alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### KENNEDY v. STATE.

No. 24167.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 24, 1948.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1949.

Ennis Favors, of Stephenville, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is driving, a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated. The punishment assessed is confinement in the county jail for a period of 100 days and a fine of $150.

The statement of facts in this case is in question and answer form, which is not in accordance with the statute relative thereto. The trial court no doubt realized that the statement of facts in criminal cases must be in narrative form and sought to avoid the application of the law by certifying that the regular court reporter was not available; that due to the inexperience of the stenographer who reported the evidence in this case, it was necessary that the statement of facts be in question and answer form in order to incorporate all proceedings herein presented in the trial court.

The reasons assigned by the trial court in his certificate is an attempt to enlarge the scope of Art. 760, Sec. 1, C.C.P., as amended in 1931, which requires that the statement of facts be in narrative form. Neither the trial court nor this court would be authorized to disregard the mandatory provisions of the statute. Consequently, the statement of facts cannot be considered by this court. See Webb v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 215 S.W.2d 178.

Appellant has a number of bills of exception in the record, but they cannot be properly appraised in the absence of a statement of facts.

All other matters appear to be regular. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant contends in his motion that because of the inexperience of the reporter taking down the testimony in this case and *209the certificate of the judge trying the same to such reporter’s inability to prepare a narrative form of statement of facts, that we should therefore consider the question and answer form of the statement of facts. He also contends that the failure to consider same deprives him of his rights under the law; that art. 760, C.C.P., is merely directory, not mandatory. It will be noted that such Article. 760, supra, in Section 7 thereof, provides for an independent statement of facts which may be prepared by the parties thereto, either from the notes of the reporter, or otherwise, and does not of necessity have to be made by the re-. porter, but could be made by the attorney, and of course, must be agreed to and approved by the proper parties. We cannot be expected to go through the 30 unnumbered pages of questions and answers for the reason that same comes to us so certified by the trial court because of the inability of the reporter to prepare a narrative form thereof.

The motion for a rehearing will be overruled.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4656 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain eyelash curlers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2012 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain eyelash curlers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN EYELASH CURLERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Eyelash curlers, nonthermic and nonornamental (provided for in 

subheading 9615.90.20) .... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4656 IH

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
KENNETH J. KENDRICK
,
Petitioner,

v.

JULIE L. JONES, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
, Respondent. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTIO N FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 4304

Opinion filed April 19, 2017.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

-- Original Jurisdiction

. Kenneth J. Kendrick, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Brett Col eman, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits

.
ROWE, OSTERHAUS, and WINOKUR, JJ.

, CONCUR.
|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                        
|View History: Annual                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                  
|View History:                                                         
|                                                                      
|Indiana Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)
|                                                                      
|                                                                      
|Indiana Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)
|                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 8     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 8      | 7      | 13     | 8      | 8      | 8      | 4      | 5      | W      | W     
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                             
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)               
|View History: Annual                                         
|View History: Annual                                         
|View History:                                                
|                                                             
|Montana Natural Gas Processed in Montana (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                             
|                                                             
|Montana Natural Gas Processed in Montana (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        | 11,185 | 11,206 | 12,493 | 12,507 | 12,862 | 11,657 | 10,664 | 9,032  | 8,546 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 6,353  | 7,253  | 7,005  |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4673 

To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures containing Trifloxystrobin and 

Propiconazole. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2012 

Mr. CLEAVER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures containing 

Trifloxystrobin and Propiconazole. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MIXTURES CONTAINING TRIFLOXYSTROBIN 

4 AND PROPICONAZOLE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4673 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Mixtures containing Methyl 

(αE)-α-(methoxyimino)-2- 

[[[(E)-[1-[3- 

(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]ethylidene]- 

amino]oxy]methyl]- 

benzeneacetate 

(Trifloxystrobin) (CAS 

141517–21–7) and 1-[[2- 

(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4- 

propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2- 

yl]methyl]-1,2,4-triazole 

(Propiconazole) (CAS 

60207–90–1), including 

application adjuvants provided for in subheading 

3808.91.50 ........................ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 4.1                 [Specimen Stock Certificate]


================================================================================
                                    (obverse)

                            REFERRAL HOLDINGS COMPANY



This is to certify that ________________________________ is the owner of

________________________________________________________ fully paid and

non-assessable shares of the above Corporation transferrable only on the books

of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized Attorney

upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed.


Witness, the seal of the Corporation and the signatures of its duly authorized
officers.

Dated _______


                                 [              ]
         ---------------------   [     SEAL     ]     ------------------------
             President           [              ]            Secretary



Transfer Agent: Innovation Capital, L.P.
44 Phillips Farm Rd., Marshfield, MA 02050

================================================================================

                                    [reverse]



                             [ Power of Attorney ]





================================================================================
Order entered April 24, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00499-CV

CHERYL LYNN SMITH, Appellant

V.

FIFTH THIRD MORTGAGE, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-00845-D

ORDER

The Court has before it appellee’s April 22, 2013 motion for substitution of counsel. The 

Court GRANTS the motion and DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to substitute Lorin M. Subar 

as counsel for appellee in place of Israel Saucedo.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2192 Engrossed in House (EH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2192

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To exempt for an additional 4-year period, from the application of the 
means-test presumption of abuse under chapter 7, qualifying members of 
  reserve components of the Armed Forces and members of the National 
 Guard who, after September 11, 2001, are called to active duty or to 
     perform a homeland defense activity for not less than 90 days.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Guard and Reservist Debt 
Relief Extension Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVISTS DEBT RELIEF AMENDMENT.

    Section 4(b) of the National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Act 
of 2008 (Public Law 110-438; 122 Stat. 5000) is amended by striking 
``3-year'' and inserting ``7-year''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 29, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2192

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To exempt for an additional 4-year period, from the application of the 
means-test presumption of abuse under chapter 7, qualifying members of 
  reserve components of the Armed Forces and members of the National 
 Guard who, after September 11, 2001, are called to active duty or to 
     perform a homeland defense activity for not less than 90 days.
```
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 12, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41033

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PEDRO SANTILLANO-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-2340-ALL

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Pedro SantillanoRodriguez raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held

that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0324 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-CE-008-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: G. Keith Noles Date

Branch Manager Date
**ON REHEARING**

**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7**  **712**

ROBERT W. JOHNSON , P laintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
JAY VANNOY; DAVID B. FREEDMAN; TOM E. HORNE; LEIGH C. BRICKER , Defendants

- Appellee s .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Statesville

. Frank D. Whitney , Chief District Judge. ( 5 :14

- c v - 0 0055

- FDW )

Submitted : May 19, 2015 Decided: May 29, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges

.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Robert W. Johnson , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Robert W. Johnson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit as frivolous

. We previously dismissed this appeal as untimely. Johnson has now filed a petition for panel rehearing. Upon review of the pet ition, we grant panel rehearing and affirm.

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because
Johnson’ s informal brief s do not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Johnson has forfeited appellate
review of the court’s order. Accordingly , we affirm the
district court ’ s judgment

. We also deny Johnson’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before th is court and argument would not aid the
dec isional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporationby reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-167531 and 333-156566 on Form S-3 and in Registration Statements Nos. 333-144713 and 333-150996 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 14, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statementsof Encore Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”), and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Encore Bancshares, Inc. for the year endedDecember 31, 2010. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Houston, Texas 

March 14, 2011
|                                                                          
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                          
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                            
|View History: Annual                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                      
|View History:                                                             
|                                                                          
|Kansas Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Adjustments (Million Barrels)
|                                                                          
|                                                                          
|Kansas Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Adjustments (Million Barrels)
|                                                                          

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 20    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 61     | 22     | 7      | -35    | -5     | 26     | 92     | -10    | 48     | 20    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | -1     | 10     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
#### GRAY v. STATE.

No. 27057.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 23, 1954.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, (Judge.

The offense is the unlawful sale of wine in a dry area; the punishment, 30 days in jail and a fine of $500.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

*378‘All the ■ i proceeding's appearing regular and nothing being presented for our review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained.