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

No. 25322.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 30, 1951.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 10, 1951.

Harold Henry, Waco, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The Chrysler automobile belonging to Matthews was, on the night of March 8, 1950, stolen from'his garage in-Austin. A 71⁄2 horsepower. Mercury outboard motor was in the trunk' of the car. Upon discovery of the theft the next morning, officers were notified and a report was made by radiobroadcast of the theft of the car and. motor. On April 15, police officers of Fort Worth reported that the stolen automobile had been found in .that city. The outboard motor, however, was not in the car when found.

Turpin, an automobile mechanic who resided in Fort Worth, was approached by one Gatehouse on March 9, the day following the theft, with an offer to sell him a 71⁄2 horsepower Mercury outboard motor. Appellant assisted Gatehouse in carrying the motor into Turpin’s place of business. After somé discussion, Turpin bought the ■motor from Gatehouse for $30, which was greatly below its value. . Gatehouse executed a bill of. sale to the .motor.

.- On -July 3, about four'months after the .theft, Turpin delivered the *motor to*Detectives Armstrong and McHan of the City of Fort Worth. McHan delivered the motor to Dallas officers whom he did not .name or otherwise identify. Matthews’ stolen motor was returned to him “by the .detectives.” He did not name those detectives, or. otherwise attempt to identify :them.

The stolen motor was not described by Matthews other than as a 71⁄2 horsepower Mercury outboard motor; no serial number or special identifying marks were given. Such, also, was the limited description of the motor which Tur.pin bought from Gatehouse.

■ Appellant stands here convicted of the ■theft of the outboard motor, with punishment assessed at three years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

It is insisted that the facts are insufficient to sustain the conviction because the stolen motor is not shown to have been in appellant’s possession of in the possession of Gatehouse, with whom appellant is alleged to have acted. With this contention we are in accord.

Appellant’s guilt depends, upon his acts and conduct with Gatehouse in the sale of the motor to Turpin, which, of necessity, .must have been .the stolen motor. The absence of any testimony showing that' the motor sold to Turpin was the stolen motor, or that the motor ultimately returned to Matthews was the one sold to Turpin precludes appellant’s guilt.

The facts being insufficient to sustain the conviction, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court

On State’s Motion for Rehearing

WOODLEY, Judge.

We have again carefully examined the record in the light of the State’s able motion and argument and are unable to agree that the facts and circumstances are suf*393ficient to identify the outboard motor sold in Ft. Worth as that -stolen from Mr; Matthews in Austin.

■The State’s motion for rehearing is therefore overruled “

Opinion approved by the Court.
Exhibit
23.2




CONSENT
OF REGISTERED INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated April 6, 2009
relating to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Skinny
Nutritional Corp. (the “Company”) included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K
into the Company’s previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File
Nos. 333-161178 and 333-161677).








/s/ Connolly, Grady & Cha,
P.C.





Connolly,
Grady & Cha, P.C.





Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania





March 31,
2010
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL Page 1 

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.

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00473-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00474-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00475-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00476-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00477-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00478-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00479-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00482-ADA 

PATENT CASE 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC D/B/A 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL INC., 

EMC CORPORATION, AND VMWARE, 

INC., 

 Defendants. 

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00480-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00481-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00485-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00486-ADA 

PATENT CASE 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 

Please take notice that attorney Nathan K. Cummings of the law firm Etheridge Law 

Group, PLLC appears as counsel of record for Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos 

Licensing and Development. Mr. Cummings hereby requests that all notices required to be given 

and all papers required to be served in the above-entitled and numbered cause be served upon him. 

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 132 Filed 12/08/21 Page 1 of 3
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL Page 2 

Dated: December 8, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Nathan K. Cummings 

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 

Jeffrey Huang 

Brian M. Koide 

Nathan K. Cummings 

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 

Jhuang@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Brian@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Nathan@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Mark D. Siegmund 

State Bar No. 24117055 

mark@swclaw.com 

STECKLER WAYNE COCHRAN CHERRY, PLLC 

8416 Old McGregor Rd. 

Waco, Texas 76712 

Telephone: (254) 651-3690 

Facsimile: (254) 651-3689 

 

Counsel for Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC 

 

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 132 Filed 12/08/21 Page 2 of 3
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL Page 3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

via the U.S. District Court CM/ECF Document Filing System to all counsel of record on December 

8, 2021. 

/s/ Nathan K. Cummings 

Nathan K. Cummings 

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 132 Filed 12/08/21 Page 3 of 3
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 in Chemical and Transport Systems (1190).                    

*Date and Time:*                         November 17-18, 2000; 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         Hyatt Regency @ Capitol Hill, Washington, DC.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Chuan Chen, Program Director, Fluid Dynamics & Hydraulics, Division of Chemical & Transport Systems, Room 525, (703) 292-8371.                    

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

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate nominations for the FY 2000 Career Panel of proposals as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                     

Dated: October 3, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-25830  Filed 10-10-00; 8:45 am]

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

No. 25999.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 5, 1952.

*196No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is possession of whiskey for the purpose of sale in a dry *area;*the punishment, 90 days in jail and a fine of $250.

