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

No. 25425.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 30, 1952.

*260No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

. Appellant has filed a second motion for rehearing and calls to our attention matters which probably should have been discussed in connection with the first motion for rehearing.

Appellant has attached affidavits to his second motion for rehearing setting out that the statement of facts was changed after the same was agreed to and filed of record. There is no admission on the part of the County Judge that he did this and the charge lodged in the affidavit is of a general nature. It is stated that the name of R. A. Hudson was not found in the statement of facts as originally filed and that the same was added 'by the court after the filing. The statement of facts itself, as we find it in the record, does not verify this claim but the name of R. A. Hudson, referred to as the defendant, is found at least five times in the body of the statement.

The question thus raised is quite an unusual one. This court is not a trier of fact. We can only pass on the things that are before us. and, while we do not question counsel for appellant or the makers of the affidavits in any manner whatsoever, we are not in position to receive these affidavits and pass upon them. We know of no authority of law authorizing us to do so. As the bills of exception stand and the statement of facts as found in the record, there is no question about the conclusion reached in the original opinion.

Great stress is also laid on the contention that the bills of exception certify error. It is true that they state that the evidence was insufficient but the question of the sufficiency of the evidence is one of law and this court will not accept the trial court’s conclusion as to a question of law. The bill must be appraised in the light of the statement of facts.

We are unable to sustain the contentions found in appellant’s second motion for rehearing and the same is accordingly overruled.
P. 1


# OAR Box 1830 Prepped byOllie Stewart

Document

Number: 

# 83 ) IV-C-4

9 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:20:55AM Sheet 83 of 232P. 2

•^_*_ \ j f t-jQt ? 1 UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO NAGENC Y \ V| ^ TWASHINGTON ,D.C . 2046 0 •ft . _« r \ ^ CTA- v2 8

OFFIC E O F AI RAN D RADIATIO N Honorabl e Thoma s E . Petr i Unite dState s Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D.C . 2051 5 Dea r Mr . Petri : Thi s i s i n respons e t o you r Januar y12 , 198 8 lette r relayin g th e concern s o f tw o o f you r constituents , Mr . w . P . Springe r andMs . Sall yHalmbacker , regardin g EPA' s regulator yproposa l t o requir e onboar dcanister s o n new vehicle s t o contro l refuelin g emissions . T o assis t yo uwit h you r response , I hav e enclose da cop yo f ou r proposa l fo r you r review . Sectio nE (page s 31177-31182 ) explain s EPA' s overal l rational e fo r proposin g onboar dcontrols . I f yo u woul dlik e furthe r detail s o f ou r analysis, pleas e contac t Mr . Phili p Carlso no f th e Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc ho f th e Emissio nContro l Technolog yDivision , 256 5 Plymout hRoad , An nArbor , Michiga n4810 5 (FT S 374-827 0 o r Commercia l (313 ) 668-4270) . Than k yo u fo r you r letter . W e wil l plac e th e letter s \ fro mMr . Springe r andMs . Halmbacke r i n ou r publi c docke t an d full yconside r thei r comment s i n th e nex t phas e o f ou r rulemakin g process . Sincerel yyours , :;^;G; : 'A LSIGNE D B Y .•.;::-;;-.-,DD
. IVILSO N Richar dD . Wilso n Director , Offic e o f Mobil e Source s Enclosur e cc : Dock« t A-87-1 1
#### RICH v. STATE.

No. 25005.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 6, 1950.

*237None on appeal for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted on his plea of guilty to operating a motor vehicle on the public highway while intoxicated, and his punishment assessed at a fine of fifty dollars.

Upon the overruling of appellant’s motion for new trial appellant gave notice of appeal to this court.

He now presents his personal affidavit advising that he now desires to withdraw his appeal, and at his request the appeal is dismissed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.14


The CIT Group/
Business Credit, Inc.
3rd Floor
300 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel:   (213) 613-2575
Fax:  (213) 613-2588





December 16, 1997





Big 5 Corp.
2525 East El Segundo Boulevard
El Segundo, CA  90245

Dear Sirs:

We refer to the Financing Agreement, dated March 8, 1996 (as previously amended,
the "Agreement") between Big 5 Corp., a Delaware corporation, as borrower (the
"Company") and The CIT Group/Business Credit, Inc., as agent and lender
(individually the "Agent", and together with the other lenders, the "Lenders").
Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall be as defined in the
Agreement. The Company and the Lenders hereby agree that the Agreement is
amended, as follows:

     1. The last sentence in paragraph 1 of Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby
amended by deleting the word "herein", and inserting in lieu thereof the words
"in the second sentence of this paragraph 1 of Section 3 of this Financing
Agreement".

