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

No. 24550.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 14, 1949.

None on appeal.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for burglary; the punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

The indictment contained three counts. Only the first two counts were submitted to the jury. The first count charged burglary of the house of Sawyer, under art. 1390, P.C.; the second count charged the nighttime burglary of the private residence of Sawyer, under art. 1391, P.C; The jury expressly found appellant guilty under the first count.

It is insisted that the facts do not warrant the conviction.

The house burglarized was the private residence of Sawyer, occupied and actually used by him as such.

According to the testimony of Sawyer, the burglary occurred at night while he and his wife were attending a picture show. He says that he and his wife left home after dark and returned about 11:30 o’clock the same night, at which time the burglary was discovered. According to Sawyer’s testimony, the offense committed was nighttime burglary of his private residence.

Nighttime burglary of -a private residence, art. 1391, P.C., is a separate and distinct offense from that of burglary, generally, art. 1390, P.C., Trevino v. State, 121 Tex.Cr.R. 28, 51 S.W.2d 710.

A conviction for burglary is not sustained 'by proof showing the nighttime burglary of a private residence. Shaffer v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 476, 132 S.W.2d 263; Dodd v. State, 108 Tex.Cr.R. 375, 1 S.W.2d 292; Crawford v. State, 127 Tex.Cr.R. 550, 78 S.W.2d 623.

Because the evidence does not support the conviction, th,e judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.
|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                         
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History:                                                          
|                                                                       
|Ohio Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|Ohio Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1970's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 60     | 65     | 105   
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 137    | 85     | 99     | 179    | 169    | 140    | 149    | 117    | 132    | 130   
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 127    | 132    | 117    | 121    | 119    | 115    | 121    | 105    | 94     | 94    
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 79     | 84     | 87     | 82     | 82     | 76     | 78     | 71     | 79     | 79    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 73     | 76     | 85     | 166    | 477    | 945    | 1,363  | 1,734  | 2,318  | 2,558 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2,313  | 2,206  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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:                                                            
|                                                                         
|Michigan Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                         
|                                                                         
|Michigan Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1970's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 99     | 209    | 106   
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 71     | 98     | 144    | 100    | 105    | 132    | 78     | 157    | 261    | 283   
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 170    | 311    | 248    | 202    | 48     | 315    | 152    | 124    | 288    | 478   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 176    | 524    | 276    | 235    | 360    | 163    | 291    | 210    | 430    | 406   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 378    | 267    | 1,062  | 139    | 90     | 221    | 410    | 73     | 34     | 110   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 187    | 12     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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 4.1

                        SPECIMEN COMMON STOCK CERTIFICATE

Incorporated Under the Laws of the State of North Carolina

This Certifies that _____________ is the owner of ________________ fully paid
and nonassessable shares of the common stock of the par value $1.00 each of
Crescent Financial Corporation transferable on the books of the Corporation by
the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney on surrender of this
certificate properly endorsed.

This certificate is not valid until countersigned and registered by the Transfer
Agent and Registrar.

WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of
its duly authorized officers.

Dated: _______________________

--------------------------                 -------------------------------------
Corporate Secretary                        President and Chief Executive Officer

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

CRESCENT FINANCIAL CORPORATION

The Corporation is authorized to issue preferred stock with such designations,
relative rights, preferences and limitations as may be determined by the Board
of Directors. The preferred stock may be issued in one or more series. Upon
written request of any shareholder, the Corporation will forward, without
charge, the information regarding the preferred stock.

KEEP THIS CERTIFICATE IN A SAFE PLACE. IF IT IS LOST, STOLEN, MUTILIATED OR
DESTROYED, THE CORPORATION WILL REQUIRE A BOND OF INDEMNITY AS A CONDITION TO
THE ISSUANCE OF A REPLACEMENT CERTIFICATE.

The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this
certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full
according to applicable laws or regulations:

TEN COM - as tenants in common
TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties
JT TEN -- as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in
common UGMA/UTMA -- _______ Custodian _________ under Uniform Gifts/Transfers to
Minors Act _____ (State)

Additional abbreviations may also be used though not on the above list.

For value received, _____ hereby sell, assign and transfer unto __________
Shares of the capital stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby
irrevocably constitute and appoint ___________ attorney to transfer the said
stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of
substitution in the premises.

Dated _____________

Signature(s) Guaranteed ______________________
Exhibit 4.11

                         SECOND AMENDED MODIFICATION AGREEMENT

         THIS SECOND AMENDED MODIFICATION AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made as
of August  30,  2001 by and  between  SALES  ONLINE  DIRECT,  INC.,  a  Delaware
corporation (the "Company") and AUGUSTINE FUND, L.P. (the "Buyer").

