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

No. 25923.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 25, 1952.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 22, 1952.

Spurgeon E. Bell, Houston, for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is assault with intent to murder; the punishment, ten years.

One Dickey, the injured party, testified that he went to a tap room, where appellant was tending bar; that he ordered a beer; that appellant served him and demanded the money for the beer. Dickey stated that, in a joking manner, he asked appellant if he wanted the money then or later; that appellant asked Dickey if he didn’t think he was tough and, at the same time, reached under the counter, got a pistol and fired point blank at him, which bullet took effect in his shoulder and caused him to fall to the floor. Dickey further testified that, as he lay on the floor, appellant fired at him again, hitting him in the arm; and that, as a result of these bullet wounds, 'he became paralyzed from the mid-chest downward; and that he was still in a wheel chair at the time of the trial some 15 months later.

A Mrs. Clinkscales testified that she saw appellant fire the second shot at Dickey, while he was lying on the floor; and that a woman was behind the bar trying to get the appellant to desist before the second shot was fired.

Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, gave practically the same account of the transaction as had Dickey, except that appellant claimed that Dickey was standing up at the bar holding a beer bottle by the neck at the time he fired both shots.

We find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.

There are no bills of exception in the record.

The proceedings appearing regular, fhe judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3065 

To repeal the War Powers Resolution. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 

Mr. GARRETT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, 

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 

committee concerned 

A BILL 

To repeal the War Powers Resolution. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF WAR POWERS RESOLUTION. 

4 The War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93–148; 50 

5 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.) is repealed. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3044 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3044

                     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen

                                 An Act

 
    To approve the transfer of Yellow Creek Port properties in Iuka, 
                              Mississippi.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF YELLOW CREEK PORT PROPERTIES.
    In accordance with section 4(k) of the Tennessee Valley Authority 
Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831c(k)), Congress approves the conveyance by 
the Tennessee Valley Authority, on behalf of the United States, to the 
State of Mississippi of the Yellow Creek Port properties owned by the 
United States and in the custody of the Authority at Iuka, Mississippi, 
as of the date of enactment of this Act.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 62341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26700]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-324-003]


Koch Gateway Pipeline Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

October 12, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 5, 2000, Koch Gateway Pipeline Company 
(Koch) filed additional information regarding its annual cash-out 
report in compliance with the Commission's August 3, 2000 letter order 
requiring Koch to provide additional information to support the 
activity in the Report.
    Koch states that copies of the filing have been served upon each 
party designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary 
in the above captioned proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before October 18, 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. Copies of the 
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 202-208-222 for 
assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-26700 Filed 10-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1995
<CASH>                                         792,788
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,332,915
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,300
<INVENTORY>                                  2,049,902
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,530,824
<PP&E>                                       4,906,742
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,515,878
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,597,519
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,338,987
<BONDS>                                      1,402,444
<COMMON>                                        66,436
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,943,294
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,597,519
<SALES>                                      2,473,781
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,473,781
<CGS>                                        1,619,811
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,242,881
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,115
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,346
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                201,669
<INCOME-TAX>                                    49,940
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            151,729
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  4,975
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   156,704
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .059
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .057
        

</TABLE>
1997 Economic Census:

Bridge Between NAICS and SIC

Introductory text

Download files in database format

PDF report - Order report in print

Enter a search keyword:

NAICS Search

Table 1:

1997 NAICS Matched to 1987 SIC

Table 2:

1987 SIC matched to 1997 NAICS

11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and

Hunting only Logging covered in the

Economic Census

21 Mining

22 Utilities

23 Construction

31-

33

Manufacturing

42 Wholesale Trade

44-

45

Retail Trade

48-

49

Transportation and Warehousing

51 Information

52 Finance and Insurance

53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing

54 Professional, Scientific and Technical

Services

55 Management of Companies and

Enterprises

56 Administrative and Support and

Waste Management and

Remediation Services

61 Educational Services

62 Health Care and Social Assistance

71 Arts, Entertainment and Recreation

72 Accommodation and Food Services

81 Other Services (except Public

Administration)

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries not

covered in the Economic Census

Mineral Industries

Construction Industries

Manufacturing

Transportation, Communications, and

Utilities

Wholesale Trade

Retail Trade

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate

Service Industries

Public Administration not covered in the

Economic Census

3/14/2011 Bridge between NAICS and SIC (based ...

http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97brdg/ 1/2
92 Public Administration not covered in

the Economic Census

Downloadable Files

The following files contain all data from the Bridge Between NAICS and SIC (both tables). Unlike most other

reports from the 1997 Economic Census, these data are not accessible in American FactFinder.

These compressed files include separate files for NAICS to SIC (table 1) and SIC to NAICS (table 2).

ASCII comma delimited format

dbf (dBase) format

3/14/2011 Bridge between NAICS and SIC (based ...

http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97brdg/ 2/2
#### LA BRIER et al. v. WILLIAMS.

No. 11827.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

March 17, 1948.

*828See also 212 S.W.2d 828.

T. H. Burruss, of Corpus Christi, for appellants.

D. J. Wilson, of Galveston, for appellee.

MURRAY, Justice.

Appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal because the transcript was not filed within the sixty-day period provided for by Rule 386, Texas Rules Civil Procedure, will be overruled.

We are informed by the clerk that the transcript in this cause arrived in San Antonio Saturday afternoon at about 3 :20 o’clock. At this hour the clerk had closed his office and gone to his home. One J. Edwards, a representative of the Railway Express Agency, telephoned to him at his residence and informed him that the record had arrived and offered to deliver it to him at his residence. The clerk informed J. Edwards that it would not be necessary to make delivery at his residence bu't that he would accept constructive delivery by telephone and that it could be delivered Monday morning at the clerk’s office, which was done. The clerk intended to file the record as of Saturday, January 31, 1948, but, through inadvertence, filed it as of Monday, February 2, 1948.

Under all the circumstances the transcript was tendered to this Court within .the sixty-day period allowed by Rule 386, and appellee’s motion to dismiss will be overruled.

On Appellee’s Motion to Strike Statement of Facts.

Appellee’s motion to strike the statement of facts from the record is without merit and is overruled.

On Appellants’ Motion for Extension of Time.

Appellants’ motion for an extension of time for briefing is granted and appellants will be given until March 31, 1948, to file their brief. This cause having previously been set for submission for April 7, 1948, and it now appearing that there will not be sufficient time for briefing, the submission of this cause will be postponed until May 5, 1948.
KPMG LLPChartered
      Accountants
            
            Telephone(416)
      228-7000Yonge
      Corporate Centre
            
            Telefax   (416)
      228-71234100
      Yonge Street, Suite 200
            
            www.kpmg.caNorth
      York, ON M2P 2H3











Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm









The Board
of Directors of YM BioSciences Inc.:







We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-134410) on Form S-8 and in the registration statement (No. 333-161786) on
Form F-10 of YM Biosciences Inc. (the “Company”) of our audit report dated
September 23, 2009 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of the
Company. as at June 30, 2009 and 2008 and the related consolidated statements of
operations and comprehensive loss and deficit, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended June 30, 2009, which report is included in
the annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2009.

















Chartered
Accountants, Licensed Public Accountants




Toronto,
Canada




September
23, 2009
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed July 30, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-01587-CV

GLENN GLASS, Appellant

V.

NOBLE CAPITAL SERVICING, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-14-05763-D

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Lang, and Schenck

Opinion by Justice Schenck

The clerk’s record in this case is overdue. By letter dated February 27, 2015, we 

informed appellant that the Dallas County Clerk had notified the Court that the clerk’s record 

had not been filed because appellant had not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s 

record. We directed appellant to file written verification he had paid for or made arrangements 

to pay for the clerk’s record or that he had been found entitled to proceed without payment of 

costs. We cautioned appellant that if he did not file the required documentation within ten days, 

we might dismiss the appeal without further notice. To date, the clerk’s record has not been 

filed, appellant has not filed the required verification, nor has appellant corresponded with the 

Court regarding the status of the clerk’s record.
–2–

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b),(c).

141587F.P05

/David J. Schenck/

DAVID J. SCHENCK

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

GLENN GLASS, Appellant

No. 05-14-01587-CV V.

NOBLE CAPITAL SERVICING, LLC, 

Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 4, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-14-05763-D.

Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck. 

Justices Bridges and Lang participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee NOBLE CAPITAL SERVICING, LLC recover its costs of 

this appeal from appellant GLENN GLASS.

Judgment entered this 30th day of July, 2015.
exv10w44



 






Exhibit 10.44




BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED




Compensation Table for Named Executive Officers and Directors




     Named Executive Officers:



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	Base Salary
	 	 	Current	 	Effective
	 	 	Base Salary	 	March
2006(4)
	Chad C. Deaton 1
	 	$	925,000	 	 	$	1,025,000	 
	James R. Clark 2
	 	 	645,000	 	 	 	645,000	  
	G. Stephen Finley 3
	 	 	535,000	 	 	 	535,000	  
	Alan R. Crain, Jr. 2
	 	 	425,000	 	 	 	425,000	 
	Douglas J. Wall 2
	 	 	375,000	 	 	 	393,750	 






     Non-Employee Directors 5:



	 	 	 	 	 
	Annual Cash Retainer
	 	$	60,000	 
	Audit/Ethics Committee Chairman Annual Retainer:
	 	$	20,000	 
	Other Committee Chairman Annual Retainer:
	 	$	15,000	 
	Audit/Ethics Committee Members Retainer:
	 	$	10,000	 
	Other Committee Members Retainer
(Excluding Executive Committee):
	 	$	5,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Annual Non-Retainer Equity (restricted stock awarded in
January, stock options awarded 50% in January and 50% in July of
each year):
	 	$	150,000	 








 




			
	1	 	Mr. Deaton has an Employment Agreement with Baker Hughes Incorporated, filed as Exhibit
10.3 to Current Report on Form 8-K filed October 7, 2004.
	 
	2 	 	A lump sum payment in the amount of $51,600 and $25,500 will be paid to Mr. Clark and
Mr. Crain, respectively, in lieu of a salary increase.
	 
	3	 	Mr. Finley has announced that he will retire from the Company on March 31, 2006.
	 
	4	 	In addition to their base salaries, these named executive officers, at the discretion
of the Board of Directors can receive equity compensation pursuant to the 2002 Director &
Officer Long-Term Compensation Plan, filed as Exhibit 10.2 on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2003. Subject to stockholder approval, these named executive officers also are
entitled to participate in the Company’s Annual Incentive Compensation Plan, as amended and
restated, as filed with the 2006 Proxy Statement.
	 
	5	 	Non-employee directors are reimbursed for reasonable travel and related expenses.
#### EAKINS v. STATE.

No. 23329.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 10, 1946.

Temple Dickson, of Sweetwater, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appellant, was convicted for the offense of selling whisky in a dry area, and his punishment was fixed at a fine of $200 and thirty days in jail.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bill of exceptions. The proceedings appear regular in every respect and nothing-is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 2 0 61 4 Summary Calendar

SANDRA BANKS , Plaintiff

–

Appellant ,

versus
WAL

- MART STORES TEXAS, L.L.C.; WAL

- MART STORES, INCORPORATED,

Defendant s

– Appellee s

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the South ern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15

- CV

- 2259

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Sandra Banks appeals a summary judgment dismissing her claim in this

* 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 February 1, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-20614 Document: 00513858004 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2017No. 16

- 20614

2 ordinary slip

- and

- fall case. The district court issued a comprehensive and detailed twenty

- three

- page opinion that carefully examined the record, the facts, and the applicable law that Texas courts apply to similar matters. We

can not improve on the district court’s explication, which demonstrates why

sum mary judgment is appropriate. On appeal, Banks raises a new issue, claiming that Wal

- Mart’s and its employee’s “c redibility is called into question by Wal

- mart [ sic ] failing to save material video evidence.” She “may not assert it for the first time on appeal.” Miller v. Am. Strategic Ins. Corp. , 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21731, at *4 (5th Cir. Dec. 6, 2016) (per curiam ) (footnote omitted). The summary judgment is AFFIRMED. Case: 16-20614 Document: 00513858004 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2017
exv10w66



 






Exhibit 10.66




	 	 	 
	 

	 	November 29, 2005






Mr. Matthew K. Rose

Chairman

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp.

