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

No. 25773.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 26, 1952.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for possessing whisky for the purpose of sale in a *249•dry area, with the penalty assessed at a fine of $500.

The record contains neither a statement •of facts nor bill of exception. All the proceedings appear regular and nothing is presented for review by this court.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEC
FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS. </LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000

<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                 2,181
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                        189,319
<ALLOWANCES>                          (4,224)
<INVENTORY>                          205,491
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     462,278
<PP&E>                               277,687
<DEPRECIATION>                      (151,036)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       630,954
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                214,991
<BONDS>                               78,749
<COMMON>                              47,722
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                           272,909
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         630,954
<SALES>                              389,551
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     389,551
<CGS>                                328,410
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        328,410
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      53,536
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     6,710
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        7,605
<INCOME-TAX>                           2,816
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    4,789
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                           5,123
<EPS-BASIC>                           0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0.18



</TABLE>
|   | · | our      Auditors’ Report dated April 29, 2009 with respect to the consolidated      balance sheets of Canadian Superior Energy Inc. (the “Company”) as at      December 31, 2008 and 2007 and the consolidated statements of operations,      comprehensive loss and deficit and cash flows for each of the years in the      three year period ended December 31, 2008;and |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | · | our      Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated April 29,      2009 on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as      at December 31, 2008; |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

NATERA, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

PROGENITY, INC.,

 Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

6-20-CV-00532-ADA

ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY HEARING

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case it set for 

DISCOVERY HEARING BY ZOOM on THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 2021 AT 3:30PM. An 

email will be sent with the Zoom link. 

SIGNED this 1st day of June, 2021.

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00532-ADA Document 61 Filed 06/01/21 Page 1 of 1
#### H. E. WILCOX, Appellant, v. STATE, Appellee.

No. 22498.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 8, 1943.

Royce A. Oxford, of Edinburg, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This case is similar to, and is governed and controlled by, Williams v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 176 S.W.2d 177, this day decided. For the reasons therein set forth, the judgment is. reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

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.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Charles A. Hinrichs, Senior VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   /s/ Charles A. Hinrichs                            |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   Charles A. Hinrichs                                |   |   |
|   Senior Vice President and Chief  Financial Officer |   |   |
|   August 7, 2007                                     |   |   |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section906, has been provided to Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. and will beretained by Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles A. Hinrichs, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/CHARLES A. HINRICHSCharles A. Hinrichs Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerNovember 8, 2002 |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
#### Christina Milbrandt, as Administratrix of the Estate of Irving C. Milbrandt, Deceased, Appellant-Respondent, v A. P. Green Refractories Company, Respondent-Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred by reducing the judgment to eliminate interest assessed on the future damages. The statute (EPTL 5-4.3 [a]) clearly provides that "[ijnterest upon the principal sum recovered by the plaintiff from the date of the decedent’s death shall be added to and be a part of the total sum awarded.” The plain meaning of the statute provides for interest on the "principal sum recovered” without distinguishing between *846prejudgment and postjudgment losses of future income *(Soulier v Hughes,*119 AD2d 951, 954). We recognize that the rationale in *Woodling v Garrett Corp.*(813 F2d 543) has merit. Any inequity, however, which may result from compliance with the statute is a matter for the Legislature and not for the courts. (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Feeman, J.—correction of judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.
NUMBER 13-10-00290-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF J.N.L., A MINOR CHILD

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Cynthia L. Salazar, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 

County Court at Law No. 2 of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number CC-502-96-2. 

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and requests that this Court dismiss the 

appeal.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant=s motion to 

dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a). Appellant=s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby 
2

DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent 

agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having 

dismissed the appeal at appellant=s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, 

and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

29th day of July, 2010.
Order filed January 13, 2015 , Withdrawn, Appeal Reinstated and Order filed

January 29, 2015

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00687

- CR

____________ GERALD GERROD DARBY , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 230th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1384358



### ORDER

On January 13, 2015 , this Court issued an order abating the appeal and directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for failure to file appellant’s brief. On January 23, 2015, appellant’s brief was filed.
Accordingly, o ur order of January 13, 201 5 , is withdrawn. The appeal is
reinstated. The State’s brief is due 30 days from the date of this or der.

PER CURIAM
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Emil Fiore, Appellant.

Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Appellate Part, First Department,

December 6, 1957.

*Maurice W. Spiegel*for appellant.

