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

No. 28573.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 21, 1956.

Dabney & Dabney, Eastland, for appellant. ...

E. H. Griffin, Dist. Atty., Breckenridge, Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

. MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

Upon his plea of guilty and waiver of trial by jury, appellant was convicted, in 1954, of the offense of rape, and his punishment was fixed by the court a't ■ five years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

Sentence upon that judgment was “suspended during the good behavior of the Defendant.” The procedure followed was authorized by and in keeping with the provisions of Article 776a, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

Subsequently, in March, 1956, appellant was convicted of the misdemeanor offense of receiving and concealing stolen property. Because of that misdemeanor conviction, the State moved to revoke the suspended sentence. After hearing, the *930State’s motion was granted, and the suspended sentence was revoked.

From that order, this appeal followed.

The sole question for our determination is whether a conviction for the misdemeanor offense of receiving and concealing stolen property authorizes the revocation of a suspended sentence.

This calls for a construction of Article 777, V.A.C.C.P., where “good behavior” within the meaning of the suspended sentence law is defined as follows:

> “By ‘good behavior’ is meant that the defendant shall not be convicted of any felony, or any character or grade of the offenses of theft, embezzlement, swindling, conversion, theft by bailee, or any fraudulent acquisitions of personal property.”

If the misdemeanor offense of receiving and concealing stolen property is within that definition, then the action of the trial court in revoking the suspended sentence was proper; otherwise, it was not.

It is apparent that the Legislature intended that misdemeanor convictions might constitute a violation of “good behavior” only when the fraudulent acquisition of personal property was a necessary element of the offense. Such is true of the specific offenses named in the definition. Moreover, in order that there might be no question as to the misdemeanor offenses included, the Legislature made the general provision to include “any fraudulent acquisitions of personal property” and “any character or grade of * * * conversion”.

Is the offense of receiving and concealing stolen property an offense involving fraudulent acquisition of personal property or any character or grade of * * * conversion ?

The answer appears to be apparent. The phrase “or any fraudulent acquisitions of personal property”, placed as it was after an enumeration of specific crimes relating to property, could have meant only one thing, any other crime though not enumerated which grew out of the unlawful acquisition of property.

When one receives or conceals stolen property under such circumstances that would authorize a prosecution therefor, he has brought himself within the terms of the statute.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Fallon, Gail From: Sent: To: Bachman, Tom A. [tbachman@nd.gov] Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:16PM Fallon, Gail Subject: RE: Enforcement of NDIC rules Gail: The law and rule you cited are enforced by the NO Industrial Commission, Oil and Gas Division. The requirement to sell or beneficially use the gas after one year probably does reduce emissions. Our oil and gas people indicate 

### 85°/o ofthe Bakken wells are tied into a gas gathering line during the first year of operation. This rule probably has a lot to do with it. An estimate ofthe amount ofemissions avoided from not flaring is difficult since the well's production declines rapidly during the first year. The sooner the well is tied into the gathering line- the greaterthe amount ofemissions avoided. The safety rule probably has no effect on emissions. I don't have any insight into the NDIC enforcement ofthe law and safety rule. Regarding our proposed rule change, Ithink the "absurd results" and "administrative necessary" doctrines could be argued just like EPA did for GHGs under PSD and Title V (Tailoring rule). The additional number ofsources that would require permitting under Subpart 0000 and MACT Subpart 

### JJJJJJ would overwhelm our program. Ifyou have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Tom Bachman, P.E. Manager; AirQuality ImpactAnalysis Program NO Dept. ofHealth (701) 328-5188

From: Fallon, Gail [mailto:fallon.gail@epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:57 PM To: Bachman, Tom A. Subject: Enforcement of NDIC rules
Hi Tom- Hopefullyjustone more thing for today! Canyou explain anything about howNDenforcesthe belowrules? Do you have any thoughts ordata on whetherthese rules would helpNDwith minimizing emissions? NorthDakotaIndustrial Commission 1(NDIC) North DakotaCentury Code Chapter 38-08 Control ofOil and Gas Resources: Article 38-08-06.4. Flaring ofGas RestrictedImposition ofTax- Payment of Royalties

- Industrial Commission Authority; and Article 43-02-03-28 Safety Regulation.

Thanks!

Gail Fallon Environmental Engineer Air Quality Planning Unit US EPA, Region 8 Denver, CO (303) 312-6281

2
#### Felix DAVIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28168.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 14, 1956.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

Unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor for sale in a dry area is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $150 and confinement in jail for six months.

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.
Exhibit 31.1

            PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Linda L. Perry, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Wings & Things,
Inc.;

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

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4.    The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:

      (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

      (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and

      (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.    The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function):

      (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

      (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.


                        /s/ Linda L. Perry
Date: 11-7-05           ________________________________________________
                        Linda L. Perry, Principal Executive Officer
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2062 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 45 Meetinghouse Lane in Sagamore Beach, 

Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Matthew A. Pucino Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2062 EH

1 SECTION 1. MATTHEW A. PUCINO POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 45 Meetinghouse Lane in Saga4 more Beach, Massachusetts, shall be known and des5 ignated as the ‘‘Matthew A. Pucino Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Matthew A. Pucino 

10 Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 2011. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2062 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postthew A. Pucino Post Office’’. Sagamore Beach, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Mat- al Service located at 45 Meetinghouse Lane in
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10062 Conference Calendar

__________________ VINCENT LEE BAKER, Petitioner-Appellant, versus WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:94-CV-445-Y

- - - - - - - - - - June 29, 1995
Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Texas prisoner Vincent Lee Baker appeals the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition as an abuse of the writ pursuant to Rule 9(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts. "A second or successive petition may be dismissed . . . if new and different grounds are alleged, [if] the judge finds that the failure of the petitioner to assert those grounds in a prior petition constituted an abuse of the writ." Rule 9(b), RulesNo. 95-10062 -2-
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts. "To excuse his failure to raise [a] claim earlier, [a habeas petitioner] must show cause for failing to raise it and prejudice therefrom as those concepts have been defined in [the Supreme Court's] procedural default decisions." McCleskey v. Zant , 499 U.S. 467, 494 (1991). Baker does not challenge the district court's finding that he did not contend in his previous petitions that his conviction was invalid. In his petition, Baker indicated that he had raised only jury misconduct as an issue in his second petition. This court's order denying Baker a certificate of probable cause in his previous appeal indicates that he did not contend that his enhancement conviction was invalid. Baker does not contend in his initial appellate brief that he could show cause for not having raised in his previous petitions his contention regarding the invalidity of his prior conviction. This court will not review issues that are initially raised in a reply brief. United States v. Prince , 868 F.2d 1379, 1386 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 932 (1989). This court need not consider the contentions in Baker's reply brief. Baker has not shown cause for his failure to raise in his previous petitions his contention that his enhancement conviction is invalid. Nor has he made a colorable showing of factual innocence. Baker does not allege that he is innocent of aggravated robbery, only that he should not have been convicted of the car-theft offense used to enhance the robbery sentence. Because Baker's appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED.No. 95-10062 -3-No. 95-10062 -4-
Additionally, and for the same reasons, Baker's petition for mandamus also is DISMISSED.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

_____________________________

FORM 8-K

CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934





Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)

February 12, 2004



Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware

(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)



|001-07572                | 13-1166910                          
|------------------------ | ------------------------------------
|(Commission File Number) | (IRS Employer Identification Number)

200 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016(Address of Principal Executive Offices)

Registrant's telephone number (212)-381-3500

Not Applicable

(Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)







ITEM 5.	OTHER EVENTS AND REQUIRED FD DISCLOSURE

On February 12, 2004, Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation, a Delaware corporation, issued a press release announcing that it had priced its
offering of $150 million of senior notes due February 15, 2011.  The notes accrue interest at the rate of 7-1/4% per annum.

The full text of the press release is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 and is incorporated herein by reference.

ITEM 7.	FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, PRO FORMA FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND EXHIBITS

(c)	Exhibits:

|Exhibit | Description                            
|------- | ---------------------------------------
|99.1*   | Press Release, dated February 12, 2004.

*    Filed herewith.





SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf
by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.



|Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation
|-------------------------------
|                               
|                               
|By:/s/ Mark D. Fischer__       
|Mark D. Fischer, Vice President



Date:   February 12, 2004
<PAGE>

POWER OF ATTORNEY


KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

WHEREAS, BIOMAGNETIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (the "Corporation") intends to file an
Annual Report on Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the
provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

WHEREAS, the undersigned are directors of the Corporation.

NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned hereby constitute and appoint James V.
Schumacher and Herman Bergman, or either of them, as their attorneys-in-fact to
act in their place and stead and to execute and to file such Annual Report and
any amendments or supplements thereto, giving and granting to said attorneys
full power and authority to do and perform each and every act whatsoever
requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, with full power of
substitution, as fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or
could do if personally present at the doing thereof, and hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorneys may or shall lawfully do or cause to be done
by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Power of Attorney this
21st day of January,  1997.




