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

No. 22891.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 21, 1944.

*280H. R. Bishop, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Marvin H. Brown, Jr., Cr. Dist. Atty., M. Hendricks Brown, First Asst. Dist. Atty., and Harry N. Ward, Asst. Dist. Atty., all of Fort Worth, and Ernest E. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Burglary is the offense; the punishment, two years in the state penitentiary.

That Everett’s Pharmacy, in Fort Worth, Texas, was, on the night of November 1, 1943, burglarized, by someone, is shown by the testimony of the owners thereof. Appellant’s guilty participation in, and connection with, the burglary is established by his two written confessions. Such facts authorized the jury’s conclusion of guilt.

The appellant did not testify as a witness in his own behalf.

Appellant complains of the failure of the trial court to grant his first application for a continuance, because of the absence of the testimony of his wife, by whom he could have established an alibi. The State calls attention to the fact that said application for a continuance is defective in that it does not contain the averment “That the application is not made for delay”, as provided by Subd. 5, Art. 543, C.C.P. Such omission renders the application fatally defective. Martinez v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 143, 161 S.W.2d 75, and authorities there cited.

Bills of exception appear complaining of the receipt in evidence of the confessions. It appears that, on the 28th day of November, 1943, appellant made a written confession, and, on the following day, he made another. Both of these confessions were introduced in evidence by the State. Appellant insists that these two confessions are contradictory of each other in material details, and that, as a result thereof, neither has any probative force. While the confessions may be contradictory in some matters, there is no contradiction between them as to appellant’s guilty participation in, and connection with, the burglary. Each confession admits such fact, and this is all that is necessary to show appellant’s guilt. The confessions are shown to have been made in accordance with the law governing same, Art, 727, C.C.P., and no valid objection to their introduction appears.

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.
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.2

CONSENT OF KPMG LLP

The Board of Directors and Stockholders

AmerUs Group Co.


We consent to incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement Nos. 333-20905, 333-20907, 333-32201,
333-32203, 333-40065, 333-63895, 333-72237, 333-91493, 333-50030
and 333-101961 on Forms S-8 and Registration Statement Nos.
333-50249, 333-72643, 333-88794 and 333-103347 on Forms S-3 of
our reports dated February 5, 2001, relating to the consolidated
balance sheet of AmerUs Group Co. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2000, and related consolidated statements of
income, comprehensive income, stockholders equity, and
cash flows and related schedules for the year ended December 31,
2000, which appears in the December 31, 2002 annual report
on Form 10-K of AmerUs Group Co.



| |           
| | ----------
| | (KPMG LLP)

Des Moines, Iowa

March 14, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM TECH-SYM'S FORM 10-Q/A, 1ST QUARTER AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          18,996
<SECURITIES>                                     4,025
<RECEIVABLES>                                   67,624
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     86,019
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               236,921
<PP&E>                                          49,041
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 325,804
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           95,528
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           795
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   325,804
<SALES>                                         78,721
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                           53,255
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   76,530
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 762
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,546
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,546
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.23  


 
  Retirement Benefits of
  Casey J. Sylla    
    



        Mr. Sylla will receive a pension enhancement payable from a nonqualified pension plan upon termination or retirement on or after age 63 or upon death or
change of control. The enhanced pension benefit assumes an additional five years of age and service under the pension formula of Allstate's qualified pension plan. This enhancement is considered to be
a supplemental retirement plan in the event of a change of control. 











QuickLinks


Retirement Benefits of Casey J. Sylla
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                               1,000

<S>                                        <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-27-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-28-1999
<CASH>                                          43,063
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  300,916<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    292,403
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               732,524
<PP&E>                                         849,797
<DEPRECIATION>                                 416,177
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,365,221
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          517,100
<BONDS>                                        150,653
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       150,512
<OTHER-SE>                                     463,930<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,365,221
<SALES>                                        436,151
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               436,151
<CGS>                                          265,195
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  265,195
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               179,031
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,502
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,293)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,811)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,482)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,482)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.18)
<FN>
<F1> Amount represents net accounts receivable.
<F2> Amount includes retained earnings and other comprehensive income.
</FN>


</TABLE>
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3073 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to require that supplemental 

nutrition assistance benefits be used to purchase only supplemental foods 

that are eligible for purchase under section 17 of the Child Nutrition 

Act of 1966 (commonly known as the WIC program). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 