*Milton Altschuler, District Attorney (Daniel V. Sullivan*of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Appellant was convicted of speeding. At the conclusion of the testimony and after both sides had rested, the trial court examined appellant’s driver’s license which was not in evidence and commented on previous traffic violations therein set forth.

It was reversible error for the court to look at the license before conviction. Such practice should be scrupulously avoided in the future, since it is a clear violation of defendant’s rights.

We do not say that the decision would have been different if the Magistrate had not seen the defendant’s license before *469rendering Ms decision. Suffice it to say that the case is criminal in nature and all the safeguards in such cases should be observed.

The judgment of conviction should be reversed and new trial ordered.

Kozicke, Heller and Rossbach, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.
EXHIBIT 11

<TABLE>
                            STORAGE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                               COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                               (In thousands, except per share amounts)
<CAPTION>

                                                   March 27,      March 28,
                                                      1998           1997
                                                  ------------   ------------
<S>                                               <C>            <C>
BASIC
Earnings:
  Net income                                          $40,570        $39,589
                                                  ============   ============

Shares:
  Weighted average shares outstanding                  53,314         61,222
                                                  ============   ============

Earnings per share:
  Basic earnings per share                            $  0.76        $  0.65
                                                  ============   ============


DILUTED
Earnings:
  Net income                                          $40,570        $39,589
  Adjustment for interest and amortization
    of debt issue costs on 8% Convertible
    Debentures, net of estimated tax effects                             255
                                                  ------------   ------------
  Net income, as adjusted                             $40,570        $39,844
                                                  ============   ============

Shares:
  Weighted average shares outstanding                  53,314         61,222
  Dilutive effect of outstanding options (as
    determined under the treasury stock method)         1,316            985
  Adjustment for shares issuable upon assumed
    conversion of 8% Convertible Debentures                              578
                                                  ------------   ------------
  Weighted-average and dilutive 
    potential shares                                   54,630         62,785
                                                  ============   ============

Earnings per share:
  Diluted earnings per share                          $  0.74        $  0.63 
                                                  ============   ============

</TABLE>
Exhibit 15.2











CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



Randgold Resources Limited



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference
in the Registration Statements filed on Form S-8 (File No. 333-156150; No. 333-145013 and No. 333-103222) of Randgold Resources
Limited of our report dated March 30, 2016, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Kibali (Jersey) Limited and its
subsidiaries included in Randgold Resources Limited Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 31 December 2015.





/s/ BDO LLP





BDO LLP

Registered Auditor

London

United Kingdom



30 March 2016



BDO LLP is a limited
liability partnership registered in England and Wales (with registered number OC305127).
#### McFALL v. STATE.

No. 23083.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 14, 1945.

*250Spiner & Pritchard, of Houston, for appellant.

A. C. Winborn, Cr. Dist. Atty., and E. T. Branch, Asst. Cr. Dist. Atty., both of Houston, and Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of aggravated assault, and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the county jail for a period of thirty days.

The only complaint brought forward relates to the court’s action in overruling his motion for a new trial. He based his motion on two grounds, the first of which is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; and second, on newly discovered evidence material to his defensive theory. On the hearing of the motion the court heard evidence relative to what appellant claimed to be newly discovered and this is brought forward in a statement of facts, but the evidence adduced on the original trial does not accompany the record. Consequently there is nothing before this court from which we may determine his. first contention. His second contention may be disposed of on two grounds: (1) That the claimed newly discovered evidence is merely of an impeaching nature which would have controverted the testimony of the prosecutrix, and (2d) that the court was justified in concluding that it was probably not true. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse his discretion in overruling the same. This court has said many times that a new trial will not be granted when the newly discovered evidence could only be used to discredit or impeach the testimony of a witness who has testified on the trial. See Bracken v. State, 110 Tex.Cr.R. 536, 9 S. W.2d 356; Mims v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 647, 146 S.W.2d 754; Branch’s Ann.Tex. P.C., p. 129, sec. 202. On the question that the newly discovered evidence must probably be true, see Branch’s Ann.Tex. P.C., sec. 200. Moreover, the testimony which he claims Leonard Jackson would give could hardly be termed “newly discovered” because Jackson testified on the hearing of the motion that he was near the place where appellant picked Up the prose-cutrix; that he spoke to appellant and the appellant spoke to him, and it seemed to him from the conduct of the prosecutrix that at that time she had already sustained the injuries. The prosecutrix testified that at the time she entered the taxicab of appellant she had not been injured but was assaulted by him after she was in the cab. It will be noted that if Jackson’s testimony is true, then appellant knew of Jackson’s presence, and his failure to inquire of him what he knew relative to the matter and to have him summoned as a witness is due to a want of proper diligence.

From what we have said it follows that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commis.sion of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
Opinion issued September 25, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 14 - 00 226 - CV

——————————— RONI SINGER, FORMERL Y KNOWN AS RONI S. W ILLIAMS , Appellant V . ROBERT L. WILLIAMS , Appellee
On Appeal from the 2 4 7 th Judicial District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 201 2 - 712 4 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION A ppellant, Roni Singer, formerly known as Roni S. Williams, h as filed a n unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal

. No opinion has issued

. Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a)(1) , (c), 43.2(f)

. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.2 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Higley, Bland, and Sharp

.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



                                               Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Stephan Co. (the
"Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Frank F. Ferola, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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)     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.

/s/ Frank F. Ferola
__________________________________
Frank F. Ferola
Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2003
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. 

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00454-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00455-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00456-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00457-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00458-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00459-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00460-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00461-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00462-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00463-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00464-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00465-ADA

WSOU’S NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE REGARDING EXCHANGE OF REVISED LIST 

OF TERMS AND CONSTRUCTIONS

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Pursuant to the Court’s Version 3.2 of the Court’s Order Governing proceedings entered 

November 5, 2020, and in accordance with the Court’s Scheduling Order, Plaintiff hereby notifies 

the Court Plaintiff has served its revised list of terms and constructions on Defendant Microsoft 

Corporation via electronic mail on December 18, 2020. 

Case 6:20-cv-00465-ADA Document 45 Filed 12/18/20 Page 1 of 2
Date: December 18, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Mark D. Siegmund_____ 

Mark D. Siegmund

State Bar No. 24117055

mark@waltfairpllc.com

Law Firm of Walt, Fair PLLC.

1508 North Valley Mills Drive 

Waco, Texas 76710

Telephone: (254) 772-6400

Facsimile: (254) 772-6432

Counsel for Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served or delivered 

electronically via U.S. District Court [LIVE]- Document Filing System, to all counsel of record, 

on this the 18th day of December 2020.

/s/ Mark D. Siegmund

Mark D. Siegmund

Case 6:20-cv-00465-ADA Document 45 Filed 12/18/20 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 99(c)

ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

HSBC Finance Corporation, successor by merger to

Household Finance Corporation ("HSBC" Finance")

HOUSEHOLD MORTGAGE FUNDING CORPORATION III

HOUSEHOLD MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2002-HC1

 

 

	I, Steven H. Smith, Servicing Officer of HSBC Finance (the "Master Servicer"), DO HEREBY CERTIFY, in accordance with Section 3.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 3, 2002 among Household Mortgage Funding Corporation III, as Depositor, Household Mortgage Loan Trust 2002-HC1, Master Servicer and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.  (as Successor in Interest to Bank One, National Association), as Indenture Trustee, (the "Agreement") that:

	1.	A review of the activities of the Master Servicer from January 1 through December 31, 2004 and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

To the best of my knowledge, based on my review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all its material obligations under the Agreement throughout such Year. Based on such review, the Master Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge, performed in all material respects its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year and no default in the performance of such obligations has occurred or is continuing except as set forth below.

				NONE

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this certificate this 1st day of March, 2005.                              

					

					HSBC Finance Corporation, as Master Servicer

 

					 ______/s/ Steven H. Smith                      								Steven H. Smith

					Servicing Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT JOHN S. HASKELL, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-690 ) UNNI HASKELL, PCP GROUP, LLC, ) FLORIDA INVESTMENT TRUST ) ENTERPRISES, LLC, MATERIAL ) CONNECTION FLORIDA, INC., and ) HASKELL TEXTILES CORP., INC, ) ) Appellees. ) ) Opinion filed November 21, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Amy M. Williams, Judge. Nicole Deese Newlon, William P. Cassidy, Jr., and John E. Johnson of Johnson & Cassidy, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Richard C. Alvarez, and Eric R. Maier, of Older Lundy & Alvarez, Tampa, for Appellee Unni Haskell. No appearance for remaining Appellees. PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony V. Voisinet, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from judgment of Orleans County Court, Miles, J.—rape, second degree.) Present —Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.