alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1

                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Charles M. Weaver, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
         Corporate Backed Trust Certificates, News America Debenture-Backed
         Series 2002-9 Trust (the "Trust") and all reports on Form 8-K
         containing distribution or servicing reports of the Trust filed in
         respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report
         of the Trust;

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

      4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
         Depositor and the Trustee under the pooling and servicing or similar
         agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance
         review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the
         reports, the Depositor and Trustee have each fulfilled its
         obligations under that agreement.


In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, as Trustee.

Date: March 28, 2005


         /s/ CHARLES M. WEAVER
--------------------------------------------
Charles M. Weaver, Vice President
#### DAVIS v. STATE.

No. 23732.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 25, 1947.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 22, 1947.

Smith & Pollard, of Austin, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The conviction is, under art. 525, P.C., for the offense commonly referred to as procuring; the punishment, a fine of $50 and confinement in jail for one month— which is the minimum punishment provided for that offense.

The sole complaints brought here relate to argument of State’s counsel. Bills of Exception Nos. 1 and 2 complain of argument as being a reference to the failure of the appellant to testify.

These bills of exception are insufficient because it is not certified therein that appellant did not, in fact, testify as a witness in his own behalf. 4 Tex.Jur., p. 396, Sec. 264.

It must be remembered it is the well-established rule that argument of State’s counsel does not constitute reversible error unless, in extreme cases, it is manifestly improper or violates some mandatory statute or some new fact is injected into the case. Vineyard v. State, 96 Tex.Cr. R. 401, 257 S.W. 548; Tadlock v. State, 139 Tex.Cr. R. 316, 139 S.W.2d 796; McMahon v. State, 147 Tex.Cr. R. 508, 182 S.W.2d 712; Mickle v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 191 S.W.2d 41; Gordon v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 194 S.W.2d 775.

The arguments complained of in the other bills of exception do not come within the rule stated. It would serve no useful purpose to here recite the arguments complained of.

In the light of the rule stated, the facts showing appellant’s guilt and the infliction of the minimum punishment, reversible error is not deemed shown.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
|                                                                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                                                    
|View History:                                                                                           
|                                                                                                        
|Illinois Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs, Wet (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                        
|Illinois Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs, Wet (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0      | 2     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 1      | 1      | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |       
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | W      | W     
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 17, 2015

No. 04-14-00674-CV

John Michael DONOHUE,

Appellant

v.

Daniel Butts, et al.Appellee/s

Daniel BUTTS, ET AL.,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV-14-0000180

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellee’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief has this date been received 

and filed in the above styled and numbered cause. Extension of time to file the Appellee’s brief 

is this date GRANTED. Time is extended to March 18, 2015.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ____________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE

CLERK OF COURT

cc: Michael A. Shaunessy

600 Congress Ave, Suite 2100

Austin, TX 78701

John M. Donohue

Duncan Unit

1502 South First Street

Diboll, TX 75941
|                                                                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                                   
|View History:                                                                                          
|                                                                                                       
|Texas - RRC District 3 Onshore Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                       
|                                                                                                       
|Texas - RRC District 3 Onshore Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 61     | 182    | 149    | 302   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 122    | 681    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
#### RICHARDSON v. STATE.

No. 24206.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 12, 1949.

Lessing & Reid, and J. W. Reid, all of Abilene, for appellant.

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

*573GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of a violation of the liquor laws in Taylor County and assessed a penalty of $700.00 fine and 6 months in jail.

It appears that agents of the Texas Liquor Control Board searched appellant’s car and found a quantity of intoxicating liquor in his possession. The searching officer testified that he had received certain information and not having time to obtain a search warrant, he drove out on the road, and as appellant’s car approached, he saw some one throw out of same a case of beer before he searched the car; that he then searched the car and found four four-fifths quarts of whisky, as well as possessing himself of the case of beer. His testimony shows that the case of beer was thrown out of the appellant’s car prior to the time of the search. We think the officer’s testimony evidences probable cause for such search. See Callicut v. State, 125 Tex. Cr.R. 510, 68 S.W.2d 1047; Coleman v. State, 111 Tex.Cr.R. 154, 11 S.W.2d 794; Washington v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 214; 296 S.W. 512; Blanks v. State, 111 Tex.Cr.R. 223, 11 S.W.2d 564.

The State also pleaded and proved the two other violations of a- similar character wherein a conviction against appellant had resulted.

The State’s witness, George Con-nell, testified before the jury over appellant’s objection relative to having probable cause to search appellant’s car in substance that he “had received information that Chuck Richardson (appellant) would deliver some whisky and beer out on Seventh Street in Abilene, east of the railroad, within the next few minutes and I got in my car with Inspector Bacques and we drove out there on South Eleventh .Street and turned around and parked on the side street there, and in about two minutes C. C. Richardson came along.” The witness then told about the search and finding certain liquor in the car, etc.

The portion of the testimony relative to the information received by the witness as to what appellant was going to deliver should not have, been heard by the jury, ■such being admissible only before the judge in the absence of the jury in order for him to determine whether probable cause for a search existed. Appellant’s bill of exception properly brings this matter before us and such hearsay should ■ cause a reversal hereof. It will be noted, however, that no issue was made relative to such information having been received. See Lee v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 18, 70 S.W.2d 185; Maxwell v. State, 121 Tex.Cr.R. 190, 51 S.W.2d 334; Sealey v. State, 120 Tex.Cr.R. 260, 47 S.W.2d 295; Weaver v. State, 117 Tex.Cr.R. 335, 38 S.W.2d 85; Weddle v. State, 112 Tex.Cr.R. 250, 16 S.W.2d 244; Hodge v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 214 S.W.2d 469. However, we are of the opinion that probable cause was shown to exist for such search, but that such hearsay information should not have been heard before the jury.

' For the error shown, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

- - - - - - - -

NO. 14-0941

ERWIN CRUZ

v.

CHERRY PETERSEN LANDRY

ALBERT §

§

§

§

§

§ Dallas County,

5th District.

September 11, 2015

Petitioner 's petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.

         

I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE

, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above and attached is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of

Texas in the case numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of

said Court under the date shown.

It is further ordered that petitioner, ERWIN CRUZ, pay all costs incurred on this petition.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 23rd day of October, 2015

.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-20761

(Summary Calendar)

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RUBEN BEDOYA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(93-CR-265-1)

- - - - - - - - - -

December 7, 1998

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Ruben Bedoya has appealed the $15,000 fine

that the district court imposed. That amount is the minimum under

U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(c)(3), the applicable sentencing guideline in this

case.

Bedoya contends that imposition of the fine constituted plain

error, given that he is indigent and that the presentence report

(PSR) states that he “does not appear to have a net worth or net

monthly cash flow,” or any means of income. 
2

U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(a) commands that “[t]he court shall impose a

fine in all cases, except where the defendant establishes that he

is unable to pay and is not likely to become able to pay any fine.”

See, United States v. Martinez, 151 F.3d 384, 395 (5th Cir. 1998),

petition for cert. filed (U.S. Oct. 26, 1998) (No. 98-6639).

Bedoya’s good health and relatively young age coupled with his

demonstrated managerial ability strongly indicate that he will be

able to pay his fine in the future. Accordingly, the district

court’s imposition of the fine, without any defense objection, did

not constitute plain error. See United States v. Rodriguez, 15

F.3d 408, 414-17 (5th Cir. 1994); Martinez, 151 F.3d at 395-96.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 60219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25829]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel In Chemistry; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Chemistry (#1191).
    Date and Time: November 27, 28 & 29, 2000; 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
    Place: Rooms, 1020 and 1060--NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Joan Frye, Program Director, Chemical 
Instrumentation Program, Chemistry Division, Room 1055, National 
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, 
Telephone: (703) 292-4953.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals for the Chemical 
Instrumentation Program as part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information, financial data such as salaries, and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: October 3, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-25829 Filed 10-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### CITY OF CALDWELL v. SCHUMACHER.

