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

No. 25672.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 30, 1952.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was tried before the court on a plea of guilty to the offense of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor for the *496purpose of sale in a dry area, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $250.00.

The record is before us without a statement of facts and bills of exception, in the absence of which nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### Ledogar, Appellant, *v.*Holland-Rieger, Inc., Appellee.

(No. 27656

Decided October 4, 1939.)

*Messrs. Bulkley & Butter,*for appellant.

*Messrs. Flynn, Frohman, Buckingham, Py & Kruse,*for appellee.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, William's,, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
#### SMITH v. STATE.

No. 25235.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 11, 1951.

Allen, Locke & Kouri, Wichita Falls, for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is robbery by assault; the punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

Appellant and one Robertson were jointly indicted; Robertson moved to sever, and appellant was put to trial first.

The injured party, Parrack, and his companion, Stafford, were returning from' Oklahoma at night when a car containing Robertson and appellant came alongside and called out, “Pull over, I want to see you.”

When the vehicles came to a stop, Robertson and Parrack alone got out. Robertson claimed that Parrack had caused his truck to collide with Robertson’s automobile and made a demand for an on-the-spot settlement of damages. With this, Parrack refused to comply. By this-time appellant had joined the two disputers but is not shown to have taken part in their controversy. When Parrack sought, to terminate the interview, “something-struck” him on the head. Parrack felt. Robertson examine one of his pockets and heard him announce, “nothing in there.”' Stafford sought to intervene, and someone hit him on the head.

When Parrack regained consciousness, Robertson and appellant were gone, and so-was Parrack’s billfold which contained $87.00 or $88.00. No money was taken, from Stafford.

Robertson and appellant were arrested in Wichita Falls that same night; Robertson had on his person $31.75, and appellant had $44.00. Appellant did not testify.

*544Bill of Exception No. 1 complains of a portion of the testimony of Willingham, a deputy sheriff, to the effect that on the morning after arresting Robertson and appellant, he carried Robertson out on the highway and he showed him where *appellant*had thrown Parrack’s billfold.

Appellant cites us Garza v. State, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 447, 69 S.W.2d 110, 111, wherein we said: “It is well established by an unbroken line of authorities that after a conspiracy to commit the offense has ended, the declarations of one cocon-spirator or codefendant, in the absence of the other coconspirators, cannot be introduced as evidence against any of the other coconspirators”.

Bill of Exception No. 2 complains that the State asked its witness, a sheriff from Oklahoma, “had he heard that the defendant had an indictment against him at Duncan ?”

Bill of Exception No. 3 complains of the testimony of the same witness “that he released the defendant from jail Thursday morning before defendant’s arrest in Wichita Falls.”

In each case the objection was sustained, but we agree with the court’s certificate that they were “so inflammatory that an instruction from the court could not remove” their effect.

For the errors set out, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 203 (Thursday, October 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 62722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26787]



[[Page 62722]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration


Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of 
Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory 
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). At least one 
portion of the meeting will be closed to the public.
    Name of Committee: Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory 
Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and 
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on November 16, 2000, 9 
a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
    Location: Holiday Inn, Grand Ballroom, Two Montgomery Village Ave., 
Gaithersburg, MD.
    Contact: Jaime Henriquez, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research 
(HFD-21), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane (for express 
delivery, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1066), Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-
7001, or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-
443-0572 in the Washington, DC area), code 12534. Please call the 
Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting.
    Agenda: On November 16, 2000, the committee will discuss new drug 
application (NDA) 50-777, Protopic<Register> (tacrolimus) Ointment, 
Fujisawa Healthcare, Inc., for short- and long-term treatment of the 
signs and symptoms of atopic dermatitis in adult and pediatric patients 
2 years of age or older.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or 
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. 
Written submissions may be made to the contact person by November 6, 
2000. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between 
approximately 1:30 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. Time allotted for each 
presentation may be limited. Those desiring to make formal oral 
presentations should notify the contact person before November 6, 2000, 
and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or 
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed 
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to 
make their presentation.
    Closed Committee Deliberations: On November 16, 2000, from 9 a.m. 
to 10 a.m., the meeting will be closed to permit discussion and review 
of trade secret and/or confidential information regarding NDA issues (5 
U.S.C. 552b(c)(4)).
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: October 11, 2000.
Linda A. Suydam,
Senior Associate Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 00-26787 Filed 10-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 63577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27273]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-51-000]


