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

No. 23678.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 4, 1947.

Emmett Shelton, of Austin, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for driving an automobile while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $100.

According to the State’s testimony, appellant, while intoxicated, drove his automobile into and collided with an automobile parked on Lavaca Street in the City or Austin. In appellant’s car was found a bottle of whisky about one-fourth full. Although appellant admitted and proved by other witnesses that, prior to the collision, he had taken two jiggers or drinks of whisky, he and his witnesses denied that he was drunk or under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time of the collision.

The State’s testimony warrants the jury's conclusion of guilt.

 Appellant complains of the overruling of his application for a continuance because of the absence of the witness Humes, by whom he expected to prove that about IS minutes before the collision witness saw appellant and that at that time he was not under the influence of intoxicating liquor in any degree.

The application, upon its face, shows that no subpoena had been applied for or. issued for the witness. Appellant appears to have relied upon the promise of witness to be present at the trial.

The law requires an accused to use the means provided by law to procure the attendance of his witnesses. If he substitutes other means, he does so at his own peril. The application for continuance was properly overruled for a want of diligence. 9 Tex.Jur., Continuance, Sec. 98, p. 780; Jones v. State, 115 Tex.Cr.R. 60, 29 S.W. 2d 791; Aggers v. State, 114 Tex.Cr.R. 391, 24 S.W.2d 838.

Bills of exception appear complaining of the closing argument of State’s counsel as being inflammatory, prejudicial, and not supported by the testimony.

In determining whether argument of State’s counsel constitutes reversible error, the rule is that it becomes such only when, in extreme cases, it is manifestly improper, or where a mandatory statute is violated or some new fact is thereby injected into the case. Vineyard v. State, 96 Tex.Cr.R. 401, 257 S.W. 548; Mickle v. State, Tex.Cr. App., 191 S.W.2d 41; Gordon v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 194 S.W.2d 775.

*677The arguments here complained of do not come within the rule stated.

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

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.
The undersigned officer of The Stride Rite Corporation (the "Company") hereby
certifies that the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended February 27, 2004 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission of the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and
shall not be deemed to be a part of the Report or "filed" for any purpose
whatsoever.



Date:       April 8, 2004           Name:       /s/ Frank A. Caruso
      ------------------------            ------------------------------------

                                    Title:      Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.8








graphicPricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Chartered Accountants
111 5 Avenue SW, Suite 3100
Calgary, Alberta
Canada T2P 5L3
Telephone +1 403 509 7500
Facsimile +1 403 781 1825
















Consent of Independent Auditors



We hereby consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 of OPTI Canada Inc. of our report dated March 15, 2010, relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting which appears in this Annual Report.

We also consent to reference to us under the heading “Interests of Experts” in the Annual Information Form included in this Annual Report on Form 40-F which is incorporated by reference in such Registration Statement.


GRAPHIC


Chartered Accountants
Calgary, Alberta

March 15, 2010




“PricewaterhouseCoopers” refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership, or, as the context requires, the PricewaterhouseCoopers global network or other member firms of the network, each of which is a separate legal entity.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               19,633,680
<ALLOWANCES>                                   689,986
<INVENTORY>                                 19,599,837
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            43,391,889
<PP&E>                                      10,133,070
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,327,218
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              58,966,915
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,966,409
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       339,323
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,934,007
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                58,966,915
<SALES>                                     20,895,881
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,895,881
<CGS>                                       19,348,129
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               23,240,089
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             511,404
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,855,612)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,071,954
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,783,658)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,783,658)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.55)


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

No. 22537.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 9, 1943.

*103James H. Letts, of Houston, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The offense is sodomy; the punishment, ten years in the state penitentiary.

No statement of facts or bills of exception accompany the record. The sole question presented for review is whether or not the verdict of the jury was sufficient to authorize the judgment and the imposition of the punishment assessed.

The indictment charged the commission by appellant of the primary offense of sodomy and a prior conviction for an offense of the same nature.

It is appellant’s contention that the indictment is so drawn as to constitute only one count, arjd that the jury’s verdict finding him guilty under the first count of the indictment constituted a finding of guilt of the primary offense and of the prior conviction; that the mandatory provisions of Art. 62, P.C., taken in connection with the maximum punishment for the offense of sodomy, as provided by Art. 524, P.C., required that his punishment be fixed at fifteen years’ confinement in the state penitentiary; and that, the jury having assessed a penalty of only ten years in the penitentiary, this constituted such verdict a nullity.

The verdict of the jury is not susceptible of the construction sought tO' be applied thereto by appellant — that is, that the jury found him guilty of both the primary offense charged and the prior conviction— because, in the court’s charge, the jury was authorized to find appellant guilty of the primary offense charged, without reference to the prior conviction; in which event, the trial court gave a form of verdict to be followed. The jury’s verdict is in keeping with, and follows, that form, showing that the jury found appellant guilty of the primary offense only, and without reference to the allegation of a prior conviction. The jury having found appellant guilty of the offense of sodomy only, it was within its province to assess the punishment at ten years in the penitentiary.

The verdict authorized the judgment entered, and that judgment is affirmed.

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.
<PAGE>

                            [LETTERHEAD OF KPMG LLP]

                     REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT

The Stockholder
First Horizon Home Loan Corporation:

We have examined managements assertion about First Horizon Home Loan
Corporations (the Company) compliance with the minimum servicing standards set
forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of Americas Uniform single
Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers (USAP) as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2003, included in the accompanying management assertion letter.
Management is responsible for the Companys compliance with those minimum
servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements
assertion about the Companys compliance with the minimum servicing standards
based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the
Standards and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for
our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the
Companys compliance with the Standards.

In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December
31, 2003, is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ KPMG LLP
---------------
KPMG LLP

Memphis, Tennessee
February 27, 2004
July 1, 2015

Mr. Douglas Piper

Sealy & Company, LLC

333 Texas Street

Suite 1050

Shreveport, LA 71101

Dear Mr. Piper:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§§ 61.113 (a) and (b), 91.119 (c), 91.121, 91.151 (b), 91.405 (a) and (b), 91.407 (a)(1), 91.409(a)(1), 

91.409 (a)(2), and 91.417 (a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It 

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your April 22, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Sealy & Company, LLC into 

the public docket (No. FAA−2015−1235), but we are unable to process your request any 

further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy 

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-22-00468-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022-005474-1

Before Walker, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Kerr, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

SHAVAUN SMILEY, Appellant

V.

5644 RIVERWALK, LLC, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

On May 17, 2023, we notified appellant that her brief had not been filed as the 

appellate rules require. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). We stated that we could dismiss 

the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within ten days, appellant filed with the 

court an appellant’s brief and an accompanying motion reasonably explaining the 

brief’s untimely filing and why an extension was needed. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b),

38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We have received no response.

Because appellant has failed to file a brief even after we afforded an 

opportunity to explain the initial failure, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered: June 22, 2023
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-00478-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

LETTER OF REQUEST FOR FOREIGN DISCOVERY

Case 6:20-cv-00478-ADA Document 51 Filed 11/09/20 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 Canada. Defendants 

have attached an Appendix with a Letter of Request which includes Document Requests and

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

attached as Appendix E. Defendants further request that, after the Court has signed the Letter 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 9, 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-00478-ADA Document 51 Filed 11/09/20 Page 2 of 3
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on November 9, 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-00478-ADA Document 51 Filed 11/09/20 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000095254
<NAME> CASPEN OIL INC
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                         128,318
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  196,391
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               324,709
<PP&E>                                      20,179,006
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,110,465
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,293,335
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,983,435
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          210,922
<PREFERRED>                                    600,000
<COMMON>                                       425,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,578
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,293,335
<SALES>                                        504,830
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               533,833
<CGS>                                          166,345
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  590,294
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               539,550
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (596,011)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER OF ABATEMENT 

Appellate case name: In re Joyce Columbus

Appellate case number: 01-21-00272-CV

Trial court case number: 035118

Trial court: 12th District Court of Grimes County

Relator, Joyce Columbus, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the 

Honorable Donald L. Kraemer’s June 29, 2020 order denying relator’s motion for summary 

judgment claiming the real party in interest, Bishop Kindle’s claims were barred by limitations. 

On May 27, 2021, Kindle filed a motion to abate because the respondent, the Honorable Donald 

L. Kraemer, retired and the Honorable David Moorman has assumed the bench in the 12 District 

Court.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.2(b) requires an appellate court to “abate the 

[original] proceeding to allow the successor to reconsider the original party’s decision.” TEX. R.

APP. P. 7.2(b). 

Accordingly, Kindle’s motion to abate is GRANTED. This proceeding is ABATED and 

REMANDED to the trial court. Within 15 days of the date of this order, relator is directed to 

obtain a hearing date, if necessary, from the trial court coordinator and to notify all parties of such 

date. The hearing shall be set for a date no later than 30 days after the date of this order. The trial 

court coordinator shall advise the Clerk of this Court of the hearing date as soon as it is set.

