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

No. 23327.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 10, 1946.

Ramsey & Ramsey, of San Augustine, for appellant.

*821Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for unlawfully carrying a pistol; the punishment, a fine of $100.

The complaint alleged that the offense was committed on or about the 8th day of August, 1942. The information, based upon the complaint, alleged that the offense was committed on or about the 10th day of August, 1942.

A variance between the complaint and the information as to the date when the offense was committed is fatal to the validity of the information. Branch’s P. C., sec. 4S3; Bayless v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 123 S.W.2d 354.

Appellant’s attack upon the information, because of the variance mentioned, should have been sustained.

The judgment of conviction is reversed and the cause remanded.

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.
Order entered June 19 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 14

- 00081

- CV

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A ., Appellant

V.

TFHSP SERIES LLC SER IES 315, Appellee

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texa s Trial Court Cause No. 296

- 02267

- 2013



### O RDER

W e GRANT appellant’s June 18, 2014 unopposed motion for extension of time to file

reply brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than June 23, 2014. No further extensions will

be granted absent exigent cir cumstances.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
exv10w1



 






Exhibit 10.1




[TJX Letterhead]




Mr. Bernard Cammarata

The TJX Companies, Inc.

770 Cochituate Road

Framingham, MA 01701




     Re: Modification of Employment Agreement



Dear Mr. Cammarata:




     Reference is made to the Employment Agreement dated as of June 3, 2003 between you and The TJX
Companies, Inc. (the “Company”), as most recently modified by letter agreement dated November 14,
2005 (the “Prior Letter Agreement”). Pursuant to the Prior Letter Agreement, you are currently
being paid base salary at the annual rate of $1 million. The Company proposes to amend the second
sentence of the second paragraph of the Prior Letter Agreement (begins: “To reflect your
additional duties . . .”) and clause (ii) of the second paragraph of the second paragraph of the
Prior Letter Agreement (begins: “your base salary for subsequent pay periods . . .”), by
substituting “$900,000” for “$1 million,” in each case with such change in your base salary rate to
take effect March 13, 2006.



     If you agree with the foregoing proposed amendment to the Prior Letter Agreement, please so
indicate by signing the enclosed copy of this letter and returning it to Mr. Paul Kangas, whereupon
the Prior Letter Agreement will be deemed amended, effective immediately, to incorporate the change
set forth above, and, except as to amended, the Agreement will continue in effect in accordance
with its terms. This letter agreement shall constitute an agreement under seal.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	THE TJX COMPANIES, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Paul Kangas
 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 



I agree to the amendment described above

to the letter agreement dated November 14,

2005 between me and The TJX Companies, Inc.,

effective as of the date set forth below:




/s/ Bernard Cammarata

Bernard Cammarata




Date: March 7,2006
#### MOSS v. STATE.

No. 26245.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 4, 1953.

No .attorney on appeal, for appellant.

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

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The offense is driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $100.

The complaint and information, as well as all matters of procedure, appear regular. The record is 'before us without a statement of facts and bills of exception, *in*the absence of which nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ANGELA MICHELLE CIRIELLO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-669

[February 1, 2023]

Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Melanie Dale Surber, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2021-MM009663-AXXX-MB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Elijah Giuliano, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR WRITTEN OPINION

PER CURIAM.

We grant the motion for written opinion, withdraw our prior opinion, 

and substitute the following in its place.

We affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence on all issues raised. As 

to her claim that her sixth and fourteenth amendment rights were violated 

when she was convicted by a jury of fewer than twelve members, we affirm 

based on Guzman v. State, 350 So. 3d 72, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., WARNER and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Final Upon Release; No Motion for Rehearing Will Be Entertained.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-58-000]

Take notice that on October 18, 2000, Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc. (Granite State) tendered for filing a letter with the Commission in response to Order No. 587-L informing the Commission that Granite State's currently effective gas tariff contains provisions permitting imbalance netting and trading by shippers.

Granite States states that copies of this filing have been sent to Granite State's shippers and interested state regulatory commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-27855  Filed 10-30-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### TOWN OF WINDHAM *v.*FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION ET AL.

*Victor R. Perpetua,*in support of the petition.

*Richard S. Cody,*in opposition.

Decided June 17, 1998

The named defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 522 (AC 17064), is denied.

KATZ, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Score bonus exhibit 10.1


    
      

    


    Exhibit
      10.1

    


    2005
      SHORT TERM INCENTIVE AWARDS

    


    For
      2005, the awards to be paid to the named executive officers under the Company’s
      short term incentive plans are as follows: Mr. Adams -- $372,097; Ms. Mikkelson
      --$194, 916; Mr. Addison -- $193,004; Mr. Rowland - $191,637; Mr. Brown -
      $191,532 and Ms. Green -- $182,387.
#### HOLLEMAN v. STATE.

No. 23042.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 31, 1945.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 28, 1945.

M. E. Gates, of Huntsville, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for theft with the penalty assessed at two years-in the penitentiary.

The proceedings are regular and the record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Hyperdynamics Corporation
(Hyperdynamics), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2010, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Ray Leonard, Chief
Executive Officer of Hyperdynamics, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to his
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 result of operations of us.




