alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 06-15-00026-CR through 06-15-00028-CR

ROGER DALE GAMMONS § IN THE

§

v § 6th COURT

§

STATE OF TEXAS § OF APPEALS

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE APPELLEE’S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

Now comes The State of Texas, Appellee in the above styled and numbered cause, and 

moves this Court to grant an extension of time to file Appellee’s brief, pursuant to Rule 38.6 of the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and for good cause shows the following: 

1. This case is on appeal from the 8th Judicial District Court of Hopkins County, Texas.

2. The case below was styled the STATE OF TEXAS vs. ROGER DALE GAMMONS

and numbered as 1423872 through 1423874.

3. The Appellant was convicted and sentenced by the jury to LIFE in the penitentiary on 

each case.

4. The Appellee’s brief is due on May 15, 2015. Appellee requests an extension time of 

approximately thirty (30) days from the present date, i.e. June 15, 2015. 

6. No previous extensions to file the brief have been received by Appellee in this cause. 

7. Appellee requests a thirty (30) day extension because Appellee’s attorney is currently 

preparing for a murder trial beginning on June 8, 2015 in the 8th Judicial District Court entitled State

of Texas v. Roy Dean Duffey. 

ACCEPTED

06-15-00026-CR

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

5/15/2015 5:15:28 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 5/18/2015 7:49:00 AM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellee prays that this Court grant this 

Motion to Extend Time to File Appellee’s Brief, and for such other and further relief as the Court 

may deem appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

By: //s// Will Ramsay

Will Ramsay

8th Judicial District Attorney

State Bar No. 24039129

P.O. Box 882

110 Main Street

Sulphur Springs, TX 75482

Ph: (903) 885-0640

Fax: (903) 885-0641

wramsay@hopkinscountytx.org

Attorney for Appellee

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing MOTION TO EXTEND TIME 

TO FILE APPELLEE’S BRIEF was delivered via email to J. Edward Niehaus, Attorney for 

Appellant, on May 15, 2015.

//s//Will Ramsay

WILL RAMSAY—Attorney for the Appellee
p130185.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0185

Focus Ready Draft 1/14/2013

ENGINEER: Choudhary \ EV

PV (kg/yr): 

SUBMITTER: 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 1
p130185.eng

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAT (concerns) (11/06/2012):

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

Migration to groundwater: Negligible

PBT rating: P2B3T1 Linear: P1B2T1 // Branched: P2B3T1.

Health: 2 Dermal, Inhalation

Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 1 ppb.)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1D

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

 

Page 2
p130185.eng

 

Page 3
p130185.eng

 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0185

 

Page 4
p130185.eng

 

 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0185

Page 5
p130185.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0185

 

Page 6
p130185.eng

Page 7
p130185.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0185

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 8
p130185.eng

Page 9
#### HOLLON v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 31, 1952.

Leebern Allen, I. M. Combs, Campton, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Wm. F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

CAMMACK, Chief Justice.

Grace Flollo-n has filed a motion for an appeal from a judgment fining her $100 and sentencing her to 60 days in jail on a charge of having liquor in her possession for sale. We are sustaining the motion for an appeal because we think there was insufficient evidence to warrant the submission of the case to the jury.

The county clerk testified that local option was in effect in Wolfe County. The *423sheriff said that Grace Hollon’s reputation was that of a liquor dealer. Clay Alexander said he went to Grace Hollon’s home and bought a half pint of red liquor “back of the house in the yard from a woman, it was not the defendant.” Alexander said also that he did not see Grace Hollon and he did not know whether or not she was at home. He stated he had never seen her with whiskey in her possession. There was no proof connecting Grace Hollon with the whiskey n any respect.

The proof as to her reputation as a dealer in liquor was insufficient to warrant the submission of the case to the jury. Bingham v. Commonwealth, 308 Ky. 737, 215 S.W.2d 845; Flynn v. Commonwealth, 314 Ky. 388, 235 S.W.2d 1004.

Judgment reversed, with directions to set it aside, and for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

MICHAEL LE & DUNG LE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00147-O

FINAL JUDGMENT

This Judgment is issued pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). 

