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

No. 38283.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 20, 1965.

Engelke, Brown & Holbrook, By Don Brown, La Marque, for appellant.

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

McDONALD, Presiding Judge.

The offense is Driving a Motor Vehicle while Intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $100.00 and three (3) days confinement in the County Jail.

The statement of facts, in narrative form, reflects that appellant was driving a Buick automobile on a street in Galveston; that he ran a red light and appellant’s car was struck by an automobile driven by Marshall Wells at approximately 12:30 P.M.; that appellant smelled strongly of alcohol; his eyes were glazed, and he staggered when he walked; that in the opinion of those who saw him he was intoxicated.

Appellant testified he played a card game called “pitty pat” with Dan Anderson and Tom Jackson from about 8:00 A.M. until 10:30 A.M. that Sunday morning; that the three of them went to the Golden Sparrow Cafe; that approximately 12:30 P.M. he left the cafe and drove through an intersection on an orange light; that he almost cleared the intersection when he was struck by the Wells automobile; that he was nervous and shaken up, but he was sober; that *804he had drunk only two cans of beer that morning.

The testimony of Anderson and Jackson corroborated that of appellant.

The jury chose to accept the testimony of the witnesses called by the State. We find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.

To appellant’s amended motion for new trial counsel for appellant attached an affidavit in which he complains that reversible error was committed during the argument of the prosecutor. There is no formal nor informal bill of exception, and therefore the matter is not before this Court for consideration. Smith v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 614, 317 S.W.2d 539.

“A motion for new trial cannot be made a substitute for or take the place of a bill of exception.” 5 Tex.Jur.2d 210, Sec. 134.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as *

provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 The Honorable Gloria M. Navarro, United States District Judge for the District of **

Nevada, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v.

MARCO ANTONIO CHAVEZ, etc. 

 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 11-50258

D.C. No. 8:10-CR-00033-AG-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 8, 2012

Pasadena, California

Before: REINHARDT and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and NAVARRO,**

District Judge.

Marco Antonio Chavez appeals the sentence imposed by the district court

following Chavez’s guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute

approximately 493.3 grams of pure methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Chavez to eighty-seven

FILED

DEC 19 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

months, to be followed by a five-year term of supervised release. This sentence

included a two-level enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon during

the commission of the offense.

We review the district court’s sentencing decision for abuse of discretion.

United States v. Armstead, 552 F.3d 769, 776 (9th Cir. 2008). We review the

district court’s underlying factual findings for clear error. Id. Based on the parties’

arguments and the Court’s examination of the record, we conclude that Chavez

should have reasonably foreseen that his co-conspirators would possess a firearm

during the execution of such a major drug transaction. United States v. Garcia, 909

F.2d 1346, 1350 (9th Cir. 1990). Therefore, the district court did not clearly err in

determining that the two-level sentencing enhancement for possession of a

dangerous weapon was appropriate. Id. 

AFFIRMED.
" It is in the public interest for Gogo to provide satellite-based broadband communications for 

public safety purposes and to increase the productivity of airline passengers on international 

flights who otherwise are unable to communicate with their workplaces and other locations. A 

satellite-based broadband system provides a unique communications link for Federal Air 

Marshals and other public safety agencies to protect commercial airlines and their passengers. 

The air-ground system also enables airlines, including their on-board crew, to better 

communicate and manage operational information, while also providing important connectivity

for passengers, which is of even greater value for longer international flights than on the shorter 

haul flights that already have service over the continental United States."
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT 

THIS SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is made and entered into as of March 22, 2017, by and
between American Homes 4 Rent, a Maryland real estate investment trust (the “Company”), and B. Wayne Hughes, as Trustee of the B.W. Hughes Living Trust (“Purchaser”). 

WHEREAS, the Company proposes to undertake an underwritten offering (the “Offering”) of Class A common
shares of beneficial interest, par value $0.01 per share (the “Shares”) pursuant to a registration statement on Form S-3 (the “Registration Statement”) filed pursuant to the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”); and 
 WHEREAS, Purchaser desires to purchase
Shares directly from the Company in a private transaction as set forth herein. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the
foregoing and the mutual representations, warranties, covenants and agreements set forth herein, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows: 

1. Purchaser hereby agrees to purchase directly from the Company on the terms set forth herein such number of Shares as equals
$50,000,000 divided by $22.80, the public offering price, for a total price of $50,000,000. 
 2. Purchaser understands and
agrees that his purchase of Shares hereunder is being made pursuant to a private placement exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act and the Shares purchased hereunder may not be sold, transferred or conveyed by Purchaser
except in compliance with applicable securities laws. 
 3. The purchase price for the Shares shall be paid by means of a
cash payment (wire transfer or other means acceptable to the Company) and shall close at the time of closing of the Offering. The closing of the sale of Shares to Purchaser shall be conditioned solely on the closing of the Offering. 

4. Purchaser hereby agrees that his purchase of Shares may be described in the Registration Statement and the final prospectus
forming a part of the Registration Statement for the Offering. 
 5. Purchaser hereby represents and warrants to the Company
that: 
 a. Purchaser is, and at the time of closing of the purchase of Shares by Purchaser will be, an Accredited Investor
as that term is defined in Rule 501 of Regulation D under the Securities Act; and 
 b. Purchaser has received all
information he deems relevant or necessary with respect to his purchase of Shares. 
 6. This Agreement shall terminate if
the closing of the Offering shall not have occurred on or before March 31, 2017. 
 7. This Agreement may be executed
in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. 

8. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Maryland. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into effective as of the date
first written above. 
  

			
	 AMERICAN HOMES 4 RENT

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ David P. Singelyn

	 Name:
	 	 David P. Singelyn

	 Title:
	 	 Chief Executive Officer

	
	 B. WAYNE HUGHES, as Trustee for the B.W. Hughes Living Trust

	
	 /s/ B. Wayne Hughes
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 57

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to facilitate the immigration

to the United States of certain aliens born in the Philippines or Japan

who were fathered by United States citizens.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 4, 1995

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

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to facilitate

the immigration to the United States of certain aliens

born in the Philippines or Japan who were fathered

by United States citizens.

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

3 That section 204(f)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nation4 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(f)(2)(A)) is amended—

5 (1) by inserting ‘‘(I)’’ after ‘‘born’’; and

6 (2) by inserting after ‘‘subsection,’’ the follow7 ing: ‘‘(II) in the Philippines after 1950 and before
2

•S 57 IS

1 November 24, 1992, or (III) in Japan after 1950

2 and before the date of enactment of this subclause,’’.

Æ
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 State

          - [Public Notice: 12322]

## Closed Meeting

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1009(a)(2), the Department of State announces a meeting of the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) to take place on March 12, 2024, at the Department of State, Washington, DC.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1009(d), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), it has been determined that this Board meeting will be closed to the public because the Board will be reviewing and discussing matters properly classified in accordance with Executive Order 13526. The purpose of the ISAB is to provide the Department with a continuing source of independent advice on all aspects of arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation, outer space, critical infrastructure, cybersecurity, the national security aspects of associated technologies, international security, and related aspects of public diplomacy. The agenda for this meeting will include classified discussions related to the Board's ongoing studies on current U.S. policy and issues regarding arms control, international security, nuclear proliferation, associated technologies, climate and energy security.

For more information, contact Michelle Dover, Executive Director of the International Security Advisory Board, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, telephone: (202) 736-4930.

Michelle Dover,

Executive Director, International Security Advisory Board, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2024-02606 Filed 2-7-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-27-P
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.12


CNL Lifestyle Properties, Inc.
Schedule of Omitted Agreements


The following lease agreements have not been filed as exhibits pursuant to Instruction 2 of Item 601 of Regulation S-K:


		
	1.
	Amended and Restated Lease Agreement dated August 10, 2009 by and between CNL Income Brighton, LLC and Brighton Resort, LLC


		
	2.
	Amended and Restated Personal Property Lease Agreement dated August 10, 2009 by and between CNL Income Brighton TRS Corp. and Brighton Resort, LLC


