alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                              26
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       37
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    26
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      63
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                5
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            58
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        63
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     8
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (8)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (8)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Sam PEAVY and Faye Joyce Peavy, Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 34550.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 25, 1962.

*943Weldon H. Berry, Houston, for appellants.

Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Carl E. F. Dally, Daniel P. Ryan, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DICE, Commissioner.

Appellants, Sam Peavy and Faye Joyce Peavy, were jointly charged, tried and convicted for the offense of aggravated assault upon a police officer and their punishment was assessed at fines of $250 and $100, respectively.

The facts, as reflected by the State’s testimony shows that on the night in question the appellant, Sam Peavy, while driving his automobile in the City of Houston was stopped by City Officer D. R. Perry and given a traffic ticket for operating the vehicle with a defective muffler. At such time appellant was very belligerent with the officer and after receiving the ticket, he got back in his automobile and started off at a high rate of speed, spinning the wheels. Officer Perry proceeded to follow the appellant as he drove down the street and to where he turned into the driveway at his home. The officer then got out of the police car to give appellant some additional traffic tickets, including one for speeding. Appellant ordered him off his property and after the officer informed appellant he was under arrest a struggle ensued between them. During the encounter Officer Perry went •to the patrol car and radioed for help. In response to the call, Officers W. J. Wehr •and H. C. Seibert, Jr. went to the scene. Both officers were in uniform and were ■wearing a badge. When they arrived, ap-pellant and the officer were still engaged •in the struggle and they proceeded to assist •Officer Perry wrestle appellant to the •ground and place hand cuffs on him. During the struggle, appellant struck Officer Wehr, the prosecuting witness, several times and his wife, the appellant Faye Joyce Peavy, came out of the house, jumped on ■Officer Wehr’s back and began hitting him ■with her fists.

Appellants, testifying as witnesses in their own behalf, denied that either hit the officers on the night in question and testified that it was the officers who had administered a brutal beating to appellant, Sam Peavy. Several of appellants’ neighbors were called as witnesses who corroborated their denial that they hit or struck the officers on the occasion in question.

The jury resolved the conflict in the testimony against appellants and we find the evidence sufficient to sustain their verdict.

Appellants’ sole claim of error on appeal is that the court erred in refusing to give their requested charge on self defense and defense of another.

Such complaint is not properly before us for review because no exception to the court’s action in refusing the requested charge is verified by the trial judge. Eldredge v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 282, 284 S.W.2d 734; Carpenter v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 345 S.W.2d 412 and Leonard v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 356 S.W.2d 926.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and nominal concentrations; hardness 

<150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb) 

Acute 

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb) Chronic

1

SARs Cationic Surfactants

SAR Class Cationic Surfactants

TSCA New Chemcial 

Category 

Cationic (quaternary ammonium) 

surfactants

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: 

 Fate assessor: Ecotox assessor: Health assessor:
#### Joe Dee BENSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28604.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 21, 1956.

No attorney of record on appeal for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., George P. Blackburn, 'Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

' PER CURIAM.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 20 days in jail and a fine of $100.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular, and nothing is presented for review.

The-judgment is affirmed.
Writ of Mandamus is DENIED; Opinion Filed October 18, 2013. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 01406
- CV
IN RE ARPIN AMERICA MOVING SYSTEMS, LLC , Relator Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 12
- 06104
- A



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices O'Neill, Lang

- Miers, and Evans Opinion by Justice Evans Relator contends the trial judge erred by ov erruling its objections to a notice of deposition. The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. We conclude relator’s petition does not satisfy the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T E X

. R. A PP

. P. 52.3(j); In re Butler , 270 S.W.3d 757, 758 (Tex. App.

B Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of
mandamus.

131406F.P05 /David Evans/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
#### Ex parte William F. BLACK.

No. 37262.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 11, 1964.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 6, 1965.

Hope, Henderson & Hohman, by James E. Hope, San Antonio, for appellant.

James E. Barlow, Dist. Atty., John G. Benavides, Raymond A. Wietzel and Earl C. Hill, Asst. Dist. Attys., San Antonio, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the 144th District Court of Bexar County remanding relator to the custody of the Sheriff of said county for delivery to an agent for the State of Georgia.

At the hearing the respondent offered the executive warrant of the Governor of Texas, regular on its face, authorizing the arrest and return of appellant to the State of Georgia upon demand of the Governor of that State to answer an “Indictment and Sentence” for “Robbery and Receiving Stolen Goods” pending against him in that State.

Under many decisions of this Court a prima facie case authorizing remand of relator to custody for extradition was made out by the introduction in evidence of the executive warrant of the Governor of Texas regular on its face. Ex Parte Hoover, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 251, 298 S.W.2d 579, and cases there cited.

• The respondent went further and offered a witness who identified relator as being the person named in the Governor’s warrant.

Relator offered the supporting papers which had been served upon his counsel prior to the hearing which consisted of a photostatic copy of the Demand of the Governor of Georgia, a photostatic copy of a sworn application of the Assistant Director of the State Board of Corrections to the Governor of Georgia reciting that relator escaped confinement after conviction which is authenticated by the Secretary of State of Georgia, and photostatic copies of authenticated indictments from Fulton County, the Sentence and Bench Warrants.

In Ex Parte Hoover, supra, we said that since respondent was not bound to introduce the demand or requisition, appellant was in no position to complain that they were photostatic copies. The original ex*877ecutive warrant has been sent to this Court, and we find the same regular in all respects.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6291

ANTWOIN L. MASON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:06-cv-00855-LMB) Submitted: August 29, 2007 Decided: September 11, 2007 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antwoin L. Mason, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Antwoin L. Mason seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mason has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. 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
to all species. 

How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision-making? 

If endangered species risk assessments are performed without these data, the Agency 

would have to presume direct risk to non-target plants and indirect risk to all animal 

species from use of cyphenothrin. Therefore, use of cyphenothrin and its formulated 

products may need to be restricted in areas where listed species could be exposed. The 

lack of these data will limit the flexibility the Agency and registrants have in coming into 

compliance with the Endangered Species Act and could result in use restrictions for 

cyphenothrin that are unnecessarily severe. 

Guideline Number: 850.1730 

Study Title: Fish Accumulation Study 

Rationale for Requiring the Data 

The reported log Kow is greater than 6.0 and the Agency’s PBT Profiler model indicates 

cyphenothrin has the potential to bioaccumulate in the [aquatic] food chain. The purpose 

of the study is to determine uptake and depuration rate constants and bioconcentration 

factors (BCFs) for fish exposed to cyphenothrin in aqueous solution. Another purpose is to 

identify and quantify major degradates at steady state. 

Practical Utility of the Data 

How will the data be used? 

BCFs may be used to help assess risks to the fish and to nontarget organisms (including 

humans) at higher trophic levels of the food chain. In the absence of specific data, Agency 

models will be the sole source of information regarding the potential for bioaccumulation. 

How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision-making? 

If endangered species risk assessments are performed without these data, the Agency 

would have to rely solely on model-generated information regarding the 

bioconcentration/bioaccumulation of cyphenothrin. Therefore, use of cyphenothrin and its 

formulated products may need to be restricted in areas where listed species could be 

exposed. The lack of these data will limit the flexibility the Agency and registrants have in 

coming into compliance with the Endangered Species Act and could result in use 

restrictions for cyphenothrin that are unnecessarily severe.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                                LSB CORPORATION

   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADDED BY SECTION 906
                       OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of LSB
Corporation do hereby certify that:

1.   The accompanying Quarterly Report of LSB Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 (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 of the Company as of June 30, 2002 and
results of operations of the Company for the three and six months periods ended
June 30, 2002.


