paja, tierra, 

plantas, maquinarias de remoción de tierra y otros elementos al 

salir de una zona en cuarentena por la presencia de la hormiga 

del fuego importada. Visite www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/

plant_pest_info/fireants para obtener esta información.

• Reporte cualquier hallazgo de esta plaga a su oficina de extensión 

local (use el mapa en www.nifa.usda.gov/Extension).

FÍJESE EN LO SIGUIENTE • Hormigas entre un octavo y un cuarto 

de pulgada de largo y de color marrón 

rojizo o negro

• Hormigas que responden rápida y 

agresivamente a las perturbaciones 

(se sujetan a sus víctimas con sus 

poderosas mandíbulas y pican 

repetidamente mientras les inyectan 

un veneno doloroso) Nidos de hormigas del fuego importadas 

cerca de equipos eléctricos de exteriores

• Nidos firmes con forma de montículo que pueden llegar 

a ser bastante grandes y representan un peligro para los 

trabajadores del campo y la maquinaria agrícola