alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### George Lee SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 30251.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 14, 1959.

*681T. R. Florey, Jr., Mt. Pleasant, R. T. Wilkinson, Mt. Vernon, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Tried upon an indictment changing the offense of assault with intent to -murder with malice, the jury found appellant guilty of assault with intent to murder without malice, and assessed his punishmenffat two years.

Appellant’s plea of self-defense, absence of intent to kill, and his application for sus.-pended sentence were rejected by the jury.

It is urged that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the jury’s finding that the assault was made with intent to murder.

Allen, the injured party, was cut across the abdomen with a knife having a blade three inches in length. The wound was some 11 inches in length and of sufficient depth to cause the intestines to fall out. Medical expert testimony was to the effect that the wound was such as would have caused death if Allen had not had proper medical treatment.

After inflicting this wound, appellant was restrained from further attacking Allen by one Gilpin who was also cut by appellant with the knife.

From the manner in which the knife was used, the jury was warranted in finding an intention to take life. Moseley v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 623, 259 S.W.2d 225.

Three points of error are assigned to the overruling of appellant’s motion for new trial.

It. is contended that the juror John Dunn was disqualified in that he had formed an opinion and had stated before he was taken on the jury that the defendant would be convicted.

The Juror Dunn testified at the hearing on appellant’s motion for new trial and denied the statement attributed to him by one Hambrick. Dunn testified that he had no opinion and knew nothing about the case before the day of the trial.

The trial judge heard the testimony relating to the Juror Dunn and it was his province to decide the disputed issue of fact relating to the question of his disqualification. He resolved the issue against appellant and this Court is bound thereby.

For like reason appellant’s remaining complaints as to the receipt of other evidence by the jury during their deliberation cannot be sustained. The statements which appellant urges were made in the jury room and constituted reversible error were, according to the testimony of several jurors, not made. We would not be warranted in holding that the trial judge abused his discretion in overruling the motion for new trial. To do so would require that we substitute our judgment for that of the trial judge who heard and observed the jurors who testified at the hearing. Robinson v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 6, 238 S.W.2d 193; Branch’s Ann.P.C., 2d Ed., Sec. 594.

We find no abuse of discretion in the overruling of the motion for new trial. *682Friedsam v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 515, 116 S.W.2d 1081; Autry v. State, 143 Tex.Cr. R. 252, 157 S.W.2d 924; Branch’s Ann. P.C., 2d Ed., Sec. 585.

The judgment is affirmed.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 233

To provide for the termination of reporting requirements of certain executive

reports submitted to the Congress, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 18 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 1995

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

to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To provide for the termination of reporting requirements

of certain executive reports submitted to the Congress,

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. TERMINATION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the

5 ‘‘Reporting Requirements Sunset Act of 1995’’.

6 (b) TERMINATION.—

7 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the provisions of

8 paragraph (2), each provision of law requiring the

9 submittal to Congress (or any committee of the Con10 gress) of any report specified on the list described
2

•S 233 IS

1 under subsection (d) shall cease to be effective, with

2 respect to that requirement, 5 years after the date

3 of the enactment of this Act.

4 (2) EXCEPTION.—The provisions of paragraph

5 (1) shall not apply to any report required under—

6 (A) the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5

7 U.S.C. App.; Public Law 95–452); or

8 (B) the Chief Financial Officers Act of

9 1990 (Public Law 101–576).

10 (c) IDENTIFICATION OF WASTEFUL REPORTS.—The

11 President shall include in the first annual budget submit12 ted pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States

13 Code, after the date of enactment of this Act a list of re14 ports that the President has determined are unnecessary

15 or wasteful and the reasons for such determination.

16 (d) LIST OF REPORTS.—The list referred to under

17 subsection (b) is the list prepared by the Clerk of the

18 House of Representatives for the first session of the 103d

19 Congress under clause 2 of rule III of the Rules of the

20 House of Representatives.

Æ
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 24

- 00309

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.D.C. , a Child

From the 225th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2024EM500751

Honorable Eric J. Rodriguez , Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. Costs of

the appeal are taxed against appellant.

