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

No. 25295.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 16, 1951.

No attorney, for. appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the unlawful sale of liquor without a permit; -the punishment, a fine of $100 and thirty days’ confinement in jail.

Appellant was a porter at the Roosevelt Hotel in Amarillo. An agent of the Liquor Control Board purchased a half pint of whiskey from him. Appellant did not testify.

Bill of Exception No. 1 complains of the failure of the trial court to instruct a verdict of not guilty on the grounds that the state failed to prove that appellant did not have a permit to sell whiskey on the day charged in the complaint. The supervisor of the Liquor Control Board for the area was asked to examine his records and tell the jury whether the appellant had a permit on the day charged. His answer was that appellant does not have a permit. We feel that since question was specific as to the date even though the answer was in the present tense, it was in reply to the question fixing the date and was, therefore, sttfficient.

Bill of Exception No. 2 complains of the reading to the jury of a portion of the testimony of one Dudley who had testified against appellant in a former trial. We feel that appellant waived any complaint he may have had to this testimony when he made an issue of what Dudley’s testimony had been on the former trial. Since the issue was raised by appellant, the best evidence was the stenographer’s notes taken at the former trial.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial, court is affirmed.
Exhibit 3(i)

CERTIFICATE OF MERGEROFTAYCO DEVELOPMENTS, INC.INTOTAYLOR DEVICES, INC.

Under Section 904 of the Business Corporation Law

            The undersigned, being the President of both Tayco Developments, Inc. and Taylor Devices, Inc., hereby certifies:

            FIRST.          The name of the constituent corporations participating in the merger are Tayco Developments, Inc. and Taylor Devices, Inc.  The name of thesurviving corporation is TAYLOR DEVICES, INC.

            SECOND.            The number of outstanding shares of Tayco Developments, Inc. is 987,928 common shares at $0.05 par value, all of which are entitled to vote.  The number of outstanding shares of TaylorDevices, Inc. is 3,156,061 common shares at $0.025 par value, all of which are entitled to vote.  The number of shares of the constituent corporations is not subject to change prior to the merger.

            THIRD.           The certificate of incorporation of Tayco Developments, Inc. was filed by the Department of State on July 22, 1955; and the certificate of incorporation ofTaylor Devices, Inc. was filed by the Department of State on July 22, 1955.  None of the names of the constituent corporations have been changed since formation.  The certificate of incorporation of the surviving corporation shall not be affected by themerger.

            FOURTH.            The merger shall be effective as of April 1, 2008.

            FIFTH.            The merger has been duly approved by meetings of the boards of directors and shareholders of each of the constituent corporations.

            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this certificate this 28th day of March, 2008.

 

TAYCO DEVELOPMENTS, INC.                                                                        TAYLOR DEVICES, INC.

By:  /s/Douglas P. Taylor                                                                                     By: /s/Douglas P. Taylor                   Name: Douglas P. Taylor                                                                                       Name: DouglasP. Taylor      Title: President                                                                                                        Title: President
#### Chester FLYNN, Movant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 9, 1951.

J. S. Sandusky, Somerset, for movant.

A. E. Funk, Atty. Gen., Zeb A. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., opposed.

PER CURIAM'.

Motion for an appeal from the Pulaski Circuit Court. Judgment of conviction for selling liquor in local option territory and imposing sentence of $100 fine and 30 days in jail.

Appeal denied. Judgment affirmed.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed September 12, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-22-00887-CV

IN RE ALEX NEAL, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-82970-2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Garcia

Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III

Before the Court is Alex Neal’s September 7, 2022 “Writ of Habeas Corpus.”

We construe this filing as an original petition for writ of habeas corpus. In his 

petition, Neal contends that a true bill of indictment contains numerous errors, that 

the indictment has been wrongfully duplicated nine times, and that he is innocent. 

This Court does not have original jurisdiction to consider petitions seeking 

habeas relief generated in connection with criminal proceedings. See TEX. GOV’T 

CODE ANN. § 22.221(d); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.05; In re Spriggs, 528 

S.W.3d 234, 236 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2017, orig. proceeding); In re Ayers, 515 

S.W.3d 356, 356–57 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding) (per 
–2–

curiam); see also In re Dingler, Nos. 05-22-00594-CV, 05-22-00595-CV, 05-22-

00596-CV, 05-22-00597-CV, 2022 WL 2302173, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 27, 

2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). 

We dismiss relator’s original petition for writ of habeas corpus for want of 

jurisdiction.

220887f.p05 /Bill Pedersen, III//

BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
<PAGE>


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
click2learn.com, inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 333-68413 and 333-83759) of click2learn.com, inc. of our
reports dated January 26, 2000 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
click2learn.com, inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1999, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
1999, and related consolidated financial statement schedule, which reports
appear in the 1999 Annual Report on Form 10-K of click2learn.com, inc.

