alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Stephens & Johnson

Operating Co.; Henry W.

Breyer, III, Trust; CAH, Ltd.-

MOPI for Capital Account;

CAH, Ltd.-Stivers Capital

Account; CAH, Ltd.-Wiegand

Resources Capital Account

Wiegand Resources; C.T.

Carden; Myrl W. Deitch

Trust; E.R. Godbout Family

TruAppellant/s

Charles W. Schroeder, Elsie

A. Schroeder Schneider,

Hollis London, Terry

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 12, 2015

No. 04-14-00167-CV

STEPHENS & JOHNSON OPERATING CO.; Henry W. Breyer, III, Trust; CAH, Ltd.-MOPI

for Capital Account; CAH, Ltd.-Stivers Capital Account; CAH, Ltd.-Wiegand Resources Capital

Account Wiegand Resources; C.T. Carden; Myrl W. Deitch Trust; E.R. Godbout Family Trust;

Margaret J. Godbout; F.R. Keydel; R.L. Keydel; Pennye K. Maloney; David R. McNitt; RCA

Trust One; Donald B. Scott; Sunset Production Corporation; Genessee Country Museum

Appellants

v.

Charles W. SCHROEDER, Elsie A. Schroeder Schneider, Hollis London, Terry Mengers Reel,

Ted Mengers, Debbie Mengers Quates, August H. Setinmeyer, Carole Schroeder Miller, James

M. Schroeder, Sally Schroeder Tinanus, James E. Schroeder, Sue Schroeder Stanford, Bill

Schroeder, Wayne Hennecke, Diane Hennecke Rhodes, Jerri James, W. Tom Hailey, and Peggy

Hailey,

Appellees

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Jim Hogg County, Texas

Trial Court No. CC-04-143

Honorable Ana Lisa Garza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The brief of appellees was due January 5, 2015. Neither a brief nor a motion for

extension of time to file the brief has been filed.

We therefore order appellees, Charles W. Schroeder, Elsie A. Schroeder Schneider,

Hollis London, Terry Mengers Reel, Ted Mengers, Debbie Mengers Quates, August H.

Setinmeyer, Carole Schroeder Miller, James M. Schroeder, Sally Schroeder Tinanus, James E.

Schroeder, Sue Schroeder Stanford, Bill Schroeder, Wayne Hennecke, Diane Hennecke Rhodes,

Jerri James, W. Tom Hailey, and Peggy Hailey, to file their appellees’ brief by January 22,

FILE COPY
2015. If the brief is not filed by the date ordered, we will order the case submitted without an

appellees’ brief.

sbm

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 12th day of January, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Public Media Works, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending August 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Martin W. Greenwald certify in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer, 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto signed as of October 18, 2010.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Martin W. Greenwald
|Martin W. Greenwald    
|Chief Executive Officer

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



32
#### Bernie GRAHAM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28677.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 12, 1956.

No attorney for appellant of record *on-*appeal.

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

PER CURIAM.

The unlawful possession of whisky with no tax stamp affixed is the offense, with a prior conviction for an offense of like character. The punishment was assessed at a fine of $100.

The record before us contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 512

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a 5-year

extension of the medicare-dependent, small, rural hospital payment provisions, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 7 (legislative day, MARCH 6), 1995

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

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide

for a 5-year extension of the medicare-dependent, small,

rural hospital payment provisions, 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. MEDICARE-DEPENDENT, SMALL, RURAL HOS4 PITAL PAYMENT EXTENSION.

5 (a) SPECIAL TREATMENT EXTENDED.—

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1886(d)(5)(G) of

7 the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

8 1395ww(d)(5)(G)) is amended—
2

•S 512 IS

1 (A) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘October 1,

2 1994’’ and inserting ‘‘October 1, 1999’’; and

3 (B) in clause (ii)(II), by striking ‘‘October

4 1, 1994’’ and inserting ‘‘October 1, 1999’’.

5 (2) EXTENSION OF TARGET AMOUNT.—Section

6 1886(b)(3)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

7 1395ww(b)(3)(D)) is amended—

8 (A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by

9 striking ‘‘September 30, 1994’’ and inserting

10 ‘‘September 30, 1999’’;

11 (B) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the

12 end;

13 (C) in clause (iii), by striking the period at

14 the end and inserting ‘‘, and’’; and

15 (D) by adding at the end the following new

16 clause:

17 ‘‘(iv) with respect to discharges occurring in fis18 cal years 1995 through 1999, the target amount for

19 the preceding year increased by the applicable per20 centage increase under subparagraph (B)(iv).’’.

21 (3) PERMITTING HOSPITALS TO DECLINE RE22 CLASSIFICATION.—Section 13501(e)(2) of the Omni23 bus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C.

24 1395ww note) is amended by striking ‘‘or fiscal year

25 1994’’ and inserting ‘‘, fiscal year 1994, fiscal year
3

•S 512 IS

1 1995, fiscal year 1996, fiscal year 1997, fiscal year

2 1998, or fiscal year 1999’’.

3 (4) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Section

4 1886(d)(5)(G)(i) of the Social Security Act (42

5 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(G)(i)), as amended by para6 graph (1), is amended by striking all that follows the

7 first period.

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

9 this section shall apply with respect to discharges occur10 ring on or after October 1, 1994.

Æ
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 SCHEDULE 14A
 Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Amendment No.      )
 þ  o
  o
    
    Preliminary Proxy Statemento
    
    Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))o
    
    Definitive Proxy Statementþ
    
    Definitive Additional Materialso
    
    Soliciting Material Pursuant to Section 240.14a-12
 Grubb & Ellis Company
    þ
    
    No fee required.o
    
    Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11:
 1)
    
    Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:N/A2)
    
    Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:N/A3)
    
    Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed
pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the
filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):N/A4)
    
    Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:N/A5)
    
    Total fee paid:N/A
 o
    
    Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.o
    
    Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act
Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee
was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration
statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing:
 1)
    
    Amount previously paid:N/A2)
    
    Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:N/A3)
    
    Filing party:N/A4)
    
    Date Filed:N/A




---



#####
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 481

To limit the amount of expenditures required under the Endangered Species

Act of 1973 and other laws for the protection of fish and wildlife

made by the Bonneville Power Administration that may be recovered

from ratepayers, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 2 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 22), 1995

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

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To limit the amount of expenditures required under the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 and other laws for

the protection of fish and wildlife made by the Bonneville

Power Administration that may be recovered from ratepayers, 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. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fish and Wildlife Ex5 penditure Recovery Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. FUNDING OF FISH AND WILDLIFE ACTIONS.

7 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act:
2

•S 481 IS

1 (1) FISH AND WILDLIFE COSTS.—The term

2 ‘‘fish and wildlife costs’’ means included costs that

3 are incurred in connection with action taken under

4 the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.

5 1531 et seq.), or any other law, for the protection,

6 maintenance, or improvement of fish or wildlife re7 sources or habitat.

8 (2) INCLUDED COSTS.—The term ‘‘included

9 costs’’ includes—

10 (A) purchase power costs and lost revenues

11 related to operations of the Federal Columbia

12 River Power System to provide flows to benefit

13 a species listed as threatened or endangered

14 under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act

15 of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1534);

16 (B) expenditures; and

17 (C) reimbursable costs.

18 (b) LIMIT ON FISH AND WILDLIFE COSTS.—The

19 amount of fish and wildlife costs that the Bonneville

20 Power Administration may incur during a fiscal year shall

21 not exceed 20 percent of the gross annual power revenues,

22 exclusive of gross residential exchange revenues, that the

23 Administrator accrues in that fiscal year.

24 (c) NONREIMBURSABILITY OF EXCESS COSTS.—Any

25 fish and wildlife costs incurred by the Bonneville Power
3

•S 481 IS

1 Administration during a fiscal year in excess of the allow2 able amount determined under subsection (b) shall be

3 nonreimbursable from power revenues.

4 (d) TRANSMISSION RATES.—No fish and wildlife

5 costs incurred by the Bonneville Power Administration

6 shall be allocated to or otherwise recovered through rates

7 of the Administration for the transmission of power.

8 (e) FULFILLMENT OF RESPONSIBILITIES.—Compli9 ance with this section shall not relieve the Government of

10 any responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act of

11 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Æ
Exhibit 32.2

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,  As Adopted Pursuant To Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

          In connection with the Large Scale Biology Corporation Quarterly Report on Form10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ronald J. Artale, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

|   | (1)    | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                                          |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|   | (2)    | that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Large Scale Biology Corporation for the quartercovered by the Report. |

 

| Date:  August 14, 2003 | By:    | /s/ RONALD J. ARTALE                                                         |
|-----------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |   |                                                                              |
|                        |   | **Ronald J. Artale Chief Financial Officer Large Scale Biology Corporation** |

          A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Large Scale Biology Corporation and will be retained by Large Scale BiologyCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Clara Smith DRISCOLL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 37051.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 17, 1964.

No attorney of record on appeal.

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

*910MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, three days in jail and a fine of $300.00.

No statement of facts accompanies the record on appeal. Appellant presents one formal bill of exception in which he complains of the action of the trial court in “permitting the result of a blood test to be introduced over the timely objection of the defendant, without proper predicate being laid by the State of Texas.” In the absence of a statement of facts, we are unable to pass upon the admission of testimony over the objection of appellant. Williams v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 378 S.W.2d 325, and Fletcher v. State, 162 Tex.Cr. R. 100, 282 S.W.2d 230.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
 Date: May 10, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Robert E. BiesRobert E. BiesExecutive Vice-President and
Chief Financial Officer
No. 72-6285.

#### Valle-Rojas *v.*United States.

C. A.

9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of uWink, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter F. Wilkniss,
Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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.


November 14, 2006                                   By: /s/ PETER F. WILKNISS
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Peter F. Wilkniss
                                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                                        Chief Accounting Officer
#### Mrs. Henry HUNT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 30030.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 29, 1958.

L. D. Hartwell, Greenville, for appellant.

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

DICE, Commissioner.

Upon a plea of guilty before the Court, without a jury, appellant was convicted of the offense of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale in a dry area and her punishment assessed at one year in jail and a fine of $500.

After conviction appellant filed an amended motion for new trial in which she alleged that the punishment assessed was unjust, unreasonable and excessive, and that had she known the Court would inflict such punishment she would not have entered a plea of guilty. It was further alleged that the judgment of conviction was not supported by any evidence.

The motion was not sworn to or supported by the affidavit of appellant or any person.

The unverified motion was insufficient as a pleading and the Court’s action in overruling the same cannot be assigned as error. Vowell v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 493, 244 S.W.2d 214, and Williams v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 296 S.W.2d 781.

Where an accused enters a plea of guilty in a misdemeanor case it is not necessary that the State introduce evidence showing his guilt. Ex parte Clinnard, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 460, 169 S.W.2d 181, and Palomo v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 442, 249 S.W.2d 210. We observe however that the statement of facts on file in the cause does reflect that the State introduced sufficient evidence to establish the appellant’s guilt.

It has been the holding of this Court that when the punishment assessed *744is within the limits prescribed by law it is not excessive and it is not within the province of this Court to pass on the propriety of such punishment. Palomo v. State, supra; Pineda v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 609, 252 S.W.2d 177, and Manning v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 329, 284 S.W.2d 903.

Finding no reversible error the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
r

Estimated Costs: Action Costs per Product (e.g .. aircraft, engine, (e.g .. Inspection, propeller. appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include on- condition costs here access. testing, (@S85/h parts) Registered and close-up) our) Products Life reduction 0.0 $12,213 650 I 

-

The knO\\ n number of products in compliance: 0 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. Ocet: 57.938,450 

Costs CO\ ered under warrant\ (if'knmm) s 

On-Condition Costs: 

rAction Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e.g .. Inspection, ( i ncludl."! access. (@$85/hour) replacement) testing, and close- up) 

Special considerations for Economic Analysis rU1e this field to explain anything in the £.\limated Costs tahle 

that 1ras assumed or might11ot he ob1·ious. This .field can al\0 he used to explain '''mTallly costs): 2.5o/o reduction 

in lite x $488517 disk cost=$ 12,213 
Is the AD significant? G 

YES* D NO [gl 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. G 

YES D NO [gl 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include spcci fi e requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? 0 

YES* D NO [gl 

*Explanation:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000725813
<NAME> YVETTE DESMARAIS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                     $ 5,017,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,179,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   382,000
<INVENTORY>                                 13,622,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            39,548,000
<PP&E>                                      40,013,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              19,473,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              73,662,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,256,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       809,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  57,696,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                73,662,000
<SALES>                                     83,882,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            83,882,000
<CGS>                                       55,773,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               55,773,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,344,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             611,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             11,154,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,440,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,714,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                $7,714,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .94
        


</TABLE>