This action came on for consideration by the Court, and a bench trial was held from April 

24 to April 27, 2023. The parties having presented evidence at trial, and the issues having been 

duly considered, and the Court having released findings of fact and conclusions of law; 

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that: 

Plaintiff Michael Le is entitled to recover $23,908,479.73 in past and future medical 

expenses, loss of earnings, and intangible damages; 

Plaintiff Dung Le is entitled to recover $2,605,000.00 in loss of consortium and loss of 

services, past and future; 

All other forms of relief not expressly granted herein are denied. 

SO ORDERED this 24th day of July, 2023. 

Case 4:22-cv-00147-O Document 142 Filed 07/24/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 6649
##### 



Exhibit 8

List Of Principal Subsidiaries

OF

Gruma, S.A. de C.V.

|                                                   |  |                              
|-------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Subsidiary                                         |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|                                                   |  |                              
|Grupo Industrial Maseca, S.A. de C.V               |  | México                       
|(GIMSA)                                          |  |                              
|                                                   |  |                              
|Molinera de México, S.A. de C.V.                   |  | México                       
|(Molinera de México)                             |  |                              
|                                                   |  |                              
|Productos y Distribuidora Azteca, S.A. de C.V.     |  | México                       
|(PRODISA)                                        |  |                              
|                                                   |  |                              
|Gruma Corporation                                  |  | Nevada, United States        
|                                                   |  |                              
|Azteca Milling L.P.(1)                             |  | Texas, United States         
|                                                   |  |                              
|Gruma Centro América, S.A.                         |  | Costa Rica                   
|                                                   |  |                              
|Molinos Nacionales, C.A                            |  | Venezuela                    
|(MONACA)                                         |  |                              
|                                                   |  |                              
|Derivados de Maíz Seleccionado, C.A                |  | Venezuela                    
|(DEMASECA)                                       |  |                              
|                                                   |  |                              
|Investigación de Tecnología Avanzada, S.A. de C.V. |  | México                       
|(INTASA)                                         |  |                              



|(1) |  | Percentage of equity capital owned by us directly or indirectly through
subsidiaries.
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Bret D. Scholtes, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of Omega Protein Corporation; and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Date: April 29, 2016 | By:    | /s/Bret D. Scholtes                   | 
|-------------------- | ------ | ------------------------------------- | 
|                     | Name:  | Bret D. Scholtes                      | 
|                     | Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer |
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3539 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3539

   To amend title X of the Public Health Service Act with respect to 
            adoption and other pregnancy options counseling.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 19, 2013

   Mr. Long introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title X of the Public Health Service Act with respect to 
            adoption and other pregnancy options counseling.

    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 ``Adoption Promotion Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. ADOPTION AND OTHER PREGNANCY OPTIONS COUNSELING.

    Title X of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300a-1) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 1009. ADOPTION AND OTHER PREGNANCY OPTIONS COUNSELING.