                                    /s/ Paul A. Miller
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Paul A. Miller
                                    President and
                                    Chief Executive Officer







                                    /s/ John E. Sharland
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    John E. Sharland
                                    Senior Vice President
                                    Chief Financial Officer





                                    August 13, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets and Consolidated Statements of
Operations and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-1995<F1>
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1995
<CASH>                                         125,387
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  411,227
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,629
<INVENTORY>                                    252,339
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               837,621
<PP&E>                                         170,897
<DEPRECIATION>                                  72,172
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,056,042
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          614,075
<BONDS>                                        125,540
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           447
<OTHER-SE>                                     310,435
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,056,042
<SALES>                                      1,016,283
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,016,283
<CGS>                                        1,033,158
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,033,158
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,321
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,634
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (225,006)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (225,006)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (225,006)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (5.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (5.27)
<FN>
<F1>The Company changed its fiscal year-end from the Saturday closest to June 30 to
the Saturday closest to December 31.  The change in fiscal year-end was
effective for the six months ended December 30, 1995, and resulted in the
attached Transition Report on Form 10-K.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1 - Purchase/Sales Agreement

                            Purchase/ Sales Agreement

June  Stevens as Sellers,  and  Heartland  Inc. as buyer,  hereby agree that the
Seller  shall sell and the Buyer shall buy the  following  described  properties
UPON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH.

                    The Purchase Price of:       $ 650,000.00
                    Existing First Loan          $ 155,000.00
                    Balance                      $ 495,000.00
                    Paid in Restricted stock     $ 495,000.00
                    Number of shares               123,750.00

Commonly know as:
109 Industrial Blvd, Ripley, TN

Financing:

Total purchase price shall be paid with 123,750  restricted  shares of Heartland
Inc.  Buyer to pay all closing cost of both buyer and seller.  Buyer will assume
obligations of existing loan.

o The escrow period shall be 1 week.


/s/ Jeffrey Brandeis                 6/17/04
------------------------           ---------
Heartland Inc.                         Date
Buyer

/s/ June Stevens                      6/15/04
------------------------           ----------
June Stevens                           Date
Seller
Docket No. FAA-2014-0656
#### Morris HAROLD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 29022.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 19, 1957.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

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

DICE, Commissioner.

The conviction is for theft by bailee; the punishment, ten years.

Bob Huff, the prosecuting witness, testified that on the night in question he met the appellant and a companion by the name of Crawford, neither of whom he had known before, in the Carlos Cafe in the City of Big Spring; that after they had each consumed approximately four beers, appellant stated he knew some girls who got off work at midnight whereupon the three left the cafe and went to Crawford’s room at a motel; that after they arrived at the room, at the appellant’s request, he loaned appellant his 1955 Buick automobile for the purpose of going to pick up the girls; that appellant left in the automobile, returned in about fifteen minutes and stated that the girls had not gotten off from work and in about fifteen minutes appellant again left in the automobile to go pick up the girls and did not return.

Huff further testified that he next saw his automobile twenty-one days later when it was returned to him by the officers with the speedometer showing it had been *795driven approximately 3,000 miles and that the automobile had a value of more than $50.

The state’s testimony further shows that the automobile was found abandoned near the City of Taft in San Patricio County where the appellant was arrested.

It was further shown that the tires and wheels of bluff’s automobile had been placed on an automobile registered in the name of appellant’s wife and that the battery had been pawned by the appellant at a filling station.

As a witness in his own behalf, appellant admitted borrowing the automobile from the prosecuting witness for the purpose of going after the girls and that he did not return it to him but testified that he had no intention of keeping the automobile permanently. Appellant testified that he was drunk on the night in question; had tried once without success to get in touch with Huff, the owner of the automobile, by telephone and admitted that he and his wife had driven the automobile to San Patricio County and that he had taken the tires, wheels and battery from the automobile.

No brief has been filed on behalf of the appellant.

The record presents no exceptions to the court’s charge or formal bills of exception.

We have considered the informal bills of exception appearing in the statement of facts and find no reversible error shown.

In his motion for new trial, appellant suggests that his true name is Morris Harrell and that he was tried, indicted and convicted under the name of Morris Harold. Not having suggested his true name at the time he was called upon to plead to the indictment, appellant is in no position to urge a misnomer in the state’s pleadings for the first time in his motion for new trial. Art. 495, V.A.C.C.P.

Finding the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court