alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William D. BROWNE, Charles B. Chapman, Floyd E. Hollis, Albert H. Carter, Cornell C. Tanner, and Richard W. Thompson, Individually and in behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioners-Appellants, v. W. J. ESTELLE, etc., Respondent-Appellee.

No. 76-4409.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 6, 1977.

Rehearing Denied March 21, 1977.

William D. Browne and Richard W. Thompson, pro se.

Albert H. Carter, pro se.

John L. Hill, Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for respondent-appellee.

Before GODBOLD, HILL and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The petition for certificate of probable cause is granted, leave to appeal in forma pauperis is granted, and the appeal is or*1245dered to be docketed. The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.1

Plaintiffs seek to pursue a “class action habeas corpus” case on behalf of some 75 Texas state prisoners who are imprisoned pursuant to the Texas recidivist statute, T.C.A. Penal Code § 12.42(d).

In *Capuchino v. Estelle,*506 F.2d 440 (CA5), *cert. denied,*423 U.S. 842, 96 S.Ct. 75, 46 L.Ed.2d 62 (1975), we considered whether the Texas statute, then Art. 63, T.P.C., imposed upon Capuchino punishment so grossly disproportionate to the offense that it was arbitrary and shocking to a sense of justice. In *Hart v. Coiner,*483 F.2d 136 (CA4, 1973), *cert. denied*415 U.S. 938, 94 S.Ct. 1454, 39 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974), the West Virginia recidivist statute was held to be unconstitutionally applied to the particular defendant.

In the present case the petitioners complain that the prior convictions underlying the respective recidivist conviction of each member of the class are, in each instance, so grossly disproportionate to the life sentence imposed under the recidivist statute that the recidivist conviction cannot stand. This can only be determined, however, through a case-by-case review of the convictions underlying each recidivist sentence. *St. Jules v. Savage,*512 F.2d 881 (CA5, 1975), is not to the contrary. There the appellants’ challenge was not aimed at each individual sentence but was a single, unitary constitutional challenge aimed at systematic use of Art. 63 to deprive appellants as a class of due process and equal protection.

The contention made with respect to each member of the class in this case must be raised and exhausted in the Texas state courts before federal habeas is available.

AFFIRMED.

1

. It is appropriate to dispose of this case summarily. *See Groendyke Transportation, Inc. v. Davis,*406 F.2d 1158 (CA5, 1969).
#### Barratt et al., Appellants, *v.*Greenfield.

*311Argued October 3, 1939.

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Parker, Rhodes and Hirt, JJ.

*318November 15, 1939:

*Henry B. Gome, Jr.,*of *Barratt é Gome,*for appellant.

*William A Sehnader,*with him *Jerome L. Markovitz*and *Gilbert J. Kraus,*of *Kraus & Weyl,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

The judgment of the court below is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge Oliver.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3282 

To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 

Act to reauthorize the predisaster hazard mitigation program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 10, 2013 

Mr. CARSON of Indiana introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to reauthorize the predisaster hazard mitigation 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. PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAM. 

4 Section 203(m) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 

5 Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 

6 5133(m)) is amended to read as follows: 

7 ‘‘(m) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

8 is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3282 IH

1 $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 

2 2018.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 522

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION I

No. CR-13-491

NICHOLAS BURRIS

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered October 1, 2014

APPEAL FROM THE UNION

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR-12-395]

HONORABLE HAMILTON H.

SINGLETON, JUDGE

MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

REBRIEFING ORDERED

PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge

Appellant Nicholas Burris was convicted by a Union County jury of one count of

rape and one count of residential burglary. He was sentenced to a total of thirty-five years’

imprisonment for the two convictions. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

and Rule 4-3(k) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, Burris’s

attorney has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel on the ground that the appeal is wholly

without merit. The motion is accompanied by an abstract, brief, and addendum purporting

to list all adverse rulings and to explain why each adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground

for reversal. Burris was provided a copy of counsel’s brief and notified of his right to file a
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 522

list of points within thirty days; he has elected to file pro se points, and the State has filed a

responsive brief.

We previously ordered rebriefing in this case because the record did not contain a

transcript of voir dire. Burris v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 37. That deficiency has been corrected,

but we must again deny Burris’s counsel’s motion to withdraw because counsel has failed to

submit an abstract and addendum that complies with the requirements of the Rules of the

Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. The abstract we have been provided reflects

that a CD containing an interview with Burris was played in open court. In addition, a

transcript of that interview was introduced into evidence and handed out to the jury to read

along as the recording was played. The text of the transcript has not been abstracted, and

there is no copy of the CD in the addendum. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i); Copeland

v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 6. 

Pursuant to Rule 4-2(b)(3), we afford Burris’s counsel an opportunity to cure these

deficiencies. Counsel is directed to file a substituted abstract, brief, and addendum within

fifteen days from the date of this opinion.

Motion to withdraw denied without prejudice; rebriefing ordered.

GRUBER and VAUGHT, JJ., agree.

N. Mark Klappenbach, for appellant.

Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Rachel H. Kemp, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               3
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      312
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   393
<PP&E>                                           4,477
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,094
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              649
<BONDS>                                          1,354
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,608
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,094
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   186
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  23
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     69
<INCOME-TAX>                                        23
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 46
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        46
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
<FN>
<F1>Not separately indentified in the consolidated financial statements or
accompanying notes thereto.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### FELTNER v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 8, 1951.

Vernon Faulkner, Faulkner & Faulkner, and Dennis B. Wooton, all of Hazard, for appellant.

A. E. Funk, Atty. Gen., Guy L. Dickinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

STANLEY, Commissioner.

Oscar Feltner appeals from a conviction of voluntary manslaughter with a penalty of ten years imprisonment imposed.

His brief points to no error except the general statement that he “should have been given a new trial.” The long brief recites the evidence. It shows that the question of guilt was one for the jury. If an appellant’s lawyer does not find any error in the proceedings, this court will not search the record to find one.

The point that the- trial court should have granted a new trial is based upon two statements. One is that “London Clemons and several other persons were present at the time or during part of the time of the trouble” and did not testify. The other statement is that one of the jurors, Green Morris, had visited the scene of the killing and talked to a witness introduced by the prosecution and that the defendant “has been reliably informed” that he stated on voir dire examination that he had not talked with anyone and knew nothing about the case. Aside from the fact that the motion does not even *553claim diligence or what the defendant claimed they would, testify, and aside from the omission of any positive statement that the juror had made the statement of which the defendant had been informed, the affidavits in support of the motion are not in the record before us. The clerk of this court has recently received what is certified by the circuit clerk to be affidavits filed in his office. There has been no motion that this be filed here as a supplemental record. There is, of course, no order filing it. Its contents must be ignored. Sec. 756, Civil Code of Practice; Rule 1.220; Childers v. Commonwealth, Ky., 239 S.W.2d 255.
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Charles M. Weaver, certify that:

      1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
            Corporate Backed Trust Certificates, CIT Capital Trust I
            Securities-Backed Series 2002-15 Trust (the "Trust") and all reports
            on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports of the
            Trust filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by
            this annual report of the Trust;

      2.    Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
            whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
            omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
            in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
            not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this
            annual report;

      3.    Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
            required to be provided to the Depositor by the Trustee under the
            pooling and servicing or similar agreement, for inclusion in these
            reports is included in these reports; and

      4.    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
            Depositor and the Trustee under the pooling and servicing or similar
            agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance
            review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the
            reports, the Depositor and Trustee have each fulfilled its
            obligations under that agreement.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, as Trustee.



Date: March 21, 2007


         /s/ CHARLES M. WEAVER
----------------------------------------
Charles M. Weaver, Senior Vice President
#### MAY v. STATE.

No. 25463.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 14, 1951.

Benjamin Woodall, Fred C. Hall, Jr., Marshall, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

The conviction is for murder without malice; the punishment, 5 years in the penitentiary.

Notice of appeal was given and sentence was pronounced on April 9, 1951. The 90 days allowed by law for the filing of the statement of facts therefore expired on July 8, 1951.

The statement of facts, not having been filed until July 9, 1951, cannot be considered. See Huber v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 306, 207 S.W.2d 383; Tuck v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 231 S.W.2d 436; Bichon v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 230 S.W.2d 812.

In the absence of a statement of facts, we are unable to appraise the bill's o>£ exception.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3196 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from adopting certain rules or policies relating 

to multichannel video programming distributors, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2013 

Mr. LATTA (for himself and Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit the 

Federal Communications Commission from adopting certain rules or policies relating to multichannel video programming distributors, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF INTEGRATION BAN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 629 of the Communica5 tions Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 549) is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (f), by striking ‘‘Nothing’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘Except as provided in subsection (g), 

8 nothing’’; and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3196 IH

1 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub2 section: 

3 ‘‘(g) INTEGRATED DEVICES.—Nothing in this section 

4 or any other provision of this Act authorizes the Commis5 sion to adopt any rule or policy that prohibits a multi6 channel video programming distributor from placing into 

7 service navigation devices for sale, lease, or use that per8 form both conditional access and other functions in a sin9 gle integrated device. Any such rule or policy adopted by 

10 the Commission prior to the date of enactment of this sub11 section shall cease to be effective on such date of enact12 ment, and the Commission shall remove any such rule or 

13 policy from the rules of the Commission.’’. 

14 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Except as provided 

15 in subsection (g) of section 629 of the Communications 

16 Act of 1934, as added by subsection (a), nothing in this 

17 section or the amendments made by this section shall be 

18 construed to affect the authority of the Federal Commu19 nications Commission under such section 629. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       40,852
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                               770,026
<ALLOWANCES>                                274,000
<INVENTORY>                                 722,705
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          1,588,445
<PP&E>                                      394,291
<DEPRECIATION>                            1,197,708
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            2,053,080
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     1,991,235
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                     87,249
<OTHER-SE>                                  (76,593)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 10,656
<SALES>                                     887,650
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            887,650
<CGS>                                       453,867
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               453,867
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            658,646
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           64,744
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (289,607)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (289,607)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                               (289,607)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.03)



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3302 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3302

                     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 name the Department of Veterans Affairs medical center in Bay Pines, 
Florida, as the ``C.W. Bill Young Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 
                                Center''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER, BAY 
PINES, FLORIDA.
     The Department of Veterans Affairs medical center in Bay Pines, 
Florida, shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be known and 
designated as the ``C.W. Bill Young Department of Veterans Affairs 
Medical Center''. Any reference to such medical center in any law, 
regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of the United States 
shall be considered to be a reference to the C.W. Bill Young Department 
of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT


TO


INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment to Independent Contractor Agreement
(this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of this       
day of March, 2006 between (i) Fischer Imaging Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”) and (ii) Steven L. Durnil (“Independent
Contractor”).  The Company and
Independent Contractor are referred to collectively as the “Parties” and
individually as a “Party.”


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Independent Contractor
entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement (the “Agreement”) as of
December 2, 2005; and


 


WHEREAS, the Parties wish to amend certain provisions
of the Agreement as set forth below in order to extend the term and amend the
termination provision of the Agreement.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual
covenants and promises contained herein and other valuable consideration, the
Parties hereby agree as follows:


 


                Section 3 and
Section 8(a) of the Agreement are hereby amended as set forth below and replace
the enumerated Sections in the Agreement in their entirety.  All other provisions in the Agreement remain
unchanged.


 


3.             Effective Date and Term.  This Agreement shall be effective as of the
Effective Date and shall continue in force thereafter until June 30, 2006,
unless (i) extended for an additional period by the parties’ mutual written
agreement, and/or (ii) earlier terminated pursuant to Section 8.


 


8.             Termination.


 


(a)           The Company or
Independent Contractor may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days prior
written notice to the other party.


 


 


* * * * *


 

















 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, each of the Parties hereto has executed this Amendment as of the date
first set forth above.


 


	
   

  	
  COMPANY:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  FISCHER IMAGING
  CORPORATION

  	 

	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Gail Schoettler

  	 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Gail Schoettler

  	 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Chair of the Board of
  Directors

  	 

	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	 

	
   

  	
  INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR:

  	 

	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Steven L.
  Durnil

  	 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Steven L. Durnil
Opinion issued July 12, 2012.

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-10-00510-CR

———————————

RICHARD ROY HART, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1247618

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A supplemental clerk’s record complying with our order of abatement has 

been filed. Therefore, we order the appeal reinstated.

The supplemental clerk’s record reflects that the trial court granted 

appellant’s motion for new trial. The granting of a motion for new trial restores 
2

the case to its position before the former trial. See TEX. R. APP P. 21.9(b). No 

motion to withdraw the notice of appeal has been filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2. 

However, the appeal was rendered moot by the order granting a new trial. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 21.9(b).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). 

We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.13

                                DOVER CORPORATION

                 SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS TO DEFERRED COMPENSATION
                   AND SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN

DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN

     -    Provide for a six-month delay of payments to specified employees;

     -    Remove the approved early retirement features of the plan (which
          permitted distributions as previously scheduled instead of a lump-sum
          payout upon retirement prior to the normal retirement age at the
          discretion of the Compensation Committee);

     -    Provide for a minimum five-year delay for any further deferral of
          distributions under the plan;

     -    Eliminate in-service withdrawal other than hardship or properly
          scheduled in-service withdrawals.

SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN

     -    Provide for a six-month delay of payment to specified employees;

     -    Provide for a minimum five-year delay for any further deferral of
          distributions under the plan;

     -    Eliminate the rollover of new SERP benefits into the Deferred
          Compensation Plan;

     -    Provide for an automatic lump sum payment of 75% of the present value
          of accrued benefits and five equal annual installment payments of the
          remaining benefits.