Crossroads Pipeline Company; Notice of Temporary Waiver Request

October 18, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 13, 2000, Crossroads Pipeline Company 
(Crossroads) tendered for filing a request for a temporary waiver for 
implementing the Commission's regulation at 18 CFR 284.12(c)(2)(ii) by 
November 1, 2000 as set forth in Order No. 587-L issued June 30, 2000 
in Docket No. RM96-1-014. Order No. 587-L required interstate pipelines 
to file tariff sheets implementing imbalance netting and trading by 
November 1, 2000. Crossroads incorporated this requirement in the 
tariff sheets it filed on June 15, 2000 in compliance with Order No. 
637 in Docket No. RP00-333-000. Therefore, Crossroads is requesting a 
temporary waiver of the Commission's regulation at 18 CFR 
284.12(c)(2)(ii) until the effective date of the tariff sheets in 
Docket No. RP00-333-000.
    Crossroads states that copies of this filing have been sent to 
Crossroad's shippers and interested state regulatory commissions.
    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, NE., Washington, DC 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 on or 
before October 25, 2000. 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. 00-27273 Filed 10-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2790 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 3, 2014 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

AN ACT 

To authorize private nonprofit organizations to administer 

permanent housing rental assistance provided through 

the Continuum of Care Program under the McKinneyVento Homeless Assistance Act, and for other purposes. 

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


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2790 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Housing Assistance 

3 Efficiency Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTER RENTAL ASSISTANCE. 

5 Subsection (g) of section 423 of the McKinney-Vento 

6 Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11383(g)) is amend7 ed by inserting ‘‘private nonprofit organization,’’ after 

8 ‘‘unit of general local government,’’. 

9 SEC. 3. REALLOCATION OF FUNDS. 

10 Paragraph (1) of section 414(d) of the McKinney11 Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11373(d)(1)) 

12 is amended by striking ‘‘twice’’ and inserting ‘‘once’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 2, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 11 Filed 09/21/20 Page 1 of 2
Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 11 Filed 09/21/20 Page 2 of 2
#### ROGER ROY *v.*UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, PRATT AND WHITNEY AIRCRAFT DIVISION, ET AL.

*Robert M. Fitzgerald,*in support of the petition.

*Jason H. Dodge,*in opposition.

Decided May 26, 1998

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 904 (AC 17230), is denied.

BORDEN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
- 

- . C I - Complete items and3. A. Signature 

Print your name aide reverse 0 Agent 

so that we can recth qrd to you. 0 Addressee 

Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, B. Receiv C. Da)e of ?e!ivety or on the front if space permits. a 

Thomas C. Retzlaff D. If YàeIivedb\ 

2402 E. Esplanade Ln. I " 

POBox46424 

JUL 1 0 

Phoenix, AZ 85063-6424 

/ 

liii liii I II I I I 

3. Service\ p g Prt'orityMaiisxpress® 

111111 11111 ii ii I 0 Adult ORlstered Teatricteri 

9590 9402 5303 9154 9810 57 t.Ce,tffied Mail® Delivery o certified Mail Restricted Delivery etum Receipt for 

I '2iO Y C - pS Collect on Delivery Merchandise 2. Artir.le Number (Transfer (mm service label) Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 0 Signature Confirmation sured Mall 0 Signature ConfIrmation ._?C11.7 1000 OçLIip '4' 

RestnctedDellv PS Fóm 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt 

usPsTRAcKPIG# 

IIII I1 IUHIIM IHI4II IU Pofage&es Paid 

9590 9402 53 5 9810 57 

United der: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4® in this box 

sui11OO 

T7öUTY 

Case 1:20-mc-00657-LY Document 30 Filed 07/20/20 Page 1 of 1
#### PARKER v. STATE.

No. 25307.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 16, 1951.

No attorney, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant waived a trial by jury and plead guilty before the county judge who fixed his punishment at thirty days in jail on the charge, which was driving on a public highway while intoxicated.

He filed a motion for new trial which alleged only that the judgment was contrary to the law and the facts. We find in the record a statement of facts only on the question of his right to a new trial. The trial judge found these facts against him and such finding is conclusive.

The record presents nothing for our consideration and the judgment is accordingly affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 23, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-51015 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ARTURO MARTINEZ-GARZA, also known as Luis Genaro Martinez-Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-02-CR-948-ALL-DB

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Arturo Martinez-Garza appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the sentence is invalid because it exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Martinez-Garza complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). He argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional.No. 02-51015 -2- Alternatively, Martinez-Garza contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence was an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Martinez-Garza acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63624-63625]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27259]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration


Working Group on Benefit Continuity After Organizational 
Restructuring Advisory Committee on Employee Welfare and Pension 
Benefits Plans; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 512 of the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1142, the 
Working Group of the Advisory Committee on Employee Welfare and Pension 
Benefit Plans studying benefit continuity after organizational 
restructuring will hold an open public meeting on Tuesday, November 14, 
2000, in Room N-5437

[[Page 63625]]

A-C, U.S. Department of Labor Building, Second and Constitution Avenue, 
NW, Washington D.C. 20210.
    The purpose of the open meeting, which will run from 9:30 a.m. to 
approximately noon, is for Working Group members to finalize the 
recommendations to be included in their report.
    Members of the public are encouraged to file a written statement 
pertaining to the topic by submitting 20 copies on or before November 
6, 2000, to Sharon Morrissey, Executive Secretary, ERISA Advisory 
Council, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5677, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20210. Individuals or representatives of 
organizations wishing to address the Working Group should forward their 
request to the Executive Secretary or telephone (202) 219-8753. Oral 
presentations will be limited to 10 minutes, but an extended statement 
may be submitted for the record. Individuals with disabilities, who 
need special accommodations, should contact Sharon Morrissey by 
November 6, at the address indicated in this notice.
    Organizations or individuals may also submit statements for the 
record without testifying. Twenty (20) copies of such statements should 
be sent to the Executive Secretary of the Advisory Council at the above 
address. Papers will be accepted and included in the record of the 
meeting if received on or before November 6.

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 19th day of October, 2000.
Leslie Kramerich,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Pension and Welfare Benefits 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-27259 Filed 10-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-29-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   AUG-29-1998
<CASH>                                              51,632
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      277,371
<ALLOWANCES>                                         4,833
<INVENTORY>                                        237,533
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   644,316
<PP&E>                                             836,629
<DEPRECIATION>                                     404,386
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,257,624
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              331,164
<BONDS>                                            151,333
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           144,712
<OTHER-SE>                                         540,706
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,257,624
<SALES>                                            418,979
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   418,979
<CGS>                                              247,511
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      247,511
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   170,833
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        74
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2,837
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (6,858)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (2,195)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (4,663)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (4,663)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.09)
        

</TABLE>
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00608

- CR

James Robert Harle

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 396th District Court

o f Tarrant County (1193681D )

Jun e 25, 2015

Opinion by Justice Gardner

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Anne Gardner

__________ Justice Anne Gardner
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of J.Crew Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended February 3, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Millard S. Drexler, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James S. Scully, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, 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 each of our knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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: April 19, 2007

|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|                                                    
|/s/    MILLARD S.
DREXLER                           
|Millard S. Drexler                                  
|Chief Executive Officer                             
|                                                    
|/s/    JAMES S. SCULLY                              
|James S. Scully                                     
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.