KPMG LLP

Seattle, Washington
March 29, 2000

                                                                            59
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3275 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3275

  To amend the Pay Our Military Act to ensure that the allowances of 
   members of the Armed Forces covered by such Act include military 
       tuition assistance programs of the Department of Defense.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 8, 2013

Mrs. Blackburn (for herself, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. 
 Wilson of South Carolina, Mrs. Roby, Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania, and 
Mrs. Ellmers) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Pay Our Military Act to ensure that the allowances of 
   members of the Armed Forces covered by such Act include military 
       tuition assistance programs of the Department of Defense.

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

SECTION 1. CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR MILITARY TUITION ASSISTANCE.

    Section 2(a)(1) of the Pay Our Military Act (H.R. 3210 of the 113th 
Congress) is amended by inserting after ``pay and allowances'' the 
following: ``(including military tuition assistance)''.
                                 <all>
```
1

Filed 2/24/15 P. v. McMurray CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DARROL LEE M C MURRAY

,

Defendant and Appellant. C074792

(Super. Ct. No. 97F06716)

Defendant Darrol Lee McMurray appeals from an order denying a petition to

recall his so

- called “three strikes” sentence of 25 years to life, brought pursuant to the

provisions of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (the Act), codified at Penal Code

section 1170.126. 1 (See Teal v. Superior Court (2014) 60 Cal.4th 595 ( Teal ) .)

Defendant’s petition to recall his sentence and for resentencing was denied upon

determination that he was not eligible for relief under the Act because the commitment

offense was robbery. (See §§ 667.5, subd. (c) (9) , 1170.126, subd. (e)(1), 1192.7,

subd. (c) (19) .)

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.2

Counsel was appointed to represent defe ndant on appeal. Counsel filed an

opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting this court to review the

record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised def endant of his right to file a supplemental

brief within 30 days of the date o f filing of the opening brief.

Defendant timely filed a supplemental brief by which he seeks to challenge the

validity and constitutionality of the commitment judgment. “ ‘ “ It is settled that the right

of appeal is statutory and that a judgment or order is not appealable unless expressly

made so by statute. ” ’ [Citations.]” ( People v. Mena (2012) 54 Cal.4th 146, 152.)

Appeal of the order denying relief under the Act is author ized by subdivision (b) of

section 1237, as an order made after judgment, affecting the substantial rights of

defendant. ( Teal

, supra , 6 0 Cal.4th at p. 601.) However, that statutorily conferred

appellate jurisdiction is limited to review of the decision to deny relief under the Act. To

convert that limited grant of jurisdiction to effectuate appellate review of the commitment

judgment would in substance allow a belated motion to vacate that judgment, thereby

violating the proscription on so “ ‘ bypass[ing ] or duplicat[ing] appeal from the judgment

itself.’ [Citation.]” ( People v. Totari (2002) 28 Cal.4th 876, 882.) The contentions

tendered by defendant’s supplemental brief are not cognizable on this appeal of the order

denying relief under the Act.

Ha ving undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment (order) is affirmed.
RAYE , P. J.
We concur:

BLEASE , J.

NICHOLSON , J.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 37953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15280]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property 
Release at Columbus County Municipal Airport, Whiteville, NC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(c), 
notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the 
Columbus County Airport Authority to waive the requirement that 
approximately 0.88 acres of airport property, located at the Columbus 
County Municipal Airport, be used for aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 25, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in 
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airports 
District Office, Attn: Rusty Nealis, Program Manager, 1701 Columbia 
Ave., Suite 2-260, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the RAA must be 
mailed or delivered to Phil Edwards, Airport Director, Columbus County 
Municipal Airport at the following address: Columbus County Municipal 
Airport, 467 Airport Road, Whiteville, NC 28472.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rusty Nealis, Program Manager, Atlanta 
Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Campus Building, Suite 2-
260, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747, (404) 305-7142. The application may be 
reviewed in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request by the 
Columbus County Airport Authority to release approximately 0.88 acres 
of airport property at the Columbus County Municipal Airport. The 
property consists of one parcel located on the northwest side of the 
airfield. This land is being swapped for an equivalent sized parcel 
closer to the airfield which is needed by the airport to construct a 
parallel taxiway.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office 
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the request, 
notice and other documents germane to the request in person at the 
Columbus County Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Atlanta, Georgia, on June 12, 2012.
Scott L. Seritt,
Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2012-15280 Filed 6-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED AS
PART OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                     OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                       MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                   6,589
<SECURITIES>                                             6,160
<RECEIVABLES>                                               35
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        12,907
<PP&E>                                                   2,864
<DEPRECIATION>                                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          15,854
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    6,159
<BONDS>                                                  1,491
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                     7
<OTHER-SE>                                               8,197
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            15,854
<SALES>                                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           400
