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

No. 32095.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 22, 1960.

*942D. Bart Mauzy, Houston, for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Samuel H. Robertson, Jr., Morgan W. Redd, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from an order revoking probation. The record before us reveals that appellant was on September 5, 1957, found guilty of attempted burglary and sentenced to four years; the execution of such sentence was probated upon condition that appellant' would not violate the laws of this State. On June 18, 1959, appellant was apprehended in the vicinity of a beer establishment which had been burglarized and confessed in writing that he had broken and entered the same. Motion to revoke probation was made and granted.

Appellant’s principal contention is that the State was derelict in their duty in that they did not file the motion to revoke until October B, 1959, and the same was not heard until February 5, 1960. We find nothing in the statute (Article 781d, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.) which would authorize this Court to hold that the State had lost her authority to revoke probation because of the lapse of time between appellant’s arrest on the burglary charge and the filing of the motion to revoke. It should be noted that the term of appellant’s original probated sentence had not expired at the time of the filing of the motion. ¡

We find no merit in appellant’s contention that he should have been called upon to plead to the motion to revoke or have the same read to him at the time of the hearing.

Finding the evidence sufficient and no reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed..
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert O. Carr, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: 

1. The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2. The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date: May 9, 2008
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cedric Lovelle GRAY, a/k/a Ced, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-4644.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 13, 2002.

Decided Aug. 30, 2002.

Randolph O. Gregory, Sr., Law Office of Randolph O. Gregory, SR., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Samuel D. Marsh, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Cedric Lovelle Gray appeals the district court’s order sentencing him to 216 months imprisonment following his guilty plea to distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). In his appeal, filed pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Gray raises two issues, neither of which were preserved in the district court. Accordingly, they are re*704viewed for plain error. *United States v. Ford,*88 F.3d 1350, 1355 (4th Cir.1996).

Gray first suggests that the district court erred in applying a two-point enhancement for possession of a firearm within the scope of the drug distribution scheme. *See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*§ 2D1.1(b)(1) (2000). The uncontradicted evidence, as recounted in the presentence report, clearly indicates that Gray carried a firearm during the course of the distribution scheme. Accordingly, it was not plain error for the district court to assign two points pursuant to § 2D1.1(b)(1).

Gray next claims that the district court erred in its assignment of a four-point enhancement for Gray’s role as a leader or organizer of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants. *See*USSG § 3Bl.l(a). Our review of the record supports the court’s finding that there were at least five participants involved in the distribution scheme. Additionally, although the scheme was a loosely organized cooperative venture between several narcotics dealers, it is clear from the record that Gray played a central role in the scheme, with other participants regularly referring customers to Gray. Consequently, it was not plain error for the district court to assign the four-point enhancement.

Finding no meritorious issues upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the district court. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.

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.

*AFFIRMED.*
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 474 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 474

                 To provide a veterans bill of rights.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            February 24 (legislative day, February 22), 1995

 Mr. Mack (for himself and Mr. Graham) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                 To provide a veterans bill of rights.

    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 ``Veterans Bill of Rights Act''.

SEC. 2. ADMINISTRATION OF RIGHTS AND BENEFITS.

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall take any action necessary 
to ensure that any rights and benefits provided under title 38, United 
States Code, to veterans who qualify for the rights and benefits--
            (1) are made available to the veterans in any 1 State or 
        geographic location to the same extent as the rights and 
        benefits are made available to the veterans in any other State 
        or geographic location; and
            (2) are not denied to any veteran on the basis of race, 
        ethnicity, sex, religion, age, or geographic location.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

    For purposes of this Act, the term ``State'' has the same meaning 
given such term in section 101(20) of title 38, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
Jace: 

First, OTM 28 is essentially the same as the proposed revision to Method 202 and any concerns over the 

procedures in OTM 28 would also apply to the proposed method. We hope to address any issues with the future 

application of Method 202 prior to promulgating the method rather than having to address the issues after the

method is promulgated and there is the potential for multiple interpretations and controversy. So if there are 

concerns over the intent or the wording, I would suggest that you formulate a comment and recommendation to 

submit to the docket. 

The reason that we used the Method 23 condenser was that it was a readily available piece of glassware that 

accomplished the objective of cooling the sample gas quickly without undue mixing of the sample gas and the 

condensed water. The most important aspect is that the temperature achieved at the drop out impinger (or flask) 

is at or near the temperature required at the exit of the back up filter. Achieving this will result in almost all of the 

liquid water being in the drop out impinger and that the second impinger will be a "finishing" step with little water 

such that the back up impinger does not collect a lot lot of water droplets (with the potential of becoming blinded 

by this water). If you disagree with our reasoning or you think that the current wording of the proposed method, 

please submit a comment to the docket. 

