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

No. 22291.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 18, 1942.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 6, 1943.

Gray Browne, of Abilene, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is robbery. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a period of twelve years.

The only 'question presented for review is a claimed variance between the name of the alleged injured party and the proof in support thereof. It appears from the indictment that the name of the injured party was Paul Hamons, but he testified that it was Hamon. However, there is testimony from other source that he was generally called Hamons. The rule seems to be well settled in this state that if a party is known as well by one name as another, it is immaterial which is his true name. Art 401, C.C.P. See Owen v. State, 7 Tex.App. 329, 335; Gafford v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 100 S.W. 375; Gatlin v. State, 72 Tex.Cr.R. 516, 163 S.W. 428; Branch’s Ann.Tex. P.C., p. 238, sec. 460, and authorities there cited.

The record shows that appellant and his companion in the crime both testified and each one admitted that they committed the robbery by assault as charged in the indictment. Consequently the conviction of appellant is amply supported by the evi-. dence.

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 Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant again complains of an alleged failure in correspondence of the allegation and the proof relative to the name of the party alleged to have been robbed.

The indictment alleges his name to be Paul Hamons while the proof shows that his real name was Hamon, leaving a difference of but the final letter “s” in the indictment. The witness Hackney testified that he knew “Paul or Shorty Hamon. * * * I know him around there (Abilene) as Shorty Hamons. Q. Did you ever hear him called anything else except Hamons? A. I believe that’s all, Shorty and Shorty Hamons. I have heard him called Paul. I never heard him called anything except Hamons. * * * I do not believe I have heard him called Shorty Hamon. I do not know now that Shorty Hamon is his name. It is Hamons, isn’t it?”

Mr. Waldrop testified: “I know Shorty Hamons. I have known him seven years. * * * I had always called him Hamons. I never did hear him called anything else. They call him Shorty Hamons. He is generally called Shorty Hamons.”

We think the testimony was sufficient to show that the injured party was commonly called Shorty or Paul Hamons, and that the allegata and probata correspond so far as the injured party’s name appears in the indictment and the proof.

The motion will be overruled.
Exhibit 9 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-11 Filed 05/19/23 Page 1 of 5
Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-11 Filed 
: Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-11
#### WILKERSON’S ADM’X v. KING.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 30, 1954.

Smith & Blackburn, Somerset, for appellant.

Fritz Krueger and Russell Jones, Somerset, for appellee.

COMBS, Justice.

The car of Roy Chester Wilkerson collided head-on with the car of Delmer Turner at the intersection of Highways 80 and 461 in Pulaski County. The appellee, T. H. King, a passenger in Wilkerson’s car, was injured. Nancy Ann Lawson, a passenger in the Turner Car, was killed. Wilkerson later died from injuries received by him. In the trial of a suit by the administrator of Nancy Ann Lawson against both Turner and Wilkerson, the appellee was called as a witness by Wilkerson and testified that the accident occurred on Wilkerson’s side of the road. In the present suit by appellee to recover for his injuries against Wilkerson’s administratrix, he recovered judgment based on a jury’s verdict in the amount of $5,000.

The appellant argues two grounds for reversal: (1) There is a conflict between ap-pellee’s testimony in this case and his testimony in the Lawson case and he is bound by his previous testimony; (2) the physical facts show that the accident occurred on Wilkerson’s side of the road.

We find no material conflict between ap-pellee’s testimony in the two cases. He testified in the Lawson case that the accident occurred on Wilkerson’s side of the road. On cross-examination in this case he testified to the same effect. But that is not the decisive question before us. It has been Turner’s contention all along, and is the contention of appellee now, that just prior to the collision Wilkerson cut his vehicle to the left as if he intended to turn off of Highway 80 and enter Highway 461; that Turner thereupon turned his vehicle to his *743left in order to avoid the Wilkerson car; and that Wilkerson apparently having decided not to turn off of Highway 80 then cut his car back to his right, and into the path of the Turner car. The jury apparently believed the accident occurred in this manner, and the evidence supports its verdict.

