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

No. 24780.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 24, 1950.

*224E. T. Miller, Amarillo, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of rape and the jury assessed his punishment at 20 years in the penitentiary.

Subsequent to sentence and notice of appeal, upon a trial in the court in which he was convicted, appellant was adjudged to be insane, and was committed to a state hospital.

As a patient adjudged insane in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant shall not under any circumstances be permitted to temporarily leave the hospital. See Art. 3193j, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St.

But should appellant become sane, and upon notice of such fact being given to the judge of the trial court, a jury empaneled to determine his sanity shall find appellant sane, this appeal may be further prosecuted. See Arts. 921-932 and Art. 932a, Sec. 3, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

These statutes apply to this court as well as in the trial court. See Jones v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. ISO, 128 S.W.2d 815; and Williams v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 585, 124 S.W.2d 990.

The motion to suspend "further proceedings is granted and the clerk of this court is directed to retire this case from the docket until it shall be properly shown to this court that appellant has been restored to sanity.

Opinion approved by the Court.
|                                                                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                   
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                                               
|View History: Annual                                                                                               
|View History:                                                                                                      
|                                                                                                                   
|Lower 48 States Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves New Reservoir in Old Fields (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                                   
|Lower 48 States Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves New Reservoir in Old Fields (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 14    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 8      | 29     | 7      | 24     | 12     | 3      | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
Ordered in the Southern District of Floridaon March 21, 2006.                    UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT                     SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA                       WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION                         www.flsb.uscourts.govIN RE:                                          CASE NO. 04-35435-BKC-SHFeCom eCom.com, Inc.                             CHAPTER 11Debtor.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE     I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of theOrder Granting Debtor-In-Possession's Ex-Parte Motion For Reconsideration Of Order Disapproving Employment Of Debtor's Auditors Nunc Pro Tunc To November 29, 2004 And for Entry Of An Order Approving Retention Of Auditors was served viaU.S. mail to all parties listed on the attached Service List on this 29th day of March, 2006.     I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am admitted to the Bar of theUnited States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and I am in compliance with the additional qualifications to practice in this court set forth in Local Rule 2090-1 (A).KLUGER, PERETZ, KAPLAN & BERLIN,P.L.Attorneys for Debtor-in-PossessionMiami Center, Seventeenth Floor201 So. Biscayne Blvd.Miami, Florida 33131Telephone: (305) 379-9000Facsimile: (305) 379-3428                                                 Steven H. Friedman, Judge                                                United States Bankruptcy Court                          UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT                           SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA                             WEST PALM BEACH DIVISIONIN RE                                   CASE NOS. 04-35435-SHFeCom eCom.com, Inc. Debtor.                                 Chapter 11 Proceedings     ORDER GRANTING DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION'S EX-PARTE MOTIONFOR    RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DISAPPROVING EMPLOYMENT OF DEBTOR'S    AUDITORS NUNC PRO TUNC TO NOVEMBER 29, 2004 AND FOR ENTRY OFAN              ORDER APPROVING RETENTION OF AUDITORSTHIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Debtor's Ex-Parte Motion forReconsideration of Order Disapproving Employment of Debtor's Auditors Nunc Pro Tune to November 29, 2004 and for Entry of Order Approving Retention of Auditors (the "Motion"), and the Court, having reviewed the file, having determined that good and sufficient cause exist in support of the relief requested, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED as follows:1.  The Motion is GRANTED.2.  The "Order Disapproving Employment of Debtor's Auditors Nunc Pro Tuncto November 29,2004" entered by the Court on February 23,2006 is hereby vacated.3.  The "Order Approving Employment of Debtor's Auditors Nunc Pro Tunc toNovember 29,2004," which was originally presented by the Debtor, shall be entered by the Court.                                        ###SUBMITTED BY:Michael D. Seese Fla. Bar No. 997323Kluger Peretz Kaplan & Berlin, P.L. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 379-9000 Facsimile: (305) 379-3428 mseese@kpkb.comCopy to: Michael S. Seese [ Attorney Seese is directed to serve a copy of this Order upon all interested parties]Dept:KLUGER, PERETZ, KAPLAN & BERLIN, Pi.{W:\Bankrupt\54180001/M0289578 v.l; 3/3/2006 10:18 AM}
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6222

