alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### HIGGINS v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 17, 1952.

George R. Ambro, Robert W. Zollinger, Louisville, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Zeb A. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., Faust Y. Simpson, Commonwealth’s Atty., Morganfield, for appellee.

COMBS, Justice.

Jonathan D. Higgins has appealed from a judgment sentencing him to eight years’ imprisonment for the offense of possessing burglar’s tools. KRS 433.120. Higgins was tried on October 8, 1951. His motion and grounds for a new trial was overruled and appeal granted on October 26. He was given until November 26 in which to file his bill of exceptions. No further action was taken in the case until February 4, 1952 at which time Higgins moved the court to reinstate his case on the docket and to permit him to tender a bill of exceptions. The motion was sustained on February 15, 1952 and, there being no objection by the Commonwealth, a bill of exceptions, • containing in narrative form the evidence heard at the trial, was permitted to be filed and made a part of the record.

The Attorney General filed motion in this Court to strike the bill of exceptions and dismiss the appeal. The motion to strike the bill of exceptions was sustained under authority of Titsworth v. Commonwealth, 298 Ky. 814, 184 S.W.2d 228, and cases therein cited. So the only question properly before us is the sufficiency of the indictment. White v. Commonwealth, 225 Ky. 153, 7 S.W.2d 1059. It is sufficient.

*30Although the bill of exceptions is not properly before us, we have examined the entire record and have found no error in Higgins’ conviction.

Judgment affirmed.
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 4.2    
  



August  ,
2001

[Name]

[Address]

Dear Optionee: 


    Pursuant
to the Letter Agreement RE AES Stock Options (the "Agreement") dated as of June 28, 2001, between you and Advanced Enterprise Solutions, Inc., MSC.Software
Corporation ("MSC") hereby notifies you of the following (all capitalized terms not defined herein will have the same meaning as set forth in the Agreement): 


Number of MSC Shares Subject to Assumed Company Options  


    Based on the number of Company Options that were held by you immediately prior to the Merger and were assumed by MSC in the Merger, you now hold options to
purchase            shares of MSC common stock. This number is based on the following calculation, as outlined in the Agreement: 



	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 

	Tyra Option(s)	 	×	 	Exchange Ratio	 	=	 	Option(s) to purchase MSC common stock
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
	 	×	 	9.72854	 	=	 	







Exercise Price Per Share  


    Your exercise price per share of MSC common stock issued upon exercise of the above-mentioned option(s) will be ten (10) cents. 


    Please
acknowledge receipt of this Notice by signing below and returning the Notice to the undersigned. Also, please sign and return the enclosed Lock-up Agreement. Copies
of this Notice and Lock-up Agreement are enclosed for your files. Please note that you must return to MSC copies bearing original signatures and that the receipt by MSC of a signed copy of
the Lock-up Agreement is a condition to the exercise of your options. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at
(714) 444-8638. 



	 	 	Sincerely,
	 	 	 
	 	 	MSC.SOFTWARE CORPORATION
	 	 	Margaret Williams

Chief Financial Officer





	 
	 	 

	ACKNOWLEDGED THIS

   DAY OF            , 2001	 	 
	 	 	 
	Signature:	 	 
	 	 	 
	Print Name:	 	 











QuickLinks


Exhibit 4.2
|                                                                          
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                          
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                            
|View History: Annual                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                      
|View History:                                                             
|                                                                          
|No chart available.                                                       
|No chart available.                                                       
|                                                                          
|                                                                          
|Utah Shale Proved Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 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
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-12-000105515-APR-201310:04 AM
| **GENERAL (Details)**            | 6 Months Ended |
|----------------------------------|----------------|
||
| **Fiscal Period [Line Items]**   |           |
| Fiscal Year Minimum Week Period  | 1 year         |
| Fiscal Year Maximum Weeks Period | 1 year 7 days  |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Fiscal Period [Line Items]
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**pvh_FiscalPeriodLineItems**Namespace Prefix:**pvh_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Maximum weeks comprising the Company's fiscal year ending on the Sunday closest to February 1.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**pvh_FiscalYearMaximumWeeksPeriod**Namespace Prefix:**pvh_**Data Type:**us-types:durationStringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Minimum weeks comprising the Company's fiscal year ending on the Sunday closest to February 1.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**pvh_FiscalYearMinimumWeekPeriod**Namespace Prefix:**pvh_**Data Type:**us-types:durationStringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
#### DAVIS v. STATE.

No. 27073.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 23, 1954.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Ewing Werlein, Dist. Atty., King C. Haynie, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for unlawfully operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway *379while under.the influence of intoxicating liquor. The punishment assessed 1⁄8 a fine of $'300 and confinement in the county jail for a period of seven days.

The record is before us without a statement of facts of bills of exception, and all ■matters of procedure appear regular. Therefore, nothing, is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and no motion for rehearing will be permitted to be filed.
#### ROGERS et al. v. WATERS.

No. 12583.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Nov. 4, 1953.

*522Cecil, Keith & Mehaffy, Beaumont, for appellants.

Berger, Swearingen & Williamson, Corpus Christi, for appellee.

POPE, Justice.

This is a venue suit which concerns Section 5 of article 1995, Vernon’s Ann. Civ. Stats. Dr. Earl H. Waters resides in Nueces County. S. J. Rogers and N. Jay Rogers, d/b/a Texas State Optical Company, reside in Jefferson County, Texas. Dr. Waters filed suit against the appellants to obtain a declaratory judgment with reference to a contract between the parties. Under the contract, appellants agreed to hire Dr. Waters as co-manager and optometrist at the office of the Texas State Optical Company at Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas, for a period of ten years, and to pay him a salary of eight thousand dollars per year, together with one-sixth of the net profits of the Corpus Christi office. Venue under Section 5 is not controlled by the place where the contract requires the plaintiff to perform, but by the place where the contractual obligation sued upon requires the defendant to perform. Rorschach v. Pitts, Tex.Sup., 248 S.W.2d 120; Slagle v. Clark, Tex.Civ.App., 237 S.W.2d 430; Johnston v. Bracht, Tex.Civ.App., 237 S.W.2d 364; Timlin v. Odstrcil, Tex.Civ.App., 229 S.W.2d 224; Harris & Beeman v. Koon, Tex.Civ.App., 229 S.W.2d 212; 1 McDonald, § 4.11, pp. 344, 348.

The contract in this case is silent as regards the place the appellants are to perform, and the history of Section 5 shows that the addition of the word “expressly” to the statute, in stating the requirements for fixing venue, was meant to exclude all implications. “By amendment the language of the subdivision was made so plain as to admit of no construction that would fix venue by implication.” Saigh v. Monteith, 147 Tex. 341, 215 S.W.2d 610, 611; Johnston v. Personius, Tex.Civ.App., 242 S.W.2d 471; Slagle v. Clark, Tex.Civ.App., 237 S.W.2d 430; McKinney v. Moon, Tex.Civ.App., 173 S.W.2d 217; Cox v. Bunn, Tex.Civ.App., 160 S.W.2d 101.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is ordered transferred to Jefferson Cqunty.
!,••- 1 1 v < 

## ^ORWiO N 

# TRAVE L DESIGNS , INC . 65 4 Office Parkway • St . Louis , Missour i 6314 1 Phone : 314.432.024 8 • Fax : 314.432.313 7

www.traveldesignsstl.co m March5,201 0 . • ; 1 -vi - T

^ Th e Honorabl e Ra

y LaHood Secretar y U.S . Departmen t o

f Transportatio n 1200 Ne w Jersey Avenue , S E Washington , D.C . 2059 0 Subject : Haned a Combinatio n Service s Allocatio n Proceedin g DOT-OST-2010-001 8 Dea rSecretar

y LaHood , A s a dedicate d trave l partne ro f America n Airlines , I am writin g i n suppor t o f American' s applicatio n t o provid e ne w service fro m Ne

w York' s Joh n F . Kennedy Internationa l Airpor t an d Los Angele s Internationa l Airpor t t o Toky o Internationa l Airpor

t a t Haneda . I recogniz e an d applau d yo u an d th e Obam a administratio n fo ryou rsucces s last Decembe ri n reachin g a landmark Ope n Skie s agreemen t wit h Japan , whic h open s u p Haned a to service b y U.S . airlines . I encourag e you rselectio n of America n Airline s to provid e nonsto p service fro m Ne w Yor k an d Los Angele s t o Haned a i n orde rto provid e a n essentia l connectio n betwee n thre e o f th e world s largest financia l an d commerc e centers . Recen t events , includin g th e successfu l preservatio n o f Japa n Airlines ' OneWorl d Allianc e membership , hav e underscore d American' s stron g commitmen t to th e trans-Pacifi c market . America n i s likewis e committe d to Ne w York an d Lo s Angele s - bot h vita l foca l points o f business , trade , entertainment, , technolog y an d educatio n - providin g unsurpasse d ai rservice since th e mid-1900s . Bot h th e Ne

w Yor k an d Los Angele s metr

o areas wil l gai n significan t economi c benefits fro m thes e propose d ne w flights , a s wil l American' s customer s an d employees . However , w e nee d you rhel p t o mak

e th e JF K& LAX/Haned a connectio n a reality . Therefore , I strongl y urg e yo u to sa y ye s to America n Airline s an d its reques t fo rslots to fl y fro m Kennedy an d Lo s Angele s to Haneda . Sincerely ,

Genera l Manage r^

/
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4656 Introduced in House (IH)]

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.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN EYELASH CURLERS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Eyelash curlers,    Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          nonthermic and                                                    12/31/2015
                          nonornamental
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          9615.90.20)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31
                                                                     ----------



                                 CERTIFICATION

          I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

          1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports
          on Form 8-K containing distribution and servicing reports filed in
          respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual
          report, of CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2005-3;

          2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as
          a whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this
          annual report;

          3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
          required to be provided to the trustee by the master servicer under
          the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in
          these reports is included in these reports;

          4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
          master servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar,
          agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance
          review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the
          reports, the master servicer has fulfilled its obligations under
          that agreement; and

          5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
          master servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards
          based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant,
          after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single
          Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as
          set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that
          is included in these reports.

          In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
          information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
          The Bank of New York, as Trustee.

          Date: March 27, 2006

                                      /s/ Steve Bailey
                                      ----------------
                                      Steve Bailey
                                      Senior Managing Director
|                                                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                                    
|View History:                                                                           
|                                                                                        
|Calif--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Shale Proved Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                        
|                                                                                        
|Calif--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Shale Proved Reserves Acquisitions (Billion 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                                                                                                                            |        | 0      | 0      | 0      | 14     | 0      | 0      | 0      | 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *863Richard Davis, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was charged in a multiple-count indictment with the commission of various sex offenses upon his 12-year-old niece on various occasions beginning in September 1987 and ending on April 21, 1988. Upon the conclusion of proof and prior to summations, the People moved to amend the indictment to conform with the complainant’s testimony that the first sexual encounter occurred about two weeks after she began living with her aunt and defendant in July 1987. The People’s application was timely *(see,*CPL 200.70 [1]; *People v Johnson,*115 AD2d 794). Defendant failed to demonstrate any prejudice by the amendment *(see, People v Johnson, supra),*and thus the trial court did not err in granting the amendment.

Defendant’s contention that the complainant’s testimony was incredible as a matter of law, and therefore that the verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidence and was against the weight of evidence, is without merit. The record fails to demonstrate that her testimony was " 'impossible of belief because it [was] manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory’ ” *(People v Stroman,*83 AD2d 370, 373; *see also, People v Christian,*139 AD2d 896, *lv denied*71 NY2d 1024).

Also without merit are defendant’s contentions that he was deprived of a fair trial by the trial court’s preliminary instruction that defense counsel was required to give an opening statement outlining the evidence he would present or by trial publicity and demonstrations in front of the courthouse during the trial. The court’s statement concerning defense counsel’s obligation to give an opening statement was in error *(see,*CPL 260.30 [4]), but the error was isolated and harmless. Defense counsel, in his opening, noted that he was not obligated to make an opening statement but had opted to do so, and on several occasions, the court unambiguously instructed the jury that the defendant had no burden to offer evidence or prove anything at the trial. Defendant did not ask the court to inquire whether a juror had been influenced by pretrial or trial publicity and failed to demonstrate that any juror came into contact with any prejudicial material or demonstrators *(see, People v Agron,*10 NY2d 130, 142, *cert denied*368 US 922; *People v Santarelli,*148 AD2d 775).

The court’s statement at sentencing concerning the ordeal suffered by the complainant in testifying about the sexual acts committed by defendant does not indicate that defendant was being punished for insisting upon his constitutional right to a *864trial *(cf., Bordenkircher v Hayes,*434 US 357; *People v Spencer,*144 AD2d 310, *lv denied*73 NY2d 983; *People v Patterson,*106 AD2d 520). The sentence imposed was lawful, and, in view of the egregious nature of the crimes, was not harsh or excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Ontario County Court, Reed, J.— sodomy, second degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.