alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION ONE

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

v.

DONALD W. MORGAN,

Appellant.

No. 80030-2-I

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

PER CURIAM — The State charged Donald Morgan with two counts of first 

degree theft and two counts of second degree theft relating to his commission of 

insurance fraud. As part of a plea agreement, the State agreed to dismiss all but 

one count of first degree theft, and Morgan agreed to pay restitution on the 

dismissed charges.

The State and Morgan agreed to the sum of restitution for the second 

degree thefts, but disputed the sum of restitution for the first degree thefts. Both 

the State and Morgan presented physical evidence, including bank statements, 

at a restitution hearing.

Morgan first contends he was denied due process because the trial court 

did not allow him to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. But we 

have already rejected the argument that the Sixth Amendment right to confront 

witnesses applies to restitution hearings. State v. Fambrough, 66 Wn. App. 223,

226-27, 831 P.2d 789 (1992). And Morgan’s reliance on Morrissey v. Brewer, 

408 U.S. 471, 481, 92 S. Ct. 2593, 33 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1972), which involved due 

process at parole revocation hearings, is misplaced because restitution hearings 

do not involve the potential loss of a liberty interest.
No. 80030-2-I/2

Morgan furthermore argues that both the Sixth Amendment and article I, 

section 21 of the Washington State Constitution require a jury determination of 

the facts necessary to set a restitution amount. But this claim has been rejected 

by the Washington Supreme Court in State v. Kinneman, 155 Wn.2d 272, 285, 

119 P.3d 350 (2005). Though Morgan contends that Alleyne v. United States, 

570 U.S. 99, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 186 L. Ed. 2d 314 (2013), has eroded the 

reasoning of Kinneman, Alleyne held only that a fact that increases the 

mandatory minimum penalty for a crime is an element that must be submitted to 

the jury. Restitution does not involve a mandatory maximum or minimum penalty 

and Alleyne is not implicated here. Morgan’s citation to Sofie v. Fibreboard 

Corp., 112 Wn.2d 636, 648, 771 P.2d 711, 780 P.2d 260 (1989) is similarly 

uncompelling because Sofie was a civil case in which the court concluded that a 

statute placing a limit on noneconomic damages was unconstitutional, because it 

interfered with the jury's traditional function to determine damages. Morgan 

provides no analysis of why Sofie applies in a criminal setting to the 

determination of restitution.

Affirmed.

FOR THE COURT:
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5078 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5078

        To suspend temporarily the duty on Acephate formulation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

 Mr. Gerlach introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To suspend temporarily the duty on Acephate formulation.

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

SECTION 1. ACEPHATE FORMULATION.

    (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        N-[methoxy          Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          (methylthio)                                                      12/31/2015
                          phosphinoyl]aceta
                          mide (CAS No.
                          30560-19-1)
                          formulation
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          3808.91.50)......

    (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>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5238 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5238

            To reduce temporarily the duty on Chlorobenzene.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

  Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            To reduce temporarily the duty on Chlorobenzene.

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

SECTION 1. CHLOROBENZENE.

    (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        Chlorobenzene (CAS  3.6%            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          No. 108-90-7)                                                     12/31/2015
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          2903.91.10)......

    (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>
```
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5133 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain occupancy sensors. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

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

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain occupancy 

sensors. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN OCCUPANCY SENSORS. 

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: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5133 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Switches designed for 

lighting control, activated 

by dual passive infrared 

sensors that detect the 

presence of any occupant 

of the coverage area, with 

lens masking for adjusting 

the field of view of the sensors (provided for in subheading 8536.50.90) ......... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

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

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
WACO

PROFECTUS TECHNOLOGY LLC

CIVIL NO:

vs. WA:20-CV-00101-ADA

ORDER RESETTINGMARKMAN MARKMANHEARING HEARING

12/29/2020 09:30 AM

GOOGLE LLC

12/10/2020

Alan D Albright

IT IS SO ORDERED this

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

§

§

§

§

§

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is reset for

MARKMAN HEARING by Zoom on Tuesday, December 29, 2020 at 09:30 AM. A link for

the zoom hearing will be sent by e-mail prior to the hearing.

Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 61 Filed 12/10/20 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Eugene Lusardi, Respondent, v Eugene Lusardi, M.D., P. C., Respondent, and Travelers Insurance Company et al., Appellants. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Third Department,

May 16, 1991

*4APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Cherry, Edson & Kelly (Henriette Frieder*and *Robert Carroll*of counsel), for appellants.

*Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Howard B. Friedland, Jane Lauer Barker*and *Theresa E. Wolinski*of counsel), for Workers’ Compensation Board, respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Casey, J.

At issue on this appeal is whether amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (4) and § 54 (6), which excluded workers’ compensation coverage for an employee who is the sole shareholder and executive officer of the corporate employer unless the employer affirmatively elects such coverage (L 1982, ch 396), are applicable to workers’ compensation insurance policies which were issued prior to the effective date of the amendments. The Workers’ Compensation Board originally decided that the amendments were applicable to this case since claimant’s accident occurred after the effective date of the amendments, but upon reconsideration the Board concluded that the amendments do not apply to policies which were in existence prior to the amendments’ effective date.

We affirm the Board’s decision. Where, as here, the Legislature provides that the statutory provision shall take effect immediately, prospective application of the amendments is appropriate *(see, Murphy v Board of Educ.,*104 AD2d 796, 797, *affd*64 NY2d 856; *see also, County of Rensselaer v City of Troy,*120 AD2d 796, 797). This general rule has been applied in cases involving the Workers’ Compensation Law *(see, Matter of Small v Gibbs Press,*248 NY 513). The cases relied upon by the insurers, which involve retroactive application of amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Law, extended the rights of injured claimants, thereby furthering the legislative objective of compensating injured employees *(e.g., Matter of Busch v Austin Co.,*37 AD2d 648, 649). In the present case, a prospective application of the statutory amendments is appropriate because the amendments restricted the right of an employee who is the sole shareholder and officer of the employer corporation by requiring an affirmative election for coverage (L 1982, ch 396), a requirement not in existence when the policy was issued. Prospective application of the statutory amendments at issue will not alter or affect the existing workers’ compensation insurance contracts between *5the employer and the insurers. The Board’s decision affirming an award to claimant is not irrational and should be affirmed.

Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Decision affirmed, without costs.
#### Pearl SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27049.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 20, 1954.

Reynolds & Tucker, by W. M: Tucker, Shamrock, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for possession of whis-ky .and beer in a dry area for the purpose of sale; the punishment, .which the jury was authorized to enhance by reason of two prior convictions, five months in jail and *a*fine of $250.

The evidence shows that appellant was found in possession of two half-pints of whisky, which were taken from her purse by the arresting officers, and 24 cans of beer, which were in the refrigerator in appellant’s home.

Appellant admitted the possession of the whisky and beer, but testified that it was for her own personal use. She denied that she possessed it for the purpose of sale.

It was established that the area was dry and proof of the prior convictions in the fall of 1953, alleged for. enhancement of punishment, was offered in evidence, one being for the sale of whisky and the other for possession of whisky for the purpose of sale in a dry area.

Appellant admitted that she had “pleaded guilty as many as two times before to the offense of selling whisky in a dry area and once for possession of whisky in a dry area for the purpose of sale.”

The question of appellant’s purpose or intent in regard to the whisky and beer was for the jury. They were not bound to *372accept her testimony on that issue as true. We overrule the contention that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction. Smiley v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 342, 174 S.W.2d 973.

Aside from attacking the sufficiency of the evidence, appellant presents one bill of exception. She complains of the argument of the county attorney wherein he remarked that the defendant “had been a bootlegger all of her life.”

The trial judge instructed the jury not to consider the remarks, and appellant’s complaint is that the remarks were of such a nature that the instruction could not cure the prejudicial effect thereof. He excepted to the remarks, notwithstanding the court’s instruction, and to the refusal by the court of his motion that a mistrial be declared.

In viewo.f the testimony and the admissions of appellant of her past pleas of guilty (one being of date not disclosed by the record) and the action of the trial court in the matter, the argument is not deemed such as to call for reversal.

The judgment is affirmed.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Jason McGlory, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

: Workers' Compensation Appeal : Board (A.W. Golden, Inc. Chevy/ : Cadillac and AmeriHealth Casualty : Insurance Company), : Respondents : No. 2018 C.D. 2013

O R D E R

NOW, August 20, 2014, having considered petitioner’s application for

reargument, and respondents’ answer in opposition thereto, the application is

denied.

BY THE COURT:

DAN PELLEGRINI,

President Judge
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statement No. 333-128094 on Form S-1 and RegistrationStatement No. 333-132900 on Form S-3 of Advanced Life SciencesHoldings, Inc. (the “Company”) of our report, dated March 19, 2007,related to the consolidated financial statements of the Company (which reportexpresses an unqualified opinion on the consolidated financial statements andincludes explanatory paragraphs referring to uncertainty about the Company’sability to continue as a going concern and that the Company is in thedevelopment stage) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for theyear ended December 31, 2006.

*/S/ DELOITTE &TOUCHE, LLP*

**Chicago,Illinois**

**May 9, 2007**

----
#### PETROLEUM ENGINEERING & TOOL CO. v. BRANDON CO.

No. 4737.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

May 31, 1950.

Charles H. Sherman, Jr., Alpha, Brunson & Morris, Houston, for appellant.

George M. Kelton, Odessa, for appellee.

SUTTON, Justice.

This appeal is from an order of the County Court of Ector County overruling a plea of privilege.

The Brandon Company sued the Petroleum Engineering & Tool Company to recover $327.51 and attorney’s fees alleged to be due it under the terms of a written contract between the parties for commissions. The defendant timely filed its plea of privilege claiming its privilege to be sued in Harris County where it maintains its office and place of business. The plaintiff controverted the plea of privilege and sought ' to maintain the venue in Ector County under the fifth exception to art. 1995, Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St., asserting the contract provided for the payment of the commissions in Ector County. On a hearing to the Court the plea of privilege was overruled, from which this appeal is prosecuted.

The written contract sued upon is attached as an exhibit to plaintiff’s petiton and is made a part thereof and as well a part of the controverting affidavit. The provisions relied upon are: “Commissions on all Ex-ner Dodge Products will be paid direct to the Petroleum Engineering & Tool Company and, immediately upon receipt of this conlfnission check from Exner Dodge, Petroleum Engineering & Tool Company will mail to the Brandon Company their share of the commissions,” and said contract further referring to “The Brandon Company of Odessa, Texas.” This latter recitation is found in the beginning of the contract wherein it recites: “This contract and agreement made and entered into by and between the Brandon Company of Odessa, Texas, and the Petroleum Engineering & Tool Company of Houston, Texas, on this the first day of August, 1947 * * **»*

The other provision relied upon is found in the sixth paragraph of the contract. The “Odessa, Texas”, is but a mere statement of the address of the Brandon Company and the other provision is a mere agreement that the defendant will mail to The Brandon Company its share of the commissions immediately upon receipt of such commissions. The two provisions, if contained in one sentence, do not constitute a promise to pay the commissions to the Brandon Company at Odessa, Texas. Taken together the provisions merely provide the defendant will mail to the Brandon Company of Odessa, Texas, its share of the commissions. Exception 5 requires that the contract provide for the performance of the contract in a particular county, expressly naming such county, or a definite place therein. In other words, in order *248to fix the venue in this case in Ector County it was essential that the contract obligate the defendant to pay the commissions in Ector County or a definite place therein. Such is not the provision. Saigh v. Monteith, C. J., 147 Tex. 341, 215 S.W.2d 610(T).

The judgment of the trial court will be reversed and the cause remanded with instructions that the plea of privilege be sustained and the cause removed to Harris County.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5052 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain untwisted filament 

yarns. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain 

untwisted filament yarns. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN UNTWISTED FILAMENT YARNS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.01.91 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 certain untwisted filament yarns) is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘12/31/2012’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

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

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5052 IH

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

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

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5003 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5003

    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Dimethyl malonate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    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 Dimethyl malonate.

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

SECTION 1. DIMETHYL MALONATE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.23.49 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Dimethyl malonate) is 
amended by striking the date in the effective period column and 
inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (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>
```
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5170 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on cis-3-Hexen-1-ol. 

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 extend the temporary suspension of duty on cis-3-Hexen1-ol. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CIS-3-HEXEN-1-OL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.02.99 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 cis-3-Hexen-1-ol) is amended by striking the date in the 

7 effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

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

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


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5170 IH

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

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

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
P.1 

OAR Box 1252 

Prepped by Candice Davis 

Document Number: 

45) ll-B-5 

Docket Number: 

A-90-22 

Printed 5/21/2008 11:46.01 AM Sheet 45 of 184 
P.2 

caza©azaK] 

eoapoacivooix i 

MEMORANDU M 

DATE: August 28, 1991 

TO: HON Project File \f~) 

FROM: Julie Anne Probert 

00-i-5 

& 

SUBJECT: Costs for Installing^ Nitrogen Blanketing System on a 

Transfer Rack 

The purpose of this memorandum is to document the costs of 

installing a nitrogen blanketing system on a transfer rack. It 

is assumed that facilities will pay a toll to be connected to a 

nearby air separation unit. Thus, costs will be related to 

nitrogen consumption which will equal transfer throughput. 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

HHmH^jBHi MMMMaaaaa • M IAlft.4.itiU. AmiALAA.^. I iiliiin l 
P.3 

E/S\®D/A\K I CALCULATION SHEET 

\JlxJcrni DATE CHECKED 

K\ H/fry. g-fc^ ; JOS NO. 

SIGNAT 

PROJECT 

CALC. NO. 

DATE 

SUBJECT T o ! \ Cask -fc^ M,'4vflftgy> o

1 SHEET. 0F= SHEETS 

. ; i ; ; i ! i i ! ! I I 

4nL\ : _^_ i 

^dd/*\flJkl ;.v\i^t ^ o. ...:eo^t! ^C^...<2\A.J_^VAC^^Q^5 $t|>slj2.. L 

_L___ 

">£—5=i= M M-x *L4.;3_ j^jyi a !2Q^J^ fiMI 

•Kj>aPi^T 'ri^ty i ^ 4jS0S^^ | M--f-~-j (k4iH ^ i 

_.,..= _ ,_- .-._ - . ^ : , . . j 1 1— -, , ~ , 1 j 

rro_ LoA w sit +tnJL S. _C^sfci Q^UQH_ .4Tt.S^UuV4jSQ. i^£lW3-|_4- - |L-idWdJr^L<u|L W_ l 

>.. . I • ^ , a, i 

3il_Cqsk 

1

 ltAr-Lu_S>rUg>i l<c4^l4^<^ S 

Ai»4eJ—. i)i^oi ^ 

I ! 

I uSejgl -i-Wt Quv-v-gy^: SvAStW^s,

 ! U^^L4T4 < [4m<- oi<a&d^C4j£iJ2 

i i * T. : _,i . 11 I . i J I- !,Irtel^g . T T T^i } n .J^v * l liW CW^ r 

mJl 

C^2 

-i r 

'ypW-S, 

£ d 

^ 

4c£)[ 

<9 

k....iMkkU a ..mitHHilfc—UtiM 
P.4 

SUBJECT 

CALCULATION SHEET 

CALC. NO., 

SIGNATURE! CHECKED DATE. 

panic** HDK ! lirrx^UiS- JOB NO., 

nst.trsr N7 &lrv\tubTW,./>~l^S-kv- SHEET. OF. .SHEETS 

_ __lAy!V/^^ftiL_.G 

2.:7+.*id 

i j j ' , ' i . i : 1 ! • • ! r : ! : 1 ! - . i i •