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

No. 26183.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 18, 1953.

Croslin & Pharr, by E. G. Pharr, Lubbock, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

This is a conviction for unlawfully possessing whisky for the purpose of sale in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $500 and 30 days in jail.

Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction.

Without detailing the facts, they, are deemed sufficient to support the state?s con- . tention that appellant, upon the approach of officers to search his home for intoxicating liquors, attempted to break four bottles of whisky by causing them to fall into a well. Three of the bottles were broken; the other was not and, upon being recovered, showed to be a pint bottle of whisky. The “tops” of the broken bottles were recovered, but there is an absence of any testimony as to the size of the bottles or the amount of fluid capable of being contained therein.

Appellant’s guilt, under the charge of the court, was expressly made to depend upon the statute which provides that possession of more than a quart of whisky in a dry area constitutes prima facie proof that the whisky is possessed for the purpose of sale. Art. 666-23a, Sec. (2), Vernon’s P.C.

The evidence, when tested by the above charge must be sufficient to show the possession of more than a quart of whisky by the appellant in order to sustain a conviction.

The proof shows the possession by appellant of only a pint of whisky. We have *308no authority to indulge the presumption against the appellant as to what amount of whisky was contained in the three broken bottles or that such amount was in excess of one pint.

Suspicious circumstances do not constitute proof, nor may a conviction be predicated thereon. It was the burden of the state,' under the court’s charge, to show that appellant possessed more than a quart of whisky. This it failed to do.

Because the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction,, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.
#### YOUNG v. STATE.

No. 22546.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 9, 1943.

Rehearing Denied June 25, 1943.

Alex P. Pope, of Tyler, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Conviction is for driving an automobile upon a public highway while appellant was intoxicated. Upon his plea of guilty and waiver of trial by jury, the court assessed his punishment at a fine of fifty dollars.

The information properly charges the offense. The record contains neither statement of facts nor bills of exceptions. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
| Subsidiaries’ or Affiliate’s Name                                                           |         | Jurisdiction of Incorporation orOrganization |         | Percentage of Ownership  |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|------------------------------------|
| Bodisen      Holdings, Inc. (“BHI”)                                                                   |         | Delaware                                                    |         | 100%      by Bodisen Biotech, Inc. |
|                                                                                                                   |         |                                                        |         |                               |
| Yang      Ling Bodisen Agricultural Technology Co. Ltd. (“Bodisen      Agriculture”)                  |         | PRC                                                         |         | 100%      by Bodisen Biotech, Inc. |
|                                                                                                                   |         |                                                        |         |                               |
| Yang      Ling Bodisen Biology Science and Technology Development Company Limited      (“Yang Ling”)  |         | PRC                                                         |         | 100%      by Bodisen Agriculture   |
|                                                                                                                   |         |                                                        |         |                               |
| Xinjiang      Bodisen Agriculture Material Co. Ltd.                                                               |    | PRC                                                         |    | 100%      by YangLing              |

----
1

Laura Landes

From: Cameron, Charles E - DNR <Charles.Cameron@wisconsin.gov>

Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 9:09 AM

To: SFI Stakeholder Meeting

Subject: Reservoir Webinar Feedback

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

Thank you for having the webinar yesterday—excellent training and discussion on the issues. After 22 years as a regulatory field

engineer, I can relate to many of the experiences of the participants and positions held.  

  

When I began my career with the state of Wisconsin in 1992, there was little guidance on what was expected in a storage tank

inspection and inspection quality was poor. In those days, the water operators did their own inspections and many just cleaned the

unit without a technical/design/condition evaluation.  

  

The state developed a form in the mid 1990’s to address the issue but the “minimalist” form was not comprehensive and seemed to

take on a life of its own as far as what the state expected in an inspection. By this time, there were more professional tank

inspection companies doing the work due to confined space concerns for the operators. Most of the tank inspection reports

themselves, submitted by the contractor, were more detailed and provided better documentation of observations than the actual

form we require to be completed.  

  

Another interesting Segway in the story was that many of the contractor inspection reports did not support the video/pictures they

being submitted with it and many times the findings in one or the other were not accurately conveyed to the required state

inspection form. The unfortunate conclusion is that deficiencies are not being addressed because they are not being documented

clearly and many of the regulatory engineers with the state are not taking the time to view video footage to catch deficiencies the

contractor is not conveying in written material.   

  

Program staff now recognize that the status quo must change. Management decided to revise our inspection form. While we will

still require video and picture footage of the inspections, the report will likely be more comprehensive or include detailed narrative

on inspection and report documentation expectations. This will address part of the problem, everyone needs quality training. The

regulatory staff, water operators, and inspection companies need good training. They need to know good design and sanitary

practices and how to properly document observations.  

  

  

We are committed to service excellence.

Visit our survey at http://dnr.wi.gov/customersurvey to evaluate how I did.

Charlie Cameron – P.E.

Environmental Engineer – Bureau of Drinking and Groundwater/Water Division

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

3550 Mormon Coulee Road

La Crosse, WI  54601

Phone: (608) 785‐9013

Fax: (608) 785‐9990

Charles.Cameron@wi.gov

dnr.wi.gov
Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP-HJB Document 89 Filed 06/23/22 Page 1 of 2
Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP-HJB Document 89 Filed 06/23/22 Page 2 of 2
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 01324

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 01324\01324_Calc Sheet.doc EPA Technical Review Note

x 01324\01324_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

01324\01324_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

01324\01324_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 01324\01324_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01324\01324_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01324\01324_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01324\01324_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01324\01324_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

01324\Certification Statement_ 01324.pdf Plant certification statement

x 01324\RE Additional Followup for STEAM Survey 01324.rtf Draft Questions for Follow Up

x 01324\Re Followup on Steam Questionnaire_01324.rtf Draft Questions for Follow Up

x 01324\RE STEAM survey follow-up for Plant ID 1324.rtf Draft Questions for Follow Up

x 01324\RE STEAM survey follow-up for Plant ID 1324_2.rtf Draft Questions for Follow Up

01324\Supporting Documentation\Hudson Drawings\Draft Site Plan.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x

01324\Supporting Documentation\Hudson Drawings\Hudson Schematic of Water 

Flow_012908.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### WILLIAMS v. STATE.

No. 24460.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 9, 1949.

Forrester Plancock, Waxahachie, for appellant.

Stuart B. Lumpkins, County Attorney, Waxahachie, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a case of patricide; the punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

That appellant was present and aided his brother and sister in stabbing their father to death with an ice pick and a knife is abundantly shown by all the testimony.

The defense was that of self-defense from actual attack as well as threats against the brother, sister, and appellant by the deceased.

The defensive theories were pertinently submitted to the jury in such manner as that no objection or exception was reserved to the charge.

The facts warranted the jury’s conclusion of guilt.

The bills of exception accompanying the record cannot be considered. The term of court at which the conviction was had adjourned on March S, 1949, the day notice of appeal was given and sentence passed. No extension of the time in which bills of exception might be filed was granted. Under the express provision of Art. 760, C.C.P., Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. art. 760, appellant had thirty days from and after said date within which to file his bills of exception. The bills of exception were not filed until May 2, 1949, long after the expiration of the statutory thirty-day period.

On April 23, 1949, the trial court entered the following order:

“Motion to extend time for perfecting Appeal (same being first presented and suggested on April 23, 1949) is granted for a period of ten (10) days.”

The bills of exception were filed within the ten-day period allowed in the order.

If the order be given a literal or strict construction, it is meaningless, because it extends the time for “perfecting appeal,” when, as a matter of fact, the appeal was in all things perfected on March • 5, • 1949, when notice thereof was given in open court and entered of record. If the order be construed as an extension of the time in which bills of exception might be filed, it is ineffectual, because the trial court had, at the time it was entered, lost jurisdiction to extend the time for filing.

An order extending time for filing bills of exception must be made within the time allowed by statute or by some valid extension of that time. Attesting authorities are numerous and will be found under Art. 760, Note 44, of Vernon’s C.C.P.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

MICHAEL C. DEMARQUIS,

Plaintiff

VS.

ALORICA INC.,

Defendant

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 Case No. 1:20-CV-00634-LY

ORDER SETTING INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

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

INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE by telephone on Friday, November 5, 2021, at 9:30

AM, Austin, Texas time. The parties shall provide the court with their direct telephone numbers

on or before 12:00 PM Austin, Texas time, on Thursday, November 4, 2021, via email to 

Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Samantha Oakes at Samantha_Oakes@txwd.uscourts.gov.

The parties’ proposed scheduling order is tentatively approved and the parties shall 

comply with the dates set forth in paragraphs 1 through 7 of such proposed order pending the 

initial pretrial conference. 

At the initial pretrial conference, the Court will schedule a final pretrial conference and 

set a trial month. 

SIGNED this 13th day of September, 2021.

LEE YEAKEL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00634-LY Document 33 Filed 09/13/21 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                           5
<MULTIPLIER>                                                     1000

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                       JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                         108827
<SECURITIES>                                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  101714
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                     69162
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               290178
<PP&E>                                                         160876
<DEPRECIATION>                                                  74939
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 434166
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          117451
<BONDS>                                                         46517
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                         2048
<OTHER-SE>                                                     256672
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   434166
<SALES>                                                        315879
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               315879
<CGS>                                                          199196
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  199196
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 (219)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               (521)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 50848
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     9132
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             41716
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    41716
<EPS-BASIC>                                                      2.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    2.55



</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62379-62380]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26758]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

Subcommittee Meeting on Planning and Procedures; Notice of 
Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a 
meeting on October 31, 2000, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the 
exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) 
(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate 
solely to internal personnel rules and practices of ACRS, and 
information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Tuesday, 
October 31, 2000--1:00 p.m. until the conclusion of business.
    The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related 
matters. The purpose of this meeting is to gather information, analyze 
relevant issues and facts, and to formulate proposed positions and 
actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
    Oral statements may be presented by members of the public with the

[[Page 62380]]

concurrence of the Subcommittee Chairman; written statements will be 
accepted and made available to the Committee. Electronic recordings 
will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are 
open to the public, and questions may be asked only by members of the 
Subcommittee, its consultants, and staff. Persons desiring to make oral 
statements should notify the cognizant ACRS staff person named below 
five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate 
arrangements can be made.
    Further information regarding topics to be discussed, the 
scheduling of sessions open to the public, whether the meeting has been 
canceled or rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling on requests for the 
opportunity to present oral statements, and the time allotted therefor 
can be obtained by contacting the cognizant ACRS staff person, Dr. John 
T. Larkins (telephone: 301/415-7360) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. 
(EDT). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the 
above named individual one or two working days prior to the meeting to 
be advised of any changes in schedule, etc., that may have occurred.

    Dated: October 12, 2000.
James E. Lyons,
Associate Director for Technical Support, ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. 00-26758 Filed 10-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2679 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2679

To exclude the Internal Revenue Service from the provisions of title 5, 
      United States Code, relating to labor-management relations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 11, 2013

  Mr. Gardner (for himself, Mr. Scalise, Mr. Tipton, Mr. Rokita, Mr. 
Fleming, Mr. Cole, Mrs. Lummis, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. 
   Brooks of Alabama, Mr. Southerland, Mr. Coble, and Mr. Griffin of 
  Arkansas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To exclude the Internal Revenue Service from the provisions of title 5, 
      United States Code, relating to labor-management relations.

    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 ``Preventing Unionization of Revenue 
Service Employees Act'' or the ``PURSE Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.

    (a) In General.--Section 7103(a)(3) of title 5, United States Code, 
is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``or'';
            (2) in subparagraph (H), by striking the period and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding after subparagraph (H) the following:
                    ``(I) the Internal Revenue Service;''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, notwithstanding any 
provision of law, rule, or regulation, or of any preexisting collective 
bargaining agreement.
                                 <all>
```
#### Doris DANGERFIELD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27068.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 20, 1954.

*820No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

-WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for the offense of possessing wine and beer for the purpose of sale, in a dry area. Appellant waived a trial by jury and entered her plea of-guilty before the court. Punishment was assessed at a fine of $100.

The record is brought forward without a statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for. review by this court.

The judgment is affirmed.
July 16, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

EX PARTE VIDAL ALEXANDER REYES

NO. 14-14-00440-CR

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.18 OF THE POOLING AND SERVICING
                       AGREEMENT DATED AS OF JUNE 26, 2002


                    BANK OF AMERICA MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC.
                MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2002-G


I, Robert S. O'Neill, Senior Vice President of Bank of America, N.A. (the
"Servicer"), the Servicer in connection with Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Series 2002-G, do hereby certify that (i) a review of the activities of the
Servicer during the preceding calendar year and of its performance under this
Agreement (the "Agreement") has been made under my supervision, (ii) to the best
of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled in all
material aspects its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.

Certified on this 4th day of March 2003.

                                       BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.


                                       By:
                                          ------------------------------
                                            Name:  Robert S. O'Neill
                                            Title: Senior Vice President


Inv D38