     /s/ R. Scott Asen                            /s/ Martin P. Egli
     -----------------                            ------------------
     R. Scott Asen                                Martin P. Egli


     /s/ Jerry C. Benjamin                        /s/ Enrique Maso
     -----------------------                      ----------------
     Jerry C. Benjamin                            Enrique Maso


     /s/ William C. Black Jr.                     /s/ Gerald D. Knudson
     ------------------------                     ---------------------
     William C. Black Jr.                         Gerald D. Knudson
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2011-0994

Directorate Identifier: 2010NM143AD

A670BA-32-016, RE --- 3/24/10

A670BA-32-016, RD --- 7/31/08

A670BA-32-016, RC --- 9/26/06

A670BA-32-016, RB --- 7/13/06

A670BA-32-016, RA --- 6/7/05

670BA-32-017, RB --- 7/31/08

670BA-32-017, RA --- 9/26/06

670BA-32-017 --- 7/24/06

A670BA-32-020, RD --- 5/14/10

GOODRICH 49000-32-28 --- 11/14/05

GOODRICH 49050-32-34 --- 11/14/05

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.0

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors
Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
Nos. 333-101898, 333-64110, and 333-18051 on Form S-8 and Registration
Statement Nos. 333-01535, 333-32093, 333-46117, 333-58269, 333-30818 and 333-
67506 on Form S-3 of Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated August 17,
2004, except as to Note 2 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statement,
which is as of November 10, 2004 with respect to the consolidated balance
sheets of Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and subsidiaries as of June 30, 2004, and
2003 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
June 30, 2004, and the related consolidated financial statement schedule,
which report appears in the June 30, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K/A of
Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Our report refers to the Company's restatement of its consolidated financial
statements for the year ended June 30, 2004.

/s/ KPMG LLP



Short Hills, New Jersey
November 10, 2004


                                      E-42
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 Endexx Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March
31, 2023, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven Plumb, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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/
    Steven Plumb          | 
|----------------------------- | 
|Steven Plumb                  | 
|Chief Financial Officer       | 
|(Principal Financial Officer) | 



Dated:
May 22, 2023



The
certification set forth above is being furnished as an exhibit solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is
not being filed as part of the Report as a separate disclosure document of the Company or the certifying officers.



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting
the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 21, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 13110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03558]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

    The National Science Board's NSB-NSF Commission on Merit Review 
(MRX), Committee on Awards and Facilities (A&F), and Committee on 
Strategy (CS) hereby give notice of the scheduling of meetings for the 
transaction of National Science Board business pursuant to the National 
Science Foundation Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act.

TIME AND DATE: The three meetings will be held on Tuesday, February 20, 
2024. The MRX meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Eastern. 
The A&F meeting will be held from 1:00 p.m.-2:00 p.m. and will resume 
at 3:30 p.m.-5:00 p.m. Eastern. The joint A&F and CS meeting will be 
held from 2:00 p.m.-3:30 p.m. Eastern.

PLACE: The meetings will be held virtually and in person at NSF 
headquarters, 2145 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22314, and by 
videoconference.

STATUS: The meetings are closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
    MRX agenda: Commission Chair's opening remarks; Discussion of Big 
Ten Listening Session; Discussion of Preliminary Recommendations and 
Suggestions; and Closing remarks.
    A&F agenda: Opening Remarks: Context of National Solar Observatory 
Operations and Management Award; and Discussion of ASTRO2020 Decadal 
Recommendations and vote on proposed resolution.
    Joint A&F/CS agenda: Opening Remarks by committee chairs; 
Discussion of Budget Context and Planning for Future Major Facilities; 
and Discussion of Next Steps.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Point of contact for this meeting 
is: Michelle McCrackin, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6e03030d0d1c0f0d052e001d0840090118"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="95f8f8f6f6e7f4f6fed5fbe6f3bbf2fae3">[email protected]</span></a>, (703) 292-7000. Members of 
the public can observe the public portion of this meeting through a 
YouTube livestream. The link is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU9-rjFpghM. Meeting information and updates may be found at www.nsf.gov/nsb.

Ann E. Bushmiller,
Senior Legal Counsel to the National Science Board.
[FR Doc. 2024-03558 Filed 2-16-24; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>