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

No. 27237.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 8, 1954.

E. A. Blair, Lubbock, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for' possession of beer-in a dry area, a prior, conviction for a like offense being alleged for the purpose of obtaining an enhanced punishment; the punishment, 120 days in jail and a fine of $300.

. D. L. Young, a police officer of the City of Lubbock, while patrolling alone, observed appellant standing at the -rear of a car, the trunk lid of which was- open. A sm,all boy was standing at -the side of the car, and Officer Young saw him pull a box out of the car and set it down. As the of-, ficer drov-e up appellant shut the' trunk lid, of the car, and as he stopped, the small boy-opened the box he had removed from the car, pulled therefrom a bottle which' he broke across the front bumper of the car and ran off. ■ ; ,

At that time appellant Went arouná the car, grabbed a bottle from the box and broke it across the car bumper. He had another bottle in his hand which Officer Young took from him and replaced in the box. '

The box proved to be a ¡carton originally containing 12 quart bottles of Schlitz.-beer, 9 quarts of which remained in the box in-addition to the one taken from appellant’s hand and the two which were broken as the officer arrived.

In reply to the inquiry of the police of7 ficer, appellant said that the beer belonged to him.

The prior conviction alleged was established and it was stipulated that the area was dry.

We find the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction.

In addition to his attack upon the sufficiency of the evidence, appellant in his brief complains of the admission of the statement of appellant to the effect that the beer belonged to him.

The informal bill of exception.relied upon is not indexed in the statement of facts and cannot be considered. Also, testimony to the same effect was offered without objection at a later time in the trial.

The judgment is affirmed.
|                                                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                                    
|View History:                                                                           
|                                                                                        
|Texas--RRC District 4 onsh Shale Proved Reserves Revision Increases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                        
|                                                                                        
|Texas--RRC District 4 onsh Shale Proved Reserves Revision Increases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 66     | 792    | 253    | 174    | 335    | 194    | 6,723  | 1,944  | 226    | 36    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 90     | 2,233  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
----

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005 — Honeywell International Inc. v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-209/01) (1)

(Action for annulment - Competition - Commission decision declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Ineffectiveness of a partial challenge to the decision - Aeronautical markets - Action that cannot lead to annulment of the decision)

(2006/C 48/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Honeywell International Inc. (Morristown, New Jersey (United States)) (represented by: K. Lasok QC and F. Depoortere, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal, P. Hellström and F. Siredey-Garnier, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Rolls-Royce plc (London, United Kingdom, represented by A. Renshaw, Solicitor) and Rockwell Collins, Inc. (Cedar Rapids, Iowa, United States, represented by T. Soames, J. Davies, A. Ryan, Solicitors, and P. Camesasca, lawyer)

Application for

the annulment of Commission Decision 2004/134/EC of 3 July 2001 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/M.2220 — General Electric/Honeywell) (OJ 2004 L 48, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

----

(1)OJ C 331 of 24. 11. 2001.

----
Exhibit
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-147433 on Form S-3, and Registration Statement Nos. 333-161352,
333-141207, and 333-130147 on Form S-8, of our report dated February 27, 2009
(December 18, 2009 as to Note 23)  relating to the consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedules of International Coal
Group, Inc. and subsidiaries (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and
includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the retrospective adoption of FASB
Staff Position APB 14-1, “Accounting for Convertible Debt Instruments That May
Be Settled in Cash upon Conversion (Including Partial Cash Settlement)” in the
2008 and 2007 consolidated financial statements), and of our report dated
February 27, 2009, relating to the effectiveness of International Coal Group,
Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K/A of International Coal Group, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2008.





/s/ Deloitte &
      Touche LLPCincinnati,
      OhioDecember
      18, 2009
#### In the Matter of Lawrence Epps, Appellant, v Donna Hunt, as Inmate Records Coordinator of Shawangunk Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Cobb, J.), entered November 13, 1989 in Ulster County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition on the ground of res judicata.

Petitioner was convicted, sentenced and incarcerated in New York in 1977. He then was extradited to Georgia, where he was convicted of numerous crimes relating to an earlier escape. Georgia authorities returned petitioner to New York to complete his New York sentences and filed commitment detainers, which petitioner concedes were valid, so that petitioner would be sent to Georgia upon completion of his New York commitment. In 1981, petitioner was unsuccessful in a CPLR article 78 proceeding to vacate the commitment detainers and no appeal was perfected. Thereafter, Georgia Superior Court modified petitioner’s Georgia sentence in a minor respect and Georgia officials reiterated to New York officials their desire to assume custody of petitioner when his New York sentences were concluded.

*790Petitioner then requested respondent to vacate the Georgia detainers because of the modification of his Georgia sentence. Petitioner was advised that only the issuing authority could lift a commitment detainer. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to vacate the detainers. Respondent moved to dismiss and Supreme Court, finding that the proceeding was barred by the unsuccessful 1981 proceeding, granted the motion. This appeal followed.