SIGNED August 14, 2024.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez

, Chief Justice
**Exhibit 10.45**

**Director’s Compensation Summary**

We pay no additional remuneration to our employees who also serve as directors of our General Partner.During the 2006 fiscal year, each director of our General Partner who was not (i) an employee of our General Partner the Partnership or a Subsidiary, or (ii) a shareholder or employee of ETE (such person being referred to as a DirectorParticipant) received an annual retainer of $20,000, plus $2,000 per board meeting attended, and is reimbursed for any travel, lodging and other out-of-pocket expenses related to meeting attendance or otherwise related to service on the board. EachDirector Participant who served as a member or chairman of a designated committee received from $5,000 to $7,500 annually, depending upon the position and the committee, plus $1,000 per committee meeting attended. In addition, Director Participantsreceived an Initial Director’s Grant of 2,000 units upon their initial election or appointment to the Board, and an Annual Director’s Grant on September 1 of each year equal to $15,000 divided by the fair market value of a Common Uniton September 1, provided that such director is in office on such date. Director’s Grants vest ratably over a three-year period. 

EffectiveOctober 17, 2006, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of our General Partner recommended, and the Board of Directors approved, a change to the compensation of directors. Each Director Participant will receive an annual retainerof $40,000, and is reimbursed for any expenses related to meeting attendance or service on the board. In addition, each Director Participant will receive an Initial Director’s Grant upon their initial election or appointment to the board, andan Annual Director’s Grant of units. The Annual Director’s Grant on October 17, 2006 was 540 units, which is $25,000 divided by the fair market value of Common Units on that date, rounded up to the nearest increment of 10 units. Allsubsequent Annual Director’s Grants will be measured at September 1 of each year. Director’s Grants vest ratably over a three-year period. 

Director Participants serving on a designated committee will receive an additional annual retainer and meeting fees of $1,200 per committee meeting. Each member of the Audit Committee will receive $10,000 annually and the Chairman willreceive $15,000 annually. Each member of the Compensation Committee will receive $5,000 annually and the Chairman will receive $7,500 annually.
Bon. John C. Marbuqer, County Attorney 

Fsyette County 

la Granga, Texas 

Dear sir: 

~~IXLIOX'R& o-652 

Rer CaPlatrwt.ion of Articl8 663-2 

Weaaknovlodga reaelpt of your ~wstfor anopinionas tovbethar a 

gram1 wqpanyvhlchOporoter itstrucka onlyfr07aits aravalpit to 

a rail&had and is IIO doing only arouea a public hi&my of t&d 

l td.e,m~t~~glstsr ~idtrudm as provided inArt.lcla 6675~1-2. 

We are not parmitted to decide queoti0m 0t! faot and for that reason, 

l ndfertba mpwe ofthim opinianm are a68uming that the truckm 

l raaotimp~taoih!&mu3x?. 

Article 6675+?. pravldem tbatalldor vehiclesvhicharc~rwdorto 

be used upon the pub110 hi@vays of thi8 state mast be regIstered, 

uxCle8s it oam8 vithtn certain exeeptlons. Tim 8tatvte8 doas not 

define "usedor tobe llacdqponthe pabliohi&va~*but if I# our 

opinion that the use ef any m&or Vehicle upan the public hlghvap to any 

axtentbr~ iuehaotorvehiales vithintha pmW.evofth8llotOr 

VehloleRegUtratlenIav. 

Itla,thervfore, our op3nionthatanymter mhialevhieh Istab 

operahdtaanyextrnt u,ponthe ~lichi&ways of this rtafaatiis 

notvithinthe exeeptlons providedby Lnr,n~~tk regi8tersd. 

Yomw verytrriLg 

APPRovm: ATfORNEY -oFTRxAs 

./ aRAm a. Bum 

A- tRzImALoFl!ExAs r/Ri&ard H. Cocks 

. 

APPRmRD OPIRIiRi cRY B.Q. B. 