Date:
February 14, 2011




By: /s/ Ray LeonardRay
      LeonardChief
      Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5  
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HORIZON MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC. FOR THE YEAR
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       6,232,215
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               17,460,999
<ALLOWANCES>                                   535,512
<INVENTORY>                                 19,358,423
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            44,735,250
<PP&E>                                       4,925,011
<DEPRECIATION>                                 881,811
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             104,637,113
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,968,439
<BONDS>                                     47,073,716
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,366
<OTHER-SE>                                  41,417,440
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               104,637,113
<SALES>                                     39,399,361
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            39,399,361
<CGS>                                       19,932,953
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,932,953
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            13,597,097
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,103,222
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,812,351
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,780,649
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,031,702
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              1,016,586
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,048,288
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 00-41492

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GEORGE ZUNIGA, also known as Jorge Zuniga,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-00-CR-271-1

- - - - - - - - - -

October 25, 2001

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

George Zuniga appeals the sentence he received after

pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute

approximately 590 kilograms of marihuana. He asserts that the

district court erred when it imposed a two level role-in-theoffense increase under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) and denied his request

for a safety valve reduction under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 based on a

preponderance-of-the-evidence standard rather than the more

stringent beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. Zuniga offers no
No. 00-41492

- 2 -

legal argument in support of this contention. Thus, he has

abandoned any reasonable-doubt argument on appeal by not

adequately briefing the issue. See United States v. Lucien, 61

F.3d 366, 370 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Zuniga also argues that the district court clearly erred in

finding that his role in the criminal activity warranted an

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B.1(c), and he faults the court for

failing to apply the “safety valve” pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2

in computing his sentence. 

Our review of the record and the arguments and authorities

convinces us that no reversible error was committed. The

district court did not clearly err in enhancing Zuniga’s offense

level by the minimum amount provided for in U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1. 

See United States v. Parker, 133 F.3d 322, 329-30 (5th Cir.

1998). Furthermore, as a defendant receiving an aggravating role

adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, Zuniga is ineligible for

relief under the safety valve provision. See U.S.S.G. 

§ 5C1.2(4).

Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
WINFIELD CAPITAL CORP.

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                                                                    EXHIBIT II


                                                       Six Months Ended
                                                        September 30,
                                                  -------------------------   
                                                      1997         1996
                                                  ----------    -----------
                                                 
PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE         
                                                 
Weighted average number of                       
  shares outstanding ...................           5,023,361      5,023,361
                                                 -----------    -----------
Net decrease in shareholders' equity             
  resulting from operations ............         ($  821,550)   ($   98,723)
                                                 -----------    -----------
Per share net decrease in shareholders'          
  equity resulting from operations .....         ($      .16)   ($      .02)
                                                 ===========    ===========
                                                 
                                                 
                                                      Three Months Ended
                                                        September 30,
                                                  -------------------------
                                                      1997         1996
                                                  ----------    -----------
PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE         
                                                 
Weighted average number of                       
  shares outstanding ...................           5,023,361      5,023,361
                                                 -----------    -----------
Net decrease in shareholders' equity             
  resulting from operations ............         ($  629,041)   ($   37,845)
                                                 -----------    -----------
Per share net decrease in shareholders'          
  equity resulting from operations .....         ($      .12)   ($      .01)
                                                 ===========    ===========



                                      -13-
Exhibit 10.23.2
 
SCHEDULE TO EXHIBIT 10.23.2


 


AMENDMENTS TO WGI RETENTION AGREEMENTS
WITH NAMED EXECUTIVES


 


 


EACH DATED AS OF AUGUST 20, 2002


 


Stephen M. Johnson
George H. Juetten
Thomas H. Zarges


 


NOTE:  The Amendment to Mr. Johnson’s Retention Agreement is identical in all materials terms to those entered into with Messrs Juetten and Zarges, with the exception that his Retention Bonus is prorated to allow for the time during early 2001 when he was not in the Company’s employ.  Mr. Johnson returned to the employ of the Company on November 12, 2001.
Exhibit 32.2


     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Winfield Capital
Corp. (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R. Scot
Perlin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.


Dated:  November 11, 2004           By: /s/ R. SCOT PERLIN
                                        ----------------------------------
                                        R. Scot Perlin
                                        Chief Financial Officer & Director


     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10053 Summary Calendar

RONALD DEAN LOWE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JOHN VANCE, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:96-CV-2685-P

- - - - - - - - - - July 1, 1997 Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The magistrate judge improperly granted Ronald Dean Lowe, Oklahoma inmate #219027, leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (IFP). Lowe has at least three strikes, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which bars Lowe from IFP status. See Lowe v. Cantrell , No. 96-10408 (5th Cir. Aug. 20, 1996) (unpublished; dismissing as frivolous an appeal from the dismissal, for frivolousness, of a civil rights complaint); Lowe v. Cantrell ,2

No. 96-6288 (10th Cir. Jan. 7, 1997) (unpublished; affirmance of denial of leave to file a complaint IFP due to three prior strikes under § 1915(g)); Lowe v. Doe , No. 96-CV-402 (N.D. Tex. July 26, 1996) (dismissal, pursuant to § 1915, of civil rights complaint). Nothing in the record indicates that the exception to the statutory bar applies in this case. IT IS ORDERED that the earlier order granting leave to proceed IFP is VACATED. Lowe has thirty days in which to pay the $105 filing fee. Failure to make timely payment will result in the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. See 5th Cir. R. 42.3.1.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED IF FULL FILING FEE NOT PAID.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

WILLIAM C. ROVERANO AND

JACQUELINE ROVERANO, H/W

v.

JOHN CRANE, INC. AND BRAND

INSULATIONS, INC.

PETITION OF: BRAND INSULATIONS

INC. :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 82 EAL 2018

Cross Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

WILLIAM ROVERANO

v.

JOHN CRANE, INC.

PETITION OF: BRAND INSULATIONS

INC. :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 83 EAL 2018

Cross Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 31st day of July, 2018

, the Cross Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Tektronix, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended August 27, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Colin
L. Slade, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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: October 5, 2005

/s/ COLIN L. SLADE
-------------------------------------------------
Colin L. Slade
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer