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

No. 23754.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 29, 1947.

Rayford L. Ball, of Lubbock, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of an assault with a prohibited weapon and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the county jail for a period of eighteen months.

There are only two questions presented by the record. First, that the indictment is insufficient to charge the offense, and Second, that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. We will now discuss these questions in the order of presentment.

The indictment, omitting the formal parts, reads as follows: “that Dale Hall on or about the 2nd day of December, A.D. 1946, and anterior to the presentment of this indictment, in the County and State aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully carry on and about his person a pistol, with the said pistol did then and there willfully commit an assault in and upon R. L. Holland with said pistol,” etc. We see nothing *370wrong with the indictment since it charges every essential element of the offense. Appellant cites us to the case of Reneau v. State, 106 Tex.Cr.R. 250, 291 S.W. 899 as supporting his contention. It will be noted that in that case, it was not charged in the indictment that the accused made the assault with the knuckles which he was charged with unlawfully carrying. It was upon this theory that the indictment was held deficient, but such is not true in the instant case.

He next complains that the evidence is insufficient to justify and sustain his conviction, in this, that the State failed to prove that he was not legally authorized to carry a pistol at the time and place in question.When the State proved that he carried on or about his person a pistol and with said pistol he committed an assault upon R. L. Holland, the State had made a prima facie case. " If appellant was authorized by law or was permitted under the law to carry the pistol, the burden rested upon him to prove such to "he the case. See Featherston v. State, 35 Tex.Cr.R. 612, 614, 34 S.W. 276, 938; O’Neal v. State, 32 Tex.Cr.R. 42, 22 S.W.25; and Jones v. State, 91 Tex.Cr.R. 240, 238 S.W. 661.

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

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Comission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
EX-10.8





 Exhibit 10.8 

February 1, 2021 
 Personal &
Confidential; Sent via Email and DocuSign only 
 Mr. Kenneth L. Pendery, Jr. 

 

	 	Re:	 Your Employment Relationship with First Watch 



Dear Ken: 
 This letter agreement confirms the
details of your continuing employment relationship with First Watch Restaurants, Inc. (the “Company”). 
 You have an employment
agreement with the Company dated August 1, 2017 (the “Employment Agreement”). You and the Company agree that the Employment Agreement is terminated effective January 31, 2021, and that all of the parties’ rights and
obligations contained in the Employment Agreement, including without limitation the Company’s obligation to pay you severance following termination of employment, are extinguished and have no further force and effect.    

 This letter agreement sets forth the entire understanding and agreement between you and the Company concerning your continued employment
status with the Company, and this letter agreement can only be amended in a writing signed by both you and the Company. 
 You will remain
an employee of the Company, solely in the role as an emeritus member of the Company’s Board of Directors, effective immediately following January 31, 2021 for a period of 19 months following the date of this letter (the “Emeritus
Board Service Period”). You will perform no active work as an employee of the Company during the Emeritus Board Service Period and will receive no compensation from the Company for your service as an emeritus Board
member.     
 You will retain your Company-provided health insurance during your term of Emeritus Board Service Period,
as long as you remain totally and continuously disabled pursuant to the terms of that plan. Your long-term disability benefit will continue and end pursuant to the terms of the long-term disability plan. Your Company-provided life insurance will
continue for the first 12 months of the Emeritus Board Service Period, after which it will end, based on the terms outlined in the summary plan document. 

At the end of the 19-month Emeritus Board Service Period, your employment with, and Board service to,
the Company shall terminate. At that time, the Company will, in consideration of your Emeritus Board Service and your many other contributions to the Company, pay you severance in the amount of $245,000 less required withholdings and deductions,
which will be paid to you in a lump sum no later than 90 days following your last day of Emeritus Board Service. In the unlikely event of your death prior to the expiration of the 19 months, the $245,000 will be paid to your beneficiary within 90
days of your death.  












 Please acknowledge your acceptance of this letter agreement by signing and dating below
where indicated. 
  

			
	 Sincerely,
	 	
	
	 FIRST WATCH RESTAURANTS, INC.

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Laura Sorensen

	Title:	 	Chief People Officer


  

	
	 I accept the letter agreement as outlined above:

	
	 /s/ Kenneth L. Pendery, Jr.

	 Kenneth L. Pendery, Jr.

	 Dated: as of February 1, 2021
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

TIFFANY MCKAY, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § 1:20-CV-547-RP

§

NATIONAL MANAGEMENT RECOVERY §

CORP. and HARTFORD CASUALTY §

INSURANCE COMPANY, §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER

On August 28, 2020, Plaintiff Tiffany McKay (“McKay”) dismissed all claims in this case 

with prejudice. (Dkt. 16). Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action 

without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a 

motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Defendants National Management 

Recovery Corporation and Hartford Casualty Insurance Company have not served answers or 

motions for summary judgment. McKay’s notice is therefore “self-effectuating and terminates the 

case in and of itself; no order or other action of the district court is required.” In re Amerijet Int’l, Inc., 

785 F.3d 967, 973 (5th Cir. 2015), as revised (May 15, 2015). 

As nothing remains to resolve, IT IS ORDERED that the case is CLOSED. 

 SIGNED on August 31, 2020.

ROBERT PITMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00547-RP Document 17 Filed 08/31/20 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.1



SPS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



I, John S. Thompson, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director of SPS Technologies, Inc., certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SPS Technologies, Inc.;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report 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 with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)	[Omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];

c)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d)   Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.	The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.





Date: November 5, 2003            /s/ John S. Thompson                                  John S. Thompson
                                  Chief Executive Officer, President
                                  and Director
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC D/B/A 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELPOTMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00464-ADA

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

Notice is hereby given that James “Travis” Underwood of Gillam & Smith, LLP enters 

his appearance on behalf of Defendant Microsoft Corporation in this matter as additional 

counsel.

James “Travis” Underwood may receive all communications from the Court and from 

other parties at Gillam & Smith, LLP, 102 N. College, Suite 800, Tyler, Texas 75702; 

Telephone: (903) 934-8450; Facsimile: (903) 934-9257; e-mail travis@gillamsmithlaw.com.

Dated: February 4, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ James Travis Underwood

James Travis Underwood

Texas Bar No. 24102587

GILLAM & SMITH, LLP

102 N. College, Suite 800

Tyler, Texas 75702

Telephone: (903) 934-8450

Facsimile: (903) 934-9257

Email: travis@gillamsmithlaw.com

Case 6:20-cv-00464-ADA Document 108 Filed 02/04/22 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic 

service are being served this 4

th day of February, 2022 with a copy of this document via the 

Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(b)(1).

/s/ James Travis Underwood

James Travis Underwood

Case 6:20-cv-00464-ADA Document 108 Filed 02/04/22 Page 2 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

__________ District of __________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

for the 

SITO Mobile R&D IP, LLC, and 

SITO Mobile, LTD. 

Plaintiff(s) 

v.

FloSports, Inc. 

Defendant(s) 

) 

)

)

)

)

) Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00471 

)

)

)

)

)

)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION 

To: (Defendant’s name and address) 

 FloSports, Inc.

 c/o Registered Agents Inc. 

 5900 Balcones Drive, Suite 100 

 Austin, TX 78731 

A lawsuit has been filed against you. 

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you 

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, 

whose name and address are: 

 Raymond W. Mort, III 

 The Mort Law Firm, PLLC 

 100 Congress Ave, Suite 2000 

 Austin, Texas 78701 

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court. 

CLERK OF COURT 

Date: 

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk 

Western District of Texas

Case 6:20-cv-00471-ADA Document 4 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

.

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00471 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l)) 

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) 

was received by me on (date) . ❒ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place) 

on (date) ; or 

 ❒ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name) 

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there, 

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or 

❒ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is 

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) 

on (date) ; or 

❒ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or 

❒ Other (specify): 

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. 

Date: 

Server’s signature 

Printed name and title 

Server’s address 

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc: 

Case 6:20-cv-00471-ADA Document 4 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Barney A. Richmond, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my
knowledge, the Annual Report of Assurance Group, Inc. on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, (i) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) that the information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Assurance Group, Inc.



|                    |  |                              
|------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: April
8, 2011 |  | /S/    BARNEY
A.
RICHMOND    
|                    |  | Barney A. Richmond           
|                    |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                    |  | (Principal Executive Officer)

I, Richard C. Turner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my
knowledge, the Annual Report of Assurance Group, Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2010, (i) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) that the information
contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Assurance Group, Inc.



|                    |  |                              
|------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: April
8, 2011 |  | /S/    RICHARD
C.
TURNER     
|                    |  | Richard C. Turner            
|                    |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                    |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 5

Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 42-7 Filed 11/04/20 Page 1 of 2
Contact

www.linkedin.com/in/craigetchegoyen-aa8a07199 (LinkedIn)

Craig Etchegoyen

Chairman at WSOU investments

Kailua-Kona

Experience

PARTIE 

Chief Executive Officer

WSOU investments 

Chairman 

January 2017 - Present (3 years 11 months)

Hawaii, United States

Page 1 of 1

Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 42-7 Filed 11/04/20 Page 2 of 2
NCK PERRY GOVXRNOR

March 10,2009

Mr. Lawrence E. Starfield ActingRegional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 

### 6 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 Dear Mr. Starfield: Pursuant to the requirements in Section 107(d)(l)(A)ofthe federal Clean Air Act, we have enclosed therecommendationfor designation of areas in Texas with regard to the revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard for eight-hour ozone of 0.075 parts per million. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) developed the enclosed recommendation, considering currently available, eligible monitoring data for all areas in Texas from the 2005-2007 period. The State ofTexas recommendation also takes into account the 2008 data, which will be certified in accordance with EPA requirements. The commission understands that EPA plans to utilize the most recentthree years of ambient monitoring data as the basis for designations. Additionally, 2009 certified data may be available for the EPA's consideration

### in making the designations. TCEQ staff members are availableto work with you regarding the appropriate data submission. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel freeto contactTCEQ Chairman Buddy Garcia at (512) 239-5515.

GovernorState ofTexas 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard of 0.075 parts per million DesignationRecommendation

The following counties, listed by air quality planning area, should be designated nonattainment. All the rest of the counties in Texas should be designated attainment/unclassifiable. Austin-Area Travis Beaumont-Port Arthur Area Hardin Jefferson Orange Dallas-Fort Worth Area Collin Dallas Denton Ellis Hood Johnson Kaufman Parker Rockwall Tarrant El Paso County with the exception oftribal lands, i.e., Ysleta Del Sur Reservation or Trnst Lands Houston-Galveston-BrazoriaArea Brazoria Chambers Fort Bend Galveston Harris Liberty Montgomery Waller SanAntonio Area Bexar Tyler Area Gwg Rusk Smith
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          30,658
<SECURITIES>                                    43,248
<RECEIVABLES>                                  325,941
<ALLOWANCES>                                    16,285
<INVENTORY>                                    322,295
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               748,777
<PP&E>                                         302,427
<DEPRECIATION>                                 159,711
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,196,068
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          427,882
<BONDS>                                        103,226
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        42,755
<OTHER-SE>                                     535,446
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,196,068
<SALES>                                      1,235,964
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,235,964
<CGS>                                          767,713
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  767,713
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,216
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,033
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,863
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                178,236
<INCOME-TAX>                                    67,512
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            110,724
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   110,724<F1>
<EPS-BASIC>                                     2.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.53<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Excluding the reversal of a litigation provision, changes in Pittway's
equity investment in Cylink, the gain on sale of USSB stock and related tax
benefits, net income would have been $55.1 million ($1.26 per diluted share).

</FN>



</TABLE>
From: Chuck French [French.Chuck@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 6:24 PM To: Chuck French Cc: Higgins, Cortney; Ann Johnson; Mark Morris; Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov; Phil Mulrine; Robin Langdon; Tom Walton; Hancy, Cindy Wang; Erin Newman; Jan Tierney; Kelly Rimer; Marinshaw, Richard; Sara Ayres; Steve Fruh; Tim Benner Subject: Re: EO 13563 Interagency Comments on Chromium RTR Attachments: E O 12866 CromiumElectroplatingSteelPickling 2060 - AQ60P Promu lgation - 8 - 10 - 2012 - epa - edits.docx; E O 12866 CromiumElectroplatingSteelPickling 2060 - AQ60P Promulgation - 8 - 10 - 2012 - revised - clean.docx Hi Cortney, We made edits to the preamble/rule to address comments we discussed on 8/8/2012. Attached is a revised pr eamble and rule. One version shows changes in "track changes", the other is a clean version. Let me know if you have questions. Thanks. Chuck French Phone: 919 - 541 - 7912 (See attached file: E O 12866 CromiumElectroplatingSteelPickling 2060 - AQ 60P Promulgation - 8 - 10 - 2012 - epa - edits.docx)(See attached file: E O 12866 CromiumElectroplatingSteelPickling 2060 - AQ60P Promulgation - 8 - 10 - 2012 - revised - clean.docx)
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned
officers of Standard Commercial Corporation, a North Carolina corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company, as of and
for the periods presented.



|                       |  |     |  |                                                                      
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 8, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert E. Harrison                                               
|                       |  |     |  | Robert E. Harrison Chief Executive
Officer                           
|                       |  |    
|Date: November 8, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert A. Sheets                                                 
|                       |  |     |  | Robert A. Sheets Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer



The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
#### BATES v. STATE.

No. 23513.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 11, 1946.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 15, 1947.

No appearance for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The fine assessed was One Hundred Dollars for violation of the liquor laws. The notice of appeal as shown by the record was merely a docket entry and it is not shown that notice was entered of record. Consequently, this court has no jurisdiction of the case.

The appeal is dismissed.