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

No. 26823.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 24, 1954.

Alex P. Pope, Tyler, for appellant.

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

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted for the subsequent offense of driving while intoxicated, as denounced by Art. 802b, Vernon’s Ann. P.C., and his punishment was assessed at six months in jail.

It is contended that the indictment doefe not charge an offense because it does, not sufficiently describe the offense for which the prior conviction was had.

The primary offense charged that appellant, while intoxicated, drove a motor vehicle upon a public highway. The averments as to the prior conviction were that appellant had been convicted on the 19th day of January, 1948, in the County Court of Lynn County, Texas, of an offense of like character “to-wit, Driving While Intoxicated, a misdemeanor, in Cause No. 2275, * * * in said last named court.”

It was not necessary to set out the previous conviction with the same particularity as was charged in the originaí complaint and information. The indictment sufficiently charges the felony offense denounced by Art. 802b, V.A.P.C., it alleging that he drove a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated and after he had been previously convicted of the misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated denounced by Art. 802, V.A.P.C., in the cause described in this indictment.

Appellant complains of the failure of the state to prove the finality of the judgment in the case, of the alleged prior conviction. The state offered in evidence the complaint, information arid judgment in said cause. The appellant here was identified as being the same person named in said previous judgment. This was sufficient. If said conviction was not final, it became a matter of defense subject to proof. Ellis v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 346, 115 S.W.2d *168660; Broughton v. State, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 445, 188 S.W.2d 393.

There is no dispute in the evidence that appellant drove a motor vehicle upon a public highway in Smith County as alleged. Two officers testified that appellant was intoxicated at the time and place in question and appellant offered evidence showing he was not intoxicated. The jury resolved the issue of intoxication against appellant, and we find the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., 

HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD., and 

HUAWEI DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES 

(CHENGDU) CO., LTD.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., 

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON 

WIRELESS, and VERIZON BUSINESS 

NETWORK SERVICES INC.,

Defendants.

No. 6:20-cv-090-ADA

ORDER

For good cause, Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to amend the case schedule is hereby 

granted. The following deadlines shall now apply:

Schedule Item from Order Governing Proceedings New 

Deadline

Opening Expert Reports 5/5/2021

Rebuttal Expert Reports 6/2/2021

Close of Expert Discovery 6/23/2021

Deadline for the second of two meet and confer to 

discuss narrowing the number of claims asserted and 

prior art references at issue to triable limits. To the 

extent it helps the parties determine these limits, the 

parties are encouraged to contact the Court’s Law 

Clerk for an estimate of the amount of trial time 

anticipated per side. The parties shall file a Joint 

Report within 5 business days regarding the results of 

the meet and confer.

6/28/2021

Case 6:20-cv-00090-ADA Document 111 Filed 06/17/21 Page 1 of 2
2

Schedule Item from Order Governing Proceedings New 

Deadline

Dispositive motion deadline and Daubert motion 

deadline

7/9/2021 

(unchanged) 

SIGNED this 17th day of June, 2021. 

_______________________________

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00090-ADA Document 111 Filed 06/17/21 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

DESERT FOX CUSTOM RESTORATIONS, INC.,

A New Mexico Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 2:19-cv-01150 KRS/CG

CWS MARKETING GROUP, INC., a Virginia Corporation;

THE ACCURATE GROUP OF TEXAS, LLC, a Texas LLC; and

WESTCOR LAND & TITLE INC., A Florida licensed Insurance Co.,

Defendants.

JURY DEMAND

COMES NOW Defenant CWS Marketing Group, Inc. by and through its attorneys of 

record Butt Thornton & Baehr PC (Michael P. Clemens), and hereby demands a trial by a jury of 

six (6) persons in the above-entitled and numbered cause.

BUTT THORNTON & BAEHR PC

/s/ Michael P. Clemens

Michael P. Clemens

Attorneys for Defendant CWS Marketing

P.O. Box 3170

Albuquerque, NM 87190

(505) 884-0777

mpclemens@btblaw.com

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing was electronically filed through the Federal Court 

efiling system which caused the following counsel to be served by electronic means, and that a 

courtesy copy was emailed to counsel on the 19th day of February, 2020:

John R. Beauvais

Lincolnlawyer575@gmail.com

Charles K. Purcell

kpurcell@rodey.com

Mariposa Padilla Sivage

mps@sutinfirm.com

/s/ Michael P. Clemens

Michael P. Clemens

Case 3:20-cv-00080-LS Document 16 Filed 02/19/20 Page 1 of 1
p.1 

OAR Box 1208 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

103) II-E-13 

Docket Number: 

A-89-10 

Printed 5/9/2008 10:59:28 AM Sheet 103 of 127 
P.2 

<g ® m IP ® is JL V i ® 

S 3 . lea 

II-E-1 3 

CONTACT REPORT 

Date -—^ AT^ * ^ ' i ' > ' w Originator ^CsZTTI 

CONTACT BY: TELEPHONE W MEETING Q Other 

JAAJ ^ , / ? ?0 /Vl, 

NAME, TITLE & ORGANIZATION 

ADDRESS & TELEPHONE NUMBER (J t_ ^ % W7 ? \ ^''^-'"", 

PURPOSE OR SUBJECT (Give project number if appropriate) 

Cost oS- <*- ^ 

SUMMARY 

5o ^ /fcL.c.cLA . "fir -/roi ^ COJ/I QyJi;<k. af T ^ 

a-^ck/or AKmi'-jor.vAc Q |- /»aaccess."(*•(*••- cc^_/n*\fi . 

Distribution: 

J
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

MICHAEL GILNER , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 2 3

- 1110

[ August 17, 2023 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.8 5 0 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Bernard I. Bober

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 18

- 003098

- CF

- 10A

.
Michael Gilner, Daytona Beach

, pro se

.

N o appearance for appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN , C ONNER and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 12
                        BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.
                    Computation Of Earnings To Fixed Charges
                              (Dollars In Millions)




                                                     For the Six Months
                                                       Ended June 30,
                                                            2000
1. Earnings

   (a) Income from continuing
       operations before deductions
       for taxes and interest                              $2,697
   (b) Portion of rental expense
       representative of interest
       factor                                                  19

         TOTAL                                             $2,716

2. Fixed Charges

   (a) Interest                                             $ 353

   (b) Portion of rental expense
       representative of interest
       factor                                                  19

         TOTAL                                              $ 372

   Ratio (1 divided by 2)                                    7.30
SHAWN LOWRY

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 2899

____________ _________________/

Opinion filed October 10, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. John L. Miller , Judge

.

Shawn Lowry, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURI AM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, KELSEY, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 28, 2010

p0621 

# Order

June 28, 2010

140544

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140544 COA: 295114 Eaton CC: 05-000559-FC BRANDON DESHAWN JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 23, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
From: Michael.Pelan@lafarge

‐ na.com

Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 2:04 PM

To: Laney, Michael N.

Cc: Barnett.Keith@epamail.epa.gov; Craig.Campbell@lafarge

‐ na.com

Subject:Re: Sugar Creek PM Data

Attachments: Sugar Creek PM Results (2004).pdf; Lafarge PM data.xlsx

Mike:

Here are the data you requested. The production data was not included in the testing report, but came

directly from the plant's records and is consistent with the 2002 and 2007 testing events.

Mike

(See attached file: Sugar Creek PM Results (2004).pdf)

|

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ +

‐‐‐‐‐‐ +

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >

From: "Laney, Michael N." <mnl@rti.org>|

03/10/2010 03:52 PM

To: <Michael.Pelan@lafarge

‐ na.com>

cc: <Barnett.Keith@epamail.epa.gov>

Subject: Sugar Creek PM Data

Mike,

We are evaluating the PM data provided in Lafarge’s comments on the proposed NESHAP for portland

cement. The PM test run data for 2002 and 2007 from you comments matches the data we used for the

Sugar Creek kiln in developing the proposal. We did not, however, have the data that you provided in

your comments for the year 2004. I have attached the PM data from your comments to this e

‐ mail. The

2004 PM data appears to be individual test runs. Is that correct? It would be helpful if you could provide

test result summaries for the 2004 data.

Thank you.

Michael Laney

RTI International

TEL: 919

‐ 316

‐ 3413

FAX: 919

‐ 316

‐ 3420

EMAIL: mnl@rti.org

(See attached file: Lafarge PM data.xlsx)

## Roller Mill On

Date Filterable

lb/hr Kiln

Production

(tph) PM rate

(lb/ton kk) Average

New vs. Old

8/7/02 0.04 127.87 0.0003441

8/8/02 0.59 121.80 0.0048192 0.004495479

10/30/02 0.97 116.18 0.0083231

5/20/04 3.02 117.95 0.0255880

5/20/04 2.51 125.77 0.0199726

5/20/04 2.65 126.10 0.0210066

5/20/04 2.27 121.14 0.0187630

5/20/04 2.76 108.80 0.0253316

5/20/04 2.69 108.80 0.0247617

6/25/04 3.30 126.10 0.0261849

6/25/04 3.52 126.10 0.0279137 0.023093429

6/25/04 3.41 125.88 0.0271205

7/14/04 3.79 125.99 0.0300652

7/14/04 3.97 126.10 0.0314742

7/14/04 3.52 126.10 0.0279057

9/5/07 2.52 129.52 0.0194564

9/5/07 1.70 129.41 0.0131365

9/5/07 1.00 129.52 0.0077208



## Roller Mill Off

Date Filterable

lb/hr Kiln

Production

(tph) PM rate

(lb/ton kk) Average

New vs. Old

8/6/02 8.12 126.98 0.0639288

8/7/02 1.82 122.69 0.0148591 0.030989465

8/8/02 1.75 123.13 0.0141805

5/18/04 4.90 128.86 0.0380571

5/18/04 3.79 126.54 0.0299579

6/29/04 9.07 126.10 0.0719015

7/15/04 8.02 126.10 0.0636305

7/15/04 8.95 126.10 0.0709737 0.058063408

8/12/04 12.57 129.52 0.0970582

11/6/07 5.22 117.06 0.0445909

11/6/07 7.24 111.22 0.0650950

11/6/07 4.84 117.17 0.0413059
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5177 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5177

  To suspend temporarily the duty on leather footwear for women with 
        uppers other than of pigskin, valued $35/pair or higher.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

 Mrs. Maloney introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on leather footwear for women with 
        uppers other than of pigskin, valued $35/pair or higher.

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

SECTION 1. LEATHER FOOTWEAR FOR WOMEN WITH UPPERS OTHER THAN OF 
              PIGSKIN, VALUED $35/PAIR OR HIGHER.

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

``     9902.01.00        Leather footwear    Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          for women with                                                    12/31/2015
                          uppers other than
                          of pigskin,
                          valued $35/pair
                          or higher
                          (provide for in
                          subheading
                          6403.59.90)......

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON,D.C. H 

FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-4266 

Case No. 2015S0700062 

PREMIERE NAIL SOURCE, INC. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

Respondent 

WITHDRAWAL OF JULY 21, 2016 MOTION TO COMPEL 

2 9 2016 

On July 21, 2016, the FAA filed a Motion to Compel based on Respondent's failure to 

provide initial disclosures. Respondent subsequently provided some initial disclosures. While 

these disclosures may be incomplete, further pursuit of completion would be better handled 

through discovery requests, rather than a Motion to Compel before the Judge. Accordingly, the 

FAA hereby withdraws its July 21, 2016 Motion to Compel. 

Respectfully submitted this 251

h day of August, 2016, 

CHRISTOPHER R. STEVENSON 

Attorney 

Office of the Chief Counsel, Enforcement Division 

1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337 

email: chris.stevenson@faa.gov 

Telephone: (404) 305-5200 (main) 

( 404) 305-5208 (direct) 

(404) 305-5223 (facsimile) 

1 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this date, I have sent by U.S. Certified Mail- retnrn receipt 

requested, a copy of the foregoing Withdrawal of July 21, 2016 Motion to Compel in the matter 

of Premier Nail Source, FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-4266, Case No. 201580700062, to: 

Daniel Kerzner 

Premier Nail Source, Inc. 

5454 W. Crenshaw Street 

Tampa, FL 33634 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date, I have sent by U.S. Certified Mail -return 

receipt requested, the original and one copy ofthe foregoing document to: 

Date: 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

2
**Exhibit 12**

Dated:  June 30, 2005

 

I, David Balai, certify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed thisannual report on Form 20-F, and all reports on Form 6-K containing distributionor servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year coveredby this annual report, of Permanent Financing (No. 4) PLC, Permanent Funding(No. 1) Limited and Permanent Mortgages Trustee Limited;

 

2.  Based on my knowledge,the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by thisannual report;

 

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

 

4.  Based on my knowledgeand upon the annual compliance statement included in the report and required tobe delivered to the mortgages trustee in accordance with the terms of thepooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and except as disclosed in thereports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement; and

 

5.  The reports discloseall significant deficiencies relating to the servicer’s compliance with theminimum servicing standards based upon the report provided by an independentaccountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform SingleAttestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth inthe pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in thesereports.

 

In giving the certificationsabove, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the followingunaffiliated parties: Halifax plc

 

Date: June 30, 2005

 
| By:    | /s/ David Balai                             |   |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Title: | Director, Permanent Funding (No. 1) Limited |

 

----
#### Anig Derderian, Respondent, v Harry Derderian, Also Known as Haroutiun Derderian, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered November 17, 1989, as modified by order of the same court and Justice entered September 21, 1990, which granted plaintiff a divorce, awarded her a distributive award of $927,046.20 and appointed a temporary receiver to sell the real property assets of defendant’s business to satisfy the award, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Prior to the marriage, the plaintiff wife contributed substantial sums to defendant to maintain various parcels of real property. Plaintiff’s financial contributions to her husband’s real estate enterprises continued throughout the course of the marriage. Further, plaintiff contributed to the appreciation of her husband’s real estate ventures not only through her services as a homemaker, but by performing various services in maintaining and operating the real estate. In view of this evidence, it was not error to award plaintiff 50% of the net appreciation in the value of defendant’s real estate holdings. *(Price v Price,*69 NY2d 8.)

The court was entitled to weigh the expert testimony and to adopt those real estate valuations which it found credible. As the 230 East 27th Street property was found to have been purchased with marital property (i.e., the appreciation in the value of the real estate holdings), the entire value of the property was properly includable in the marital estate.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ross, J. P., Rosenberger, Asch and Wallach, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 59197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25402]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Initial Meeting of the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-management 
Council

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Alaska Migratory Bird Co-management Council has scheduled 
its first meeting to begin the process of recommending regulations for 
the spring/summer migratory bird subsistence harvest for the period 
beginning March 10, 2002. At this meeting the Co-management Council 
will approve its by-laws, finalize an operations manual for Council 
members, elect officers, review resource information presented by staff 
of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, and establish regulations frameworks for seven 
geographic regions.

DATES: The Co-management Council will meet October 30-November 1, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be conducted at the Hawthorn Suites Hotel 
at 1110 W. 8th Avenue in Anchorage, Alaska.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information call Mimi 
Hogan at 907/786-3673 or Bob Stevens at 907/786-3499. Individuals with 
a disability who may need special accommodations in order to 
participate in the public comment portion of the meeting should call 
one of the above numbers.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service formed 
the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council, which includes Native, 
State, and Federal representatives as equals, by means of a Notice of 
Decision published in the Federal Register, 65 FR 16405-16409, March 
28, 2000. Amended migratory bird treaties with Canada and Mexico 
required the formation of such a management body. The Co-management 
Council will make recommendations for, among other things, regulations 
for spring/summer harvesting of migratory birds in Alaska. In addition 
to creation of the Co-managment Council, the Notice of Decision 
identified seven geographic regions. Each region will submit to the Co-
management Council requests for specific regulations for its area. The 
Co-management Council will then develop recommendations for statewide 
regulations and submit them to the Fish and Wildlife Service for 
approval.
    The initial meeting of the Co-management Council will begin on 
Monday, October 30 at 1 p.m. Sessions on October 31 and November 1 will 
begin at 8:00 a.m. The public is invited to attend. The Co-management 
Council will provide opportunities for public comment on agenda items. 
Agendas will be available at the door.

    Dated: September 20, 2000.
David B. Allen,
Regional Director, Anchorage, Alaska.
[FR Doc. 00-25402 Filed 10-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M