In the absence of a statement of facts, we are unable to determine whether the requested charges were warranted under the facts.

The proceedings appearing regular and no reversible error 'being apparent, the judgment is affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 23, 2009

l0916 

# Order

September 23, 2009

138874 & (18) (23)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138874 COA: 290310 Clinton CC: 08-008247-FH DONALD JOSEPH MARCHESE, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 8, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be review ed by this Court. The motions to remand and to add or expand issues are DENIED.
Exhibit 31

                            Section 302 Certification

I, Douglas K. Johnson, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form
     8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of period
     included in the year covered by this annual report, of Allstate Life Global
     Funding Trust 2005-6;

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

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

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

5.   The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
     compliance by the trustee and the depositor with the minimum servicing or
     similar standards based upon the report provided by an independent public
     accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single
     Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedures, as set
     forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar agreements, that is included
     in these reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Allstate Life Insurance
Company and J.P. Morgan Trust Company National Association and their respective
officers and agents.

Date:    March 28, 2006

By:      /s/ Douglas K. Johnson
         -----------------------------------
         Name:  Douglas K. Johnson
         Title:  President
AO 399 (01/09) Waiver of the Service of Summons

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To:

(Name of the plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

Date:

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

Printed name of party waiving service of summons Printed name

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a summons

and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff located in

the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure.

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the plaintiff

and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been served.

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC

ZTE CORP., ZTE (USA) INC., AND ZTE (TX), INC.

6:20-CV-00490-ADA

James L. Etheridge

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, 

two copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you. 

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case. 

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service. 

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 07/01/2020 , the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the 

United States). If I fail to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

07/01/2020

ZTE Corporation Eric S. Robinson

DUNLAP BENNETT & LUDWIG

7215 Bosque Boulevard

Waco, Texas 76710

erobinson@dbllawyers.com

(254) 870-7302

s/ Eric S. Robinson

Case 6:20-cv-00490-ADA Document 10 Filed 07/17/20 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                             5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND RETAINED
EARNINGS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1000
       
<S>                                                 <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                            90625
<SECURITIES>                                      34829
<RECEIVABLES>                                    244917
<ALLOWANCES>                                       3271
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 514780
<PP&E>                                           289019
<DEPRECIATION>                                   159008
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   824448
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            405255
<BONDS>                                           23464
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                          17731
<OTHER-SE>                                       309130
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     824448
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 635783
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    597599
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  16334
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  872
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   22855
<INCOME-TAX>                                       7805
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               15050
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      15050
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      1.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      1.17
        

</TABLE>
GPSERV, Inc.

621 Brookhaven Drive · Orlando, FL 32803

Toll Free 888·782·1997 · Local 407·601·5816 · Fax 407·601·5826

February 24, 2016

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Application for Amendment to Exemption 12231, GPServ, Inc., FAA Docket 2015-

1914

Dear Sir or Madam:

On May 12, 2015 and supplemented on June 12, 2015, GPServ, Inc. (hereinafter “GPSI”), applied

for the issuance of an exemption under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

(“Reform Act”) based upon Exemption 11110 issued to Trimble Navigation Limited (“Trimble”) on

December 10, 2014, as amended on May 7, 2015 with issuance of Exemption 11110A in FAA Docket

2014-0367. On July 30, 2015 the FAA issued Exemption 12231 to GPSI for the operation of the Trimble

UX5 and UX5 hp unmanned aircraft with updated standard terms and conditions.

This letter is a further request for an amendment to add the following aircraft to the

amended Exemption 12231 for commercial use in aerial data collection:

Trimble ZX5

The Trimble ZX5 is a rotorcraft weighing a maximum of 11 lbs. at takeoff (in any event, less than

55 lbs.), with payload. It will not operate at a speed greater than 87 knots. Preflight maintenance will be

accomplished as set forth in the Operations Manual submitted confidentially with this application.

The listed aircraft will be operated in accordance with the procedures set forth in the manuals

listed above and submitted confidentially. The FAA has issued exemption grants in circumstances similar

in all material respects to those presented in this petition. In Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (see

Docket No. FAA−2014−0352), No. 11109 to Clayco, Inc. (see Docket No. FAA−2014−0507), No. 11112

to VDOS Global, LLC (see Docket No. FAA−2014−0382), and No. 11213 to Aeryon Labs, Inc. (see

Docket No. FAA−2014−0642), the FAA found that the enhanced safety achieved using an unmanned

aircraft (“UA”) with the specifications described by the petitioner and carrying no passengers or crew,

rather than a manned aircraft of significantly greater proportions carrying crew in addition to flammable

fuel, gave the FAA good cause to find that the UAS operation at issue was in the public interest.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gerald Scott, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J.—assault, second degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Green and Lawton, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.01

DEER VALLEY CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 of Deer Valley Corporation (the Company), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Charles G. Masters, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Charles G. Masters               
|Charles G. Masters                   
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|May 14, 2008                         



14
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**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 March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Patrick J. Moore,Chief Executive 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:

 

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

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Patrick J. Moore |   |
|----------------------|--------|

Patrick J. MooreChief Executive OfficerMay 5, 2010

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc.and will be retained by Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----