alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Evans MAYO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27190.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 24, 1954.

Baldwin & Votaw, by W. J. Baldwin, Beaumont, for appellant.

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

*736DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

This is a conviction for practicing dentistry without a license. The punishment was fixed at a fine of $1,000 by virtue of two prior convictions for offenses of the same character.

The primary offense charged in the information was that appellant “without first having obtained a license so to do * * * ■did then and there on or about the 2nd ■day of February, 1953, offer and undertake to prescribe for a physical condition of the human gums of one H. F. Walker, by taking an impression of the lower gum of the mouth of the said H. F. Walker and by then and there repairing a partial lower plate of false teeth for the said H. F. Walker and did charge the said H. F. Walker money therefor.”

We need discuss only the following:

A bill of exception reflects that after the close of the evidence the trial court prepared his charge to the jury and delivered it to the appellant and his counsel for exceptions and objections.

Appellant’s exceptions and objections thereto were overruled and the charge was read to the jury.

After the arguments of counsel for both parties had been concluded, the trial judge, of his own volition, withdrew the chai'ge which had been read to the jury and upon which the arguments had been made, and gave to the jury a new and different charge. The new charge was before the jury during deliberation and the verdict was rendered thereon.

Other than the statement that the •changes in the last charge were material and of substance, the record does not reflect the difference in the two charges.

It is apparent that neither the appellant nor his counsel was afforded an opportunity to examine or object to the charge which was given to the jury and upon which the verdict was rendered.

The right of an accused or his counsel to examine and object to the charge of the court before it is read to the jury is the same for a corrected or changed charge, after the change or corrections had been made, as it was in the first instance. Art. 660, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

A violation of the mandate of said statute requires a reversal of the conviction.

In view of another trial, attention is called to the fact that this prosecution may not be maintained under Subsection (5) of Section 2 of Art. 754a, Vernon’s Ann. P.C., as amended at the first called session of the 53rd Legislature in 1954, because same was enacted subsequent to the date the offense was alleged to have been committed (February 2, 1953). Subsection 2 of Art. 754a, P.C., as amended at the regular session of the 53rd Legislature in 1953, may not be utilized for the same reason.

For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Opinion approved by the court.
Exhibit 10.4
 FIRST NIAGARA FINANCIAL GROUP
EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE PLAN  Effective as of October 23, 2006
 ARTICLE I.  ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLAN
 Both the original effective date and the amended and restated
effective date of the Plan
 ARTICLE II.  PARTICIPATION
 Section 2.1. Eligible Executives : .
 Section 2.2. Exclusive Benefit.
 ARTICLE III.  BENEFITS AND PAYMENT OF BENEFITS
 Section 3.1. In General




---



##### 



.
       - 2 -




---



##### 



Section 3.2. Benefit Amount.
    Section 3.3. Form of Benefit Payment
    - 3 -




---



##### 



Section 3.4. Forfeitures of Benefits
 Section 3.5. Effect of Regulatory Actions
 Section 3.6. Golden Parachute Adjustments.
    - 4 -




---



##### 



- 5 -




---



##### 



ARTICLE IV.  ADMINISTRATION OF PLAN
 Section 4.1. Appointment of Plan Administrator and Responsibility for Administration of
Plan.
 Section 4.2. Agents
 Section 4.3. Compensation
 Section 4.4. Records
 Section 4.5. Defect or Omission.
 Section 4.6. Liability
 Section 4.7. Contributions and Financing.
 Section 4.8. Claims Procedure.
 Written Claim
  - 6 -




---



##### 



Denial of Claim
     Review of Denial
 ARTICLE V.  MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
 Section 5.1. Plan Terms are Legally Enforceable
 Section 5.2. Plan Exclusively Benefits Employees.
 Section 5.3. Illegality of Particular Provision.
 Section 5.4. Applicable Laws.
 Section 5.5. Non-Guaranty of Employment.
  - 7 -




---



##### 



Section 5.6. Coverage of Plan by Organization Under Common Control.
 ARTICLE VI.  AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION
 Section 6.1. Amendment of the Plan .
 ARTICLE VII.  POST TERMINATION OBLIGATIONS
 Section 7.1.
   - 8 -




---



##### 



Section 7.2.
 Section 7.3.
  - 9 -




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 FIRST NIAGARA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.December 12, 2008
    By:
    /s/  John R. KoelmelDate
    
    John R. KoelmelPresident & CEO  - 10 -
1

Ogulei, David

From: John Cooper <johnc@cooperenvironmental.com>

Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 1:12 PM

To: Ryan, Jeff; Rice, Joann

Cc: JohnC@cooperenvironmental.com; kragp@cooperenvironmental.com; 

davidm@cooperenvironmental.com

Subject: metal measurement

Attachments: MM CEMS Update 111114ces.ppt; 640 Spec Sheet Final.pdf

Hi Jeff/Joann,

Attached is a PP presentation that provides information that you may want to share with your Chinese visitors.  Feel free

to use and modify as meets your needs.  I have also attached a data sheet for the current Xact CEMS.  I have added a few

notes at the bottom of some slides.

The name of our Chinese partner (owns about 53% of CES) is Sailhero.  I have found them excellent partners, easy to

work with and they continue to infuse substantial capital allowing us to grow more rapidly than we would have been

able to otherwise– we now have a staff of 20 and expect to be pushing 30 by this time next year.

Let me know if I can be of further help.
#### HERBERT FRANKEL ET AL. *v.*P. F. HOLDING CORPORATION, INC., ET AL. HERBERT FRANKEL ET AL. *v.*ERIC A. LAWRENCE ET AL.

*William F. Gallagher,*in support of the petition.

*Robyn L. Sondak,*in opposition.

Decided June 10, 1998

The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 913 (AC 16814), is denied.

BERDON, J.,

dissenting. I would grant the plaintiffs’ petition for certification to appeal.
Unassociated Document


    AFFINITY
      MEDIA INTERNATIONAL CORP.

    


    


    
      	 	 	
              __________,
                2006

            
	 	 	 
	[name]	 	 
	[address]	 	 


    

        

    RE:     Warrants
      of Affinity Media International Corp. (the “Company”)

    


    To
      whom
      it may concern:

    


    This
      letter will confirm our agreement that, at
      any
      time after the consummation of a “business combination”, if the Company’s
      publicly-traded common stock reaches a volume weighted average trading price
      of
      $6.60 per share for each day during any five-day trading period, the Company
      will issue to you warrants, on mutually agreeable terms, allowing you to
      purchase up to an aggregate of ____________ shares of the Company’s common stock
      for $.10 per share. If, at any time after the consummation of a “business
      combination”, the Company’s publicly-traded units begin trading
      separately,
      the
      Company’s publicly-traded common
      stock reaches a volume
      weighted average trading price
      of
      $7.20 per share or more for
      each
      day during any five-day trading period,
      the
      Company will issue to you additional warrants, on mutually agreeable terms,
      allowing you to purchase up to an aggregate of ____________ shares of the
      Company’s
      common
      stock, for $.10
      per
      share.
      All
      warrants granted pursuant to this agreement will be exercisable for a period
      of
      5 years from the date of issuance.

    


    As
      used
      herein, the term “business combination” shall have the meaning set for the in
      the Company’s registration statement on Form S-1, as amended. 

     

    
      	 	 	 
	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	AFFINITY
              MEDIA
              INTERNATIONAL CORP.
	 	 
	 
 	 
 	 
 
	Date: 	By:  	 
	 	
              
Name:
              Howard Cohl
	 	Title:
              President 


    

    


    AGREED
      TO
      AND ACCEPTED BY:

    


    
      
        

      

    

    Name:
Exhibit 32.2

Certification

of

Periodic Financial Report

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Thomas W. Hofmann, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Sunoco, Inc., hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Sunoco, Inc.



|                     |  |                          
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------
|Date: April 30, 2008 |  | /s/ Thomas W. Hofmann    
|                     |  | Thomas W. Hofmann        
|                     |  | Senior Vice President and
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer
Michael_Aucoin@URS Corp.com

04/28/2011 11:27 AM To Edward J Greenfield/AE/DuPont@DuPont

cc Amber D Wellman/AE/DuPont@DuPont, Tom_McGee@URSCorp.com, Kelly_Rinehimer@URSCorp.com

bcc

Subject CWK 662 Results for January 2011

Joe - attached please find a spreadsheet with laboratory results for 662 samples collected during January 2011.

Please call or write with questions or comments.

Thanks.

Michael Aucoin Project Chemist URS Corporation Iron Hill Corporate Center 4051 Ogletown Road, Suite 300

Newark, DE 19713

302-781-5873 (phone - direct) 302-781-5900 (phone) 302-781-5901 (fax)

This e-mail and any attachments contain URS Corporation confidential information that may be proprietary or privileged. If you receive this message in error or are not the intended recipi ent, you should not retain, distri bute, disclose or use any of this information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments or copies.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3053 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority of the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out the Department of Veterans 

Affairs Health Professional Scholarship Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 2, 2013 

Ms. SINEMA (for herself and Mr. ROE of Tennessee) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out 

the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Professional 

Scholarship 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 ‘‘Healthcare for our He5 roes Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3053 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AF2 FAIRS HEALTH PROFESSIONAL SCHOLAR3 SHIP PROGRAM. 

4 Section 7619 of title 38, United States Code, is 

5 amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2014’’ and inserting 

6 ‘‘December 31, 2016’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### PHARISS v. STATE.

No. 22647.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 8, 1943.

Aubrey Davee, of Brady, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Unlawfully transporting whisky in a dry area is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $100.

The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

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 32.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Clean Wind Energy Tower Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ownkar Persaud, Chief Financial Officer of Clean Wind Energy Tower, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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.








/s/ Ownkar Persaud


Ownkar Persaud


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)


May 13, 2011
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T N O R B E R T O F A R A O N , A K A N o rb e rto F r a on, A K A N orbe rt o P r a on, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 71692 A ge nc yN o. A 042- 575- 492 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 8, 2012 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: F A R R IS , C L IF T O N , an dIK U T A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. B ec ause F ar aon d i d n otar gu e bef ore the B IA thathe att em pt ed t o w i thd raw ors houl d ha ve be e n a l l ow e d t o w i thdr aw hi s c onc e s s i on t o the c har ge of 

# FI LED MA R 13 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

r e m o v ab ility , w e h a v e n o ju r is d ic tio n to c o n s id e rh is p e titio n . See B arron v. A s h c r o ft , 3 5 8 F .3 d6 7 4 , 6 7 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . DI S MI S S E D.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 4 A0 25 3 . RI CHARD J OHNSTON v . THE STATE.

Ri ch ard J o h n s t o n ap p eal s fro m h i s co n v i ct io n s fo r c h i l d m o l es t at i o n an d

rel at ed cr i m e s as wel l as t h e d en i al o f hi s m o t io n fo r n ew tri al

. W e, h o wev er, l ack

ju ri s d i ct i o n , an d t h i s ap p eal i s t h erefo re DISM ISSED.

At t ri al i n th i s cas e, t h e ju ry co u l d n ot reach a verd i ct o n o n e co u n t o f rap e, an d

t h e t ri al co u rt d ecl ared a m i s tri al

. Th e t ri al co urt su b s eq u en t l y en t ered an o rd er

p l aci ng t he rap e c o u n t o n t he d ead d o ck et an d en t ered a p u rp o rt ed fi n al ju d g m en t

.

Ou r Su prem e Co u rt recen tl y h el d

, h o we v e r

, t h at w h en a co u n t o f t h e i n d ict m en t i s

d ead -d ock et ed

, th e cas e rem ai n s p en d i n g b el o w, s o th e p ro vi si o n s o f OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4

(a) (1 ) al l o w i ng a d i rect ap p eal fro m a fi n al ju dg m en t d o n o t ap p l y

. S ea l s v. St a t e

, 3 1 1

Ga. 73 9 ( 8 6 0 S E 2 d 41 9) (2 0 2 1), o verru l ed i n p art o n o t h er g ro u n d s b y Go n z a l es v.

S t a t e

, 3 15 Ga. 6 61 (8 8 4 SE2 d 3 3 9 ) (2 0 23 ). Rat h er, t o p u rs u e an ap p eal

, t h e d efen d an t

m u st f o l l o w t h e p ro ced u res fo r an i n t erl o cu t o ry ap peal un d er OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (b ),

wh i ch J o h n s t o n d i d n o t d o. See i d

.

January 29, 2024“ Becau s e [J oh n s t on ] ’ s cas e i s p e n d i n g b el o w y et h e fai l ed to fo l l o w t h e

i n t erl o cu t o ry ap p eal pro ced u res

, we m u s t d i sm i s s h is ap p eal .” S p ea rs v. S t a t e

, 3 6 0

Ga. Ap p . 7 7 6 , 7 7 7 (8 6 1 SE2 d 6 1 9 ) (2 0 2 1 ).

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C l e r k ’ s O f f i c e

,

At l ant a,_________________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __________

I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 01/29/2024
#### TAYLOR v. STATE.

No. 24578.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 23, 1949.

No appearance for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for burglary, punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

Appellant waived a jury and entered his plea of guilty before the court. The recitals in the judgment show that all formalities required by the statute were complied with. The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          43,201
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  510,278
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (23,336)
<INVENTORY>                                    375,788
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               931,777
<PP&E>                                         146,081
<DEPRECIATION>                                  88,867
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,806,767
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          378,606
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        95,576
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,332,585
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,806,767
<SALES>                                      1,277,729
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,359,787  
<CGS>                                          777,930
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  777,930
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               480,654
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 112
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                101,091
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            101,091
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   101,091
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3095 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3095

                     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and thirteen

                                 An Act

 
    To ensure that any new or revised requirement providing for the 
  screening, testing, or treatment of individuals operating commercial 
 motor vehicles for sleep disorders is adopted pursuant to a rulemaking 
                   proceeding, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATOR REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO 
SLEEP DISORDERS.
    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation may implement or 
enforce a requirement providing for the screening, testing, or 
treatment (including consideration of all possible treatment 
alternatives) of individuals operating commercial motor vehicles for 
sleep disorders only if the requirement is adopted pursuant to a 
rulemaking proceeding.
    (b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to a requirement 
that was in force before September 1, 2013.
    (c) Sleep Disorders Defined.--In this section, the term ``sleep 
disorders'' includes obstructive sleep apnea.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ESTEBAN MAYORGA, a.k.a. Esteban

Ramon Mayorga Fuentes,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-73919

Agency No. A094-292-146

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 17, 2013** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Esteban Mayorga, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of

removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

FILED

JAN 03 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d

1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for

review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Mayorga failed to

establish the harm he suffered in the past, including threats by a manager who had

political connections and the loss of his job in the context of a corporate

reorganization, rose to the level of persecution. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399

F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2005). Further, substantial evidence supports the

agency’s finding that Mayorga failed to establish that he faces a likelihood of

future persecution. See Zehatye, 435 F.3d at 1990 (to qualify for withholding of

removal, petitioner must show it is more likely than not he would be subjected to

persecution on account of a protected ground); Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182,

1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (“[a] personal dispute is not, standing alone,

tantamount to persecution based on an imputed political opinion”). We reject both

Mayorga’s contention that the BIA did not engage in sufficient analysis of the IJ’s

decision, and his contention that the BIA applied an improper standard of review. 

Accordingly, Mayorga’s withholding of removal claim fails. 

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Mayorga’s contentions that the IJ

erred by not considering his social group claim, because he did not raise this

2 11-73919
argument in his appeal to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th

Cir. 2004). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

3 11-73919