_________________________________

Ron Myers 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Sector Policy and Programs Division 

Monitoring Policy Group, D243-05 

RTP NC 27711 

Tel. 919.541.5407 

Fax 919.541.1039 

E-mail myers.ron@epa.gov 

Mr. Myers, 

 

I need clarification regarding the condenser for OTM 28. Is it required to use a Method 23 coil type condenser or 

can a straight condenser be used? Your assistance would be appreciated. 

 

Thank You, 

 

Jace Shively 

Field Team Leader I 

Avogadro Environmental Corp. 

1350 Sullivan Trail, Suite A 

Easton, PA 18040 

Office: 610-559-8776, ext. 120 

Fax: 610-559-8913 

www.avogadro.net 

"Jace Shively" <jshively@avogadro.net>

05/15/2009 02:42 PM 

To Ron Myers/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject Otm 28

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\KFaught\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C76541FDo... 8/26/2010
SCPW

- 15

- 0000638

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI  I

________________________________________________________________

GERALD VILLANUEVA, Petitioner,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAI  I, Respondent.

________________________________________________________________

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(NO. 20220; CR. NO. 96

- 0078)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of Petitioner Gerald Villanueva ’ s

“ Petition to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgmen t or to

Release Petitioner from Custody, ” which was filed on August 28,

2015 as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the documents

attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the

record, it appears that Petitioner is presently seeking

identic al relief in CAAP

- 15

- 0000408, and presents no special

reason for this court to invoke its jurisdiction at this time.

See Oili v. Chang , 57 Haw. 411, 412, 557 P.2d 787, 788 (1976)

(the supreme court “ will not exercise its original jurisdiction

in habeas co rpus proceedings when relief is available in a lower Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-15-0000638

01-SEP-2015

10:47 AM2

court and no special reason exists for invoking its

jurisdiction ” ). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

habeas corpus is denied.

D ATED: Honolulu, Hawai  i, September 1, 2015.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson
Order entered January 17, 2020

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 01259

- CV

IN RE: PANDALAND HOL DING (HK) LTD., Relator

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District C ourt

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 19

- 05870



### O RDER

Before Justices Bridges, Osborne, and Carlyle

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus.

We ORDER PandaLand Holding (HK) Ltd. To bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of LitFunding Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Morton Reed, 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; and



(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







/s. Morton Reed

Morton Reed

President and Chief Executive Officer

May 20, 2007
$10,000 jurisdictional threshold limit.' Buzz Stew, LLC, 124 Nev. at 227- 

28, 181 P.3d at 672. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND 

REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with 

this order. 

, C.J. 

Hardesty 

1

Parraguirre 2atssitar 

?n,a , J. 

Douglas 

cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge 

Lamaar Alexander 

McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth, LLP/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

'Although the district court's order indicates that respondent's 

motion to dismiss was granted in its entirety, the only basis for the 

dismissal articulated in the order and at the hearing on the motion was 

the failure to meet the minimum jurisdictional threshold limit. 

J. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

1947A
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
 
                              SILICON GAMING, INC.
                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                  SUBSIDIARY                                    JURISDICTION
                  ----------                                    ------------
<S>                                            <C>
        Silicon Gaming-Colorado, Inc.                             Colorado
      Silicon Gaming-Mississippi, Inc.                          Mississippi
        Silicon Gaming-Missouri, Inc.                             Missouri
         Silicon Gaming-Nevada, Inc.                               Nevada
       Silicon Gaming-New Jersey, Inc.                           New Jersey
       Silicon Gaming-Minnesota, Inc.                              Nevada
        Silicon Gaming-Indiana, Inc.                               Nevada
        Silicon Gaming-Illinois, Inc.                              Nevada
</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.90


 


Share Transfer Agreement 


 


Transferor: Li Chen


 


Transferee: Chun Yan Lu


 


		1.	The term “Transfer Shares” as used in this Agreement refers to the equity held by the Transferor with the value
of amount of RMB 3,000,000 of Law Anhou Insurance Agency Co., Ltd. and such shares correspond to the same amount of capital investment
of Law Anhou Insurance Agency Co., Ltd.



 


		2.	The Transferor agrees to transfer all the rights and obligations associated with Transfer Shares as set force in Article 1
of this Agreement to the Transferee, so that the Transferee shall enjoy the rights and undertake the obligations upon the transferred
shares.



 


		3.	The Transferor warrants that he/she is the legal owner of the Transfer Shares and that he/she has appropriate authority to
transfer the ownership of the shares to the Transferee.