Within 40 days of the date of this order, the district clerk shall file a supplemental clerk’s 

record and reporter’s record, if any, with the ruling by the successor, Honorable David Moorman. 

Kindle has also filed a motion for extension of time to file his response. The motion is 

GRANTED and the deadline for Kindle to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus is 

extended until 20 days after a supplemental clerk’s record requested by this order is filed. 

This case is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active docket. 

This original proceeding will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the successor 

respondent has reconsidered the original respondent’s decision and either party informs the Clerk 

of this Court of the ruling with a certified copy of the order. This Court will also consider a motion 

to reinstate by either party.

It is so ORDERED.
Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Justice Peter Kelly___________________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __December 14, 2021____
NO. 14-14-00792-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

AT HOUSTON, TEXAS

__________________________________________________________________

KHALED ALATTAR,

Appellant,

v.

KAY HOLDINGS, INC.,

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Interlocutory Appeal of Ruling on Special Appearance

From the 113th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-54501

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

Please take notice that effective Thursday June 25, 2015, the suite number for 

Brian M. Keller, State Bar No. 00784376, has changed and he requests that service of 

notices and all other documents be made upon him at:

KELLER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

2500 West Loop South, Suite 308

Houston, TX 77027

281.853.9456 Phone

713.600.5804 Facsimile

bkeller@kellerattorneys.com

ACCEPTED

14-14-00792-CV

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

6/26/2015 8:52:13 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/26/2015 8:52:13 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
2

Respectfully submitted,

KELLER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

By:/s/ Brian M. Keller

Brian M. Keller

State Bar No. 00784376

2500 West Loop South, Suite 300

Houston, TX 77027

281.853.9456 Phone

713.600.5804 Facsimile

bkeller@kellerattorneys.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A copy of Appellant’s Amended Brief was served electronically on counsel 

of record on June 26, 2015, as follows:

J. Randle Henderson

16506 FM 529, Suite 115-107

Houston, Texas 77095

jrh@hendersonrandy.com

/s/ Brian M. Keller

Brian M. Keller
^0 .

Ivn^a RECEIVED IN s ^

\t_*»we^ COURT OF CRfPAL APPEALS * o?

M FILED IN d--^V wfe*\s

AUG 13 2015 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

TVii 5V*te. oV Toil* AU6 13 2915

^csVooAeA Abel Acosta, Clerk

Abel Acosta, Clerk

To TVie \WjcW»Ac. "3uA&fcb <$c S&A CjauA •.

L^eb^o^ W<\vS> ^^ &£s^\ &Jr\\vHSe.c <*A fete* "W cooW Voc e*W^

3L

£S> 13<MW^ \CtiWX o^V\ oia^ vjWvcitN Xi> (Se^W\te^ <^. j&vSW- eteVa^c4^^

b\«\s c\<fc -iAWc^^ dt ^e XaU^ocx uitaV fcM 33 >SatoJ Mu«,M, ttnft MivWWa

i^K\ Vcowv ^W. a^;4s0v p&/<bM ^«v<x\;a^. .

\t«?c ^ W Waco&^ fee ^ee^o^Vv^ \beUe . ^W- CousV u>s<£cxl_

3SL -

US, U&U^ W ^V\ «3&^ 0sW<^ Xb (Se^W><^ £,&\S)^ eiC^^
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5496 

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to make 

a technical correction relating to sanitary towels (pads) and tampons, 

diapers and diaper liners for babies and similar articles. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mrs. SCHMIDT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States to make a technical correction relating to sanitary 

towels (pads) and tampons, diapers and diaper liners 

for babies and similar articles. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SANITARY TOWELS (PADS) AND TAMPONS, DIA4 PERS AND DIAPER LINERS FOR BABIES AND 

5 SIMILAR ARTICLES. 

6 (a) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Heading 9619.00 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by striking subheadings 9619.00.05 through 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5496 IH

1 9619.00.90 and inserting the following new subheadings, 

2 with the article descriptions for subheadings 9619.00.10 

3 and 9619.00.20 having the same degree of indentation as 

4 the article description for subheading 9617.00.60: 

‘‘ 9619.00.10 Diapers of cotton, other than knitted or crocheted ............................................................... 9.3% Free (BH, CA, 

CL, IL, JO, MA, 

MX, OM, P, PE, 

SG) 3% (AU) 

90% 

9619.00.20 Other ................................................................ Free 35% ’’. 

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

6 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

7 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

8 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS