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

No. 25515.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 5, 1951.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 13, 1952.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment, five years.

According to the testimony of Miss Tigert, she and deceased had gone to White Rock Lake on the night in question to fish, that upon arrival they found their accustomed spot occupied by the automobile driven iby appellant in which he was seated with his female companion, that as soon as they discovered this deceased backed his automobile away from the lake, but that appellant also backed away from the lake, and that the two automobiles came to a stop near each other on the paved highway. Miss Tigert testified that at this point appellant got out of his car with a pair of pliers in his hand, cursed deceased for having shone his light on him, hit deceased over the head with the pliers, and then stabbed deceased in the stomach with the same. Miss Tigert further testified that after some additional conflict appellant drove away, leaving her to carry deceased home.

The State proved that deceased died some 30 hours later as the result of a puncture of his stomach inflicted by a blunt instrument, and that when appellant was first questioned by the officers he denied having been at White Rock Lake on the night in question.

Appellant and his companion of the evening, who was by the time of the trial his wife, both testified that the deceased had been the aggressor in the conflict and that appellant had acted in his own self-defense.

One bill of exception is presented for our review. It claims that the trial court in his charge did not give appellant the benefit of his affirmative defenses under his claim of self-defense.

The court qualified this bill by stating that in his main charge he had given an unlimited charge on self-defense and that he had refused appellant’s requested charge because, in his opinion, the same was on the weight of the evidence.

*174After a .review of the main charge, we conclude that the trial court was correct in his qualification of the bill.

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

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

In appellant’s motion for rehearing he insists that he was entitled to a charge affirmatively submitting his issue of self-defense.

In his objections to the -court’s charge he did make this complaint. He then presented a requested charge which the court refused because, as stated in his qualification to the hill of exception, it was on the weight of the evidence. This bill need not be considered. The objections to the court’s charge raise the issue. The original opinion could have gone further and said that an examination of the court’s charge shows that he properly submitted the issue of self-defense in an affirmative manner applying the law to- the facts of the case. This we find to be embodied within the court’s charge. There was, therefore, no ground for complaint.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Exhibit 15





Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, Northwest
Washington, D.C.  20549
Attention:  Document Control

Re:  The Southland Corporation Form 10-Q

We are aware that our report dated October 22, 1998 on our review of the 
condensed consolidated balance sheet of The Southland Corporation and 
Subsidiaries as of September 30, 1998, and the related condensed 
consolidated statements of earnings for the three-month and nine-month 
periods ended September 30, 1998 and 1997, and the condensed consolidated 
statements of cash flows for the nine-month periods ended September 30, 
1998 and 1997, included in this Form 10-Q, is incorporated by reference in 
the following registration statements.

                                                         REGISTRATION NO.
                                                         ----------------
     On Form S-8 for:

       Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to The Southland
          Corporation Grant Stock Plan                           33-25327

       The Southland Corporation 1995 Stock Incentive Plan       33-63617

       The Southland Corporation Supplemental Executive
          Retirement Plan for Eligible Employees                333-42731

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, this report 
should not be considered a part of the registration statement prepared or 
certified by us within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.



PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Dallas, Texas
October 27, 1998

                                   Tab 1
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.7.7      Quaker City Bank Change in Control Agreement Renewal and
                    Extension Acknowledgment between Quaker City Bank and
                    Dwight L. Wilson dated July 1, 2001.



                                QUAKER CITY BANK
                          CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT
                      RENEWAL AND EXTENSION ACKNOWLEDGMENT



Name of Participant:              Dwight L. Wilson
                    -------------------------------------------------



The undersigned participant does hereby acknowledge that, at their regularly
scheduled meeting on June 21, 2001, the Board of Directors of Quaker City Bank
acted to renew and extend the Quaker City Bank Change in Control Agreement with
the undersigned participant to a full twenty-four (24) month term, until
June 30, 2003.