Mr. ROE of Tennessee introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to require 

that supplemental nutrition assistance benefits be used 

to purchase only supplemental foods that are eligible 

for purchase under section 17 of the Child Nutrition 

Act of 1966 (commonly known as the WIC program). 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Healthy Food Choices 

5 Act of 2013’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 3073 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

2 Section 3(k) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 

3 (7 U.S.C. 2012(k)) is amended to read as follows: 

4 ‘‘(k) ‘Food’ means a supplemental food of the kind 

5 prescribed by the Secretary under section 17(b)(14) of the 

6 Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786(b)(14)).’’. 

7 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

8 This Act shall take effect on January 1, 2014. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### McLARTY v. BOLTON et al.

No. A-816.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Jan. 30, 1946.

Ross Carlton, O. M. Street, and J. H. Mayo, all of Dallas, for relator.

Grover Sellers, Atty. Gen., and Geo. W. Barcus, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Ewing S. McLarty, Jr., has filed in this Court a motion for leave to file an original petition for mandamus against the Dean and the Board of Directors of the Texas Agricultural and Mechanical College, compelling them to permit relator to enter said college as a student. The Attorney General has filed an answer in which he contends that this Court is without jurisdiction to try the case. We find that this Court had the identical question before it in the case of Malone v. Rainey, 133 Tex. 622, 133 S.W.2d 951, and it was there held that the Court did not have jurisdiction in such a proceeding. See also Betts v. Johnson, 96 Tex. 360, 73 S.W. 4; McFall v. State Board of Education, 101 Tex. 572, 110 S.W. 739.

The motion for leave to file the petition is therefore overruled.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7446

HENRY ALLEN BECKMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SCDC; MICHAEL MOORE; WILLIAM CATOE; JAMES HARVEY; GEORGE T. HAGAN; ANTHONY PADULA; WILLIAM HAYES; CHRISTOPHER ALAN DAVIS; SHIRLEY BROWN; HENRY A. LANGSTON; DONALD SAMPSON; MARCIE MYERS; ROBIN PACHAK; JUDITH SAWYER; FLORENCE CHRETIAN; J. ALEXANDER, Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-97-2798-2-23AJ) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Allen Beckman, Appellant Pro Se. James E. Parham, Jr., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Henry Allen Beckman appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Beckman v. SCDC , No. CA-97-2798-2-23AJ (D.S.C. Sept. 15, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2950 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to delay the application of 

the individual health insurance mandate for individuals who have not 

attained age 27. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1, 2013 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to delay the 

application of the individual health insurance mandate 

for individuals who have not attained age 27. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DELAY OF APPLICATION OF INDIVIDUAL 

4 HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATE FOR INDIVID5 UALS WHO HAVE NOT ATTAINED AGE 27. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5000A of the Internal 

7 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

8 the following new subsection: 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2950 IH

1 ‘‘(h) DELAYED APPLICATION TO INDIVIDUALS WHO

2 HAVE NOT ATTAINED AGE 27.—In the case of any month 

3 beginning before January 1, 2015, no penalty shall be im4 posed under subsection (a) with respect to any individual 

5 who has not attained age 27 as of December 31, 2013.’’. 

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

7 this section shall take effect as if included in section 1501 

8 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 31.A** **CERTIFICATION**     I, James C. Yardley, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on    Form 10-Q    of Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company;     2. 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;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and    other financial information included in this 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 Report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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    (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an    annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably    likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal    control over financial reporting.     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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: August 7, 2007 /s/  *JamesC. Yardley*    James C. Yardley    Chairman of the Board and President    (Principal Executive Officer)    Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company
#### PAFFORD v. STATE.

No. 22733.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

*Feb. 2, 1944.*

J. Mitch Johnson, of San Saba, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of possessing whisky for the purpose of sale in a dry area, and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the county jail for a period of thirty days.

The evidence shows that San Saba County is a dry area; that on the 7th day of March, 1943, officers, armed with a search warrant, went to the home of the appellant, which consisted- of a one-room tent, and searched the same for intoxicating liquor, As a result of the search they found two half cases of beer and three pints of whis-ky; that at the time of the search the appellant, a woman and some children were present; that there were two beds in the tent *¡*that Fred Sanderson lived there, slept and ate there. There is no evidence that appellant had sold or offered to sell any intoxicating liquor prior thereto.

Appellant did *not*testify but proved by one witness who lived near the tent in question that at the time of the search and prior thereto Fred Sanderson lived with appellant; that Sanderson had the reputation of being a bootlegger.

Appellant in due time presented two objections to the court’s main charge. The first related to the court’s failure to define the term “possession”, and the second related to the failure of the court to instruct the jury on the law of circumstantial evidence. He requested a special charge on each of the subjects, which the court declined to give. It is the appellant’s contention that the trial court committed error in this respect, and we are of the opinion that his position is well founded. The record is silent as to who the woman present at the time and place of the search was — whether she was the wife of the appellant or of Sanderson or whether she lived there or was merely a visitor. The conclusion that appellant was in possession of the intoxicating liquor was deducible from the facts above stated. We think that the rule announced in the following cases is applicable here: Bickerstaff v. State, 139 Tex.Cr.R. 69, 139 S.W.2d 110; Puga v. State, 112 Tex.Cr.R. 431, 17 S.W.2d 55; Gonzales v. State, 143 Tex.Cr. R. 48, 156 S.W.2d 988.

*271While we are not passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence at this time, still, in view of another trial, we do not deem it improper to state that where a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances proven must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the appellant in order to sustain a conviction. See 18 Tex.Jur. p. 443, sec. 321, and cases cited under note 11, page 444.

For the error discussed, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

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.
Exhibit 32
  18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
 2.
    
    the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date: February 26, 2010
    /s/ John R. KoelmelJohn R. KoelmelPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: February 26, 2010
    /s/ Michael W. HarringtonMichael W. HarringtonChief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 204 (Friday, October 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 63101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26977]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (00-128)]


Notice of Prospective Patent License

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Prospective Patent License.

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

SUMMARY: NASA hereby gives notice that Cyrospace Technologies, of 
Houston, Texas has applied for an exclusive license to practice the 
inventions disclosed in U.S. Patent Nos. 5,651,079 and 5,963,683 both 
entitled ``Photonic Switching Devices Using Light Bullets'' which are 
assigned to the United States of America as represented by the 
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 
Written objections to the prospective grant of a license should be sent 
to Ames Research Center.

DATES: Response to this notice must be received on or before December 
19, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob Padilla, Patent Counsel, NASA Ames 
Research Center, Mail Stop 202A-3, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000, 
telephone (650) 604-5104.

    Dated: October 13, 2000.
Edward A. Frankle,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 00-26977 Filed 10-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
#### FORT OSAGE DRAINAGE DIST. OF JACKSON COUNTY v. JACKSON COUNTY.

No. 21962.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

Feb. 1, 1954.

Not to be published hi State Reports.

William R. Moore, and Walter A. Raymond, Kansas 'City, for appellant.

Hilary A. Bush, Kansas City, and J. Marcus Kirtley,' Independence (Rufus Bur-rus, Independence, of counsel), for respondent.

CAVE, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff brought this action to collect a maintenance tax for the year 1949 in the sum of $2,000, levied against the benefits to the roads, bridges and culverts in said' district belonging to defendant Jackson County. A trial to the court resulted ■ in a judgment dismissing plaintiff’s petition and it has perfected its appeal to this court.

We have no jurisdiction of the matter. The parties do not raise the question of jurisdiction, but it is our duty to do so. Sec. 3, Art. 5 of the Constitution, V.A.M.S., provides: “The supreme court shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction * * * in all civil cases where the state or *any county *** * is a party, * **.,r*(Italics supplied.) Jackson County being a party to the record, in fact the only defendant, jurisdiction is in the Supreme Court. Bowman v. Phelps County, Mo.App., 36 S.W.2d 414, transferred 330 Mo. 826, 51 S.W.2d 3; Harrison and Mercer County Drainage District v. Trail Creek Township, 317 Mo. 933, 939, 297 S.W. 1; Cul-lor v. Jackson Township, Putnam County, 'Mo. Sup., 249 S.W.2d 393, 395. See also 2 V.A.M.S., p. 129, n. 312.

It is ordered that the cause be transferred to the Supreme Court.-

All concur.