		
	3.
	Amended and Restated Sublease Agreement dated August 10, 2009 by and between CNL Gatlinburg Partnership, LP and Gatlinburg Skylift, LLC, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Amended and Restated Sublease Agreement dated May 27, 2011 by and between CNL Gatlinburg Partnership, LP and Gatlinburg Skylift, LLC


		
	4.
	Amended and Restated Lease Agreement dated August 10, 2009 by and between CNL Income Loon Mountain, LLC and Loon Mountain Recreation Corporation, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Amended and Restated Lease Agreement dated November 6, 2014 by and between CLP Loon Mountain, LLC (f/k/a CNL Income Loon Mountain, LLC) and Loon Mountain Recreation Corporation


		
	5.
	Amended and Restated Personal Property Lease Agreement dated August 10, 2009 by and between CNL Income Loon Mountain TRS Corp. and Loon Mountain Recreation Corporation


		
	6.
	Amended and Restated Lease Agreement dated August 10, 2009 by and between CNL Income Sugarloaf, LLC and Sugarloaf Mountain Corporation, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Amended and Restated Lease Agreement dated March 3, 2010 by and between CNL Income Sugarloaf, LLC and Sugarloaf Mountain Corporation, and as further amended by that certain Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Lease Agreement dated August 26, 2013 by and between CLP Sugarloaf, LLC, f/k/a CNL Income Sugarloaf, LLC and Sugarloaf Mountain Corporation


		
	7.
	Amended and Restated Personal Property Lease Agreement dated August 10, 2009 by and between CNL Income Sugarloaf TRS Corp. and Sugarloaf Mountain Corporation


		
	8.
	Amended and Restated Lease Agreement dated August 10, 2009 by and between CNL Income Sunday River, LLC and Sunday River Skiway Corporation, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Amended and Restated Lease Agreement dated January 21, 2010 by and between CNL Income Sunday River, LLC and Sunday River Skiway Corporation, as further amended by that certain Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Lease Agreement dated March 3, 3010 by and between CNL Income Sunday River, LLC and Sunday River Skiway Corporation, and as further amended by that certain Third Amendment to Amended and Restated Lease Agreement dated June 8, 2012 by and between CLP Sunday River, LLC and Sunday River Skiway Corporation


		
	9.
	Amended and Restated Personal Property Lease Agreement dated August 10, 2009 by and between CNL Income Sunday River TRS Corp. and Sunday River Skiway Corporation
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1222 

To increase the guarantee fees charged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 

with respect to mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by such enterprises. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2011 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER (for himself, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. PEARCE, 

and Mr. HENSARLING) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To increase the guarantee fees charged by Fannie Mae and 

Freddie Mac with respect to mortgage-backed securities 

guaranteed by such enterprises. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘GSE Subsidy Elimi5 nation Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. GSE GUARANTEE FEES. 

7 Subpart A of part 2 of subtitle A of title XIII of the 

8 Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 is 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1222 IH

1 amended by adding after section 1326 (12 U.S.C. 4546) 

2 the following new section: 

3 ‘‘SEC. 1327. ENTERPRISE GUARANTEE FEES. 

4 ‘‘(a) INCREASE.—Subject to subsection (b), the Di5 rector shall require each enterprise to charge a guarantee 

6 fee in connection with any guarantee, issued by the enter7 prise on or after the expiration of the 2-year period begin8 ning on the date of the enactment of this section, of the 

9 timely payment of principal and interest on securities, 

10 notes, and other obligations based on or backed by mort11 gages on residential real properties designed principally 

12 for occupancy of from one to four families, in an amount 

13 that the Director determines appropriately reflects risk of 

14 loss as well the cost of capital allocated to similar assets 

15 held by other fully private regulated financial institutions. 

16 ‘‘(b) PHASE-IN.—The Director shall provide for com17 pliance with subsection (a) by requiring each enterprise 

18 to increase the guarantee fee charged by the enterprise 

19 gradually during the period beginning on the date of the 

20 enactment of this section and ending upon the date speci21 fied in such subsection in a manner sufficient to comply 

22 with such subsection. In determining a schedule for such 

23 increases, the Director shall— 

24 ‘‘(1) provide for uniform pricing among lenders; 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1222 IH

1 ‘‘(2) provide for adjustments in pricing based 

2 on risk levels; and 

3 ‘‘(3) take into consideration conditions in finan4 cial markets. 