Judgment affirmed.
([KLELW*

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 114-7 Filed 10/28/22 Page 1 of 5
GUERRA 000952

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 114-7 Filed 10/28/22 Page 2 of 5
GUERRA 000953

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 114-7 Filed 10/28/22 Page 3 of 5
GUERRA 000954

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 114-7 Filed 10/28/22 Page 4 of 5
GUERRA 000955

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 114-7 Filed 10/28/22 Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT J 

 

Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 27-10 Filed 11/05/20 Page 1 of 3
 	

	


	

	
	 

 !" #$%&##$#" $'($%)$%*&''&+* ,'-!.-&!*/,##&*#*0,*$%+!&,#&*0&1,' &

.2/. !" #$%&##3

	

	4	5
6


7



	8

	


9
:;
:7	
<	8
47


6	
8	<8
78<	


<;	8
<
		8
8	6
84


=
8>?@AB@CD?E@FBGHADIFJAH:
	8
877

K



6	<
8
8
	
8

:


566
:



K
9
:;:76<
8	


8


4844
47

K
6
:L
:	84

4

8<;8
6	44

746
7

7

K4M	

:
76
7


4
N<

84

:7
48

=
8>?@AB@?OFPF@QHA?DJRAH	

	68

N
6

7
8
6
:8

4
<46


=
8HADIFJAHDAP?@AC@STSBA@FU?@FSBSE>?@AB@H	

	68

7
6

6
	8

6	
4
	878
48
	<	
8
4
	



	:;:7
<	
8:77
<	

:;45



=
8D?@AH	

	

:7:6
7
88
7
7	7
6



9
:;V
<4N
8
8:
87
4	
8;

9
76


8

8	:74	4

87

8		
:


7	7	

	8

:
:;V	:7
47
<
4

	



7

W*!,*&)$+W&!1$+.!

X%%.1,*$.% YZ,*&%*[!,\$%),%(Z!.#&+ *$.%

YZ,*&%*]$+&%#$%),%(W,'&#

Y^%,'/#$#,%(W*!,*&)/

 _

Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 27-10 Filed 11/05/20 Page 2 of 3
 	

	


	

	
	 

 
	

	





!"!"
#

 
"	

"
$
%

"
&
 
		"
	"'(
"			"

(

	#
 &
%%
	%")


*	

	++, ,

&
"-./0123/4/1256789!:


;<=<>?@<AB ,7
8	7

":
%)

	C
%7
D


	

	

7
 



	

	


"7
"E
"
7
E
	)	&
F
!97	")C%

	

	G
)
8 

	

	F
"HI
E+!' 

J%)

	C


Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 27-10 Filed 11/05/20 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 200 (Monday, October 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 61193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26517]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES


Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities; Arts and 
Artifacts Indemnity Panel Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463 as amended) notice is hereby given that a meeting of 
the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel of the Federal Council on the 
Arts and the Humanities will be held at 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20506, in Room 714, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., on Thursday, 
November 9, 2000.
    The purpose of the meeting is to review applications for 
Certificates of Indemnity submitted to the Federal Council on the Arts 
and the Humanities for exhibitions beginning after January 1, 2001.
    Because the proposed meeting will consider financial and commercial 
data and because it is important to keep values of objects, methods of 
transportation and security measures confidential, pursuant to the 
authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close 
Advisory Committee Meetings, dated July 19, 1993, I have determined 
that the meeting would fall within exemption (4) of 5 U.S.C. 552(b) and 
that it is essential to close the meeting to protect the free exchange 
of views and to avoid interference with the operations of the 
Committee.
    It is suggested that those desiring more specific information 
contact the Advisory Committee Management Officer, Laura S. Nelson, 
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, or call 202/606-
8322.