     2. Clause (b) of paragraph 10 of Section 12 of the Agreement is hereby
amended by deleting the words "in bulk", and inserting in lieu thereof the wards
"with a value greater than $2,500,000.00"

     3. The word "third" set forth in the first sentence of paragraph 11 of
Section 12 is hereby deleted, and the word "fifth" is inserted in lieu thereof.


<PAGE>   2



Except as otherwise hereinabove provided, no other amendment or modification of
the Agreement is hereby intended or implied. If the foregoing is in accordance
with your understanding, please so indicate by signing and returning to us the
enclosed copy of this letter. Very truly yours,



                                     The CIT Group/Business Credit, Inc.
                                     (as Agent and Lender)


                                     By: /s/ Illegible
                                         ---------------------------------------

                                     Title: Vice President
                                           -------------------------------------
Read and Agreed to:

Big 5 Corp.

By: /s/ Charles P. Kirk
   -----------------------------------------

Title: Sr. Vice President / CFO
       -------------------------------------


BT Commercial Corporation (as Lender)

By: /s/ Illegible
   -----------------------------------------

Title:
      --------------------------------------


National Bank of Canada (as Lender)

By: /s/ Illegible         /s/ John Curry
   -----------------------------------------

Title: Vice President   Vice President
      --------------------------------------


Sanwa Business Credit Corporation (as Lender)

By: /s/ Illegible
   -----------------------------------------

Title: Vice President
      --------------------------------------


Transamerica Business Credit (as Lender)

By: /s/ Thomas Fernandes
   -----------------------------------------

Title: Senior Account Executive
      --------------------------------------
Exhibit 31.2

                           ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT

         I, David J. Kolibachuk, being an officer of U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, the Trustee in respect of the Corporate Backed Trust
Certificates, BellSouth Debenture-Backed Series 2002-8 Trust (the
"Trust"), certify that:

     1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
         Trust and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or
         servicing reports of the Trust filed by Lehman ABS Corporation in
         respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report
         of the Trust;

     2.  Based on my knowledge, the information in those reports, taken as a
         whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
         omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
         in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
         not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this
         annual report;

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

     4.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
         Trustee under the pooling and servicing or similar agreement and
         based on my knowledge, except as disclosed in such reports, the
         Trustee has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.



Date: March 27, 2006


     /s/ DAVID J. KOLIBACHUK
-----------------------------------
David J. Kolibachuk, Vice President
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5146 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Chromate(4-), [7-amino-3-[(3-chloro2-hydroxy-5-nitrophenyl)azo]-4-hydroxy -2-naphthalenesulfonato(3-)][6- 

amino-4-hydroxy-3-[(2-hydroxy 5 -nitro-3-sulfophenyl)azo]-2- 

naphthalenesulfonato(4-)]-, tetrasodium (P 96–1335). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Chromate(4-), [7-amino3-[(3-chloro-2-hydroxy-5-nitrophenyl)azo]-4-hydroxy -2- 

naphthalenesulfonato(3-)][6-amino-4-hydroxy-3-[(2-hydroxy 5 -nitro-3-sulfophenyl)azo]-2- 

naphthalenesulfonato(4-)]-, tetrasodium (P 96–1335). 

