alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________ No. 07 - 19 - 00277 - CR

________________________ DALLAS JAMES MOORE , APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 320 th District Court Potter C ounty, Texas Trial Court No. 72,940 - D - CR ; Honorable David L. Gleason , Presiding August 27 , 201 9 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE , JJ. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement , Appellant, Dallas James Moore , was convicted of escap e from custody 1 and sentenced to forty years confinement . The trial court ’ s certification of Appellant’s right of a ppeal reflects that Appellant’s case is a plea 1 T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 38.06(c) (Wes t 2016 ). Appellant pleaded “true” to two felony enhancements, making the offense punishable by imprisonment for life or for a term of not more than ninety nine years or less than twenty - five years. Id . at § 12.42(d) (West 2019 ).2

bargained case with no right of appeal and that Appellant waived the right of appeal. The certification notwithstanding, Appellant filed a notice of ap peal , pro se , challenging his conviction. We are required by Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d) to dism iss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” By letter dated August 2, 2019 , this court notified Appellant of the consequences of the trial court’s certification and invited him to file an amended certification showing a right of appeal or demonstrate other grounds for continuing the appeal by August 16 . To date, Appellant has not filed an amended certification reflecting a right of appeal or a response establishing good cause fo r continuing this appeal. Consequently, we have no alternative but to dismiss the appeal based on the certification signed by the trial court. T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(d). It is so ordered. Per Curiam Do not publish.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 195 (Friday, October 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 59822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25979]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

DATE AND TIME: Friday, October 13, 2000, 9:30 a.m.

PLACE: U.S. Commission on Civil rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Room 
540, Washington, DC 20425.

STATUS:   

Agenda

I. Approval of Agenda
II. Approval of Minutes of September 15, 2000 Meeting
III. Announcements
IV. Staff Director's Report
V. Mississippi Delta Hearing Report
VI. Supreme Court Project
VII. State Advisory Committee Reports
    <bullet> The Decision to Prosecute Drug Offenses and Homicides in 
Marion County, Indiana (Indiana)
    <bullet> Limited-English-Proficient Students in Maine: An 
Assessment of Equal Educational Opportunities (Maine)
    <bullet> The Status of Equal Opportunity Minorities in Moorhead, 
Minnesota (Minnesota)
    <bullet> Community Forum on Race Relations in Racine County, 
Wisconsin (Wisconsin)
VIII. Future Agenda Items

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: David Aronson, Press and 
Communications (202) 376-8312.

Edward A. Hailes, JR.
Acting General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 00-25979 Filed 10-4-00; 2:58 pm]
BILLING CODE 6335-0-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE SPECTRUM CONTROL, INC. CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MAY 31, 1998
AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED MAY 31,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO ITS FORM 10-Q FOR
THE QUARTER ENDED MAY 31, 1998
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000092769
<NAME> SPECTRUM CONTROL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                            1927
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    10096
<ALLOWANCES>                                       436
<INVENTORY>                                      12695
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 25014
<PP&E>                                           34884
<DEPRECIATION>                                   19279
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   42192
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             5551
<BONDS>                                           3060
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         14361
<OTHER-SE>                                       17489
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     42192
<SALES>                                          29831
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 29831
<CGS>                                            20671
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    20671
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 111
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3199
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1184
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               2015
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2015
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          10,835
<SECURITIES>                                    65,006
<RECEIVABLES>                                  309,821
<ALLOWANCES>                                    14,466
<INVENTORY>                                    294,045
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               708,300
<PP&E>                                         289,793
<DEPRECIATION>                                 150,940
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,121,206
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          378,331
<BONDS>                                        103,220
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        42,748
<OTHER-SE>                                     510,841
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,121,206
<SALES>                                        794,638
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               794,638
<CGS>                                          494,878
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  494,878
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,548
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,775
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,790
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                143,630
<INCOME-TAX>                                    54,582
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             89,048
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    89,048<F1>
<EPS-BASIC>                                     2.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.04<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 $33.1 million ($.76 per diluted share).

</FN>



</TABLE>
#### MUSGROVE v. STATE.

No. 25661.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 23, 1952.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Commissioner,

Appellant was adjudged to be in contempt of court by reason of his violation of an injunction against maintaining a common nuisance, and attempts to appeal from the imposition of a fine of $100 for such contempt.