Laura S. Nelson,
Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-26517 Filed 10-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7036-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5619 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5619

  To extend the temporary reduction of duty on certain footwear with 
                      uppers of vegetable fibers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2012

 Ms. Jenkins introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary reduction of duty on certain footwear with 
                      uppers of vegetable fibers.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN FOOTWEAR WITH UPPERS OF VEGETABLE FIBERS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.13.91 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain footwear with uppers 
of vegetable fibers) is amended by striking the date in the effective 
period column and inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAR 8 2001 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. DARIAN LEE HOLTSMAN,

Defendant-Appellant. No. 00-5053 (D.C. No. 99-CR-127-C) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO, ANDERSON , and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. **See** Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Defendant Holtsman pleaded guilty to one count of b ank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d). The dist rict court, after denying his motion for downward departure, found that the defen dant had a total offense-2-

level of twenty-seven and a criminal history catego ry of I, giving a sentencing range of seventy to eighty-seven months. The defen dant was sentenced to eighty seven months imprisonment followed by five year of supervised release, and ordered to pay $2,911.80 in restitution. Counsel for the defendant has filed a brief pursuan t to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and has requested leave to w ithdraw. Counsel’s brief acknowledges that “[t]here are no facts to su pport an argument by Mr. Holtsman that the district court failed to depart b ecause it erroneously interpreted the guidelines as depriving it of the power to depart based on the proffered circumstances.” Id. at 5. Upon the filing of counsel’s Anders brief, the defendant was given an opportunity to respond. He failed to do so. It is well settled that "[a]bsent the trial court's clear misunderstanding of its discretion to depart, or its imposition of a senten ce which violates the law or incorrectly applies the guidelines, we have no juri sdiction to review a refusal to depart." United States v. Coddington, 118 F.3d 1439, 1441 (10th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). After a thorough review of th e record and counsel’s brief, the court finds that the district court properly ap plied the guidelines and understood its authority when it denied the defendant’s motion for a downward departure. Therefore, this court lacks jurisdictio n to review the discretionary-3-

decision of the district court not to depart from t he guidelines. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. The motion b y counsel for the defendant to withdraw is GRANTED. The mandate will issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court Stephen H. Anderson Circuit Judge
---

CERTIFICATION
  OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERANDCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Joseph G. Bowes, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
  Officer of Gilder Enterprises, Inc., (the “Company”), hereby certify
  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company
        for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2005 (the “Annual Report”)
        fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Annual Report fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
        of operations of the Company.                                                                                

| | By:    | /s/ Joseph G. Bowes        
| | ------ | ---------------------------
| | Name:  | Joseph G. Bowes            
| |        |                            
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and
| |        | Chief Financial Officer    
| |        |                            
| | Date:  | August 18, 2005            

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
  and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Company’s Annual Report on
  Form 10-KSB. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company
  and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
  Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
  10-KSB pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
  except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
  purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
  "Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
  reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
  Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates
  it by reference.

---
#### Clara MAYBERRY, appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, appellee.

No. 27007.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 9, 1954.

Taylor & Taylor, Henry Taylor, Temple, for appellant.

Raymond Thornton, Dist. Atty., Belton, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

This is a conviction for abortion, with punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

While this case is separate and distinct from that of Mayberry v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 271 S.W.2d 635, the legal principles as well as errors here assigned are the same as those presented and decided in that case.

The disposition there made of those questions is controlling here and no necessity exists to restate them at length.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
Exhibit 99.2

                           ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT

     I, David J. Kolibachuk, being an officer of U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, the Trustee in respect of the Corporate Backed Trust
Certificates, Royal & Sun Alliance Bond-Backed Series 2002-11 Trust (the
"Trust"), certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
          Trust and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or
          servicing reports of the Trust filed by Lehman ABS Corporation in
          respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual
          report of the Trust;

     2.   Based on my knowledge, the information in those 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 information required to be
          provided to the Depositor or the certificateholders by the Trustee
          under the pooling and servicing or similar agreement for inclusion
          in such distribution reports is included in such reports; and

     4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
          Trustee under the pooling and servicing or similar agreement and
          based on my knowledge, except as disclosed in such reports, the
          Trustee has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.

Date: March 28, 2005


         /s/ David J. Kolibachuk
---------------------------------------
David J. Kolibachuk, Vice President
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 16

- 30217

_____________________

In Re: In the Matter of the Complaint of Larry Doiron, Incorporated as Owner and Operator of the Barge Pogo and M/V Billy Joe for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability

LARRY DOIRON, INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff

– Appellee

ROBERT JACKSON,

Intervenor Plaintiff − Appellee

v ersus

SPECIALTY RENTAL TOOLS & SUPPLY, L.L.P.; OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, L.L.C.; ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants − Appellants

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette

__________________________

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion February 23, 2017 , 5 Cir., 201 7, 849 F.3d 602 )

Be fore STEWART, Chief Judge, JOLLY, JONES, SMITH, DENNIS, CLEMENT, PRADO, OWEN, ELROD , SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, GRAVES,

HIGGINSON and COSTA , Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

A member of the court having requested a poll on th e petition for

rehearing en banc, and a majority of the circuit judges in regular active

service and not disqualified having voted in favor, United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit 

### FILED
July 7, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce
ClerkIT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc

with oral argument on a date hereafter to be f ixed. The Clerk will specify a

briefing schedule for the filing of supplemen tal briefs.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5033 

To reduce temporarily the duty on mixtures of 6-amino-5-chloro-2-cyclopropylpyrimidine-4-carboxylic acid and inert ingredients. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Mr. CARNEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on mixtures of 6-amino5-chloro-2-cyclopropyl-pyrimidine-4-carboxylic acid and 

inert ingredients. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF 6-AMINO-5-CHLORO-2- 

4 CYCLOPROPYL-PYRIMIDINE-4-CARBOXYLIC 

5 ACID AND INERT INGREDIENTS. 

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

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5033 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Mixtures of 6-amino-5- 

chloro-2-cyclopropyl-pyrimidine-4-carboxylic acid 

(CAS No. 858956–08–8) 

and inert ingredients (provided for in subheading 

2933.59.10 or 2924.29.76) 2.5% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### LACY v. STATE.

No. 23268.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 16, 1946.

Nat Gentry, Jr., of Tyler, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for assault with intent to murder with malice aforethought, punish*733ment assessed at five years in the penitentiary.

No bills of exception are found in the record and no complaint of the charge of the court.

There is in the record what purports to be a statement of facts, which has been examined, and it sustains the verdict and judgment. However, our attention is called by our State’s Attorney’s brief to the fact that said purported statement is not approved by the trial judge nor signed by the attorneys. It, of course, is not subject to being considered.

The judgment is affirmed.
EX-4.2





 EXHIBIT 4.2 

DESCRIPTION OF SECURITIES 

The following is a brief description of the units of beneficial interest (the “Units”) of Marine Petroleum Trust (the
“Trust”), a royalty trust that was created in 1956 under the laws of the State of Texas. 
 Description of Units 

In accordance with the Trust’s Indenture, the Trust is authorized to issue 2,000,000 Units, of which 2,000,000 Units are outstanding. The
Units trade on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “MARPS.” 
 Distribution Rights 

The Trust must distribute to its unitholders all cash accumulated each quarter, less an amount reserved for accrued liabilities and estimated
future expenses to unitholders of record on the last business day of February, May, August and November. Payments are to be made on the 28th day of September, December, March and June of each fiscal year. If the 28th falls on a Saturday, Sunday or
legal holiday, the distribution is payable on the next succeeding business day. Such distributions have been made since the Trust’s inception and will continue so long as the income from oil and natural gas royalties exceeds administrative
costs. Distributions primarily fluctuate from quarter to quarter due to changes in oil and natural gas prices and production quantities. 
 Voting Rights

 The only outstanding voting securities of the Trust are the Units. Each outstanding Unit is entitled to one vote per Unit, however,
there is no requirement for annual meetings of unitholders or for an annual or other periodic re-election of the Trustee. Holders of the Units are not entitled to any cumulative voting rights. 

Liquidation Rights 
 In general, upon the
expiration of the Trust, the remaining assets of the Trust after the payment of any outstanding debts and liabilities, if any, will be distributed to the unitholders and the unitholders will not receive any further distributions from the Trust. The
term of the Trust will expire on June 1, 2041, unless extended by the vote of the holders of a majority of the outstanding Units. 
 In
the event of a sale and termination of the Trust, the net proceeds of any sale would be distributed to the unitholders and the unitholders would receive no further distributions from the Trust. 

Rights and Preferences 
 Holders of the
Units have no preemptive, conversion, subscription or other rights, and there are no redemption or sinking fund provisions applicable to the Units.