 


		4.	The Transferee warrants that he/she will pay the cash consideration in accordance with the period specified in this Agreement.



 


		5.	The Transferor and the Transferee warrant that if any breach of this Agreement due to default of one party, the breaching party
shall be liable for all the damages incurred from such breach.



 


		6.	The total cash consideration of Transfer Shares referred to in this Agreement is RMB 3,000,000 and shall be paid by the Transferee
to the Transferor within 30 days from the effective date of this Agreement.



 


		7.	This Agreement comes into effect upon signature and seal by both parties.



 


		8.	Should any dispute arise from this Agreement or the implementation of this Agreement, it shall be settled amicably by both
parties. If it fails, either party may bring a lawsuit to the People's Court.



 


		9.	This Agreement is signed by the Transferor and the Transferee at Jianye District in Nanjing City on November 17th,
2016.



 


Transferor: /s/Li Chen


 


Transferee: /s/Chun Yan Lu
Order entered December 21, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-18-01516-CV

IN RE AMERICAN ZURICH INS URANCE COMPANY, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 101s t Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-05893



### ORDER Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Schenck

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus.

/s/ DAVID J. SCHENCK JUSTICE
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on January 4, 2024, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Clean Highly Efficient Decarbonized Engines (“CHEDE-9”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: Afton Chemical, Richmond, VA; Caterpillar, Inc., Peoria, IL; Deere and Company, Cedar Falls, IA; Eaton, Marshall, MI; Isuzu, Tokyo, JAPAN; Superturbo Technologies, Loveland, CO; Tenneco, Plymouth, MI; Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, Wolfsburg, GERMANY; Volvo Powertrain North America, Hagerstown, MD; WABTEC, Pittsburgh, PA; Weichai Power Co. Ltd., Shandong, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Yuchai, Guangxi, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Toyota Industries Corporation, Aichi, JAPAN; and HD Hyundai Infracore, Incheon, KOREA. The general area of CHEDE-9's planned activity is to develop new and novel technologies that provide clean and efficient decarbonized powertrain solutions; to provide a collaborative environment for evaluation of advanced decarbonized engine and aftertreatment technology to meet the goals of GHG emissions of 35% to 50% below model year 2024 products and NOx to remain below one part per million at the tailpipe.

Suzanne Morris,

Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2024-02262 Filed 2-5-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 278

To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel SERENITY.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 26 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 1995

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

referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel

SERENITY.

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

3 That notwithstanding section 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 SERENITY, United States official number

9 1021393.

Æ
<PAGE>
                                                          EXHIBIT 99.2
[LOGO]

                                      
                         Report of Independent Auditors


Management
BankAmerica Housing Services
A Division of Bank of America, FSB

We have audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, 
the consolidated financial statements of Bank of America, FSB as of and for 
the year ended December 31, 1997 and have issued our report thereon dated 
March 17, 1998. The consolidated financial statements of Bank of America, FSB 
include the financial statements of BankAmerica Housing Services, a Division 
of Bank of America, FSB ("Division").

The audit referred to above included tests relating to manufactured housing 
contracts included in 1) Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc. Manufactured 
Housing Contract Pass-Through Certificates, Series 1988J, Series 1988P, Series 
1989C, Series 1989E, Series 1989G, Series 1990A, Series 1990C, Series 1990F, 
Series 1990H, Series 1991A and Series 1991C, and 2) Security Pacific 
Acceptance Corporation Manufactured Housing Contract Pass-Through 
Certificates, Series 1991-2, Series 1991-3, Series 1992-1, Series 1992-2, 
Series 1992-3, and Series 1995-1, serviced in accordance with Article V of 
the related pooling and servicing agreements, and 3) Greenwich Capital 
Acceptance Inc. Manufactured Housing Contracts Senior/Subordinate 
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 1995-BA1, serviced in accordance with Article 
III of the related pooling and servicing agreement, and 4) BankAmerica 
Manufactured Housing Contract Trust Senior/Subordinate Pass-Through 
Certificates, Series 1996-1, Series 1997-1, and Series 1997-2, serviced in 
accordance with Article IV of the related pooling and servicing agreement. In 
connection with our audit, nothing came to our attention that caused us to 
believe that the Division failed to comply with Articles III, IV and V of the 
related pooling and servicing agreements. However, it should be noted that 
our audit was not directed primarily toward obtaining knowledge of such 
noncompliance.

This report is intended solely for the use of the Division and the Trustee 
and should not be used for any other purpose.


                                              Ernst & Young LLP

March 17, 1998