                                   WITNESSETH

         On March 23, 2000,  the Company and the Buyer entered into a Securities
Purchase  Agreement  pursuant  to which the Buyer  purchased  from the Company a
Series A Eight Percent Convertible Note convertible into shares of the Company's
common stock, par value $.001 per share.

         On January 1, 2001, the parties entered into a Modification  Agreement,
which was amended as of July 15, 2001 ("Amended Modification Agreement").


         NOW, THEREFORE,  for good and valuable  consideration,  the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby  acknowledged,  the Company and the Buyer hereby
agrees that all  references in the  Modification  Agreement to July 15, 2001 are
revised to September  30, 2001 and all  references  in the Amended  Modification
Agreement to August 31, 2001 are revised to September 30, 2001.

         IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  Company  and the  Buyer  have  caused  this
Agreement to be executed under seal as of the date above written.


                                                SALES ONLINE DIRECT


                                                By:  /s/ Gregory Rotman
                                                     --------------------
                                                     Name:  Gregory Rotman
                                                     Title:  President

                                                AUGUSTINE FUND, L.P.

                                                By:  /s/ John T. Porter
                                                     --------------------
                                                     Name:  John T. Porter
                                                     Title: President, Augustine
                                                         Capital Management, LLC
#### Leroy THOMASON, alias Leroy Bachhefofer, alias Crip Thomason, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 23270.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 7, 1945.

Stanley Bransford, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

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

*47DAVIDSON, Judge.

The offense is theft; the punishment, ten years in the penitentiary.

Appellant has filed his personal affidavit stating that he no longer desires to prosecute his appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at appellant’s request.

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.
#### TURNER et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCOTTSVILLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 26, 1954.

*322Joseph R. Rubin, Franklin P. Hays and Hays & Fahey, Louisville, for appellants.

Douglass Keen, Scottsville, for appellees.

STANLEY, Commissioner.

The question of whether an annual special school tax should be levied for the erection and improvement of public school facilities of Scottsville was submitted at the November, 1953, election. KRS 160.477. The result was 1079 “yes” and 127 “no” votes.

The peculiar form of the question on the ballots has raised doubt -as to. the validity of the election. The material part of the question is: “Are you for or against levying in Scottsville independent school district each year for 20 years a special school building fund tax * * **”. The question itself is as, quizzical as the old one: “Have you stopped beating your wife?” In Armstrong v. Fiscal Court, 162 Ky. 564, 3-72 S.W. 972, a similarly formed question required a definite “yes” or “no” answer. We were constrained to hold that the submission was so unintelligible and confusing that the intention of the voters-could not be reasonably ascertained, and that the election was, therefore, void. In the present case, however, below the question the voters were directed how to vote reasonably but imperfectly, for they were asked to vote whether or not they favored the “question” and not the tax. This is the form:

> “If you favor the above question, stamp in this . square YES—□

> If you oppose the question, stamp in this square NO—□”

 There was wide publicity of the election and the advocates of the tax had made it very clear in the advertisements that a “yes” vote was one which favored the tax. The statute, KRS 160.477, does not set forth a specific form (as does that for an election on the issuance of bonds, as in the Armstrong case), but merely says that the question shall be framed so that the. voters may answer “for” or “against.” However, in the provision for submission of a constitutional amendment “or other public measure” the answer shall be “yes” or “no.” KRS 118.170., It is a familiar rule that if the intention of a voter can be reasonably ascertained, the ballot should be counted. The test as to the form in which a public question is submitted is whether the voters are afforded an opportunity to express and do fairly express their will. 43 Am.Jur., Public Securities and Obligations, Sec. 90. We concur in the opinion of Judge R'odes, which is in full as follows:

> “Notwithstanding the clumsy method employed at the foot of the ballot, I am convinced the issue before the people was clearly understood. No one was misled and none deceived. I am impelled to follow the voice of the people when the issue is so decisively declared.”

Judgment affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 98-CP-00060-SCT

MYRON VINCENT ROWE

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/16/97

TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JOHN H. WHITFIELD

COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: PRO SE

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS

NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST CONVICTION RELIEF

DISPOSITION: MOTION FOR REHEARING DENIED - 04/15/1999

MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: 01/25/1999

MANDATE ISSUED: 4/22/99

EN BANC.

WALLER, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. The Harrison County Grand Jury indicted Myron Vincent Rowe on October 13, 1994, for the murder

of Robert, a transient. Rowe moved for dismissal of the murder charge against him on April 12, 1995,

based on his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. Rowe argued the State had failed to prosecute him

within 270 days as required by law. Judge Whitfield denied Rowe's motion on June 15, 1995. That same

day, Rowe pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to eighteen years in the custody of the

Mississippi Department of Corrections.

