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

No. 26354.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 29, 1953.

Rehearing Denied June 10, 1953.

Sam L. Harrison, San Antonio, for appellant. • ■

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for the felony offense of unlawfully operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated committed after a prior conviction for the misdemeanor offense for driving while intoxicated, and his punishment was assessed at 90 days in jail and a fine of $2,000.

Two highway patrol officers and the local constable, while patrolling on a highway in Karnes County, saw the appellant driving a large truck in an erratic manner and at an excessive rate of speed. The officers stopped appellant, observed his actions and speech, and testified that in their opinion he was intoxicated.

The sheriff saw appellant at the jail and observed his speech and actions. It was his opinion that the appellant was drunk.

Appellant testified that he was tired, sleepy, and hungry, and that he had drunh only three bottles of beer during the day preceding the time of his arrest. He testified that he was not intoxicated.

The issue of appellant’s intoxication was resolved against him by the jury.

The indictment alleged a prior conviction for driving while intoxicated on the 17th day of October, 1950, in the County Court of Wilson County, Texas, in Cause No. 5079. The judgment showing a conviction in such cause for said offense was introduced in evidence, and appellant was identified as being the defendant therein.

The case of Diez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 248 S.W.2d 486, cited by appellant, does not sustain his contention that it was incumbent upon the state to introduce the complaint and information, as well as the judgment in the prior conviction.

• In the Diez case, the indictment alleged that the conviction was “upon a complaint.” We held that in the absence of a showing that an information had been filed, the jurisdiction of the county court was not shown.

The evidence is sufficient to show the prior conviction alleged and to support the verdict of the jury.

*221The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant again urges that it was incumbent upon the state to introduce in evidence the complaint and information as well as the judgment in the prior conviction alleged in the indictment.

The judgment of the county court offered in evidence shows on its face that the information was read to the defendant and he pleaded guilty to the accusation therein contained and that he was adjudged guilty of the offense of driving while intoxicated, for which a fine of $50 was assessed.

Under these facts we remain convinced that the appeal was properly disposed of on original submission.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JEFFREY KALLAS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-1972

[September 28, 2017]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Lawrence Mirman, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 12001089CFCXMX.

Jeffrey F. Kallas, Crawfordville, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allen R. Geesey, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., TAYLOR and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q DATED
MARCH 27, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000094673
<NAME> STORAGE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-25-1998
<PERIOD-END>                             MAR-27-1998
<CASH>                                       416,599
<SECURITIES>                                  20,701
<RECEIVABLES>                                504,587 <F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                  102,377
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1,279,713
<PP&E>                                       301,593 <F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             1,731,570
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        563,896
<BONDS>                                       17,793
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       5,377
<OTHER-SE>                                 1,144,504
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               1,731,570
<SALES>                                      337,414
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             484,891
<CGS>                                        169,099
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                253,389
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              55,973
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,129
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               65,370
<INCOME-TAX>                                  24,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           40,570
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  40,570
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   0.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.74
<FN>
   <F1> Asset values for the interim period represent
        net amounts.
</FN>
        

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

No. 26409.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 29, 1953.

*310No attorney on appeal for appellant.

■ Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $50.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

All the proceedings appearing regular and nothing being presented for our review, the .judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

I, George Drazenovic, certify
that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on
Form 10-KSB of Oramed Pharmaceuticals Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual
report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to date
a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this annual report;

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

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

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

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the
small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this report any change in
the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the
small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
small business issuers control over financial reporting.

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

(a) all significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small
business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material,
that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
small business issuers internal controls and procedures for financial
reporting.

Date: December 14, 2006

By: /s/ George
Drazenovic

George Drazenovic, Chief Financial
Officer(Principal Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer)

---
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. 

ZTE CORPORATION; ZTE (USA), INC.; 

AND ZTE (TX), INC., 

Defendant. 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-CV-00492-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND RESPONSE 

BRIEF DEADLINES TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development (“WSOU”) 

files this unopposed motion to extend the deadline to file a response to Motions to Dismiss6 filed 

by defendants ZTE Corporation; ZTE (USA), Inc.; and ZTE (TX), Inc. (“Defendants”), and would 

show as follows: 

1. On October 9, 2020, Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss, respectively, at Dkt. 

Nos. 23, 24, 25 (corrected by Dkt. 26). 

2. Pursuant to the Local Rules, WSOU’s deadline to file responses to the Motions is 

October 24, 2020. WSOU requests a three-week extension of its deadlines to November 6, 2020. 

3. This is the first extension WSOU has requested. The requested extension should 

cause no delay in the schedule.

4. WSOU has consulted with counsel for Defendants, and Defendants have indicated 

that they do not oppose this extension request. 

6 The motions were additionally styled with an alternative relief to transfer. For simplification, the 

motions will be styled herein as Motions to Dismiss. 

Case 6:20-cv-00492-ADA Document 27 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 2
WHEREFORE, WSOU respectfully requests that the deadline to file a respond to 

Defendant’s Motions, Dkt. Nos. 23, 24, 25 (corrected by Dkt. 26) be extended to November 6, 

2020. 

Dated: October 13, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Ryan S. Loveless

 James L. Etheridge

 Texas Bar No. 24059147 

Ryan S. Loveless 

Texas Bar No. 24036997 

Brett A. Mangrum 

Texas Bar No. 24065671 

Travis L. Richins 

Texas Bar No. 24061296 

Jeff Huang

Etheridge Law Group, PLLC 

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324 

Southlake, TX 76092 

Tel.: (817) 470-7249 

Fax: (817) 887-5950 

Jim@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Ryan@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Brett@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Travis@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Jeff@EtheridgeLaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR WSOU

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

service are being served this October 13, 2020, with a copy of this document via email.