2650 Lou Menk Drive

Fort Worth, TX 76131




Dear Matt:




          This will confirm the following agreement relating to the deferral of your director’s fees in
2006.



          1. All director’s fees and retainers (“Fees”) payable to you in connection with your service
on the boards of directors (including committees of such boards) of AMR Corporation and American
Airlines, Inc. for the period January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006, will be deferred and paid
to you in accordance with this letter agreement.



          2. Fees will be converted to Stock Equivalent Units in accordance with the Directors’ Stock
Equivalent Purchase Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Plan”).



          3. On the 30th business day after the date when you cease to be a
Director of AMR
Corporation, the Stock Equivalent Units accrued in 2006 pursuant to the Plan will be converted to
cash and paid to you by multiplying the number of such Stock Equivalent Units by the arithmetic
mean of the high and the low of AMR stock (“fair market value”) during the month when you ceased to
be a Director of AMR Corporation.



          4. In the event of your death, the number of Stock Equivalent Units as of your date of death
will be multiplied by the fair market value of AMR stock during the calendar month immediately
preceding your death, and the amount paid to Lisa Rose. The payment contemplated by this paragraph
4 will be made on the 30th business day following the date of your death.




 









 








          If the foregoing is satisfactory to you, please indicate by signing one of the originals (two
are enclosed) and returning it to me.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Very truly yours,	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Charles D. MarLett

Corporate Secretary	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Accepted and agreed:
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Matthew K. Rose
 


	 	 
	 	 
	Matthew K. Rose
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	11/30/2005
 

Date
#### GREEN v. STATE.

No. 24412.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 15, 1949.

D. H. O’Fiel, Beaumont, for appellant. Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for hog theft, with two' years in the penitentiary.

This is a companion case to that of Green v. State, Tex.Cr., 221 S.W.2d 612, ’ recently decided. . The facts are practically the same as set out in the companion case.

Bill of Exception No. 1 complains of the section of the court’s charge on circumstantial evidence. We quote the paragraph complained of:

“You are further instructed that the main facts sought to be proved by the State in this case is the taking by the defendant, either acting alone or with others, of two head of hogs from the possession of W. W. Minter and without his consent; and you are further instructed to prove such facts, the State relies entirely upon circumstantial evidence.”

Before the charge was read to the jury appellant filed his written objections to said charge, which objections were disregarded by the court. In this we think there is error. In the first place, the State is not given the burden required of it by law to prove that the property was taken with intent to deprive the owner of the value of same and to appropriate it to the use of the accused. In the second place, it is a charge on the weight of the evidence in that one fact is singled out as “ * * * the main facts sought to be proved * *

It was said in Beard v. State, 57 Tex. Cr.R. 323, 123 S.W. 147, 149, in discussing a similar charge:

“The court is not permitted to single out one fact and charge upon it in cases of circumstantial evidence, and in fact perhaps in no case, unless specially authorized or required by the 1 statute, or under peculiar circumstances not necessary to mention. . Parnell v. State, 51 Tex.Cr.R, 620, 103 S.W. 907; Nelson v. State, 43 Tex.Cr.R. 553, 67 S.W. 320; Barnes v. State, 37 Tex.Cr.R. 320, 39 S.W. 684; Mickey v. State, 49 Tex.Cr.R. 255, 91 S. W. 587; Reese v. State, 44 Tex.Cr.R. 37, 68 S.W. 283.”

It is true that' in another paragraph of the charge the court, in appropriate lan*612guage, applied the law to the facts of the case, but this will not serve to correct the error hereinabove pointed out. When considered together, there is a positive conflict in the charge and we are not able to say which the jury might follow. In any event, the charge is directly on the weight of the evidence and, under all of the authorities of the State, it is held to be error.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded.
> 
Exhibit 99.1

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**
          Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of Teltronics, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
/s/ Ewen R. CameronEwen R. CameronPresident & Chief Executive OfficerAugust 14, 2002