In Lawley v. State, 117 Tex.Cr.R. 14, 36 S.W.2d 1035, we said: “We are concerned with one thing only in the motion, and that is the proposition that this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal. No do.ubt exists as to the correctness of the proposition. An appeal does not lie from a judgment of contempt. Crow v. State, 24 Tex. 12; Ex parte Kilgore, 3 Tex.App. [247] 249; Carter v. State, 4 Tex.App. 165; Borrer v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 63 S.W. 630; Borrer v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 63 S.W. 1133; Long v. State, 82 Tex.Cr.R. 403, 199 S.W. 619, 620, in which the following language is found: ‘From a judgment of contempt this court can give relief only on writ of habeas corpus when the relator is in custody.’ ”

The appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
#### EDERDS v. STATE.

No. 25599.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 19, 1951.

Ruff Wall, Carthage, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Under an indictment charging the second offense of unlawfully, while intoxicated, operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway, appellant pleaded guilty before the court and his punishment was assessed at three years in the penitentiary. Thereafter, the execution of sentence was by the trial court suspended and the accused, for the term of such sentence, was placed upon probation under certain restrictions including commission of a' like offense. Thereafter, upon motion of the state and after hearing, the trial court set aside the judgment granting the probation and suspending the judgment and sentence of the court during such probation, and ordered the accused committed to the penitentiary to serve the sentence first imposed.

It is from the revocation of probation this appeal is brought.

Neither bills of exception nor a statement of facts accompanies the record, notwithstanding which appellant insists that the conviction for the first offense of drunk driving, upon which the state relied to make the instant offense a felony, was void because the court in which said conviction was had — that is, the County Court of Panola County — -was not legally in session at that time. This contention does not appear to have been urged at the time of the revocation of probation. Obviously, without a statement of facts or bills of exception exemplifying the error claimed, we have no- way by which the contention can be appraised.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5391 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5391

        To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on Reactive Red.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

  Ms. Fudge introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on Reactive Red.

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

SECTION 1. REACTIVE RED.

    (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        Reactive Red (CAS   Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          No. 803688-04-2)                                                  12/31/2015
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          3204.19.20)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 535 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 535

To amend title 10, United States Code, to expand the matters covered by 
 preseparation counseling provided to members of the Armed Forces and 
                             their spouses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 8, 2011

Mr. Carson of Indiana (for himself, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Walz of Minnesota, 
    Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Cicilline, and Mr. Blumenauer) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to expand the matters covered by 
 preseparation counseling provided to members of the Armed Forces and 
                             their spouses.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Military Families Financial 
Preparedness Act''.

SEC. 2. MATTERS COVERED BY PRESEPARATION COUNSELING FOR MEMBERS OF THE 
              ARMED FORCES AND THEIR SPOUSES.

    Section 1142(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``job placement 
        counseling for the spouse'' and inserting ``inclusion of the 
        spouse when counseling regarding the matters covered by 
        paragraphs (9), (10), and (16) is provided, job placement 
        counseling for the spouse, and the provision of information on 
        survivor benefits available under the laws administered by the 
        Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Veterans Affairs'';
            (2) in paragraph (9), by inserting before the period the 
        following: ``, including information on budgeting, saving, 
        credit, loans, and taxes'';
            (3) in paragraph (10), by striking ``and employment'' and 
        inserting ``, employment, and financial'';
            (4) by striking paragraph (16) and inserting the following 
        new paragraph:
            ``(16) Information on home loan services and housing 
        assistance benefits available under the laws administered by 
        the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and counseling on responsible 
        borrowing practices.''; and
            (5) in paragraph (17), by inserting before the period the 
        following: ``, and information regarding the means by which the 
        member can receive additional counseling regarding the member's 
        actual entitlement to such benefits and apply for such 
        benefits''.
                                 <all>
```
AVAQMD Rule 1174 B - 3

Final Staff Report, 01/24/13
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4238 — E.ON/Pražská plynárenská)

(2006/C 141/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

----
# OAR Box 1784 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 26 ) ll-A- 8 Docket Number: 

# A-84-4 4

Printed 10/31/20088:05:39 AM Sheet 26 of 143 P. 1P. 2 

## sf^/tf*~~6<s 

## Protectio n o

f Environmen

t 

# 4 0 PART S 5 3 TO 8 0 Revise d a s o

f Jul y 1 , 1985
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE

 

The undersigned officer of SPS Technologies, Inc. (the "*Company*") hereby certifies to my knowledge that the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 (the "*Report*"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

Date:    August 14, 2002
**Exhibit 15**

 

**(PwC LLP Letterhead)**

 

May 9, 2008

 

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, DC 20549

 

Commissioners:

 

We are aware that our report dated May 9,2008 on our review of interim financial information of SouthWest Water Companyfor the three month period ended March 31, 2008 and included in theCompany’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,2008 is incorporated by reference in its Registration Statements on Form S-3(Nos. 333-77881, 333-35252, 333-63196, 333-69662, 333-70194, 333-106506,333-111586, 333-121426 and 333-133399) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-18513,333-38935, 333-39506, 333-39508, 333-109444, 333-117713 and 333-134575).

 
| Very truly yours,              |
|--------------------------------|
|                           |
| /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
|                           |
| Los Angeles, California        |

 

----
#### PRICE v. STATE.

No. 25955.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 29, 1952.

*168Spurgeon E. Bell, Houston, Rucks, En-low & Kee, Angleton, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

The conviction is for the murder of one Edward F. Rose, the jury having assessed the punishment at 10 years confinement in the penitentiary.

A detailed statement of the evidence will serve no useful purpose.

The case was submitted to the jury on the evening of Saturday, March 15, 1952, and on the following morning the jury returned its verdict.

The record shows that on Sunday, March 16, 1952, the jury returned its verdict, and the court pronounced judgment and remanded appellant, then on bond, to custody. The judgment shown in the transcript is dated and shows to have been entered on March 16, 1952, which date we judicially know to have been Sunday.

A verdict may be lawfully received by the court on Sunday. See Shearman v. State, 1 Tex.App. 215; McKinney v. State, 8 Tex.App. 626; Powers v. State, 23 Tex. App. 42, 5 S.W. 153; Brown v. State, 32 Tex.Cr.R. 119, 22 S.W. 596; Walker v. State, 13 Tex.App. 618; Huffman v. State, 28 Tex.App. 174, 12 S.W. 588; Moore v. State, 49 Tex.Cr.R. 499, 96 S.W. 321.

And the defendant, upon return of the verdict, may be remanded to custody. See Ball v. United States, 140 U.S. 118, 11 S.Ct. 761, 35 L.Ed. 377.

 But under all authorities applicable in this state, courts have no right to pronounce a judgment or do any other act strictly judicial in nature on Sunday in the absence of a permissive statute. We have no such statute in Texas, and a judgment rendered on Sunday is void. See Shearman v. State, supra; Guerrera v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 411, 125 S.W.2d 595; Ball v. United States, supra.

The same rule seems to apply in civil proceedings. See Skeen v. Foster, Tex. Civ.App., 78 S.W.2d 1041; Texas State Board of Dental Examiners v. Fieldsmith, Tex.Civ.App., 242 S.W.2d 213.

In view of another trial, we express the conclusion that the trial court should have admitted the remainder of the conversation between appellant and the arresting officer Strickland, a part of which was offered by the state.

And if the evidence be the same, the jury should, under proper instructions from the court, pass upon the issue as to whether the deceased was conscious of approaching death and had no hope of recovery at the time the statement admitted as a dying declaration was made.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.
|                                                                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                 
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                                             
|View History: Annual                                                                                             
|View History:                                                                                                    
|                                                                                                                 
|Oklahoma Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                                 
|Oklahoma Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 95     | 22     | 128    | 41     | 52     | 78     | 21     | 108    | 45     | 67    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 90     | 61     | 319    | 186    | 352    | 1,381  | 650    | 1,662  | 25     | 1,883 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 697    | 351    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
Exhibit 3 

Filed Under Seal 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 265-3 Filed 01/24/22 Page 1 of 1

FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

ARNOLD KING, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 399 EAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 30th day of September, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal and Motion to Strike Respondent’s Response are DENIED.