/s/ Ryan S. Loveless

Ryan S. Loveless 

Case 6:20-cv-00492-ADA Document 27 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Garth Beckford, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.), both rendered October 6, 1989.

Ordered that the appeals are dismissed.

The defendant voluntarily waived his right to appeal as part of negotiated plea bargains *(see, People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Kooper and Ritter, JJ., concur.
PUBLISH

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 2/28/96

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

___________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff-Appellee, )

)

v. ) No. 95-5180

)

CHARLES SAMUEL LANGHAM, )

)

Defendant-Appellant. )

___________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Northern District of Oklahoma

(D.C. No. 90-CR-103-C)

_____________________________________

James L. Swartz, Assistant United States Attorney, Tulsa, Oklahoma 

for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Charles Langham, pro se.

_____________________________________

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and KELLY.

_____________________________________

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined that oral

argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

The defendant was convicted of various drug offenses following a guilty plea in July

1991. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal in April 1993. On March

23, 1995, the defendant filed a motion for the transcripts of his sentencing hearing at

government expense, contending that he needed the transcripts to prepare a post-conviction

motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. That motion was denied on July 31 and the notice of

appeal was filed on August 21. The defendant has not filed any collateral proceedings

challenging this conviction.

We lack jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was untimely. See Fed. R. App. P.

4(b); United States v. Lanier, 604 F.2d 1157, 1159-60 (8th Cir. 1979).

A timely notice of appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional. Browder v. Director,

Dept. of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978).

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5614 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5614

 To suspend temporarily the duty on cellular plastic sheets for micron-
                           retention filters.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on cellular plastic sheets for micron-
                           retention filters.

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

SECTION 1. CELLULAR PLASTIC SHEETS FOR MICRON-RETENTION FILTERS.

    (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        Plastic Sheets; of  Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          poly-                                                             12/31/2015
                          tetrafluoroethyle
                          ne measuring 10
                          microns to 140
                          microns thick
                          with pore size
                          ranging from 0.03
                          to 0.15 microns,
                          or of
                          polysulfone, for
                          use in
                          manufacturing
                          filters of
                          heading 8421
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          3921.19.00)......

    (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>
```
|                                                                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                                                                                  
|View History:                                                                                                                         
|                                                                                                                                      
|Texas - RRC District 9 Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                                      
|                                                                                                                                      
|Texas - RRC District 9 Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 33     | 321    | 25    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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 10.5**

 

**DESCRIPTION OF JANUARY2005 OPTION AGREEMENT WITH MAX L. LUKENS**

 

On January 3, 2005, in connection with his employment agreement, Max L.Lukens, President and Chief Executive Officer of Stewart & StevensonServices, Inc. (the “Company”), was granted an option to purchase 100,000shares of the Company’s common stock, no par value per share (the “Common Stock”),under the Company’s 1988 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan (the “1988 Plan”).  The 2005 Option has the same general termsspecified in the option granted to Mr. Lukens in 2004 pursuant to his employmentagreement, except that the per share exercise price of the 2005 Option is$19.05, the fair market value of a share of Common Stock on the grant date, andthe option will be fully exercisable on January 3, 2006.  Other material terms of the 2005 Option areset forth below:

 

*               *Grant:     On January 3, 2005, Mr. Lukens was granted the 2005Option under the 1988 Plan to purchase 100,000 shares of Common Stock at thepurchase price of $19.05.

 

*               *Expiration ofOption:      The 2005 Option terminates upon theearliest to occur of (i) January 3, 2015, (ii) the 30thday after Mr. Lukens’ employment is terminated for any reason other thandeath, Disability, Retirement, or for Cause (as such terms are defined in the1988 Plan), (iii) the first anniversary of the termination ofMr. Lukens’ employment due to death, Disability or Retirement, or(iv) the date of termination of Mr. Lukens’ employment for Cause. IfMr. Lukens’ employment is terminated for any reason other than death,Disability, Retirement or Cause, the 2005 Option will not continue to vestafter such termination of employment.

 

                Vesting of Option:     The2005 Option is exercisable in full on January 3, 2006.  Notwithstanding the foregoing vestingschedule, upon Mr. Lukens’ death, Disability or Retirement prior to theexpiration of the 2005 Option, the 2005 Option will be exercisable in full.Further, notwithstanding the foregoing vesting schedule or any provision of the1988 Plan:

 

•                                          upon the occurrence of a “change incontrol” (as defined in the Mr. Lukens’ severance agreement with the Company)prior to the expiration of the 2005 Option, the 2005 Option will be exercisablein full; and

 

•                                          upon the termination of Mr. Lukens’employment other than for “cause” or by Mr. Lukens for “good reason” (assuch terms are defined in his employment agreement) prior to the expiration ofthe 2005 Option, the 2005 Option will be exercisable in full.

 

*               *CertainTerminations Agreed to Constitute Retirement:      Anytermination of Mr. Lukens’ employment by the Company without “cause” or byMr. Lukens for “good reason” (as such terms are defined in his employmentagreement) prior to the expiration of the 2005 Option will be treated as aRetirement.

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7044
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FRAZER ARTHUR WHEELER, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Ric hard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-92, CA-96-557) Submitted: December 17, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1997 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frazer Arthur Wheeler, Appellant Pro Se. S. David Schiller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Wheeler , Nos. CR-92-92; CA-96-557(E.D. Va. June 24, 1996). Appellant's motion to strike the Government's informal brief is denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED