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

No. 22779.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 1, 1944.

Rehearing Denied April 26, 1944.

Eugene F. Mathis, of Lubbock, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Unlawfully selling whisky is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $100.

Appellant'insists that the undisputed facts show that he acted only as the agent of the purchaser of the whisky, and not as the seller thereof. As to this, we note that, upon cross-examination of appellant, and upon his being shown the bottle of whisky which the State’s witnesses identified as having been acquired from appellant, he said: “I am pretty sure that is the whisky *564I sold Mr. Burney” (the purchaser named m the information). Such an admission on the part of the appellant was sufficient to raise an issue for the jury — to say nothing of the State’s testimony on the subject.

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.

On Motion for Rehearing.

KRUEGER, Judge.

 In his motion for a rehearing, appellant asserts that in the original disposition of this case, we erred in two respects: First, in holding that he was not the agent of the purchaser of the whisky; and second, that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain his conviction. In support of his contention he cites us to Latham v. State, 71 Tex.Cr.R. 552, 160 S.W. 455. In that case, the un-controverted evidence shows that Latham (the appellant) told Crockett (the purchaser) that he did not have any whisky but he thought he “could rustle” him a quart, whereupon Crockett gave Latham two dollars; that after being gone for some time he returned with a quart of whisky. Crockett further testified that he could not recall that Latham told him at the time that he got the whisky -from Alex Maxey. In that case the defendant’s evidence was to the effect that when he returned with the whisky, he told Crockett that he had obtained the same from Alex Maxey. It will be noted that in that case, the uncontrovert-ed evidence showed that Latham was acting as the agent of Crockett and not as the seller of the whisky, while in the present instance, the appellant testified that he was pretty sure that the whisky exhibited to him was the whisky which he sold to Bur-ney, as set out in the original opinion. It is obvious that in the instant case, it was a question of fact whether he sold the whis-ky himself to Burney or was acting as Burney’s agent, which the jury decided adversely to him; and we would not be justified in disturbing their verdict. We think that the evidence introduced by the State, if accepted by the jury as true, is sufficient to sustain his conviction. We, therefore, overrule the motion for a rehearing.

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.
JAMES CHAPMAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-1522

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 23, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Jackie L. Fulford, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kristen Bonjour, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the imposition of a suspended sentence of five years’ 

incarceration for his conviction of driving without a license (habitual offender). 

Appellant asserts that his suspended sentence is not a “nonstate prison sanction” 

and is, therefore, an upward departure in violation of section 775.082(10), Florida 
Statutes (2013). Because this argument was not raised during either the sentencing 

hearing or via a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion, it is 

unpreserved and this court cannot reach the question. Appellant’s judgment and 

sentence are AFFIRMED.

WOLF, ROWE, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.

2
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Kenneth D. Denman, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of iPass Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report 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 with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report and based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.



Date:    March 30, 2004                 /s/ Kenneth D. Denman

                                            Kenneth D. Denman
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                            (Principal Executive Officer)
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 8, 2019

No. 04-18-00131-CV

Lorraine KENYON, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Theodore Kenyon,

Appellant

v.

ELEPHANT INSURANCE COMPANY, LLC,

Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CI14055

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee’s unopposed motion for extension of time to file a response to appellant’s 

motion for reconsideration en banc is GRANTED. Appellee’s response is due no later than 

August 23, 2019. 

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of August, 2019.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle,

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3110 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3110

                     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 allow for the harvest of gull eggs by the Huna Tlingit people within 
            Glacier Bay National Park in the State of Alaska.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Huna Tlingit Traditional Gull Egg 
Use Act''.
SEC. 2. LIMITED AUTHORIZATION FOR COLLECTION OF GULL EGGS.
    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior (referred to in this 
Act as the ``Secretary'') may allow the collection by members of the 
Hoonah Indian Association of the eggs of glaucous-winged gulls (Laurus 
glaucescens) within Glacier Bay National Park (referred to in this Act 
as the ``Park'') not more frequently than twice each calendar year at 
up to 5 locations within the Park, subject to any terms and conditions 
that the Secretary determines to be necessary.
    (b) Applicable Law.--For the purposes of sections 203 and 816 of 
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 410hh-2, 
3126), the collection of eggs of glaucous-winged gulls within the Park 
in accordance with subsection (a) shall be considered to be a use 
specifically permitted by that Act.
    (c) Harvest Plan.--The Secretary shall establish schedules, 
locations, and any additional terms and conditions that the Secretary 
determines to be necessary for the harvesting of eggs of glaucous-
winged gulls in the Park, based on an annual harvest plan to be 
prepared by the Secretary and the Hoonah Indian Association.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of SUPERVALU INC. (the
Company) certifies that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 14, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period and as of the dates covered thereby.



|                     |  |  |  |                                       
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------
|Dated: July 23, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ JEFFREY NODDLE                    
|                     |  |  |  | Jeffrey Noddle Chief Executive
Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS INCLUDED IN THE FORM 10-Q TO WHICH THIS IS
AN EXHIBIT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          49,907
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  175,498
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               401,730
<PP&E>                                       1,953,729
<DEPRECIATION>                                 896,001
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,894,780
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,454,546
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     23,695
<COMMON>                                         2,887
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,972,322
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,894,780
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,091,487
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,992,748
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             553,455
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,454,716)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,454,716)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,454,716)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.53)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,088,693
<ALLOWANCES>                                    84,493
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,866,487
<PP&E>                                      25,615,043
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,411,920
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,773,183
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,373,836
<BONDS>                                     16,995,099
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           310
<OTHER-SE>                                     289,405
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,773,183
<SALES>                                     21,251,648
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,261,648
<CGS>                                       25,362,772
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               25,362,772
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             671,043
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,772,167)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,772,167)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.56)
        

</TABLE>
#### Ex parte DOOLEY.

No. 25731.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 27, 1952.

*632Doyle Pevehouse, of Corsicana, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

This is an original application for the writ of habeas corpus, by which relator seeks his discharge from the penitentiary because of the following facts:

On November 13, 1947, relator was convicted in the District Court of Eastland County in two ordinary felony cases, being numbered 10,512 and 10,534 upon the docket of said court, with punishment fixed at eight and ten years, respectively, in the penitentiary.

The judgment entered in each case shows upon its face that relator pleaded guilty to the offense charged, and that guilt was adjudged and punishment fixed by the trial judge. The plea was not before a jury.

 There is an entire absence in the judgments of any reference to the requirements of Arts. 10a and 12, C.C.P., as amended,' Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. arts. 10a, 12, such as waiver of trial by jury and consent and approval of the court and state’s counsel for a trial before the court. These requirements are mandatory, and requisite to a valid judgment, upon a plea of guilty before the court in an ordinary felony case. Thompson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 226 S. \W.2d 872.

It follows that each of the judgments and the sentences imposed upon relator thereunder are void, and, for that reason, relator is entitled to be discharged from custody.

The invalidity of the judgments does not affect the indictments, which, for all this record shows, are yet pending.

It is ordered, therefore, that relator be delivered by the penitentiary authorities of this state into the custody of the sheriff of Eastland County to answer the accusations pending against him. Ex parte Traxler, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 661, 184 S.W.2d 286.

Opinion approved by the court
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7226** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
JOE LEWIS BLACKWELL, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. James A. Beaty, Jr. , District Judge. ( 2:96

- cr
- 00109

- JAB

- 1 )

Submitted : December 19 , 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Joe Lewis Blackwell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Robert Michael Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Joe Lewis Blackwell, Jr., a ppeals the district court ’ s
order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2012). We have reviewed the record and

find no abuse of discretion by the district court. Accordingly , we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United

States v. Blackwell , No. 2:96

- cr
- 00109

- JAB

- 1 (M.D.N.C. July 16,
2013). We deny Blackwell’s motion for appointment of counsel,

and we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32

          Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted
            Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Daniel C. Wright,  the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
GolfGear International,  Inc. (the "Company"),  certify, pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, that to the best of
my knowledge:

(1)  the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December
     31, 2003 (the  "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of Section
     13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.  78m or
     78o(d)); 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 20, 2005                       /s/ Daniel C. Wright
                                           Daniel C. Wright
                                           Chief Executive Officer and
                                           Chief Financial Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6329** 

JOHN MARVIN BALLARD , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

AMY PHENIX , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Malcolm J. Howard , Senior District Judge. ( 5:13

- ct

- 03256

- H )

Submitted : May 21, 2015 Decided: May 27, 2015

Before MOTZ , KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by un published per curiam opinion

.

John Marvin Ballard , Appellant Pro Se. Eric Patrick Edgerton , Francis Lachicotte Zemp, Jr. , ROBERTS & STEVENS, PA , Ash e ville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
John Marvin Ballard appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss his diversity action alleging claims of libel, slander, invasion of privacy , and
intentional infliction of emotional distress. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible err or. Accordingly, although we modify the dismissal order to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice, see S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’ s Ass ’ n, Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC , 713 F.3d 175, 185 & n.4 (4th Cir. 2013), we affirm the dismissal as modified. Ballard
v. Phenix , No. 5:13

- ct

- 03256

- H (E.D.N.C. Feb. 3, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
th is court and argument w ould not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 27, 1997 UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ENVIROQ CORPORATION AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000937256
<NAME> ENVIROQ CORP
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       2,313,680
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  311,382
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    101,305
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,875,479
<PP&E>                                         386,778
<DEPRECIATION>                                  49,223
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,224,892
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           93,005
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,094
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,131,887
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,224,892
<SALES>                                        615,690
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               615,690
<CGS>                                          328,957
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  357,938
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (61,660)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,499
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,647
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,852
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,852
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>