    ``(a) Inclusion of Adoption Counseling.--The Secretary shall ensure 
that any pregnancy options counseling funded under this title includes 
adoption counseling.
    ``(b) Qualified Counselors.--The Secretary shall ensure that any 
pregnancy options counseling funded under this title is provided by 
individuals who--
            ``(1) are licensed social workers or counselors in the 
        States in which they practice; and
            ``(2) have knowledge and experience in adoption practice.
    ``(c) Training.--Any training provided to an individual under 
section 1003 shall include training on the adoption process.
    ``(d) Research.--
            ``(1) In general.--Research funded under section 1004 shall 
        include--
                    ``(A) the collection of data on the number of 
                pregnancy tests administered to individuals served by 
                programs under this title and the results of those 
                tests; and
                    ``(B) the evaluation of the quality, consistency, 
                and outcomes of pregnancy options counseling funded 
                under this title.
            ``(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
        shall be construed to authorize the collection of personally 
        identifiable information.''.
                                 <all>
```
Motion Granted; Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 10, 

2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00698-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF R.E.T.R AND D.D.R, JR., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-04492J

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, D.D.R., appeals a final decree signed July 16, 2013, terminating 

his parental rights to the children who are the subject of the underlying suit. The 

trial court found that appellant is indigent and appointed counsel to represent him 

in this appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal 

is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), presenting a professional 

evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be 
2

advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The Anders

procedures are applicable to an appeal from the termination of parental rights when 

an appointed attorney concludes that there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on 

appeal. In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, 

no pet.). 

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised 

of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford 

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 

329–30. This court provided appellant a copy of the record and advised him that 

any pro se response was required to be filed on or before October 28, 2013. No 

response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the 

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in 

the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the 

state.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Jamison.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

Subsidiaries of the Registrant


1.       Internet Security Systems Gmbh (Germany)
2.       Internet Security Systems Iberia Sl (Spain)
3.       Internet Security Systems, Inc. (Georgia)
4.       Internet Security Systems KK (Japan)
5.       Internet Security Systems Latin America, Inc. (Florida)
6.       Internet Security Systems Ltd. (United Kingdom)
7.       Internet Security Systems Ltda. (Brazil)
8.       Internet Security Systems Nordic AB (Sweden)
9.       Internet Security Systems NV (Belgium)
10.      Internet Security Systems Pty. Ltd. (Australia)
11.      Internet Security Systems; S. de R.L. de C.V. (Mexico)
12.      Internet Security Systems Sarl (France)
13.      Internet Security Systems Srl (Italy)
14.      ISS Group, Inc. (Delaware)
15.      ISS Internet Security Solutions Pte. Ltd. (Singapore)
16.      ISS Investment Holdings, Inc. (Delaware)
17.      ISSX Internet Security Systems AG (Switzerland)
18.      Network ICE Corporation (California)
19.      TriSecurity Holdings Pte. Ltd. (Singapore)
20.      TriSecurity Pte. Ltd. (Singapore)
21.      vCIS, Inc. (California)
22.      vCIS Pty. Ltd. (Australia)
#### HUSKEY v. STATE.

No. 25438.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 6, 1952.

Fred Chandler, Colorado 'City, for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is possession of beer in a dry area for the purpose of sale; the punishment, a fine of $500.00.

Bill of exception No. 1 complains of proof of the dry status of Nolan County. The bill presents no question for review because it is a mere statement of the-grounds of the objection and contains no certificate that the facts which form the basis of the objection are true. 13 Texas Digest, Criminal Law, <^51091(10)i; Martinez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 246 S.W.2d 633; and Garza v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 246 S.W.2d 635.

 Bill of exception No. 2 complains of the introduction of the alcoholic spirits in evidence on the grounds that the search warrant was defective in that “the affidavit for the search warrant is insufficient as it does not describe the location of the place and premises in question”. This being the sole objection set forth in the bill, our consideration is limited thereto. This is true because we sit in review of the rulings of the trial court, and the objection must have been made to him in order to be raised in this Court, except in those rare cases where fundamental error is presented. The court’s qualification of the bill negatives the assertions set forth therein; therefore, no error is shown.

Bill of exception No. 3 complains that a statement of prosecutor was a comment on the appellant’s failure to testify. The bill does not contain a certificate that appellant, in fact, did not testify. The bill, at most, reflects a discussion between the prosecutor and appellant’s counsel.

