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

No. 23814.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dee. 3, 1947.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 21, 1948.

Jack Nossaman, of Sherman, for appellant.

Ralph Elliott, Co. Atty., and Hal Rawlins and Murray H. Nance, Jr., Asst. Co. Attys., all of Sherman, and Ernest S. Goens. State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Upon his plea of guilty before the County Judge, appellant was assessed a penalty of thirty days in jail.

The record discloses that the appellant lived in the City of Bonham. He had been to Dallas where he purchased about $175 worth of whisky, for himself and others. He was driving a car which he had borrowed from another party in Bonham who desired to share in the whisky purchases, on the 29th day of May, in preparation for June 19th celebration. Appellant and his companion, Ed Black, were apprehended while passing through the City of Sherman at an early morning hour and were placed in jail on a charge of transporting liquor in a dry area for the purpose of sale.

When court convened the morning of May 30th, they plead guilty before the court. Admittedly they were expecting, for some reason, to be assessed a fine which they intended to pay and proceed on their journey. When they had been returned to jail they sent for an attorney who secured a hearing on a motion for a new trial and brings forward the statement of facts upon such hearing.

As we view the record made, it was entirely within the discretion of the trial judge as to whether or not he would grant the new trial. It is not within the province of this Court to say that he abused his discretion.

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

On Motion for Rehearing.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant urges that he was, in fact, not guilty of unlawfully transporting the whisky, as charged, and that he had a good and sufficient defense to the accusation against him because he had purchased the whisky in Dallas, where the sale of whisky was legal, and was, when apprehended, transporting the whisky to his home in Fannin County for his own use and not for the purpose of sale, as provided by Sec. 1 of Art. 666 — 23a, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. and construed in Walton v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 335, 163 S.W.2d 203.

We note that upon the hearing of the motion for new trial, appellant testified that he had purchased the whisky — some for himself and some as an accommodation to others — and was transporting it for that purpose at the time he was arrested.

The provisions of Sec. 1 of Art. 666 — 23a, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., extend no further than *396to authorize the purchase and transportation for “own consumption.” The statute does not extend to and cover transportation as an accommodation to or for others.

Appellant, by his own admission, then, was unlawfully transporting some of the whisky at the time he was arrested.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

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.
EX-32.1



CERTIFICATIONS  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Terry McConnaughey, director and president of Silver Butte Company (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended February 28, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.

The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



By:          /s/ Terry McConnaughey



Terry McConnaughey, President and Director

Date:  April 12, 2005







1









---











2
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 0**  **9 -**  **8 1**  **8 9** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appell ee ,
v. JAMES RODNEY SMITH, a/k/a Lump , Defendant

– Appell ant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of N o r th Carolina , at Fayetteville
. Malcolm J. Howard , Senior District Judge. ( 3 : 9 4

- c r - 0 0065

- H

- 6 )

Submitted : June 1 , 2010 Decided: June 7, 2010

Before GREGORY , S HEDD , and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirm e d by un published per curiam opinion
. James Rodney Smith , Appellant Pro Se
. John Howarth Bennett, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North Carolina , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James Rodney S mith appeals from the district court’s order denying his motions for clarification of the judgment, clarification of his sentence , and to reduce his sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reason s stated by the district
court. United States v. Smith , No. 3:94

- cr - 00065

- H

- 6 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 20, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would n ot aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a BRAZOS 

LICENSING AND DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL INC., 

AND EMC CORPORATION, 

Defendants.

Case No. 6:20-cv-00473-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

LETTER OF REQUEST FOR FOREIGN DISCOVERY

Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 43 Filed 11/06/20 Page 1 of 3
1

Defendants Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., and EMC Corporation, (collectively 

“Defendants”) seek foreign discovery from third party witnesses residing in France. Defendants 

have attached Appendices with Letters of Request which include Document Requests and

Deposition Topics. Defendants respectfully request that the Court execute the Letters of Request

attached as Appendices A and K. Defendants further request that, after the Court has signed the 

Letters of Request, the Clerk of this Court authenticate the Court’s signature under the seal of this 

Court, and return the original signed and sealed executed Letters, and two certified copies of the 

signed and sealed executed Letters, to Defendants’ counsel, Barry K. Shelton, for delivery to the 

proper authority.

Plaintiff, WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development, indicated 

that it reserves the right to serve its own foreign discovery in the future.

Dated: November 6, 2020 By: /s/ Barry K. Shelton

Barry K. Shelton

Texas State Bar No. 24055029

bshelton@sheltoncoburn.com

SHELTON COBURN LLP

311 RR 620, Ste. 205

Austin, TX 78734-4775 

Telephone: 512.263.2165

Facsimile: 512.263.2166 

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 43 Filed 11/06/20 Page 2 of 3
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on November 6, 2020, all counsel of record who are deemed 

to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document through the 

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

/s/ Barry K. Shelton

Barry K. Shelton

Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 43 Filed 11/06/20 Page 3 of 3
TS- CCGL81

Attachment #6

Pt. 2, Sec. A, 3

Environmental Release and Disposal Information on the New Chemical Substance s at Industrial Sites Controlled by the Submitter
Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

January 13, 2011

Mr. George S. Aburn, Jr., Director

Maryland Department of the Environment

Air and Radiation Management Administration

1800 Washington Boulevard

Baltimore, MD 21230

Dear Mr. Aburn:

On December 20, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a 

revision to the Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Maryland Department of the 

Environment. The SIP revision pertains to the definition of “fuel-burning equipment,” and 

includes amendments to Regulation .01 under COMAR 26.11.01 and Regulation .01 under 

COMAR 26.11.09. EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and technically

complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Ms. Irene Shandruk, 

at (215) 814-2166. She is the principal contact for this rulemaking. 

Sincerely,

 /s/ 

 Diana Esher, Director

 Air Protection Division 

cc: Brian Hug, MDE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM QUARTERLY
REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             278
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,674
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,203
<PP&E>                                          25,480
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,853)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,230
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,062
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            66
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,464
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,230
<SALES>                                          8,430
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,109
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,051
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,366
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 914
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,778
<INCOME-TAX>                                       706
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,072
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,072
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of King Davis, Petitioner, v Frederick Richardson, as Superintendent of Wyoming Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner did not raise any issue regarding the adequacy of prehearing assistance or denial of his right to call witnesses on his administrative appeal, and thus, those issues were not preserved for judicial review *(see, Matter of Cushing-Gale v Kelly,*155 AD2d 996; *Matter of Samuels v Kelly,*143 AD2d 506, *lv*
      *977
      *denied*73 NY2d 707). In any event, the record does not support petitioner’s contentions on either issue. The Hearing Officer’s determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 109.10 (being out of place) was supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner testified at the hearing that he was at the entrance to another inmate’s "cube” at 2:30 a.m. and that an altercation ensued within the inmate’s "cube”. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC,

 Plaintiff

-vsMICROSOFT CORPORATION,

 Defendant

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

W-20-CV-00454-ADA

W-20-CV-00461-ADA

JURY PARTIAL SEQUESTRATION ORDER

It is ORDERED that the jury in this case be sequestered from the time they start to 

deliberate until released by the Court at the end of each day. This partial sequestration will 

continue until a verdict is reached and the jury is formally discharged by the Court or until 

further order by the Court. 

Pursuant to this order, while the jury is kept together and not allowed to separate, the 

reasonable cost of meals incurred by the jury during court recesses will be paid by the Clerk of 

Court in compliance with juror fee regulations issued by the Judicial Conference of the United 

States. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 14th day of June, 2022.

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 202 Filed 06/14/22 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACOACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC

vs.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL

INC., EMC CORPORATION, VMWARE,

INC.

Defendant

§

§

§

§

§

NO: WA:20-CV-00480-ADA

ORDER RESETTING MOTIONS HEARING

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is RESET for

MOTIONS HEARING, in U.S. Magistrate Court, Courtroom No. 2, Third Floor, 800 Franklin

Avenue, Waco, Texas, on November 09, 2022 at 09:15 AM.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of October, 2022.

Derek T. Gilliland

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA-DTG Document 231 Filed 10/31/22 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

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 for Geosciences (1756).                    

*Date & Time:*                         November 12-17, 2000, 8 am-5 pm.                    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Mr. Lawrence Clark, Acting Section Head, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-8582.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate the Ocean Science Research Programs (OSRS) as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposal being reviewed includes 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. 00-25831  Filed 10-6-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### YOUNG v. STATE.

No. 24840.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 21, 1950.

Marvin H. Miller, New Boston, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of robbery by assault, and the jury assessed his punishment at five years confinement in the penitentiary.

The State, over the objection of appellant, offered in evidence the testimony of the alleged injured party, Rufus A. Quillin, as given on the examining trial of appellant.

Without such testimony, there is not sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.

We find no proof in the record to show that the witness was dead or was beyond the limits of the state, or proof of any fact under which such testimony might be reproduced under the terms of Arts. 749-750, C.C.P.

In the absence of such proof, appellant was entitled to be confronted with the witnesses against him.

*429The reproduction of such character of testimony is not permissible unless it appears that the State has brought itself within the exceptions provided in said Arts. 749-750, C.C.P. See Smith v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 349, 152 S.W.2d 751; Nixon v. State, 53 Tex.Cr.R. 325, 109 S.W. 931; 12 Tex.Jur. Sec. 217, p. 526; 18 Tex.Jur. Secs. 111-112, p. 199.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC 

 

v. Case No.: 6:20-cv-00486-ADA 

 

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC. ET AL 

ORDER 

BE IT REMEMBERED on this day, there was presented to the Court the Motion for Admission 

Pro Hac Vice filed by Hershy Stern (“Applicant”), counsel for WSOU Investments LLC, and the 

Court, having reviewed the motion, enters the following order: 

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED, and Applicant 

may appear on behalf of WSOU Investments LLC in the above case. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Applicant, if he/she has not already done so, shall immediately 

tender the amount of $100.00, made payable to: Clerk, U.S. District Court, in compliance with Local 

Court Rule AT-1(f)(2). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the corresponding Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice was 

e-filed, the attorney who filed the Motion on behalf of the Applicant is directed to notify the Applicant 

of this order. 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Applicant, pursuant to the Administrative Policies and 

Procedures for Electronic Filing in Civil and Criminal cases in the Western District of Texas, shall 

register as a filing user within 10 days of the date of this Order, if he/she has not previously done so on 

a prior case in this District. 

SIGNED this the 4th day of January, 2022. 

ALAN D ALBRIGHT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 152 Filed 01/04/22 Page 1 of 1
WACO

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC

CIVIL NO:

vs. WA:20-CV-00464-ADA

ORDER RESETTING MARKMAN HEARING

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is reset for

MARKMAN HEARING by zoom on Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 09:30 AM. The link for

the hearing will be sent by e-mail.

reset

zoom

MICROSOFT CORPORATION

25th day of February, 2021.

Alan D Albright

IT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

§

§

§

§

§

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

Case 6:20-cv-00464-ADA Document 54 Filed 02/25/21 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1


                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.2




                              ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                       RESTATED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                               RIMAGE CORPORATION


1.   The name of the corporation is Rimage Corporation, a Minnesota corporation.

2.   Article Four, Section (01) of the Company's Restated Articles of
     Incorporation is amended to read as follows:

     "(01) The corporation is authorized to issue thirty million (30,000,000)
     shares of capital stock, $.01 par value."

3.   The amendment has been adopted pursuant to Chapter 302A of the Minnesota
     Business Corporation Act.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, the Secretary of Rimage Corporation
being duly authorized on behalf of Rimage Corporation, has executed this
document this 11th day of June, 2001.


                                                 /s/ Robert Wolf
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                              Robert Wolf, Secretary
**Exhibit 12**

 

Dated:  June 30, 2004

 

I, David Balai, certify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed thisannual report on Form 20-F, and all reports on Form 6-K containing distributionor servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year coveredby this annual report, of Permanent Financing (No. 3) PLC, Permanent Funding(No. 1) Limited and Permanent Mortgages Trustee Limited;

 

2.  Based on my knowledge,the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by thisannual report;

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, thedistribution or servicing information required to be provided to the trustee bythe servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, forinclusion in these reports is included in these reports;

 

4.  Based on my knowledgeand upon the annual compliance statement included in the report and required tobe delivered to the mortgages trustee in accordance with the terms of thepooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and except as disclosed in thereports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement; and

 

5.  The reports discloseall significant deficiencies relating to the servicer’s compliance with theminimum servicing standards based upon the report provided by an independentaccountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform SingleAttestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth inthe pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in thesereports.

 

In giving the certificationsabove, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the followingunaffiliated parties: Halifax plc

 

Date: June 30, 2004

 
| By:                                                  | /s/ David Balai |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|--------|
| Title: Director, Permanent Mortgages Trustee Limited |            |
|                                                      |                 |        |  |

 

----
#### STRAMLER v. STATE.

No. 24810.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 14, 1950.

None on appeal for appellant.

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

*423BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was found guilty of the offense of murder with malice and his punishment assessed at ten years in the penitentiary.

The record before us contains neither a statement of facts nor bill of exception. The proceedings appear regular. No question is raised for review by this court.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.