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


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5146 IH

1 SECTION 1. CHROMATE(4-), [7-AMINO-3-[(3-CHLORO-2-HY2 DROXY-5-NITROPHENYL)AZO]-4-HYDROXY-2- 

3 NAPHTHALENESULFONATO(3-)][6-AMINO-4-HY4 DROXY-3-[(2-HYDROXY-5-NITRO-3- 

5 SULFOPHENYL)AZO]-2- 

6 NAPHTHALENESULFONATO(4-)]-, 

7 TETRASODIUM (P 96–1335). 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

9 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

10 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

11 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Chromate(4-), [7-amino-3- 

[(3-chloro-2-hydroxy-5- 

nitrophenyl)azo]-4-hydroxy-2- 

naphthalenesulfonato(3- 

)][6-amino-4-hydroxy-3- 

[(2-hydroxy-5-nitro-3- 

sulfophenyl)azo]-2- 

naphthalenesulfonato(4-)]-, 

tetrasodium (P 96–1335) 

(CAS No. 184719–87–7) 

(provided for in subheading 3204.12.45) ......... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

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

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

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

15 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
The State of 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 29, 2014

No. 04-14-00245-CR

David Nicholas GALLEGOS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR10033

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The State’s brief was originally due to be filed on August 27, 2014. The State’s first 

motion for extension of time was granted, extending the deadline for filing the brief to 

September 26, 2014. On September 29, 2014, the State filed a motion requesting an additional 

extension of time to file the brief until October 27, 2014, for a total extension of sixty days. The 

motion is GRANTED. THIS IS THE FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME THAT THE STATE 

WILL BE GRANTED. The State’s brief must be filed by October 27, 2014.

_________________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

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

court on this 29th day of September, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4934 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 4,8-Dicyclohexyl -6–2,10- 

dimethyl -12H-dibenzo[d,g][1,3,2]- dioxaphosphocin. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 4,8- 

Dicyclohexyl -6–2,10-dimethyl -12H-dibenzo[d,g][1,3,2]- 

dioxaphosphocin. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 4,8-DICYCLOHEXYL -6–2,10-DIMETHYL -12H4 DIBENZO[D,G][1,3,2]- DIOXAPHOSPHOCIN. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.12.77 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 4,8-Dicyclohexyl -6–2,10-dimethyl -12H8 dibenzo[d,g][1,3,2]- dioxaphosphocin) is amended by 

9 striking the date in the effective period column and insert10 ing ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4934 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### SOUTH EAST COAL CO. et al. v. SPANGLER.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 26, 1951.

Craft & Stanfill, Hazard, for appellants.

Napier & Napier, Hazard, for appellee.

STANLEY, Commissioner.

The circuit court set aside an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Board and directed it to reopen the case. The employer, South East Coal Company, appeals.

The employee, Watson Spangler, suffered a back injury in the appellant’s mine in October, 1947. The referee reported, however, that his disability was due to other accidents and dissipation. The Board adjudged him to have suffered temporary, total disability from this accident and allowed compensation accordingly. When the allowance was made, the time had expired, and the claimant was. paid in full. In August, 1950, Spangler petitioned the Board to reopen his case on the ground that subsequent developments showed him to be permanently disabled. The petition was supported by affidavits of the claimant, his brother-in-law and two doctors. Spangler and his brother-in-law describe his condition as having grown progressively worse. The statements of the two doctors, the Board found and our own comparison shows, are substantially the same as their original testimony, plus the opinion that the man was in a worse physical condition.

In the exercise of its statutory administrative discretion, the Board found the facts not sufficient to authorize a reopening of the case. We conceive nothing arbitrary in its decision and cannot concur in the ruling of the court. On authority of W. E. Caldwell Co. v. Borders, 301 Ky. 843, 193 S.W.2d 453, the judgment is

Reversed with directions to confirm the order of the Compensation Board.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 24, 2014

s0917 

# Order

Clerk September 24, 2014

148526 & (112)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148526

COA: 308229

Monroe CC: 11

- 038798

- FC

DWAIN ALLEN CARROLL,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for permission to file pro per supplemental

application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. T he application for leave to appeal the

November 21, 2013 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED,

because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this

Court.
----

----

III Informaciones

Comisión

----

ANUNCIO DE VACANTE PARA EL PUESTO DE VICEPRESIDENTE DE LA OFICINA COMUNITARIA DE VARIEDADES VEGETALES

(Grado A*12)

(Artículo 29, apartado 2, del Estatuto)

COM/2006/10022

(2006/C 83 A/01)

La Oficina Comunitaria de Variedades Vegetales busca candidatos para cubrir el puesto de vicepresidente.

Las personas interesadas deberán poseer la nacionalidad de uno de los Estados miembros de la Unión Europea.

El vicepresidente será nombrado por el Consejo a partir de una lista de candidatos que propondrá la Comisión tras haber recabado la opinión del consejo de administración de la Oficina. El salario y las condiciones de empleo serán los establecidos en el Estatuto para los funcionarios de grado A*12 de las Comunidades Europeas. La Oficina Comunitaria de Variedades Vegetales y la Comisión aplican una política de igualdad de oportunidades.

La descripción del puesto, los formularios y las instrucciones para la presentación de candidaturas pueden descargarse de las siguientes direcciones de Internet:

El plazo de recepción de las candidaturas expira el 8 de mayo de 2006 (véase información detallada en las instrucciones para la presentación de candidaturas).

----
Second Department,

November, 1990

(November 5, 1990)

#### John S. Gage, Respondent, v Joan Gage, Appellant.

In an action for divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant mother appeals from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), entered March 14, 1989, which, after a nonjury trial, awarded custody of the parties’ child to the plaintiff father.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The parties were married on November 5, 1983, and their son William Gage was born on December 1, 1984. Following a trial on the issue of custody which included, *inter alia,*the testimony of mental health professionals and the parties, the court awarded custody of William to the plaintiff father, John S. Gage.

Custody disputes arise in emotionally charged circum*333stances, and require that the court conduct a careful balancing of all the applicable factors in determining the best interests of the child under the prevailing circumstances *(see, Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 171-174; *Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer,*55 NY2d 89, 94).

The father’s expert witness, a psychiatrist, examined the parties and the child and found that the mother incessantly demeaned the father, even in front of William. He predicted that if the mother were given sole custody, "there would be a serious possibility that [the child] would continue to be involved as sort of a pawn or tool [against the father] and that she would promote or try to promote [the child] with a sense of anger or outrage with his own father”.

The mother’s expert witness, also a psychiatrist, recommended that the parties be given joint custody. Although he alternatively suggested that the mother be granted sole custody, he conceded that if such an award were made and the mother continued her barrage of negative comments about the father in the child’s presence, the child could become extremely disturbed. He further conceded that if the mother were awarded custody, she might interfere with the father’s visitation of the child.

An award of custody is a matter of discretion for the hearing court, and its decision is entitled to great weight *(see, Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 173, *supra; Matter of Diane L. v Richard L.,*151 AD2d 760, 761). Upon the exercise of our broad review powers in custody matters *(see, Matter of Louise E. S. v W. Stephen S.,*64 NY2d 946; *Lenczycki v Lenczycki,*152 AD2d 621), we conclude that the court’s custody determination is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record, and we decline to disturb it *(see, Matter of Gloria S. v Richard B.,*80 AD2d 72, 76).

We have considered the mother’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit *(see, Lenczycki v Lenczycki, supra,*at 123). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
#### SANDERS v. STATE.

No. 25764.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 19, 1952.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

Upon a plea of guilty, appellant was assessed the maximum punishment for simple assault.

There appearing no bills of exception or statement of facts in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MAHA TABBARA AYOUBI

,

Appellant

V.

SAMMY S. AYOUBI

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 6

- 00 145

- CV

Appeal from the

16th District Court

of Denton C ounty, Texas

(TC# 15

- 01319

- 16 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether it should be

dismissed for want of prosecution. Finding that Appellant, Maha Tabbara Ayoubi

, h a s failed to

file her brief or a motion for extension of time to file the brief, we dismiss the appeal for want of

prosecution.

T he Clerk of the Court notified Appellant that her brief was past due and no motion for

extension of time had been filed. The letter advised Appellant that the Court intended to dismiss

the appeal for want of prosecution unless Appellant responded within ten days and showed

grounds for continuing the appeal. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 38.8(a)(1). Appellant has not filed any- 2

-

response to the inquiry. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See

T EX .R.A PP .P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).

December 9, 2016

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4999 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4999

           To extend the temporary reduction of duty on DMDS.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    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 reduction of duty on DMDS.

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

SECTION 1. DMDS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.33.92 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 2,2-Dithiobis(8-fluoro-5-
methoxy)-1,2,4-triazolo[1,5-c] pyrimidine) 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>
```