*637State’s motion for rehearing is granted; the original opinion is withdrawn; judgment of reversal is set aside; and judgment of the trial court is now affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                    (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,
                  CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

     Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of The Havana Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:

     The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the
"Report") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: April 14, 2004                    /s/ WILLIAM L. MILLER
                                         --------------------------------
                                         William L. Miller
                                         Chief Executive Officer
g

5,000 Btu/hr to 5 million Btu/hr to emissions of no 

more than 20 ppmv of NOx. This emission limit is effective on January 1, 2015. The amendment is to alter the marking requirements 

on the units. 

On Thursday, February 13, 2014, at their regular meeting begin- ning at 2:30 PM, the Placer County Air Pollution Control District 

Board of Directors will hold a public hearing to receive comments and consider the adoption of the amended rule. The hearing is to be held at the Placer County Board of Supervisors Chambers, 175 Fulweiler Avenue, Auburn, California. 

All interested parties are advised of the opportunity to comment 

on the proposed rules. The proposed rules and their support documents can be viewed at the District's website at 

www.placer.ca.gov/apcd. Written comments should be addressed to Mr. John Finnell at the District office, located at 110 Maple Street, Auburn, CA 95603. The District phone number is (530) 745-2330. 

PUBLISHED IN AUBURN JOURNAL: DECEMBER 29, 2013 

(2015.5 C.C.P.) 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

County of Placer 

I am a citizen of the United States and employed by a publication 

in the County aforesaid. I am over the age of eighteen years, and 

not a party to the mentioned matter. I am the principal clerk of 

The Auburn Journal, a newspaper of general circulation, in the 

City of Auburn, which is printed and published in the County of 

Placer. This newspaper has been judged a newspaper of 

general circulation by the Superior Court of the State of 

California, in and for the County of Placer, on the date of May 

26, 1952 (Case Number 17407). The notice, of which the 

attached is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil) has been published in each regular and entire issue of said 

newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following 

dates, to-wit: 

DECEMBER29 

I certify, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true 

and correct. 

Dated in Auburn, California 

DECEMBER 29, 2013 

PROOF OF PUBLICATION 

THE AUBURN JOURNAL 

1030 High Street 

Auburn, CA 95604-5910
Adams. Kevin (OST)

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

Department of Transportation,

Docket DOT-OST-2000-6945

To Whom It May Concern:

Afognak Wilderness Lodge <AfognakWildernessLodge@yahoo.com>

Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:48 AM

EAS(OSD

Kodiak Water stops/Seal Bay

EASwater stops.5eal Bay.KodiakJpg

.D

»

Attached, please find the names/signatures of full time residents currently at Seal Bay, Alaska. This has been a year-round

habitation since 1964 plus a reputable year-round wilderness lodge since 1974.

Island Air has provided excellent professional on-time service and their staff consistently goes above & beyond their duty to

meet whatever needs for any given situation. They are an integral part of our island community. Throughout the past 5

decades, no-one has compared to the high quality of service that Island Air has provided and we highly recommend that you

renew their Essential Air Service contract.

Kind regards,

Shannon Randall,

Afognak Wilderness Lodge,

P.O. Box SYB, Seal Bay,

Kodiak, Alaska 99697

360-799-3250

1
-.t::>J cLllU~

--' .'Z( .;:r ..-

•(~~..J •..•••.

, 1-." i.~\" , ~.".I' .

.1

Department of Transportation

~...- " _...-- ~ .';: ?~C'-:':~~-1'~'; ..,.'~~~~,~C:"'t;:-,- .~..

.. ",,,..

.'1- .. ,

EAS@dotgov

Proposal to provide Essential Air Service

Kodiak Water stops

Docket DOT -OST -2000-6945

We the undersigned Support the filing of Redemption Inc (Island Air Service) in their request for

Subsidy under the Essential Service filing for the Kodiak Water Stops Contract We live and

work on these routes as listed and would like to retain the services of Island Air as our carrier.

1420 Airport Way PO Box 125

(907)487-4596 fax:( 907)487-4693

Kodiak, AK 99615

islandaiI@alaska.com
exv10w3



 






Exhibit 10.3




[TJX Letterhead]




Mr. Arnold Barron

The TJX Companies, Inc.

770 Cochituate Road

Framingham, MA 01701




     Re: Modification of Employment Agreement


Dear Mr. Barron:




     Reference is made to the Employment Agreement dated as of April 5, 2005 (as subsequently
amended and in effect, the “Agreement”) between you and The TJX Companies, Inc. (the “Company”).
The Company proposes to amend Section 3(a) of the Agreement (“Base Salary”) by adding at the end
thereof the following text: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, however,
effective for periods commencing on or after March 13, 2006 the preceding provisions of this
Section 3(a) shall be applied by substituting $639,000.00 for $675,000.00.”



     If you agree with the foregoing proposed amendment to the Agreement, please so indicate by
signing the enclosed copy of this letter and returning it to Mr. Paul Kangas, whereupon the
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 Employment Agreement dated as of

April 5, 2005 between me and The TJX

Companies, Inc., as previously modified,

effective as of the date set forth below:




/s/ Arnold Barron

Arnold Barron




Date: March 7, 2006