Dated this     1st     day of        July           , A.D.,      2001          .
           ---     ---        ------      ----------        ----      ---------



                              QUAKER CITY BANK


  /s/ Dwight L. Wilson        By:  /s/ Frederic R. McGill
-------------------------        --------------------------
Participant                      President
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC,

 Plaintiff 

-vMICROSOFT CORPORATION, 

 Defendant 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

W-20-CV-00454-ADA 

W-20-CV-00455-ADA 

W-20-CV-00456-ADA 

W-20-CV-00457-ADA 

W-20-CV-00458-ADA 

W-20-CV-00459-ADA 

W-20-CV-00460-ADA 

W-20-CV-00461-ADA 

W-20-CV-00462-ADA 

W-20-CV-00463-ADA 

W-20-CV-00464-ADA 

W-20-CV-00465-ADA 

ORDER APPOINTING TECHNICAL ADVISOR 

The Court hereby appoints Dr. Joshua J. Yi to serve as the Technical Advisor for the Court 

in this case. Dr. Yi’s contact information is as follows: 

Dr. Joshua J. Yi 

8650 Spicewood Springs Road, Suite 145, #226 

Austin, TX 78759 

josh@joshuayipatentlaw.com 

Dr. Yi will assist the Court with technical issues related to the claim construction process 

and advise the Court regarding preliminary and final claim constructions. Because a technical 

advisor serves essentially as a law clerk to the Court and will be familiar with the claim 

construction issues in this case, Dr. Yi may also assist the Court in drafting a claim construction 

order. 

The parties are instructed to mail a paper copy of the claim construction briefs and a USB 

drive with any exhibits and/or technology tutorials to the above address no later than at least 10 

days before the claim construction hearing. 

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 51 Filed 02/01/21 Page 1 of 2
Finally, depending on the needs of the case, Dr. Yi may also assist the Court with motions 

for summary judgment, Daubert motions, at trial, and with post-trial motions. 

SIGNED this 1st day of February, 2021. 

ALAN D ALBRIGHT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 51 Filed 02/01/21 Page 2 of 2
#### VICK v. STATE.

No. 24413.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 15, 1949.

No appearance for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of burglary on an indictment which charged him with the primary offense of burglary and also charged that theretofore he had been twice convicted of felonies less than capital. His punishment was assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for life.

*290The record is before us without any bills .of exceptions or any objections to the court’s charge. The indictment seems, to be in due and legal form. Consequently, the only question presented for review is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction. We have carefully reviewed the statement of facts and find that the evidence is ample to sustain every allegation in the indictment.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
Motion GRANTED and Order filed December 5, 2022. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-22-00897-CV

____________

IN RE MARIA CRISTINA DONNELLY, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Probate Court No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 477,195-401

ORDER

On December 5, 2022, relator Maria Cristina Donnelly, filed a petition for 

writ of mandamus in this court. Relator asks this court to order the Honorable 

Michael Newman, Judge of the Probate Court No 2, in Harris County, Texas, to set 

aside his November 29, 2022 docket control order, entered in trial court number 

477,195-401, styled In the Estate of George James Donnelly, Deceased.
2

Relator has also filed a motion for temporary stay of proceedings below. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10. On December 5, 2022, relator asked this court to stay 

proceedings in the trial court pending a decision on the petition for writ of 

mandamus.

It appears from the facts stated in the petition and motion that relator’s request 

for relief requires further consideration and that relator will be prejudiced unless 

immediate temporary relief is granted. We therefore GRANT relator’s motion and 

issue the following order:

We ORDER the December 5, 2022 trial in trial court cause number 477,195-

401, In the Estate of George James Donnelly, Deceased, STAYED until a final 

decision by this court on relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, or until further 

order of this court.

In addition, the court requests real parties in interest John Donnelly, Mark 

Donnelly, and Eric Donnelly to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus 

on or before December 12, 2022. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.4.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Poissant.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

 

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Heavy-Duty Hybrid Onboard Diagnostics

FROM: Amy Kopin

TO: The Docket

DATE: July 5, 2011

On April 13th, 2011 we held a conference call with the Hybrid Manufacturers Regulatory

Collaboration (HMRC) to discuss concerns raised by HMRC members regarding heavy-duty

onboard diagnostic (OBD) requirements and timing. Concerns were raised during the comment 

period for the heavy-duty greenhouse gas notice of proposed rulemaking that heavy-duty hybrid 

applications may not be able to meet the 2013 heavy-duty OBD regulations that were published 

in the 2009 OBD Final Rulemaking. 1,2Specifically, they have requested a delay of the 

application of HD OBD requirements for hybrid applications until 2020. Attendees from the 

EPA and HMRC are shown. The agenda for the meeting is presented on the following page of 

this memo.

Attendee Affiliation

Cleophas Jackson EPA – Compliance and Innovative Strategies 

Division

Anthony Neam EPA – Assessment and Standards Division

Amy Kopin EPA – Assessment and Standards Division

Barbara Chance Allison Transmission

Kevin Rodgers Allison Transmission

Ian McKenzie Eaton Corporation

Tom Apalenek BAE Systems

 

1 U.S. EPA, NHTSA, and DOT, “Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Mediumand Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles,” republished December 29, 2010. Available here: 

http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-29/html/2010-32726.htm

2 U.S. EPA, “Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicles Engines; Final Rule 

Regulations Requiring Onboard Diagnostic Systems on 2010 and Later Heavy-Duty Engines Used in Highway 

Applications Over 14,000 Pounds; Revisions to Onboard Diagnostic Requirements for Diesel Highway Heavy-Duty 

Vehicles Under 14,000 Pounds,” published February 24, 2009. Available here: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/im/obd/regtech/hd-obd-frm-02-24-09-notice-74-fr-8310.pdf

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

 

Joint HMRC-EPA Call Regarding Heavy-Duty Hybrid OBD

April 13, 2011

Agenda

1. Current Technology

a. What capability do production systems have today? 

2. Industry’s Interim Plans

a. Specific monitor and/or other difficulties they anticipate having.

b. What monitors will be functional and which will not be functional.

c. Interim plan if there is a delay.

d. How to ensure tampering won’t occur if OBD implementation is 

delayed/limited.

e. How to ensure system is functioning properly if OBD is 

delayed/limited.

3. Standardization and Communications

a. What are specific concerns with J1939?

b. HMRC states that HD hybrid system manufacturers do not “have 

access to OBD system [engine] data,” is this issue being actively 

resolved?

4. Review OBD requirements for alternative fuels.

5. Next Steps

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION
#### CARTER v. LOUISVILLE TRANSIT CO. et al. BELTON v. LOUISVILLE TRANSIT CO. et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 4, 1953.

■Charles W, Anderson, Jr., Louisville, for appellants.

James Hendricks and Bullitt, Dawson & Tarrant, Louisville, for appellees.

COMBS, Justice.

Plaintiffs, Mrs. Gussie Carter and Sam Belton, claim to have been injured when an automobile in which they were riding collided with defendant’s bus at the intersection of Chestnut and Fifteenth Streets in Louisville. They appeal from judgments entered on directed verdicts for the defendant at the close of plaintiffs’ testimony.

Chestnut is a one-way street for traffic going east; Fifteenth is a two-way street and runs north and south. These streets intersect at right angles and at the intersection there are stop signs on both streets.

. The bus was traveling east on Chestnut; plaintiffs’ car was traveling north on Fifteenth. The bus stopped at the southwest corner of Chestnut and Fifteenth to discharge passengers. The car stopped in obedience to the intersection stop sign on Fifteenth Street. It then entered the intersection and ran into the side of the bus, which had not only entered the intersection but had almost cleared it. At the time of the collision, the front end of the bus was *695almost even with the east curb line of Fifteenth Street.

 The trial court, in directing verdicts for the defendant, stated that plaintiffs had failed to show any negligence on the part of defendant’s driver. We agree. Since the car struck the side of the bus after the bus had almost cleared the intersection, the conclusion is inescapable that the bus entered the intersection first. That being so, the bus driver had the right to assume that plaintiffs’ driver would yield the right of way. There is no material dispute about the facts, and the only inference which reasonably can be drawn is that the accident was caused solely by the negligence of plaintiffs’ driver. Consequently, there was no issue to submit to the jury. The cases cited by plaintiffs are not applicable to this situation.

The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5452 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5452

      To suspend temporarily the duty on 11-Aminoundecanoic acid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To suspend temporarily the duty on 11-Aminoundecanoic acid.

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

SECTION 1. 11-AMINOUNDECANOIC ACID.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.32.49 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 11-Aminoundecanoic acid) is 
amended--
            (1) in the general rate of duty column, by striking 
        ``2.6%'' and inserting ``Free''; and
            (2) by striking the date in the effective period column and 
        inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the date that is 15 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5270 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-(4,6-Bis-(2,4-dimethylphenyl)-1,3,5- 

triazin-2-yl)-5-(octyloxy)-phenol. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-(4,6-Bis-(2,4- 

dimethylphenyl)-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)-5-(octyloxy)-phenol. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 2-(4,6-BIS-(2,4-DIMETHYLPHENYL)-1,3,5-TRIAZIN4 2-YL)-5-(OCTYLOXY)-PHENOL. 

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

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5270 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 2-(4,6-Bis-(2,4- 

dimethylphenyl)-1,3,5- 

triazin-2-yl)-5-(octyloxy)- 

phenol (CAS No. 2725– 

22–6) (provided for in subheading 2933.69.60) ......... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

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 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Gustavo Caballero, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Emma Caballero, Deceased, Appellant, v Montefiore Medical Center et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered on or about March 12, 1990, which, *inter alia,*granted plaintiff’s motion to preclude defendant Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center from contesting issues of liability or proximate cause for failure to comply with plaintiff’s notice for discovery and inspection only to the extent of precluding defendant from using any medical records not disclosed to plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action and served the defendant hospital with a notice for discovery and inspection seeking *220medical records which the defendant hospital had previously advised plaintiff could not be located. Defense counsel responded that the complete set of records could still not be located but that continuing efforts were being made. Plaintiff then moved to preclude the defendant hospital from contesting the issues of liability and proximate cause, contending that plaintiff’s expert could not render an opinion as to these subjects as the records were incomplete. The IAS court granted the motion to the extent of precluding defendant from using any part of the record undisclosed to plaintiff and directing that should the missing records be located, plaintiff must be notified.

The IAS court’s order was appropriate under the circumstances. The willful failure to comply with a discovery order, for which extra sanctions are warranted, assumes "an ability to comply and a decision not to comply” (3A Weinstein-KornMiller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 3126.04).

There is no evidence that the hospital willfully failed to disclose the requested records. Indeed, from the outset, the hospital informed plaintiff of its inability to locate the records. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5490 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5490

 To suspend temporarily the duty on certain injection-molded ABS or PP 
     cases or containers to be used for electronic drawing toys or 
                           electronic games.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on certain injection-molded ABS or PP 
     cases or containers to be used for electronic drawing toys or 
                           electronic games.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN INJECTION MOLDED ABS OR PP CASES OR CONTAINERS TO BE 
              USED FOR ELECTRONIC DRAWING TOYS OR ELECTRONIC GAMES.

    (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        Cases or            Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          containers                                                        12/31/2016
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          4202.99.90), made
                          of injection
                          molded ABS
                          (acrylonitrile
                          butadiene
                          styrene) or PP
                          (polypropylene),
                          specially shaped
                          or fitted for,
                          and with
                          labeling, logo or
                          other descriptive
                          information on
                          the exterior of
                          the case or
                          container
                          indicating an
                          intention to be
                          used for,
                          electronic
                          drawing toys or
                          electronic games
                          of heading 9503
                          or 9504..........

    (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>
```