ChaIrman Rv 

Riohard H. Oeoka 

Amimknt 

REC:obr-ldy
#### Frank G. CORTEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 29150.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 9, 1957.

Raul Villarreal, Theo. Pat Henley, Leonard Brown, Sr., San Antonio, for appellant.

Hubert W. Green, Jr., Dist. Atty., Morris Riley Edwards, Asst. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The offense is possession of barbiturates; the punishment, six months in jail and a fine of $200.

Officers secured a search warrant for the purpose of searching the premises controlled by appellant, located at 816 Guadalupe Street in San Antonio, where narcotics were alleged to be unlawfully possessed.

The warrant, issued under the provisions of Art. 725b, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., and the affidavit therefor appear to be regular on their face, and the validity thereof as authorizing a search for narcotics is not questioned.

As a result of the search the officers found no narcotics, but found according to their testimony a jar containing some 100 tablets, ten of which proved upon analysis to contain a derivative of barbituric acid.

Appellant, testifying as a witness in his own behalf, admitted his possession of the barbiturates and said that he acquired them in the year 1952.

If there be merit in appellant’s contention that evidence as to barbiturates *714found during a search under a valid warrant authorizing search for narcotics was inadmissible (and we see none), it would avail appellant nothing for he testified that he possessed the barbiturates.

Appellant contends that the statute under which he was prosecuted is ex post facto as to the offense charged because he lawfully acquired the barbiturates prior to the enactment of Art. 726c, V.A.P.C.

Had the trial been before a jury and an instruction been sought in line with this 'Contention, an interesting question might 'have been presented, both as to the statute '.being ex post facto as to the offense and .as to limitation.

Eut the trial being before the court, appellant is in the same position he would have been had a jury rejected his defense. The trial judge was not bound to accept his testimony as true.

Under the evidence, including his own testimony, appellant was not a “practitioner” dr a “pharmacist” as defined in Art. 726c, 'V.A.P.C. He was, according to his testimony, a funeral director, naturo-pathic physician and midwife and operated .a maternity clinic.

We overrule the contention that he was exempt by reason of either or all of these occupations or professions under Subsections 3 and 4 of Art. 726c, V.A.P.C.

The term “barbiturate” is defined in Art. 726c, V.A.P.C., to mean “the salts and derivatives of barbituric acid, also known as malonyl urea, having hypnotic or somni-facient action, and compounds, preparations .and mixtures thereof.”

The indictment alleging the unlawful possession of" barbiturates, in view of this definition, was sufficient without further allegation as to the type of barbiturate possessed.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Arthur DODGE, III, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-6973.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 15, 2002.

Decided Aug. 29, 2002.

George Arthur Dodge, III, Appellant Pro Se. Michael D. Stein, Office of the United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia; Sherry L. Muncy, Office of the United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM:

George Arthur Dodge, III seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Dodge,*Nos. CR-98-2-ALL; CA-00-82 (N.D.W. Va. June 4, 2002). We deny Dodge’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 475

AN ACT

To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel

LADY HAWK.

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

3 That notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108

4 of title 46, United States Code, and section 27 of the Mer5 chant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as applica6 ble on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary

7 of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation

8 for the vessel LADY HAWK, United States official num9 ber 961095.

Passed the Senate July 29, 1996.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 475

AN ACT

To authorize a certificate of documentation for the

vessel LADY HAWK.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 328

To amend the Clean Air Act to provide for an optional provision for the

reduction of work-related vehicle trips and miles travelled in ozone nonattainment areas designated as severe, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 1 (legislative day, JANUARY 30), 1995

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

referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To amend the Clean Air Act to provide for an optional

provision for the reduction of work-related vehicle trips

and miles travelled in ozone nonattainment areas designated as severe, 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. OPTIONAL EMPLOYER MANDATED TRIP RE4 DUCTION.

5 Section 182(d)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.

6 7511a(d)(1)(B)) is amended to read as follows:

7 ‘‘(B)(i) The State may submit a revision at any

8 time requiring employers in the area to implement
2

•S 328 IS

1 programs to reduce work-related vehicle trips and

2 miles traveled by employees.

3 ‘‘(ii) A revision under clause (i) may require

4 that employers in the area increase average pas5 senger occupancy per vehicle in commuting trips be6 tween home and the workplace during peak travel

7 periods.

8 ‘‘(iii) A revision under clause (i) shall be devel9 oped in accordance with guidance issued by the Ad10 ministrator under section 108(f). The guidance may

11 specify average vehicle occupancy rates that vary for

12 locations within a nonattainment area (suburban,

13 center city, business district) or among nonattain14 ment areas reflecting occupancy rates and the avail15 ability of high occupancy modes.

16 ‘‘(v) A revision under clause (i) may require

17 employers subject to a vehicle occupancy require18 ment to submit a compliance plan to demonstrate

19 compliance with any requirements imposed under

20 this subparagraph.’’.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1

                                   CERTIFICATION
                                   -------------

                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer
           Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Auto-Q International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tom
Lam, President and 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 at the dates and for the periods presented in this
          Report.

Date: February 17, 2004



                                            /s/  TOM LAM
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Tom Lam, President and
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit





Exhibit 10.59



AMENDMENT NO. 1 
TO


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN ROCKET FUEL LIMITED AND DAVID GOSEN




This Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment”) effective from April 6, 2017 (the “Effective Date”) amends the employment agreement (the “Employment Agreement”) by and between Rocket Fuel Limited (the “Company”) and David Gosen (the “Employee”) dated May 10, 2016.  Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement.


For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and Employee have agreed at the request of Employee to amend the Employment Agreement as set out below:


		
	1.
	Amendment. With effect from the Effective Date, Section 9 of the Employment Agreement shall be deleted and replaced as follows:




“    9    Pension and Special Cash Payment
		
	9.1
	You shall remain enrolled in our Group Personal Pension Scheme (the “Pension Scheme”) as long as you meet statutory enrolment criteria. In these circumstances we will make employer contributions to the Pension Scheme in respect of you in the fixed amount of £833.33 per calendar month (the “Pension Contribution”). Further details (including details of the enrolment criteria) are available from Human Resources.




		
	9.2
	At the end of each tax year of your employment (or on termination of this Agreement), we will make a cash payment to you (the “Special Cash Payment”) equal to six percent (6%) of your base salary that has accrued through the months in said tax year less the total amount of any Pension Contribution made in respect of the same tax year. The Special Cash Payment will not be consolidated into base salary nor will it count towards any remuneration-related benefits such as pension entitlement or life assurance and shall be subject to deductions for tax and national insurance contributions as may be required.                                                                                                                                     




		
	9.3
	Employee expressly acknowledges that clauses 9.1 and 9.2 above have been agreed at the specific request of Employee in lieu of employer contributions of 6% of base salary into the Pension Scheme as standard.”


		
	2.
	Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall be deemed to be one and the same agreement. A signed copy of this Amendment delivered by facsimile, email or other means of electronic transmission shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an original signed copy of this Amendment.




[Signature page follows]









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment.




	
			
	COMPANY
	ROCKET FUEL LIMITED



	 
	By:
	/s/ Randy Wootton

	 
	Title:
	Chief Executive Officer

	 
	Date:
	Dec-20-2016








	
			
	EMPLOYEE
	DAVID GOSEN



	 
	By:
	/s/ David Gosen

	 
	Title:
	Senior Vice President, International

	 
	Date:
	Dec-20-2016
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION**
I, Michael G. McGrath, Chief Financial Officer of Accenture Ltd, the general partner of AccentureSCA (the “Registrant”), certify that:
1.  I have reviewed the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended February28, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this quarterly report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the period presented inthis quarterly report; 4.  The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterlyreport based on such evaluation; and  c)  Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5.  The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.
Dated: April 8, 2005         /s/ Michael G. McGrath  Michael G. McGrath  Chief Financial Officer of AccentureLtd,