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

No. 2464.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

Sept. 29, 1944.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 20,1944.

Murray J. Howze, of Monahans, for appellant.

Allen D. Dabney, of Eastland, for ap-pellee.

LESLIE, Chief Justice.

Etura Glenn instituted this suit against James A. Glenn, her husband, seeking to recover of him a divorce, the care and custody of two small children and to establish some property rights. The defendant answered contesting her claims, and a trial before the court without a jury resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff granting her the divorce, the care and custody of the children, as well as certain separate property rights and some support for the children during a limited time.

The appellant contests the judgment on the ground that “The evidence is not sufficient to sustain a judgment for divorce on the ground of cruel treatment as alleged in plaintiff’s petition.” No point is made that there is no evidence to support the judgment, or that it is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.

The plaintiff seeks the divorce upon the ground specified in Art. 4629, sec. 1, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St, reading as follows;

“Where either party is guilty of excesses, cruel treatment or outrages toward the other, if such ill treatment is of such a nature as to render their living together insupportable.”

Under the testimony, the plaintiff relies upon such authorities as Eatman v. Eatman, 75 Tex. 473, 12 S.W. 1107; McCullough v. McCullough, Tex.Civ.App., 20 S.W.2d 224; Arendale v. Arendale, Tex.Civ.App., 22 S.W.2d 1080; Blackburn v. Blackburn, Tex.Civ.App., 163 S.W.2d 251; and Kyle v. Kyle, Tex.Civ.App. 55 S.W.2d 885.

It is a well settled rule that it is for the jury or the court (as in this case) to decide issues of fact upon conflicting evidence or such evidence which is susceptible to diverse inferences. 41 T.J. 934, sec. 164; 3 T.J. p. 1088, sec. 764. The least that can be said of the evidence, in this case is that it is conflicting, presenting questions of fact for the determination of the trial court, since the case was tried without a jury.. 19 T.J. p. 682, sec. 254. Under such circumstances it is elementary that the trier of facts has the exclusive function of determining the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony. 17 T.J. p. 889, sec. 403. Further, a reviewing court will not disturb the verdict of the jury or the findings of the trial court (when trial is without a jury) where there is some evidence to support the same, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the successful party and indulging every legitimate conclusion that is favorable to him. Underwood v. Security Life & Annuity Co., 108 Tex. 381, 194 S.W. 585; 17 Tex.Jur. p. 909, sec. 410. With these rules in mind we have carefully considered the evidence presented in this case, and *232we readily reach the conclusion that the judgment of the trial court has a reasonable and sufficient support in the testimony, and is fully warranted by the above authorities.

The judgment is affirmed.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-5230

_____________________________

CURTIS BROWN,

Petitioner,

v.

MARK S. INCH, Secretary Fla. 

Dept. of Corr.,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Prohibition—Original Jurisdiction.

January 28, 2019

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of prohibition is denied on the merits. 

MAKAR, WINOKUR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Curtis Brown, pro se, Petitioner.

Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel, Department of Corrections, 

Tallahassee, for Respondent.
#### DARDEN v. STATE.

No. 25585.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 19, 1951.

*232A1 Templeton, W. R. Sessions, and F. T. Gauen, Jr., all of Dallas, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was found guilty of a charge of burglary and the jury’s verdict recites that he had theretofore been twice convicted of burglary, as charged in the indictment. A life sentence in the penitentiary was assessed as a consequence of this finding.

The record contains no bills of exception and no statement of facts. A brief filed by attorneys other than those who represented appellant on the trial of the case attacks the sufficiency of the indictment to allege the former convictions. There is no complaint of the indictment so far as it alleges the primary offense and states the date of the commission of the offense as October 26, 1950. A further paragraph in the indictment alleges that PI. B. Darden, “who is hereinbefore charged”, was theretofore convicted on May 9, 1949 of a burglary committed on January 18, 1949, and that such conviction was final. Another paragraph followed alleging that Hilla Buster Darden, “who is hereinbefore charged”, had a final conviction for burglary on January 15, 1947, for a burglary committed on September 4, 1946.

It is the contention on this appeal that the indictment is invalid insofar as it attempts to allege the former convictions ind, therefore, the judgment against him fixing a life sentence is void.

The indictment first named Hilla B. Dar-den. The following paragraph alleging the prior conviction of H. B. Darden says in effect that he is the person hereinabove charged. It could mean nothing other than that the H. B. Darden in that conviction is the same person as the Hilla B. Darden on trial. The next paragraph names Hilla Buster Darden and the above quoted allegation could mean nothing other than that he is the same person as H. B. Darden and as Hilla B. Darden.

What the evidence shows on the subject is not to be found in the record but we must presume that it was sufficient to show he was the identical person formerly charged and convicted of the offense of burglary. If the proof challenges this it should have been brought before this court for consideration.

We think the language is sufficient to show that the first offense and final conviction dated January 15, 1947, was before the offense on January 18, 1949, and that the final conviction in that case dated May 9, 1949, was prior to the commission of the offense for which he was on trial in the case before us. We cannot consider matters other than those which we find in the record. This appears to be regular and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2790 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2790

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To authorize private nonprofit organizations to administer permanent 
   housing rental assistance provided through the Continuum of Care 
Program under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Housing Assistance Efficiency Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTER RENTAL ASSISTANCE.

    Subsection (g) of section 423 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless 
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11383(g)) is amended by inserting ``private 
nonprofit organization,'' after ``unit of general local government,''.

SEC. 3. REALLOCATION OF FUNDS.

    Paragraph (1) of section 414(d) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless 
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11373(d)(1)) is amended by striking ``twice'' 
and inserting ``once''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 2, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2790

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To authorize private nonprofit organizations to administer permanent 
   housing rental assistance provided through the Continuum of Care 
Program under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, and for other 
                               purposes.
```
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 14, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-41735

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CARLOS GANDARILLA-HERNANDEZ, also known as 

Jose Jorge Gutierrez-Hernandez,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-701-ALL 

--------------------

Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Carlos Gandarilla-Hernandez (“Gandarilla”) appeals the 33-

month sentence he received after pleading guilty to illegally

reentering the U.S. after having been previously deported

following an aggravated felony conviction, in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1326. He argues, for the first time on appeal, that the

district court erred in imposing his sentence under a mandatory

sentencing guidelines scheme, citing United States v. Booker, 125

S. Ct. 738, 756 (2005). The argument is reviewed for plain
No. 04-41735

-2-

error. United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 733

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 267 (2005). 

Although Gandarilla’s sentence, imposed under the formerly

mandatory version of the sentencing guidelines, constitutes error

that is plain, the claim fails because, as Gandarilla concedes,

there was no effect on his substantial rights; there is no

indication from the record that the district court would have

imposed a different sentence under an advisory guidelines scheme. 

See id.; United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 517-18, 521 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). Gandarilla’s argument

that the error is structural and presumptively prejudicial is

without merit. See United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597,

601 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 464 (2005); United

States v. Malveaux, 411 F.3d 558, 561 & n.9 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 194 (2005).

Gandarilla’s constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)

is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.

224, 235 (1998). Although Gandarilla contends that AlmendarezTorres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme

Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such

arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. 

See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Gandarilla properly

concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-
No. 04-41735

-3-

Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve

it for further review. 

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5474 

To suspend temporarily the duty on cermets for ceramic discharge lamps. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. REED introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on cermets for ceramic 

discharge lamps. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERMETS FOR CERAMIC DISCHARGE LAMPS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Cermets for ceramic discharge lamps and articles 

thereof, for use in ceramic 

discharge lamps (provided 

for in subheading 

8113.00.00) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 5474 IH

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Essential Air Service At Thief River Falls MN

OST-2001-10642

January 28, 2014

At the request of the Thief River Falls Regional Airport, TransportAzumah has prepared a draft schedule

and cost for an emergency interim bus service between Thief River Falls and Grand Forks International

Airport. We will designate this option to be "Thief River Falls Option 2".

The following markets would receive emergency interim bus service beginning on or just after February

1:

TransportAzumah Emergency Interim Bus Service

Market Hub Round Trips Per Day 3 Month Subsidy

Thief River FalisMN GFK S $209,920

Sample bus schedules are provided below. They are subject to change:

Thief River Falls MN - GFK

Thief River Falls MN > Grand Forks ND (Daily)

Thief River Falls MN I 545a I 945a 245p 630p 1015p

Grand Forks ND I 700a 1l00a 400p 745p 1130p

Grand Forks ND > Thief River Falls MN (Daily)

Grand Forks ND 700a lOOp 500p 745p 1130p

Thief River Falls MN 815a 215p 615p 900p 1245a

In light of the short timeframe available to avoid uninterrupted service, we request expedited

consideration of our request. Due to the length of this contract, we will also need modified payment

arrangements. Please contact us as soon as possible so that we can start on or just after February 1,

2014.

Contact: Joel Anabilah-Azumah, jazumah@transportazumah.com. 347-927-0750

•
intv_ex1010.htm

EXHIBIT 10.10
  
  
  
 	 
	1
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	2
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	3
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	4
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	5
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	6
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	7
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	8
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	9
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-34-000]

Take notice that on October 10, 2000, Overthrust Pipeline Company (Overthrust) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1-A, First Revised Sheet No. 67D, First Revised Sheet No. 67E, Original Sheet No. 67F and Original Sheet No. 67G, to be effective November, 1, 2000.

Overthrust states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with Order No. 587-L issued June 30, 2000, in Docket No. RM96-1-014, which established November 1, 2000, as the implementation date for interstate pipeline companies to include, in their FERC Gas Tariff, a provision to permit shippers to net and trade imbalances.

Overthrust states that a copy of this filing has been served upon its customers, the Public Service Commission of Utah and the Public Service Commission of Wyoming.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-26690  Filed 10-17-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 31.2



                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Synnott B. Durham, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sunair Electronics,
Inc.;

1. Based on my knowledge, this report 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 with respect to the period covered by this report;

2. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in the report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

3. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 registrant and have:

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

     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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 registrant's internal
     control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
     recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
     to matterially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
     reporting; and

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant'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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control
     over financial reporting.


DATE: February 17, 2004

/s/ Synnott B. Durham
-------------------------------------
Synnott B. Durham
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Mercado, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Bamberger, J.), entered on July 13, 1988, which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 to vacate an indeterminate sentence of *IV2*to 22 years, unanimously affirmed.

Having pleaded guilty to attempted murder in the second degree, defendant was originally sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 10 to 20 years. On a prior motion the defendant argued and the People conceded that the sentence was illegal, since the crime to which defendant pleaded guilty was not an armed violent felony. Defendant was resentenced to a term of *IV2*to 22 *Vi*years, which was affirmed (134 AD2d 969). Thereafter, defendant moved pursuant to CPL 440.20 to vacate the plea and conviction. The denial of the motion is the subject of this appeal.

Defendant argues on appeal that a hearing was required since he alleged that his counsel was ineffective in not informing him that the maximum sentence might be increased. The trial court’s denial of the defendant’s CPL 440.20 motion was proper as the record shows that the possibility that the maximum could be increased to 25 years was known to both defendant and his attorney. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Milonas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report of Lingo Media Corporation. on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 (the “Report”) pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Exchange Act and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.



Michael Kraft, President OF Lingo Media Corporation, and Khurram Qureishi, Chief Financial OffIcer of Lingo Media Corporation, each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Hitachi, Ltd.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date:    May XX, 2017 | By: | /s/ Michael Kraft                 
|--------------------- | --- | ----------------------------------
|                      |     | Name:         Michael P. Kraft    
|                      |     | Title:           President and CEO





|By: |  | /s/ Khurram Qureshi                                   
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|    |  | Name:         Khurram R. Qureshi                      
|    |  | Title:           Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer