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

No. 23675.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 4, 1947.

Rehearing Denied June 25, 1947.

L. V. Abernathy, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of an aggravated assault upon Walker Murchison, and by a jury fined the sum of $500.00 and sentenced to serve six months in the county jail, and he appeals.

There is found in the record what purports to be a statement of facts. However, we find that such instrument is not signed and approved by the County Judge trying the case, and we therefore cannot consider the same. See Steel v. State, 109 Tex.Cr. R. 480, 5 S.W.2d 517; Smith v. State, 113 Tex.Cr.R. 398, 22 S.W.2d 460; Norwood *943v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 291 S.W. 249; Article 760, note 24, Vernon’s Ann.Tex.C.C.P.

We are unable to appraise the bills of exception in the absence of the statement of facts.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing

DAVIDSON, Judge.

By the certificate of the trial judge accompanying appellant’s motion for rehearing, it is now made to appear that the statement of facts was properly approved and filed.

The State’s testimony shows a violent, unjustified and unprovoked attack by appellant and the infliction of serious bodily injuries upon the injured party.

The facts are deemed sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion of guilt.

The information contained three counts, two of which charged appellant with aggravated assault upon one Walter L. Kaiser while the third charged aggravated assaidt upon Walker Murchison. The third count, alone, was submitted. The conviction, here, rests upon that count.

Appellant, by motion to quash, challenged the information as being duplicitous because separate offenses are charged in separate counts in the same information.

Such procedure is permissible in misdemeanor cases such as this. Branch’s P.C., Sec. 509; Walker v. State, 133 Tex. Cr.R. 300, 110 S.W.2d 578; Ward v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 185 S.W.2d 577.

Bills of Exception Nos. 6 and 7 complain of argument of State’s counsel. In each instance the trial court sustained the objection and instructed the jury not to consider same.

The arguments violated no mandatory statute, nor were they of such a nature as to be incapable of withdrawal. In fact, the arguments appear to have been deductions from the facts.

Other bills of exception have been examined and are overruled without discussion.

No reversible error appearing, the motion for rehearing is overruled.

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              34
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1047
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                         41
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,497
<PP&E>                                           4,833
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,709
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,895
<BONDS>                                            976
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            46
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,864
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,709
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,804
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,559
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  92
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    237
<INCOME-TAX>                                        83
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                154
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       154
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Not separately identified in the Consolidated Financial Statements or
accompanying notes thereto.
<FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### BUSBY v. STATE.

No. 23946.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 3, 1948.

No appearance for- appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

The conviction is for the offense of burglary. The pimishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a period of two years.

The indictment appears regular, as well as all other matters of procedure. The *902record is before' this court without a statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which no question is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

 STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

       The undersigned, Dwayne Powell, is the President and Chief Executive
Officer of Pocahontas Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company").

       This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the
Company of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September
30, 2002 (the "Report").

       By execution of this statement, I certify that:

              A)  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(a) or 78o(d)) and

              B)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
                  covered by the Report.

      This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so
      that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report
      is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not
      intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

December 20, 2002                                       /s/ Dwayne Powell
--------------------                                   -------------------------
Dated                                                       Dwayne Powell
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. RP00-344-000]

                    Take notice that a technical conference to further discuss the various issues raised by Dominion Transmission, Inc.'s (Dominion) Order                           ( print page 62715)                        No. 637 compliance filing will be held on Friday, October 27, 2000, at 10 a.m., in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.                

All interested persons and Staff are permitted to attend.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-26835  Filed 10-18-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Director's Council of Public Representatives, October 31-November 1, 2000, National Institutes of Health, 9000 Rockville Pike, Building 31, Conference Room 6, Bethesda, MD 20982 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 10, 2000, 65 FR 60200-60201.                

The dates, times, and location of the meeting are the same but the agenda has changed to discuss human research protections and medical applications research. The meeting is open to the public.

      ( print page 64975)    
Dated: October 17, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-27887  Filed 10-30-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

RICARDO ALFONSO BARRERA,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-1139

[December 22, 2021]

Appeal from the County Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Indian River County; Robyn E. Stone, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

312020MM002006A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Paul Edward Petillo, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell A. Egber, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 **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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB (the “Report”) of Vitasti, Inc.
(the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, the undersigned
Tammy-Lynn McNabb, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, hereby certifies 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
the undersigneds’ knowledge and belief:
 
 (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.
 
 Date:
April 15, 2005     /s/
Tammy-Lynn McNabb _______________________
 Tammy-Lynn
McNabb, Chief Executive Officer,
 Chief
Financial Officer
September 23, 2011

Mr. Noel Rude

President Flying Fireman, Inc.

26117 34 th Avenue East Spanaway, WA 98387

Dear Mr. Rude:

This letter is to inform you that we have received and begun processing your petition for exemption. It acknowledges receipt of the petition and describes how we will process it.

We Have the Petition

We’ve received your September 9, 2011, petition on be half of Flying Fireman, Inc. (FF) for an exemption from § 121.317(d) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This exemption, if granted, would allow FF to operati on of a restricted category aircraft in air shows or special events that are over densely populated areas, in congested airways, or near busy airports where passenger transport operations are conducted.

We’ve added your petition to the public docket (No. FAA-2011-1032) and we are processing it. We will contact you if we need additional information.

How We’ll Process the Petition

A petition for an exem ption, according to 14 CFR 11.63(d), must be sent to the FAA at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. In addition, we publish a summary of the petition in the Federal Register for public comment unless, according to 14 CFR 11.87, we determine that good cause exists for not publishing it.

We will advise you of the agency's final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you have any questions in the meantime, you may contact me at (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Keira Jones Transportation Industry Analyst Airmen and Airspace Rules Division
# Contents

Data 1

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngc3a.htm

U.S. Energy Information Administration

infoctr@eia.doe.gov

# Data 1

Back to Contents
#### ROMINES v. STATE.

No. 24752.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 3, 1950.

Rehearing Denied May 31, 1950.

*806McCarthy, Collins & Snodgrass, Robert M. Haynes, Amarillo, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction under the so-called habitual criminal statute, Art. 63, P.C., with punishment assessed at life imprisonment in the penitentiary.

The primary offense charged was the non-capital offense of robbery. One of the prior convictions relied upon was described as “the felony of passing a forged instrument.”

By motion to quash, the sufficiency of the indictment to charge the prior conviction for the felony offense of passing a forged instrument is challenged in that the passing of a forged instrument becomes a felony only when “knowingly” done and in order for an indictment to be sufficient to charge the prior conviction for that offense it must be described as “knowingly passing a forged instrument.”

As sustaining his contention, appellant relies upon the case of Square v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 493, 154 S.W.2d 852.

It will'be noted that the reversal of the Square case did not depend entirely upon the defect found to exist in the indictment but also upon another ground.

An indictment alleging the prior conviction for the felony offense of “passing a forged instrument,” as in the instant case, was sustained by this court in Larkin v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 44, 113 S.W.2d 553, which was rendered anterior to the Square case.

The conclusion is expressed that the rule announced in the Larkin case, supra, is correct and should control.

It follows that the Square case, supra, in so far as it is in conflict with the conclusion just expressed, is hereby overruled.

The indictment, not being subject to the defect alleged, is valid, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.

On Motion for Rehearing

WOODLEY, Judge.

We remain convinced that appellant's contention in regard to the sufficiency of the indictment was properly disposed of on original submission.

The indictment alleged a former conviction for “the felony offense of passing a forged instrument.”

Art. 996, P.C., assigns to the offense the title “Passing forged instrument.” The punishment provided in the article determines the offense to be a felony less than capital.

“The felony of passing a forged instrument” necessarily includes the various elements of the offense and sufficiently describes the former conviction.

No other question being before us, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

Opinion approved by the Court.
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 Transportation

###### Office of The Secretary 

# AGENCY:

Department of Transportation.

# ACTION:

Notice of order to show cause (Order 2000-10-29) Docket OST-2000-7588.

      ( print page 65894)    

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Transportation is directing all interested persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding Kalitta Air, L.L.C., fit, willing, and able, and (1) transferring to it the all-cargo authority contained in the interstate scheduled certificate currently issued to Kitty Hawk International, Inc. d/b/a American International Airways, and (2) canceling the passenger authority contained in that certificate. 

# DATES:

Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than November 6, 2000. 

# ADDRESSES:

Objections and answers to objections should be filed in Docket OST-2000-7588 and addressed to the Department of Transportation Dockets (SVC-124.1, Room PL-401), U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the order. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Delores King, Air Carrier Fitness Division (X-56, Room 6401), U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-2343. 

Dated: October 27, 2000. 

Susan McDermott,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.

[FR Doc. 00-28151 Filed 11-1-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

- - - - - - - -

NO. 19-0479

JOHN B. GORDON AND RUTH A.

GORDON

v.

JASON DEMMON AND JUTTA

DEMMON §

§

§

§

§

§ Bell County,

7th District.

August 2, 2019

Petitioners' petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.

         

I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE

, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of Texas in the case

numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of said Court under

the date shown.

It is further ordered that petitioners, JOHN B. GORDON AND RUTH A. GORDON, pay

all costs incurred on this petition.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 12th day of September, 2019

.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk
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 (the Report) of Precision Aerospace Components, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Andrew S. Prince, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 results of operations of the Company.
|    |  |                                       |                                                                                                                                                     
|    |  | /s/ Andrew S. Prince                  |                                                                                                                                                     
|    |  |                                       |                                                                                                                                                     
|    |  | Andrew S. Prince                      |                                                                                                                                                     
|    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer |                                                                                                                                                     
|    |  |                                       |                                                                                                                                                     

Date: November 8, 2007