5 ‘‘(c) DEFINITION OF GUARANTEE FEE.—For pur6 poses of this section, the term ‘guarantee fee’ means a 

7 fee described in subsection (a). Such term includes— 

8 ‘‘(1) the guaranty fee charged by the Federal 

9 National Mortgage Association with respect to mort10 gage-backed securities; and 

11 ‘‘(2) the management and guarantee fee 

12 charged by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Cor13 poration with respect to participation certificates.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### Therese A. BURKE; Cynthia R. Center; and Linda G. Gibbs, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 90-5607.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

July 13, 1992.

Before: MERRITT, Chief Judge; JONES, Circuit Judge; and WELLFORD, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

On May 26, 1992, the Supreme .Court reversed our prior judgment and remanded the case to us for further proceedings. In light of this, it is hereby ordered that the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings in conformity with the Supreme Court’s decision.
Order entered November 7, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01048-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF G. S., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 439th Judicial District Court

Rockwall County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1-18-0347

ORDER

By order dated October 23, 2019, we informed appellant the time for filing her brief had 

expired and ordered appellant to file her brief and an extension motion within ten days. We 

cautioned appellant that failure to do so might result in an order for the trial court to conduct a 

hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed and to take such measures as may 

be necessary to assure effective representation, including appointment of new counsel. To date, 

appellant has not filed her brief, filed an extension motion, or otherwise corresponded with the 

Court concerning her brief. 

Accordingly, we ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why 

appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings 

and recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If the 

trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the 

hearing in appellant’s absence. The trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be 
necessary to assure effective representation, which may include the appointment of new counsel. 

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include written 

findings and recommendations, to this Court within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated fifteen days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 28, 2009

d0921 

# Order

September 28, 2009

137994

In re Estate of JOHN PATRICK WHITE

___________________ ___________________ JEROME M. DAHL, as Trustee of the JOHN PATRICK WHITE TRUST, Petitioner-Appellant,

v SC: 137994 COA: 281420 Iron CC: 06-000083-CZ JACALYN DAHL BAUMGARTNER and RICHARD A. BEKKALA, Respondents-Appellees.

_____________ _______________ ___________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 18, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 11


                     Parlex Corporation and Subsidiaries
                 Computation of Net Income Per Common Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   June 30, 1998    June 30, 1997
                                                   -------------    -------------

<S>                                                  <C>              <C>
Basic earnings per share                                  $.73             $.59

Weighted average number of shares outstanding
 - Basic                                             4,295,706        3,569,052

Diluted earnings per share                                $.71             $.57

Weighted average number of shares outstanding
 - Basic                                             4,295,706        3,569,052

Effect of dilutive stock options                       169,821          145,987

Weighted average number of shares outstanding
 - Dilutive                                          4,465,527        3,715,039
</TABLE>
* 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. 08-60405

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

Plaintiff-Appellant;

v.

RODNEY CASE, KEVIN CLARK, MIKE FULTON, DOUGLAS MURPHY,

and JAMES WARD;

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:06-CR-00210

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant United States of America asserts that the district court

erred when it dismissed counts one, nine, and twelve of the second superceding

indictment. Having reviewed the parties’ briefs, heard oral argument, and

considered the record, we disagree. First, count one, which charged all the

abovenamed Defendants-Appellees with conspiring to commit wire fraud in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 was properly dismissed because the count is

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 13, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-60405

2

unconstitutionally vague since it fails to allege any materially false statements

or representations by Defendants-Appellees. See Neder v. United States, 527

U.S. 1, 25 (1999) (“[M]ateriality of falsehood is an element of the federal mail

fraud, wire fraud, and bank fraud statutes.”). Second, count nine, which charged

Defendants-Appellees Mike Fulton, Douglas Murphy, and James Ward with

stealing and copying trade secrets in violation of various provisions of the

Economic Espionage Act (“EEA”) was properly dismissed because itis barred by

the statute of limitations. Finally, count twelve, which charged DefendantAppellee Ward with violating various provisions of the EEA was also properly

dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. Accordingly, the judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.