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

No. 37233.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 20, 1965.

*856Forrest F. Baird, Houston, for appellant

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

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The conviction is for the felony offense of driving while intoxicated; the punishment, fifteen months in jail.

Officer Plaster testified that when he arrived at the scene of a collision on a public street the appellant was seated behind the steering wheel of one of the automobiles involved, and that appellant told him she was driving the car at the time of the collision. He further testified that appellant had a strong odor of alcohol on her breath, that her speech was impaired and she staggered while walking, and he expressed the opinion that she was intoxicated. Two other witnesses for the state who observed the appellant at the scene expressed the opinion that she was intoxicated.

After the appellant gave her written consent, a blood specimen was taken from her by a physician. The testimony of a chemist who made an analysis of the blood specimen reveals that the specimen had an alcoholic content of .27 percent, and that such content was indicative of intoxication.

Testifying in her own behalf, the appellant admitted that she was driving the automobile, that she drank a cocktail at 11 P.M., and another at 11:45 P.M., before the collision at 12:30 A.M., but she denied that she was intoxicated.

The prior conviction as alleged was stipulated by the state, the appellant and her counsel; also, said conviction was admitted by the appellant while testifying.

Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to permit Thomas Williams, Jr. to testify when he was called as a witness, by'sustaining the objection of the state that Williams had remained in the court room and heard the testimony in violation of the rule invoked as to witnesses.

 There is no showing in the record of the nature of the testimony sought or expected to be elicited from the witness Williams. Whethér the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony cannot be reviewed in the absence of such testimony. Until the contrary has been made to appear, it will be presumed on appeal that the discretion of the trial court was properly exercised. Therefore, the contention as presented reveals no error. *857Art 645, C.C.P.; 56 Tex.Jur.2d 381, Sec. 53; Harris v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 183, 289 S.W.2d 605.

There are no formal bills of exception and no objections to the court’s charge.

The evidence is sufficient to support the conviction and no error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court
EXHIBIT 32.1








SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS





In connection with the Annual Report of Security Capital Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Frank West, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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.





Date:           March 15, 2011








/s/ Frank West


Frank West


Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1308 Engrossed in House (EH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1308

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission Act to extend the 
      termination date for the Commission, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. RONALD REAGAN CENTENNIAL COMMISSION ACT AMENDMENTS.

    (a) Final Report Due Date.--Section 7(c) of the Ronald Reagan 
Centennial Commission Act (Public Law 111-25; 36 U.S.C. 101 note prec.) 
is amended by striking ``April 30, 2011'' and inserting ``November 30, 
2011''.
    (b) Termination.--Section 8 of the Ronald Reagan Centennial 
Commission Act (Public Law 111-25; 36 U.S.C. 101 note prec.) is amended 
by striking ``May 30, 2011'' and inserting ``December 31, 2011''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 12, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1308

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission Act to extend the 
      termination date for the Commission, and for other purposes.
```
Placeholder for information received claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)

Information regarding gas apportionment clai med as CBI dated June 4, 2010 and July 7, 2010 (updated information) received from a U.S. semiconductor manufacturing facility. This information is being maintained in a separate confidential portion of the docket.

For more information, please contact Kirsten Ca ppel by phone at (202) 343-9556 or by email at cappel.kirsten@epa.gov.
EXHIBIT 10.1

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

October 10th, 2001                                                US$150,000.00

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, jointly and severally, promise to pay to
SIDEN INVESTMENTS LTD. the sum of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND (US$150,000.00)
DOLLARS in lawful currency of the United States of America ON DEMAND.

The undersigned further jointly and severally promise to pay interest on the
aforesaid amount calculated from the date hereof at the Prime Rate plus four
percent (Prime Rate + 4%) per annum, such interest to be calculated monthly, in
arrears, and to accrue on overdue interest both before and after default.

For the purposes of this Promissory Note, "Prime Rate" means the per annum rate
of interest announced periodically by the Royal Bank of Canada at its main
branch, Vancouver, British Columbia, as its "prime interest rate" and used by it
as a reference rate for calculating rates of interest on Canadian dollar
commercial loans made in Canada. A statement of an officer of said bank as to
the amount of its Prime Rate shall be conclusive as between the parties.

This Promissory Note shall be governed and construed by the laws of the Province
of British Columbia, including the laws of Canada applicable thereto, but
excepting any of its conflict of laws rules which would have the effect of
applying the laws of any other jurisdiction. The parties further agree that the
federal and provincial courts of British Columbia shall have exclusive
jurisdiction over all disputes relating to this Promissory Note.

The undersigned hereby waives, presentment, protest and notice of presentment,
protest and dishonour.

DATED at Vancouver, British Columbia this day of October, 2001.


COMMUNICATE.COM, INC. (Alberta Corporation)



Per:
      -----------------------------------------------
         Authorized Signatory


COMMUNICATE.COM, INC. (Nevada Corporation)



Per:
      -----------------------------------------------
         Authorized Signatory

                                       A-1
Corporate Capital Trust II - 8-K

Exhibit 10.1

 

FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE EXPENSE SUPPORT AND CONDITIONAL REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT

 

 

This fourth amendment to the Amended and Restated Expense Support and Conditional Reimbursement Agreement (this “Fourth Amendment”) is made as of March 17, 2017, by and among CORPORATE CAPITAL TRUST II, a Delaware statutory trust, (the “Company”), CNL FUND ADVISORS II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“CNL”) and KKR CREDIT ADVISORS (US) LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“KKR”).

WHEREAS, the Company, CNL and KKR are parties to that certain Amended and Restated Expense Support and Conditional Reimbursement Agreement dated September 24, 2015 (the “Agreement”); and

WHEREAS, the parties amended the Agreement on May 10, 2016 (the “First Amendment”), on September 23, 2016 (the “Second Amendment”) and on December 22, 2016 (the “Third Amendment”); and

WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 4.5 of the Agreement, the parties desire to further amend the Agreement as hereinafter set forth.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the covenants hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:

1.                  The reference to “March 31, 2017” in Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby deleted, and “June 30, 2017” is inserted in the place of such deleted reference.

2.                  Full Force and Effect. Except as modified hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. All capitalized terms shall mean the same as in the Agreement.

3.                  Counterparts. This Fourth Amendment may be executed in more than one counterpart, each of which will be deemed to be an original but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. This Fourth Amendment may also be executed electronically.

4.                  Governing Law. This Fourth Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York, without regard to conflict of law provisions.

[remainder of page blank; signatures follow]

 



	 	1	 



	 



 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Fourth Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first above written.

	 	CNL FUND ADVISORS II, LLC 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 /s/ Chirag J. Bhavsar
	 	 	Name: Chirag J. Bhavsar
	 	 	Title: Chief Financial Officer
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	KKR CREDIT ADVISORS (US) LLC
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 /s/ Nicole J. Macarchuk
	 	 	Name: Nicole J. Macarchuk
	 	 	Title:  Authorized Signatory
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	CORPORATE CAPITAL TRUST II
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 /s/ Thomas K Sittema
	 	 	Name: Thomas K. Sittema
	 	 	Title: Chief Executive Officer


 

 



	 	2
NO. 07

- 11

- 00043

- CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO
PANEL A JANUARY 5, 2012

RONE NUNEZ AKA RONI NUNEZ , APPELLANT

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE

FROM THE 26TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY; NO. 09

- 1150

- K26 ; HONORABLE BILLY RAY STUBBLEFIELD , JUDGE

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Rone Nunez, was convicted of capital murder 1 in a trial before the court after the State had waived the death penalty. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. We affirm.
Appellant = s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S .Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in

1 See T EXAS P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § § 12.31(a)(2) , 19.03 (West 2011 ).2

his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id . at 744

- 45. In compliance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court = s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appel lant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this
matter. Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The court has also advised appellant of his rig ht to file a pro se response. Appellant did not file a
response. By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent revie w of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.
Accordingly, counsel = s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court = s judgment is affirmed. 2

Mackey K. Hancock Justice
Do not publish.

2 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant = s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 48.4.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1387 

To amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to give the 

Special Inspector General oversight over the Small Business Lending Fund. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2011 

Mr. MCHENRY (for himself, Mr. ISSA, and Mr. ROSS of Florida) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 

2008 to give the Special Inspector General oversight 

over the Small Business Lending Fund. 

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 ‘‘Small Business Lend5 ing Fund Accountability Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TARP SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OVERSIGHT. 

7 Section 121(c)(1) of the Emergency Economic Sta8 bilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5231(c)(1)) is amend9 ed— 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1387 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘section 101, and’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘section 101,’’; and 

3 (2) by inserting ‘‘and activities under section 

4 4103, 4104, or 4105 of the Small Business Jobs Act 

5 of 2010 (Public Law 111–240),’’ before ‘‘including’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-23-00407-CR

Nicholas Wade

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

94th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 21FC-0046C

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 23, 2024
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 29 (Monday, February 12, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 9872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02818]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Business and Operations Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the 
following meeting:
    Name and Committee Code: Business and Operations Advisory Committee 
(#9556).
    Date and Time: March 4, 2024; 11 a.m.-5 p.m. (eastern).
    Place: NSF, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314 (Virtual).
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Persons: Kellie Luurtsema, National Science Foundation, 
2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone: (703) 292-
8200.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice, recommendations and counsel 
on major goals and policies pertaining to engineering programs and 
activities.
    Agenda:

<bullet> Welcome/Introductions
<bullet> Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer (CDIO) Introduction
<bullet> Organizational Health and Performance
<bullet> Chief Information Officer (CIO) Introduction--Vision/Key 
Priorities
<bullet> Subcommittee on NSF's Information Technology and Enterprise 
Architecture Strategy

    Dated: February 7, 2024.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2024-02818 Filed 2-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
EXHIBIT 23.2

March 28, 1997



EXECUTONE Information Systems, Inc.
478 Wheelers Farms Road
Milford, CT  06460

Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year
Ended December 31, 1996 (File No. 000-11551)

Gentlemen:

This firm has reviewed the information set forth in the seventh
paragraph under "Recent Developments" under item 1., Business, and
the information set forth in the first paragraph under Item 3., Legal
Proceedings, of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1996 of EXECUTONE Information Systems, Inc. (the "Company").
We understand that the information set forth therein as it relates to
the issue of the authorization of the National Indian Lottery under 25 U.S.C.
2701 et seg. is based upon the advice provided to the Company by this firm.

We consent to the summarization of such advice and the reference to us
in the prospectus.

Very truly yours,

HUNTON & WILLIAMS
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DE CEMBER 31, 2013

NO. 03

- 12

- 00131

- CV

Cassandra Donetta Medrano, Appellant

v.

Lydia Serna Zapata, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMB ERTON AND FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the order signed by the district court on January 31, 2012. Havin g

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error

in the court’s order. Therefore, the Court affirms the district court’s order. The appellant shall

pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Co urt and the court below.
EXHIBIT 1 - CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To the Shareholders and the Board of Directors of Belmont Bancorp.

     We consent to incorporation by reference of our report dated
January 22, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Belmont Bancorp. as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related
consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity, and
statements of cash flows for each of the three years in the period
ended December 31, 1998.  Said report appears as Exhibit 2 of Belmont
Bancorp.'s annual form 10-K.

s/S.R. Snodgrass A.C.
S.R. Snodgrass A.C.
Wheeling, WV
March 16, 1999
Opinion issued August 30, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-18-00143-CR

———————————

RACHEL CAMARA MARYLAND, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 177th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case Nos. 1519118

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Rachel Camara Maryland, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal 

in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a). See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.2(a). The State has not opposed this motion. We have not issued a decision in this

appeal. 
2

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss 

any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Caughey.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
|    |                                                                                                |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Endologix, Inc.; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |

|                |
|----------------|
|                |  |  |
| April 30, 2019 | By: | /s/ JOHN ONOPCHENKO |
|           |   | John Onopchenko |
|           |   | Chief Executive Officer and Director |
#### Willard JONES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 29275.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 4, 1957.

*868Billy Hall. Littlefield, for appellant.

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

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The conviction is for the sale of whiskey in a dry area; the punishment, 90 days in jail and $200 fine.

The record contains no statement of facts on the main trial or on the hearing of the motion for new trial. No formal bills of exception appear in the record, and there are no objections and exceptions to the court’s charge.

Appellant was not represented by counsel at the trial.

After verdict and judgment counsel was employed and filed a motion for a new trial which was heard and considered by the court and overruled.

Appellant in his brief insists that the trial court erred in its charge wherein he instructed the jury that the complaint and information were not evidence and they were not to be considered as any evidence of the guilt of the accused because the use of the word complaint directed the jury’s attention to a sworn instrument which could not be read to the jury or offered in evidence.

The reference to the complaint in the admonitory instruction in the charge is not fundamental error and in the absence of an exception thereto and a statement of facts appellant’s contention cannot be considered. Garza v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 288 S.W.2d 785.

Appellant’s complaint in his brief and oral argument that the forms of verdict shown in the court’s charge do not include all the forms of verdicts which could be reached, and especially that it does not set out a form of “not guilty”, cannot be sustained as an examination of' the court’s charge reveals that a sufficient and proper form for a verdict of “not guilty” was first set out and later followed by a form in the event the jury found him guilty.

Appellant in his motion for a new trial and in his brief contends that the trial court erred in sustaining the state’s objection to his offering of character witnesses in his behalf. In the absence of a statement of facts we are unable to consider and appraise this contention. Williams v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 297 S.W.2d 169.

The other contentions of the appellant have been carefully considered and they do not reflect error.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.