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEROME WALDEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-95-63, CA-03-77-3) Submitted: April 8, 2003 Decided: April 23, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Walden, Appellant Pro Se. David John Novak, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jerome Walden, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Walden has not made the requisite showing. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , U.S. , 123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### McGILL v. STATE.

No. 26953.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 23, 1954.

Frank D. Wear, Paris, for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge!

The offense is the sale of whiskey in a dry area, with a prior conviction alleged to enhance the punishment; the punishment, one year in' jail and a fine of $500.

The prior opinion herein is withdrawn, and the following substituted in lieu thereof.

In view of our disposition of this cause, a recitation of the facts will not be deemed necessary.

The information herein alleged a prior conviction in Cause No. 5510 in the County Court of Lamar County. Cause No. 5510 was itself an enhancement case in which a prior conviction in Cause No. 4842 was alleged. When the State offered the complaint, information and judgment in Cause No. 5510 in evidence, the appellant objected •to that portion of such instruments which .made reference to Caus.e No. 4842.

The basis of the objection was that Cause No. 4842 was an extraneous offense, had been once successfully used for enhancement purposes and was not admissible for any purpose in this case.

This, exact question does not seem to have arisen before except in Heard v. State, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 19, 184 S.W.2d 285, 286. In that case the accused objected to the introduction of the .information charging the prior offense in its entirety. Judge Hawkins,' in writing' on rehearing, said:

> “Unquestionably it was permissible for the State to prove the conviction of the primary offense charged in Cause No. 2,550 because it was one of the prior convictions relied.on in the present prosecution. If appellant desired the exclusion of the averments as to his prior conviction in No. 2,499 the objection should have been restricted to that part of the information, with a request that the court direct the prosecutor to omit the reading of that part of the information, or a request1 for an instruction that such part of the information be disregarded.”

*399Clearly,.Cause No. 4842 had been' successfully used to enhance the punishment in Cause No. 5510 and could not have been reused in the instant case. The offense in Cause No. 4842 was for transporting liquor and was inadmissible on the question of intent, if intent had been an issue. The trial court fell into error when he failed, in response to appellant’s objection, to exclude the averment as to such prior conviction.

Upon another trial the. prosecutor should refrain from side-bar remarks charging counsel for the appellant with seeking to delay the trial.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted; the judgment of affirmance is set aside; and the judgment is now reversed and the cause remanded.
**Exhibit 32** **CERTIFICATION**  **Pursuant    to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of    2002****(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,    Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**     Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002    (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,    chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of    the undersigned officers of Discovery Holding Company, a    Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby    certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:     The Annual Report on    Form 10-K    for the period ended December 31, 2007 (the    “Form 10-K”)    of the Company fully complies with the requirements of    section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of    1934 and information contained in the    Form 10-K    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial    condition and results of operations of the Company as of    December 31, 2007 and 2006 and for the three years ended    December 31, 2007.        Dated: February 15, 2008 /s/  John    C. Malone
AGREEMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT


     This agreement is entered into between  Summit  Financial  Relations,  Inc.
("Summit") and EasyWeb,  Inc. (The  "Company") as of March 11, 1999. The offices
of the Company are located at 6025 South Quebec  Street,  Suite 150,  Englewood,
Colorado 80111.

     Whereas,  the Company has been  recently  organized  and will need to raise
capital to implement  its business  plan,  however,  it is not expected that the
Company will need extensive office  facilities in the near future until the size
of operations increases significantly; and

     Whereas,  David C. Olson is an officer,  director and principal shareholder
of the Company and is the sole officer, director and shareholder of Summit,

     Now Therefore, the parties agree as follows:

     Starting as of the month when the minimum proceeds from the Company's stock
offering  (planned to start in June or July,  1999) is received by the  Company,
the  Company   shall  be  entitled   to  use  the  office,   office   equipment,
administrative  support and  telecommunications  services which are available at
Summit's  offices,  for which the Company will pay Summit  $1,500 per month,  in
advance, starting in the month when the minimum proceeds from the stock offering
are received by the Company.



     Summit Financial Relations, Inc.

     /s/ David C. Olson
     -------------------------------
     David C. Olson, President



     EasyWeb, Inc.
     -------------------------------
     David C. Olson, President
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4685 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Indaziflam. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2012 

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

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Indaziflam. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INDAZIFLAM. 

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 N-[(1R,2S)-2,3-Dihydro2,6-dimethyl-1H-inden-1- 

yl]-6-[(1RS)-(1- 

fluoroethyl)]-1,3,5-triazine2,4-diamine (Indaziflam) 

(CAS No. 950782–86–2) 

(provided for in subheading 2933.69.60) ......... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4685 IH

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Tom NILES, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 23743.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 29, 1947.

No appearance for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of murder without malice and his punishment assessed at five years in the penitentiary.

Upon the overruling of his motion for a new trial he gave notice of appeal to this court. He now files his personal affidavit advising us that he does not desire to further prosecute his appeal and asks that same be dismissed, and a dismissal of the appeal is here ordered at appellant’s request.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Blaine Bailey, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Jet Gold Corporation.;

2.

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

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrants other certifying officer 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 registrant 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 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)

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; and

c)

disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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; and

b)

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:  May 28, 2007

|                                       |  |                   
|-------------------------------------- |  | ------------------
|By:                                    |  | /s/  Blaine Bailey
|                                       |  |                   
|Blaine Bailey,
Chief Financial Officer
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4866 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on ethene, tetrafluoro, oxidized, 

polymerized reduced, methyl esters, reduced, ethoxylated. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on ethene, 

tetrafluoro, oxidized, polymerized reduced, methyl esters, 

reduced, ethoxylated. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ETHENE, TETRAFLUORO, OXIDIZED, POLYM4 ERIZED REDUCED, METHYL ESTERS, RE5 DUCED, ETHOXYLATED. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.23.17 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

8 Ethene, tetrafluoro, oxidized, polymerized reduced, methyl 

9 esters, reduced, ethoxylated) is amended by striking the 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4866 IH

1 date in the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/ 

2 2015’’. 

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

4 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

5 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

6 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

USA

vs.

(2) Christopher Montoya

§

§

§

§

§

CRIMINAL NO:

SA:20-CR-00095(2)-FB

ORDER CANCELLING BOND REVOCATION HEARING

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case having been set

for BOND REVOCATION HEARING on Tuesday, April 13, 2021 at 11:00 AM is hereby

CANCELLED until further order of the court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall send a copy of this order to

counsel for defendant, the United States Attorney, United States Pretrial Services and the United

States Probation Office. If the defendant is on bond, counsel for the defendant shall notify the

defendant that this matter is cancelled.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of April, 2021.

______________________________

FRED BIERY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cr-00095-FB Document 75 Filed 04/12/21 Page 1 of 1
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4741 

To extend and modify the temporary reduction of duty on Avermectin B. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2012 

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend and modify the temporary reduction of duty on 

Avermectin B. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AVERMECTIN B. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.12.56 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating 

6 Avermectin B) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘3824.90.92 or’’ in the article 

8 description column; 

9 (2) by striking the percentage in the general 

10 rate of duty column and inserting ‘‘2.4%’’ ; and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4741 IH

1 (3) by striking the date in the effective period 

2 column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 subsection (a) apply to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

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

6 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS