alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### APPEAL of STANOLIND BUILDING CORPORATION From an Order of the Board of Equalization of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

No. 37601.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Dec. 24, 1957.

*736J. Howard Edmondson, County Atty. of Tulsa County, Donald D. Cameron, Asst. County Atty., Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

L. A. Thompson, Walter I. Hanson, Tulsa, Ray S. Fellows, Charles R. Fellows, Tulsa, for defendant in error.

DAVISON, Justice.

This is an appeal by the Tulsa County Assessor from a judgment of the District Court of Tulsa County, fixing the valuation, for ad valorem tax purposes for the years 1953, 1954 and 1955, of a certain building in the City of Tulsa, known as the Stanolind Building which was owned, operated and occupied by the Stanolind Building Corporation. The protest and subsequent proceedings as to the assessment for each of said years constituted a separate matter on appeal but all three were consolidated in the district court over the objection of the assessor. The parties will be referred to as “assessor” and “protestant.”

The value placed upon the lot upon which the building stood was fixed for taxation at .$236,250 for each of said years and no question was raised with regard to it. This litigation is concerned with the assessed valuation of the building which was fixed by the assessor at $959,580 for the years 1953 .and 1954 and at $1,126,960 for the year 1955. The judgment of the trial court from which this appeal was taken fixed said values at $772,650 for said years.

Except for minor differences in the evidence, this case is identical as to issues and questions of law, to Appeal of National Bank of Tulsa, Old., 312 P.2d 495. The syllabi and the opinion therein are hereby adopted as the syllabi and opinion herein.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

CORN, V. C. J., and HALLEY, WILLIAMS, JACKSON and CARLILE, JJ., concur.

BLACKBIRD, J., concurs by reason of the rule of Stare Decisis.

WELCH, C. J., and JOHNSON, J., dissent.
#### In the Matter of John S. Lillis R., Appellant. (Pro*208ceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Jessica F. Lillis R, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Luz S. Lillis R, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.)

— In three child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from three dispositional orders of the Family Court, Queens County (Schindler, J.), all dated February 8, 1989, which, upon three fact-finding orders of the same court, all dated February 8, 1989, determining that her three children were neglected, made after a hearing, placed two of the children, John S., and Jessica F., under the supervision of the Commissioner of Social Services, and placed the third child, Luz S., in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services, all for a period of 18 months.

Ordered that the dispositional orders are reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the fact-finding orders regarding John and Jessica are vacated, and the neglect petitions regarding John and Jessica are dismissed.

Under the circumstances of this case, we agree with the concession of the Commissioner of Social Services that the finding that the teenager Luz S. was subjected to excessive corporal punishment at the hands of her mother was insufficient to support a finding that Luz’ siblings were neglected by the mother *(see, Matter of Maria A.,*118 AD2d 641; *cf, Matter of James P.,*137 AD2d 461; *Matter of Cruz,*121 AD2d 901; *Matter of Christina Maria C,*89 AD2d 855). That being the only basis upon which the findings of neglect as to John and Jessica were entered, those findings are vacated, and the neglect petitions as to them are dismissed.

However, we do not accept the Commissioner’s concession regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of neglect as to Luz. In fact, on this record we question the wisdom of such a concession, particularly since the mother does not contend that the evidence adduced is legally insufficient. Nevertheless, reversal of the dispositional order with respect to Luz is required because the mother was denied due process when, in her absence, the Family Court reached a disposition without conducting a statutorily required dispositional hearing *(see,*Family Ct Act § 1047), and without giving the mother an adequate opportunity to offer evidence regarding the capacity of the relevant parties to take care of Luz *(see, Matter of Delon S. [Commissioner of Social Servs.]*149 AD2d 349; *Matter of Faith AA.,*139 AD2d 22, 25; *Matter of Marsha B. F,*110 AD2d 549; *Matter of Hanson,*51 AD2d 696). Since Luz has now reached 18 years of age, and therefore can no longer be considered a neglected child *(see,*Family Ct Act *209§ 1012 [fj), and since the Commissioner did not seek to retain custody of Luz after the expiration of the 18-month period provided for in the dispositional order, it is unnecessary to remit the matter for a proper dispositional hearing. Kunzeman, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
BRIAN QUINN

Chief Justice

JAMES T. CAMPBELL

Justice

MACKEY K. HANCOCK

Justice

PATRICK A. PIRTLE

Justice

Court of Appeals

Seventh District of Texas

Potter County Courts Building

501 S. Fillmore, Suite 2-A

Amarillo, Texas 79101-2449

www.txcourts.gov/7thcoa.aspx

VIVIAN LONG

Clerk

MAILING ADDRESS:

P. O. Box 9540

79105-9540

(806) 342-2650

March 24, 2015

Danny Shead

TDCJ-ID#01484832

Tulia Transfer Facility

400 Hwy 86 West

Tulia, TX 79088

James A. Farren

Criminal District Attorney

2309 Russell Long Blvd., Suite 120

Canyon, TX 79015

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Harry Ingram

Randall County Domestic Relations Office

4111 S. Georgia Street

Amarillo, TX 79109

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Case Numbers: 07-15-00084-CV, 07-15-00085-CV, 07-15-00086-CV

Trial Court Case Numbers: 8460-B, 8461-B, 19,154-B

Style: Danny Lee Shead v. The State of Texas

Dear Mr. Shead and Counsel:

The Court this day issued an opinion and judgment in the captioned causes. TEX. R.

APP. P. 48. 

In addition, pursuant to Texas Government Code, Sec. 51.204(b)(2), exhibits on file

with this Court, if any, will be destroyed three years after final disposition of the case or at

an earlier date if ordered by the Court. 

Very truly yours,

Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK

xc: Honorable John B. Board (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Jo Carter (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

FILE COPY
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5321]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to 
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Inouye).
  The assistant legislative clerk read the following letter:

                                                      U.S. Senate,

                                        President pro tempore,

                                    Washington, DC, July 25, 2012.
     To the Senate:
       Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable 
     Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a Senator from the State of New York, 
     to perform the duties of the Chair.
                                                 Daniel K. Inouye,
                                            President pro tempore.

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro 
tempore.

                          ____________________
```
EXHIBIT 23.1


                                Malkewicz Hueni Associates, Inc.
                                (LOGO)

March 22, 1996



Mr. Dave Ahl
Manager SEC Reporting
Giant Industries, Inc.
23733 North Scottsdale Road
Scottsdale, Arizona 85255

Gentlemen:

The firm of Malkewicz Hueni Associates, Inc. was returned to conduct
a year-end audit, effective December 31, 1995, of reserves for oil
and gas interests held by Giant Industries Inc. ("Giant") through
its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Giant Exploration & Production
Company, Ciniza Production Company and Giant Mid-Continent, Inc.
This letter authorizes Giant to use Malkewicz Hueni Associates, 
Inc.'s report, dated February 23, 1996 regarding the December 31,
1995 reserve audit, in preparing its Form 10-K Annual Report to
be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

Malkewicz Hueni Associates Inc. has no interest in Giant or any
of its affiliated companies or subsidiaries and is not entitled to
receive any such interest as payment for such reports.  Malkewicz
Hueni Associates Inc. is not employed by Giant on a contingent basis.


Very truly yours,

MALKEWICZ HUENI ASSOCIATES, INC.


/s/  M. DAVID CLOUATRE
--------------------------------
M. DAVID CLOUATRE
REGISTERED PETROLEUM ENGINEER



                               14142 Denver West Parkway, Suite 190
                                      Golden, Colorado 80401 U.S.A.
                                                     (303) 277-0270
                                                Fax: (303) 277-0267
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND THE
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR FIVE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR  
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   600
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,503
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           600
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,903
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (316)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (316)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 98 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 98

   Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Financial 
            Services in the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 2015

 Mr. Hensarling submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
                to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Financial 
            Services in the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Financial Services (hereafter 
in this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including the 
expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the 
applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for committee 
salaries and expenses, not more than $15,190,467.00 for the One Hundred 
Fourteenth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $7,583,426.00 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2015, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2016; and
            (2) not more than $7,607,041.00 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2016, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2017.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
From: <Susan.Kidd@aps.com>

To: Colleen McKaughan/R9/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 10/15/2012 12:14 PM Subject: SCR Cost information in submittal to EPA

As per your request for cost file backups for our comment filing, see the attached files. Most of the costs are from, or based on, the CH2M HILL BART analyses (first three documents, Appendix A, p. 65

- 67 for Unit 2, p. 66

- 68 for Unit 3, and p. 66

- 68 for U nit 4). APS SNCR costs are calculated from B&V SNCR Study (fourth document, Appendix C, p. 140

- 144) with adjustments as explained below.

APS LNB/OFA capital is actual cost escalated to 2012 (see JWE document, fifth document, red tab). APS SNCR capita l is from the B&V SNCR Study (see JWE document for breakdown used). APS SCR capital is CH2M HILL cost escalated to 2012 and adjusted for 3+1 SCR configuration (see JWE document). APS SCR reagent cost is from CH2M HILL BART analyses. APS SNCR reagent cos t is from B&V SNCR Study for Units 2&3; Unit 4 is ratioed from that based on MW ’ s. The sixth document is my roll up of all these costs into a single document, which was used to make the tables we gave to the Agency. NOTE: all SCR and SNCR costs are adjus ted to remove LNB/OFA costs from estimates that included them as LNB/OFA/SCR or LNB/OFA/SNCR costs.

Call me if you have questions.

Sue Kidd
Director

- Environmental (602) 250

- 4226



### --- NOTICE

---

This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain confidential, privileged or proprietary information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original and any copy or printout. Unintended recipients are prohibited from making any other use of this e

- mail. Although we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this e

- mail, we accept no liability for any loss or damage arising from the use of this e

mail or attachments, or for any delay or errors or omissions in
the contents which result from e

- mail transmission.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5264]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

   MAKING IN ORDER CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 134, 
      CONDEMNING THE ATROCITIES THAT OCCURRED IN AURORA, COLORADO

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at 
any time to consider House Concurrent Resolution 134 in the House; that 
the concurrent resolution be considered as read; and that the previous 
question be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution and 
preamble to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division 
of the question except 30 minutes of debate equally divided and 
controlled by Representative Coffman of Colorado and Representative 
Perlmutter of Colorado or their respective designees.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________
```
#### Selwyn v. Selwyn

