alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Neil H. BOWIE, Appellant, v. STATE of TEXAS, Appellee.

No. 23146.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 6, 1945.

Rehearing Denied June 28, 1945.

Robt. S. Durno, of Houston, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for embezzlement, punishment four years in the penitentiary.

The judgment is affirmed for the same reasons set out in our opinion in 188 S.W. 2d 389.
#### Jerzy Widawski, Respondent, v United Beef Packers, Inc., Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jack Turret, J.), entered May 12, 1989, which, *inter alia,*denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant failed to establish its defense sufficiently to warrant judgment in its favor as a matter of law. *(Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center,*64 NY2d 851.) Material issues of fact exist including whether defendant United Beef Packers had severed all ties to the Indiana meat-packing plant where plaintiff sustained injury on September 7, 1986, before plaintiff’s employer Hebrew National Kosher Foods, Inc. moved its operation from a plant in Maspeth, Queens, to continue production of meat provisions.

*202The various depositions, upon which defendant places reliance, did not resolve the dispute as to whether plaintiffs sole remedy lies against Hebrew National based on workers’ compensation. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         413,842
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  547,072
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     55,862
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      29,973,035
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,554,623
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,347,264
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     27,560,952
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       159,613
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,347,264
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,022,090
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,134,726
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             608,565
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                287,196
<INCOME-TAX>                                   110,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            177,196
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   177,196
<EPS-BASIC>                                       9.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     9.65


</TABLE>
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5008 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on fenbuconazole. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Mr. BURTON of Indiana (for himself and Mr. YOUNG of Indiana) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 

fenbuconazole. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FENBUCONAZOLE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.32.87 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 fenbuconazole) is amended by striking the date in the ef7 fective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

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

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5008 IH

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# • SPA 

### 17 RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 150 Amendments to the Definition ofSolid Waste; Amendment II 61 FR 13103-13106

March 26, 1996 (RCRA ClusterVI, Non-HSWA provisions)

FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FEDERAL RCRACITATION ANALOGOUS STATECITATION WAC 173-303- STATEANALOGIS: EQUIY. LESS MORE BROADER ALENT STRIN- STRIN- IN SCOPE GENT GENT PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE SUBPARTA - GENERAL EXCLUSIONS 

## t 

# • replace "along with 261.4(a)(l2) 071(3)(cc) X normal process streams prior to crude distillation or catalytic cracking" with "at or before a point (other than direct insertion into a coker) where contaminants are removed"



# •

CLl50.P51 - Revised: 8/6/97 . Printed: 7/29/98 March 26, 1996 - Page 1of 1
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4731 

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to clarify 

the tariff rates for carpet cleaners and parts thereof imported into 

the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2012 

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States to clarify the tariff rates for carpet cleaners and 

parts thereof imported into the United States. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF TARIFF RATES ON CARPET 

4 CLEANERS AND PARTS THEREOF. 

5 (a) AMENDMENTS.—Chapter 85 of the Harmonized 

6 Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended as fol7 lows: 

8 (1) By inserting in numerical sequence the fol9 lowing new subheading, with the article description 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 4731 IH

1 having the same degree of indentation as the article 

2 description for subheading 8509.80.20: 

‘‘ 8509.80.30 Carpet cleaners ............................... Free 35% ’’. 

3 (2) By inserting in numerical sequence the fol4 lowing new subheading, with the article description 

5 having the same degree of indentation as the supe6 rior text to the article description for subheading 

7 8509.90.25: 

‘‘ 8509.90.40 Parts of carpet cleaners ................... Free Free (A, 

AU, 

BH, CA, 

CL, E, 

IL, J, 

JO, KR, 

MA, MX, 

OM, P, 

PE, SG) 35% ’’. 

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

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

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

11 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4755 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4755

   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Disperse Yellow 42.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2012

   Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Disperse Yellow 42.

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

SECTION 1. DISPERSE YELLOW 42.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.03.52 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Disperse Yellow 42) is 
amended by striking the date in the effective period column and 
inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
04/01/201 1 09;2 4 FAX 202493514 2 FA A * DMS 0001/00 1

UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASfflNGTON , D C I n th e Matte r

of : RECURREN T TRAININ G CENTER , INC . Docke t No . CPIOGLOOI

O FDM S No . FAA-2010-097 3 Served : Marc h 31 , 201 1 EXTENSIO N O F TIM E Recurren t Trainin g Center , Inc. , perfecte dit s appeal b y niin g it s appea l brie f o n Februar y 21 , 2011 . Consequently , under 1 4 C.F.R . § § 13.233(e) , 13.2U(e) , an d13.212 , th e FAA i s require dt o fil e it s repl y brie f n o late r tha n Apri l 4 , 2011 , B y letter date dMarc h 30 , 2011 , th e FAA' s attorne y requeste da n extensio n o f tim e unti l Apri l 1S . 2011 , i n whic h t o file th e agency' s brief . Th e FAA' s attorne y represente dthat

Recurren t

Trainin g Center' s attorne y ha dconsente dt o th e reques t lo r an extensio n o f

tim e andtha

t th e extensio n woul dprovid e th e partie s wit h tim e i n whic h to conduc t settlemen t

discussions . Accordingly , th e FAA' s reques t fo r a n extensio n o f

tim e in whic h t o fil e it s repl y brie f i s granted . Consequently , th e FAA' s repl y brie f i s no w du e to b e filedo n o r before AprillS , 2011. ' J . RANDOLP H BABBITT , ADMINISTRATO R Federal Aviatio n Administratio n - • a

— > c ? r-o u ^ ' ' '--

—^-'"- i •-:-,-•;' 3 J ; ' '- ^ ' 1 

## §^ 5 Q9 ^ ^ — C O

VICKIXLB^NTON ' Manager , Adjudicatio n Branc h

' Th e "mailin g rule " (1 4 C.F.R . § 13.211(e)) , whic h provide s fo r 5 additional day s afte

r sei-vic e by mail , doe s no t

appl y t o thi s extension . ^ Issue dunde r

authorit y delegate dt o th e Chie f

Counse l an dth e Assistan t Chie f Counse l for Litigatio n by Memorandu mdate dOctober 27 , 1992 , under

4 9 U.S.C . § 322(b ) and1 4 C.F.R . § 13.20 2 {se

e 5 7 Fed . Reg . 58,28 0 (1992) ) an drcdclcgate db y th e Assistan t Chie f Counse l for Litigatio n t o th e Manager , Adjudicatio n Branch , h y Memorandu mdate dAugus t 6 , 1993 .
#### AQUILAR v. STATE.

No. 23309.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 27, 1946.

Herman G. Nami, of San Antonio, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is murder. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of five years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. However, the record does disclose a number of objections to the court’s charge and six special charges, four of which the court submitted to the jury, but in the absence of a statement of facts we are unable to determine whether the objections to the court’s charge were well taken or that the requested charges were applicable to the case as made by the evidence. Consequently nothing is presented for review.

From what we have said it follows that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed and it is so ordered.

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.
#### FOWLER v. STATE.

No. 23363.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 22, 1946.

Rehearing Denied June 26, 1946.

*367Art Schlofman, of Dalhart, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Passing a forged instrument is the offense; the punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

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

Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

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

On Motion for Rehearing

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant has filed a motion for a rehearing, accompanied by his affidavit and that of his attorney, in which he alleges that he was deprived of a statement of facts without any negligence or fault on his part or that of his attorney. The State, by and through its District Attorney, has filed controverting affidavits and caused a supplemental transcript to be forwarded by the District Clerk of Dallam County to this court.

The record reflects that on the 14th day of December, 1945, appellant’s motion for a new trial was overruled to which he duly excepted and gave notice of appeal to this court. He was granted fifty days in which to file a statement of facts and bills of exception, which time expired on the night of February 2, 1946. However, prior thereto, on the 16th day of January, 1946, he filed an affidavit in which he stated that he was financially unable to pay for a statement of facts and prayed for an order to require the court reporter to make a statement of facts in narrative form, but did not ask for any additional time in which to file the same. However, under the statute, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. art. 760, subd. 5, he had ninety days in which to file it, notwithstanding the court’s order, but not as to filing the bills of exception. On the 21st day of January, 1946, the court ordered the court reporter to make a statement of facts in narrative form. On the 4th day of February, 1946, the court reporter completed the statement of facts and forwarded the same to appellant’s attorney by prepaid express; that on or about the 10th day of February, appellant’s attorney presented the same to the District Attorney for approval. The District Attorney examined the same, and on the 12th day of February, 1946, approved the same, but up to the 10th day of May, it had not been filed with the Clerk of the District Court of Dallam County, which was more than 148 days after notice of appeal was given.

Under the facts as here disclosed, we are not in a position to say that appellant was deprived of a statement of facts without his fault. We, therefore, overrule his motion for a rehearing.

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.
|                                                                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                                   
|View History:                                                                                          
|                                                                                                       
|Texas--RRC District 5 Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Increases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                       
|                                                                                                       
|Texas--RRC District 5 Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Increases (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 1      | 3      | 0      | 1      | 0      | 0      | 2      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### PEACOCK v. HARRISON et al.

No. 9512.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

July 18, 1945.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 4, 1945.

J. G. Horton, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

C. A. Wheeler and Wm. Yelderman, both of Austin, for appellees.

*501

*502

*503had, an offer cannot be revoked after it has teen accepted. While revocation of an offer may be made at any time up to time of acceptance, such revocation must be communicated to the one to whom the offer is made; and if sent by mail is not effective until actually received by the offeree» Since, in the instant case, the offer of April 28 was accepted on May 9 by written contract, and appellant notified by telegram of that date of such acceptance, the contract became effective as of that date; and letters written subsequent thereto would not be admissible to modify it, contradict its terms, or show a different intent from that stated without ambiguity in the original offer. See 17 C.J.S., Contracts, § 52, p. 401.

The judgment of the trial court, except that portion taxing against appellant the costs incurred in connection with wrongfully suing out the writ of attachment, is affirmed; and the costs in the trial court of the writ of attachment and the costs of this appeal are taxed against appellees.

Affirmed in part and in part reversed and rendered.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 4, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 59155]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25346]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL-6879-2]


South Carolina: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste 
Management Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: South Carolina has applied to EPA for Final authorization of 
the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant final 
authorization to South Carolina. In the ``Rules and Regulations'' 
section of this Federal Register, EPA is authorizing the changes by an 
immediate final rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior to the 
immediate final rule because we believe this action is not 
controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. We have 
explained the reasons for this authorization in the preamble to the 
immediate final rule. Unless we get written comments which oppose this 
authorization during the comment period, the immediate final rule will 
become effective on the date it establishes, and we will not take 
further action on this proposal. If we get comments that oppose this 
action, we will withdraw the immediate final rule and it will not take 
effect. We will then respond to public comments in a later final rule 
based on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for 
comment. If you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this 
time.

DATES: Send your written comments by November 3, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Narindar Kumar, Chief RCRA Programs 
Branch, Waste Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, GA, 
30303-3104; (404) 562-8440. You can examine copies of the materials 
submitted by South Carolina during normal business hours at the 
following locations: EPA Region IV Library, Atlanta Federal Center, 
Library, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303; phone number: 
(404) 347-4216, or the South Carolina Department of Health and 
Environmental Control, 2600 Bull Street, Columbia, South Carolina 
29201, phone number: (803) 896-4174.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Narindar Kumar, Chief RCRA Programs 
Branch, Waste Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, at the above address and phone number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, please see the 
immediate final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section 
of this Federal Register.

    Dated: September 15, 2000.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IV.
[FR Doc. 00-25346 Filed 10-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5113 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on a compound of strontium 

chloroapatite-europium. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on a compound 

of strontium chloroapatite-europium. 

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

3 SECTION 1. COMPOUND OF STRONTIUM CHLOROAPATITE4 EUROPIUM. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.22.66 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 a compound of strontium chloroapatite-europium) is 

8 amended by striking the date in the effective period col9 umn and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5113 IH

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

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

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4157 — Wendel Investissement/Groupe Materis)

(2006/C 47/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 3, 2014

No. 04-14-00488-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.F., A CHILD,

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-PA-02356

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

ORDER

 Appellant father’s brief was due in this accelerated appeal on November 24, 2014.

Because no brief was filed, on December 1, 2014, this court rendered an order requiring 

appellant father to file his brief on or before December 11, 2014. On December 2, 2014, after 

our order issued, appellant father filed a motion to extend time to file his brief. We DENY the 

motion as moot. Per our December 1, 2014 order, appellant father’s brief is due on or before 

December 11, 2014.

___________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 3rd day of December, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court