<CGS>                                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           12,909
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (12,297)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (12,297)
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (12,297)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            (1.68)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            (1.68)
        
<FN>
<F1> EPS BASIC
</FN>

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.2

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

                We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements and related prospectuses (Form S-3 No. 333-95357) of Terayon
Communication Systems, Inc., (Form S-8 No. 333-93779) pertaining to the 1999
Non-Officer Equity Incentive Plan of Terayon Communication Systems, Inc.,
(Post Effective Amendment 1 to Form S-3 No. 333-91823) of Terayon
Communication Systems, Inc., and (Form S-8 No. 333-66139) pertaining to the
1995 Stock Option Plan, the 1997 Equity Incentive Plan, the 1998 Non-
Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan, the 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
and Non-Plan Option Grants of Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. of our
report dated January 17, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Terayon
Communication Systems, Inc. listed in Item 14(a).  The schedule is the
responsibility of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to
express an opinion based on our audits.  In our opinion, the financial
statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the
basic financial statements taken as a whole, present fairly in all
material respects the information set forth therein.


                                                 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


San Jose, California
March 27, 2000
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________ NO. 09-14-00378-CV



### ____________________

IN RE DAVID EARL STANLEY

________________ __________________ __________________ ___ ______________ Original Proceeding

________________ __________________ ______________________ _____________ MEMORANDUM OPINION David Earl Stanley filed an origin al petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the Judge of the 258th District Court to rule on motions that Stanley filed in a forfeiture proceeding. Stanley stat es that he filed the motions pro se while represented by counsel. “[A] trial court is under no mandatory duty to accept or consider pleadings filed pro se by a party who is represented by counsel.” In re Sondley , 990 S.W.2d 361, 362 (Tex. App.—A marillo 1999, orig. proceeding); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 7. We deny th e petition for writ of mandamus.
PETITION DENIED.2 PER CURIAM
Submitted on September 24, 2014 Opinion Delivered September 25, 2014 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kr eger and Horton, JJ.
[ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, LLP LETTERHEAD]



     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
of BCSB Bankcorp,  Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-53295,  File No. 333-85025 and
File No.  333-87932)  of our report dated  December 5, 2003 on our audits of the
consolidated  financial  statements of BCSB  Bankcorp,  Inc. as of September 30,
2003 and 2002,  and for each of the two years in the period ended  September 30,
2003, which report has been  incorporated by reference in BCSB Bankcorp,  Inc.'s
Annual  Report on Form 10-K for  the  year ended  September  30, 2003 filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission  pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.


                                      /s/ Anderson Associates, LLP



Baltimore, Maryland
December 29, 2003
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT
32.01

                            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 Viseon, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2004 ("Report"), each of the undersigned, in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to 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.

Dated: May 16, 2004                      /s/ John C. Harris
                                           ------------------
                                           John C. Harris
                                           Chief Executive Officer

Dated: May 16, 2004                        By:  /s/ Robert A. Wolf
                                           ------------------
                                           Robert A. Wolf
                                           Its Chief Financial Officer
NUMBER 13-22-00470-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

ROBERT B. MARTINEZ, Appellant,

v.

EMILIA CASTILLO MARTINEZ, Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 150th District Court

of Bexar County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Silva

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

Appellant filed a notice of appeal on September 19, 2022.

1 On October 17, 2022, 

the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that it appears that there is no final, appealable 

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Fourth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket 

equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
2

order and that he was delinquent in remitting a $205.00 filing fee. The Clerk of the Court 

further notified appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal if the defect was not 

corrected, or the filing fee was not paid within ten days from the date of receipt of the 

Court’s notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). On November 17, 2022, this notice was 

returned undeliverable and marked “unclaimed” and “unable to forward.” On November 

17, 2022, the Clerk of the Court sent a second notice of the defect and delinquency in 

remitting a filing fee. To date, the appellant has neither responded nor cured the defects 

in the notice of appeal. Additionally, appellant has failed to pay the filing fee.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.1(b) requires unrepresented parties to sign 

any document filed and "give the party's mailing address, telephone number, fax number, 

if any, and email address." See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.1(b). The clerk’s office attempted to 

make contact with appellant via telephone, and the telephone number returned a 

“subscriber not in service message.”

Furthermore, Rule 42.3 permits an appellate court, on its own initiative after giving 

ten days' notice to all parties, to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution or for failure 

to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules. See id. 42.3(b), (c). Accordingly, we 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3.

CLARISSA SILVA

Justice

Delivered and filed on the

2nd day of February, 2023.