16370

7/8/97

Affirmed
#### Arley C. BROWNING, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. A-12601.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

April 1, 1959.

*756Arley C. Browning, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Owen J. Watts, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In the instant case the appellant is attempting to appeal from an order of the District Court of Pawnee County, Oklahoma. It appears that appellant had filed what he refers to as a writ of coram nobis. In this court he refers to his pleadings as a writ of habeas corpus to review an order of the District Court sustaining a demurrer to the writ of coram nobis. The record before us reveals that defendant was charged by information filed in the county court of Pawnee County with the crime of robbery with firearms. He was later arraigned in district court and entered a plea of not guilty. Later the appellant changed' his plea and entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to ten (10) years in the state penitentiary at McAlester. The appellant served his term and with good time was released on May 20', 1955. Appellant as’ far as the court knows is- now at liberty.

Some time later the appellant filed an application for writ of- error coram nobis. On January 10, ' 1958 the trial court sustained a demurrer to the petition and the petitioner lodges in this court an attempted appeál from.the order sustaining the demurrer.

The attorney general has filed a motion to dismiss the purported appeal upon the grounds that the judgment and sentence of the court has long since been satisfied, the judgment is at an end, and the court was without jurisdiction to modify, suspend, or otherwise alter the judgment. He cites in support thereof the case, of Tracy v. State, 24 Okl.Cr. 144, 145, 216 P. 941. This contention was also supported in the case of Hall v. State, Okl.Cr.1957, 306 P.2d 361, 362, an Oklahoma case wherein the court said:

> “Satisfaction of the judgment and sentence in a criminal case --puts an end to the court’s power over the criminal judgment.”

Likewise in the instant case the defendant has served his time, satisfied the judgment and sentence of the trial court and the case is at an end. The trial court was without jurisdiction to grant relief .after the judgment had been satisfied.

The motion to dismiss is hereby sustained.
EX-10.1(a)


 EXHIBIT 10.1(a) 

Appendix A to Executive Employment Letter dated December 22, 2016 

Executive: Jonathan Steinberg 

Introductory Paragraph: 
 WTAM – Chief Executive
Officer and President 
 WTI – Same 
 No previous
employment agreement 
 Paragraph 1: 
 $450,000 

Paragraph 3(a): 
 None. Paragraph 3(a) is inapplicable to
the named Executive. 
 Paragraph 3(b): 

January 14, 2014, January 28, 2015 and January 27, 2016 

Paragraph 14: 
 WTI Board 

Paragraphs 4(j) and 14: 
 Indemnification Agreement dated
April 26, 2011
# C_2010209EN.01000401.xml

| 31.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 June 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queens’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom)) — The Queen on the application of Vodafone Ltd, Telefónica O2 Europe plc, T-Mobile International AG, Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

(Case C-58/08) (1)

1

(Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 - Roaming on public mobile telephone networks within the Community - Validity - Legal basis - Article 95 EC - Principles of proportionality and subsidiarity)

2010/C 209/04

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queens’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: The Queen on the application of Vodafone Ltd, Telefónica O2 Europe plc, T-Mobile International AG, Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd

Applicants:

Defendant: Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

Defendant:

Interested parties: Office of Communications, Hutchison 3G UK Ltd, GSM Association

Interested parties:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queens’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Validity of Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2007 on roaming on public mobile telephone networks within the Community and amending Directive 2002/21/EC (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 32) — Choice of legal basis — Validity of Articles 4, 2(a) and 6(3) of the regulation, imposing a maximum charge for roaming calls, in light of the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the questions raised has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2007 on roaming on public mobile telephone networks within the Community and amending Directive 2002/21/EC.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.

1

---
*

 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-40943

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GUADALUPE MEZA,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-00-CR-66-1

__________________________________________

May 28, 2001

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Guadalupe Meza has moved for leave

to withdraw and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Meza

has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief, but he has not filed a response. Our review of

the brief filed by counsel and of the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. 

Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.
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




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 of
Advanced Cell Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.




Date:
      May 8, 2009/s/
      William M. Caldwell, IVWilliam
      M. Caldwell, IV, Chief Executive Officer and Principle Financial
      Officer