Even if the relief requested is not barred by petitioner’s unsuccessful 1981 CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking the same result, we affirm the judgment dismissing the petition. New York courts have no authority to dismiss out-of-State detainers except when the Interstate Agreement on Detainers *(see,*CPL 580.20) is violated *(see, Matter of Beauchene v Coughlin,*122 AD2d 303, 304). This agreement applies only to detainers based on an untried indictment, information or complaint *(see, People ex rel. Capalongo v Howard,*87 AD2d 242, 244; *see also, Carchman v Nash,*473 US 716, 727). The detainers issued by Georgia in this case relate to convictions and unserved prison sentences and are not based on any untried indictment, information or complaint so that the Interstate Agreement on Detainers does not apply *(see, People v Randolph,*85 Misc 2d 1022, 1024-1025). Accordingly, there is no authority for the courts of this State to vacate the Georgia detainers and respondent’s motion to dismiss was properly granted.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
(November 27, 1990)

#### Scientific Coating Company, Inc., Appellant, v New York Convention Center Development Corporation, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered on or about February 26, 1990, unanimously affirmed, for the reasons stated by Beverly Cohen, J., without costs and without disbursements. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer  Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      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 registrant, 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)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: March 15, 2010
    By:
    /s/    Edward J. WhalenEdward J. WhalenPresident and Chief Executive Officer
|                                                                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                    
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                                
|View History:                                                                                       
|                                                                                                    
|New Mexico - West Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                    
|                                                                                                    
|New Mexico - West Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 14     | 35     | 0      | 17    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 12     | 5      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [NM-930-1310-01; TXNM 100592]

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gloria S. Baca, Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico State Office, (505) 438-7566.

Dated: September 14, 2000.

Gloria S. Baca,

Land Law Examiner.

[FR Doc. 00-24686  Filed 9-25-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-FB-M
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 23

- 13898
Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________
SKYE ELLEN MUSSON,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus SHALENA COOK JONES, in her individual and official capacities,

Defendant

- Appellant,

CHATHAM COUNTY, GEORGIA, et al.,

Defendants. USCA11 Case: 23-13898 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 12/20/2023 Page: 1 of 22 Opinion of the Court 23

- 13898

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 4:22

- cv

- 00124

- RSB

- CLR

____________________ Before Wilson, Rosenbaum, and Grant, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte , for lack of jurisdiction. Shalena Cook Jones appeals from the district court’s order that struck Jones’s answer, entered default against her, and award ed Skye Musson all reasonable costs, attorney’s fees, and expenses as a sanction for discovery obligations . We lack jurisdiction to revie w the court’s sanction order because it did not determine the amount of costs, attorney’s fees, and expenses for which Jones is responsible, and it is therefore not final and appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; PlayNation Play Sys., Inc. v. Velex Corp. , 939 F.3d 1205,1212 (11th Cir. 2019). Additionally, the sanction order is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because it d id not conclusively determine the disputed question of the amount for which Jones is responsible. See Plaint iff A v. Schair , 744 F.3d 1247, 1253 (11th Cir. 2014). No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40

- 3 and all other applicable rules. USCA11 Case: 23-13898 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 12/20/2023 Page: 2 of 2
|                                                                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                 
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                             
|View History: Annual                                                                             
|View History:                                                                                    
|                                                                                                 
|California (with State off) Shale Proved Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                 
|California (with State off) 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1      | 0      | 2      | 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
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.55



                  [LETTERHEAD OF EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.]


                                  June 8, 2001

VIA FACSIMILE
-------------


Chief Financial Officer
Aquis Communications Group, Inc.
1719A Route 10, Suite 300
Parsippany, NJ 07054
Attn: D. Brian Plunkett

Dear Mr. Plunkett:

         Our client, AMRO International, S.A. ("AMRO"), has authorized us to
advise you that they agree to extend the term of that certain Forbearance
Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated April 13, 2001, by and between Aquis
Communications Group, Inc. (the "Company") and AMRO, end on December 31, 2001
rather than 180 days from the date of the Agreement. Nothing herein shall
nullify or void the provisions in the Agreement that terminate the Agreement in
the event (i) the Company defaults on any material agreement and the other party
to such agreement enforces its rights against the company thereunder, (ii) the
Company terminates its retention of Pirinate Consulting Group, LLC ("Pirinate")
under the agreement entered into between Pirinate and the Company, or (iii)
Pirinate notifies AMRO of its good faith belief that the Company is not
cooperating with Pirinate in its efforts to consult with and assist the Company
pursuant to the terms of the said consulting agreement.


                                        Very truly yours,


                                        /s/ Robert Charron
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Robert Charron


cc: Joseph P. Galda, Esq.
    Thomas Badian
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4764 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Potassium decafluoro(pentafluorethyl) 

cyclohexanesulfonate. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2012 

Mr. NEAL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Potassium 

decafluoro(pentafluorethyl) cyclohexanesulfonate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. POTASSIUM 

4 DECAFLUORO(PENTAFLUORETHYL) 

5 CYCLOHEXANESULFONATE. 

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

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4764 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Potassium 

decafluoro(pentafluorethyl) 

cyclohexanesulfonate (CAS 

No. 67584–42–3) (provided for in subheading 

2904.90.50) ....................... 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