No. 11878.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Galveston.

May 8, 1947.

Rehearing Denied May 29, 1947.

W. J. Alexander, of Caldwell, for appellant.

Walter M. Hilliard, of Caldwell, for ap-pellee.

CODY, Justice.

This was an action for damages for the death of a cow of the alleged value of $135, allegedly caused by the negligence of defendant in allowing its electric light and power line to fall and remain upon the street in the City of Caldwell — the cow having left plaintiff’s premises and come into contact with said wire and thereby being electrocuted. The action was instituted by appellee against appellant in a justice court of Burleson County, and from there appealed to the County Court

Upon the answers to special issues, which, among other things, assessed the value of the cow at $150, the county court rendered judgment against appellant for $135.

Appellant predicates its appeal upon fourteen points. Since we find we must sustain the first point, no purpose would be served in setting out any of the other points. The first point, somewhat edited as to form, reads:

1. This case should be reversed and rendered for appellant because appellee’s case is based upon the erroneous theory that appellant owed to appellee the duty to keep its electric light and power lines in a safe condition so as to prevent ap-pellee’s cow, which was unlawfully at large upon the streets of appellant City, from being injured by coming into contact therewith.

Opinion.

Neither of the parties appeared to argue orally when this cause was submitted, and appellee has filed no brief. Under Rule 419, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the statement as to the facts or record in the case as made by appellant are to be taken as true. Refugio Lumber Co. v. Bailey, Tex.Civ.App., 172 S.W.2d 133, 134, writ refused; Headstream v. Mangum, Tex.Civ.App., 174 S.W.2d 496. The purpose of the Rule is to enable the appellant to make a short statement of matters concerning which there is no dispute, and to relieve the appellate court of any duty of briefing a case for appellee. Appellee, not having challenged appellant’s statement of the facts or the record, is taken to admit the correctness of such statement.

By force of an ordinance quoted by appellant verbatim in its brief, it is made unlawful for cattle to run at large in the City of Caldwell. In a somewhat similar case, arising under an ordinance of the *472City of Dallas which made the running at large of horses, cattle, etc., in the City of Dallas a nuisance, a recovery for injury to a horse there running at large was denied. Dallas Gas Co. v. Wheat, Tex.Civ.App., 160 S.W. 980. The court held that, it being established that the horse was running at large, the liability of appellant would not be measured by its want of care for the protection of the horse. We are unable to see any material distinction between the facts of the cited case and the case at bar. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court must be reversed, and judgment here rendered for appellant that appellee take nothing by its action, and pay all costs, and it is so ordered.

Reversed and rendered.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5578 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5578

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Basic Yellow 40 chloride 
                                 based.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Basic Yellow 40 chloride 
                                 based.

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

SECTION 1. BASIC YELLOW 40 CHLORIDE BASED.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.25.04 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Basic Yellow 40 chloride 
based) 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 
with respect 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>
```
#### Virgil BOLLING, Movant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 23, 1951.

Sanders & Hyden, Pikeville, for movant.

A. E. Funk, Atty. Gen., Zeb A. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from the Pike Circuit Court. Judgment of conviction for malicious striking and wounding another with intent to kill and imposing sentence of $500 fine and six months in jail.

Appeal denied. Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 23.1             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM    We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited interim financial information of The Standard Register Company and subsidiaries for the period ended September 30, 2007, as indicated in our report dated October 31, 2007; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.  We are aware that our report referred to above, is incorporated by reference in this Form 10-Q, into the Company's previously filed Registration Statements File No.'s 333-02683, 333-05231, 333-15851, 333-43055, 333-51189, 333-51181, 333-57779, 333-84483 and 333-86492.  We are also aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.     /S/BATTELLE & BATTELLE LLP       Dayton, Ohio November 1, 2007