¶2. Rowe petitioned for post-conviction relief on December 9, 1996. Rowe argued his Sixth Amendment

right to a speedy trial had been violated because the State failed to bring him to trial within 270 days as

required by law. Rowe's petition for post-conviction relief was denied December 19, 1997. Rowe timely

appealed.

¶3. This Court has found that a guilty plea waives the right to a speedy trial, whether that right is of

constitutional or statutory origin. Anderson v. State, 577 So. 2d 390, 391-92 (Miss. 1991).

¶4. In Anderson the Court stated:

[W]e have recognized that a valid guilty plea operates as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional rights or

defects which are incident to trial. Ellzey v. State, 196 So. 2d 889, 892 (Miss. 1967). We have
generally included in this class "those [rights] secured by the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments

to the Constitution of the United States, as well as those comparable rights secured by Sections 14

and 26, Article 3, of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890." Sanders v. State, 440 So. 2d 278, 283

(Miss. 1983); see also Jefferson v. State, 556 So. 2d 1016, 1019 (Miss. 1989). We take this

opportunity to specifically include in that class of waivable or forfeitable rights the right to a

speedy trial, whether of constitutional or statutory origin.

Anderson, 577 So. 2d at 391-92. (emphasis added).

¶5. In the case sub judice, Rowe's guilty plea was given voluntarily. As stated in the Anderson decision,

the right to a speedy trial is waivable. Therefore, the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief was proper.

As a result, Rowe's motion for rehearing is denied.

¶6. MOTION FOR REHEARING DENIED.

PRATHER, C.J., SULLIVAN AND PITTMAN, P.JJ., BANKS, McRAE, SMITH AND MILLS,

JJ., CONCUR. COBB, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
|                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                  
|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 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
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|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
ACTIO N 

## SlO-110119-01 5 Pettiford , Mari e (OST ) CONTRO LN O 

### From : Sent : To : Subject : Howell , Rind a K(HSS ) [rinda.howell@alaska.gov ] Wednesday , January19 , 201 1 12:3 3 P M LaHood . Ray(OST ) Alask a Airline s Essentia l Servic e t o S E Alask a Honorabl e Ra

yLaHood , M yhusban d has cance ran d w e nee d t o trave l bac k an d fort h t o Seattl e fo rtreatments . I t i s essentia l an d has helpe d tremendousl yt o have a n ai rservic e i n ou rcommunit yespeciall yo n th e retur n trip s whe n h e i s wea k an d unabl e t o lif t anything . Sometime s h e i s i n a wheelchai ro n th e retur n trip . Havin g Alaska Airline s her e ha s bee n a hug e hel p an d w e sincerel yhop e yo u wil l continu e thi s servic e fo rS E Alaska . Than k yo u fo ryou rtim e an d efforts , Mik e an d Rind a Howel l

— 1 

## V e n e n Cv

O
EXHIBIT 10.1

                            Shell Capital Letterhead





August 13, 2001

Mr. Michael B. Young
Treasurer
Chaparral Resources, Inc.
16945 Northchase Drive
Suite 1620
Houston, Texas 77060

Re:  Waiver of Default

Dear Michael:

By letter dated August 9, 2001, Chaparral Resources, Inc. ("Chaparral") advised
us that KKM has failed to pay trade payables in an amount of $151,764 for an
excess of 90 days. Under Section 17.4(a) of the Loan Agreement dated November 1,
1999, as amended May 31, 2001, among Chaparral Resources, Inc., as Borrower,
Central Asian Petroleum (Guernsey) Limited, Central Asian Petroleum, Inc. and
Closed Type JSC Karakudukmunay as Co-Obligors, Shell Capital Services Limited,
as Arranger, Facility Agent and Modeller, Shell Capital Inc. as Bridge Lender,
and the Lenders listed therein, the failure to timely pay such obligations is an
event of default. Shell Capital Inc. hereby confirms that it will forego
exercising its rights arising from such default through September 30, 2001.

You also advised that Chaparral's common stock was delisted from NASDAQ trading
on August 9, 2001. Such delisting is a violation of Section 16.1(b) of the Loan
Agreement. Shell Capital hereby confirms that it will forego exercising its
rights arising from such default.

These waivers shall immediately terminate upon the occurrence of any further or
other event of default under the Loan Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt,
these waivers do not constitute any actual or implied waiver of any right or
remedy of the Finance Parties (as defined in the amended Loan Agreement) that
may arise upon any further or other event of default under the Loan Agreement.

Regards,

/s/ Michael Keener
------------------
Michael Keener
Director, Business Development
Shell Capital Inc.