alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ROOSTH & GENECOV PRODUCTION CO. v. STATE.

No. 13510.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

Feb. 18, 1944.

M. H. Barton, of Overton; for appellant.

Grover Sellers, Atty. Gen., and L. P. Lollar and George W. Barcus, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

BOND, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from two interlocutory orders: (1) Sustaining appel-lee’s motion to dismiss appellant’s plea of privilege and (2) granting a temporary injunction restraining appellant from polluting the waters of the Angelina and Neches Rivers, until further orders of the court. Appellant has abandoned the appeal on the injunctive order; and we are of opinion that the other order is not reviewable. Only appeals from interlocutory orders allowed by law are reviewable by appellate courts, hence, in absence of an order sustaining or refusing appellant’s plea of privilege, this court is without jurisdiction to review the action of the trial court. The order on the motion is interlocutory, from which there is no right of appeal. Seale v. Anderson, Tex.Civ.App., 232 S.W. 928.

There is another ground why favorable consideration would be given the action of the court on the motion to dismiss the plea of privilege. Appellant brings the question up for review oq bill of exception showing that the court heard evidence on the motion, showing complete waiver of the plea of privilege; and the judgment of the court recites that “after hearing said motion, the evidence and argument of counsel thereon,” the plea was dismissed. Appellant has not favored this .appeal with the evidence offered, hence we must assume that same was sufficient to sustain the action of the court; and, should the action of the trial court be deemed a refusal of the plea of privilege, from which an appeal lies, the record here is insufficient to reverse the action of the trial court.

The appeal will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

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

- MM

009663

- 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. Mel ear, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

O N A PPELLANT ’ S M OTION FOR W RITTEN O PINION

P ER C URIAM

.

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 20 2 2).

Affirmed

.

K LINGENSMITH , C.J., W ARNER and G ERBER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Final Upon Release; No Motion for Rehearing Will Be Entertained.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SkillSoft Public Limited
Company (the "Company") for the period ended October 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Charles E. Moran, Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 results of operations of the
Company.

                                                  /s/ Charles E. Moran
                                                  -----------------------------
Dated: December 15, 2003                          Charles E. Moran
                                                  Chief Executive Officer

                                       42
#### KEATHLEY v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 29, 1953.

W. A. Daugherty, Pikeville, for appellant. . ■ .

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Zeb A. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

The appellant, Jack Keathley, was convicted of storehouse breaking, an offense denounced by KRS 433.190, and was sentenced to 2 years in prison. Two grounds are urged for reversal: (1) The verdict is flagrantly against the evidence; and (2) erroneous instructions.

In. support of appellant’s first contention it is insisted that the identity of appellant as one of the , perpetrators of the crime was not established. On this point, John Tanner, manager of the Emperor Coal Company’s Store at Freeburn, testified that at approximately 5:00 o’clock on the morning of December 2, 1951, he caught the appellant coming out of the Emperor Coal Company’s Store immediately after its burglar alarm had sounded. We quote Mr. Tanner’s, testimony:

> “Beyond a question of doubt he (ap- ■ pellant) is the man I caught coming out of the store. I talked with him approximately an hour in the presence of Jack Mills and Mr. Burnette.”

Mr. R. E. Burnette, Police Judge of Free-burn, testified that when he arrived at Emperor Coal Company’s Store on the occasion in question, John Tanner was holding appellant and awaiting help to deliver the accused to the sheriff. Later, appellant escaped custody. . . ■ ■

Notwithstanding appellant’s alibi that he was at his mother’s home at the time the crime was committed, the evidence offered in behalf of the Gommonwealth was clearly sufficient to make an issue for the jury. Gabbard v, Commonwealth, 314 Ky. 240, 234 S.W.2d 752; Mitchell v. Commonwealth, 312, Ky. 665, 229 S.W.2d 450; Cline v. Commonwealth, 312 Ky. 645, 229 S.W.2d 435; Muncie v. Commonwealth, 308 Ky. 155, 213 S.W.2d 1019; Kitchen v. Commonwealth, 291 Ky. 756, 165 S.W.2d 547; Kidd v. Commonwealth, 273 Ky. 300, 116 S.W.2d 636; Bardin v. Commonwealth, 191 Ky. 651, 231 S.W. 208. With substantial evidence to support the verdict, we cannot usurp the jury’s function and reach a different conclusion on this question of fact. Moore v. Commonwealth, 301 Ky. 851, 193 S.W.2d 448, 163 A.L.R. 1134 and authorities therein cited.

Appellant’s next complaint is, that instruction No. 1 is erroneous. We have examined this instruction and find that it substantially follows the language of the statute under which the indictment was brought. The gravamen of the offense described in KRS 433.190 is breaking vyith intent to steal; and the consummation of such intent by the actual stealing and taking away need not be shown, although such evi*700dence is competent- and desirable- in proof of the intent of the accused. Wilson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 258 S.W.2d 497; Scalf v. Commonwealth, 228 Ky. 234, 14 S.W.2d 759. Although the instruction given was not artfully drawn, it embraced the essential elements of the offense that the Commonwealth had to prove to establish appellant’s guilt. See, Stanley’s Instructions to Juries, Section 828. We do not believe the jury - was misled or confused by the instruction given.

Judgment affirmed.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Darrian De ’ Anthony Davis

- Sanders, Appellant

No. 06

- 14

- 00187

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 336th District Court of Fannin County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CR

- 12

- 24273 ). Opinion delivered by Justice Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court ’ s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Darrian De ’ Anthony Davis

- Sanders, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED AUGUST 4, 2015 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autre y, Clerk
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 28, 2016

p1212

Order 

Clerk

December 28, 2016

153224(108)

LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 153224

COA: 313256

Court of Claims: 11-000093-MT

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 6, 

2016 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF KPMG LLP**

 

The Board of Directors and Stockholders 

Turnstone Systems, Inc. 

 

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements(No. 333-36342 and No. 333-57224) on Form S-8 of Turnstone Systems, Inc., of our report dated February 23, 2004, except as to Note 10.B, which is as of March 4, 2004, with respect to the statement of net assets in liquidation as of December 31, 2003and the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2002 of Turnstone Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries, the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the period from January 1, 2003 to November11, 2003 and for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, and consolidated statement of changes in net assets in liquidation for the period from November 12, 2003 to December 31, and the related financial statement schedule appearing elsewhere inthis Form 10-K of Turnstone Systems, Inc. 

 

/s/    KPMG LLP

 

Mountain View, California 

March 8, 2004
#### BASS v. STATE.

No. 24880.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 17, 1950.

None on appeal, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was charged by complaint and information in the County Court of Collin County with the unlawful possession for the purpose of sale of intoxicating liquor, it being alleged that Collin County was dry area. On a trial before a jury the appellant entered a plea of not guilty, but the jury found him guilty and assessed his punishment at a fine of $250 and imprisonment in the county jail for ten days. It is from such judgment this appeal is perfected.

There is neither a bill of exception nor a statement of facts found in the record. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is, therefore, in all things affirmed.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128555 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 128555 

 COA: 258717 

Macomb CC: 02-002811-FC 

RONALD LEE CORBIN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 1, 2005 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, J., would hold this case in abeyance for People v Drohan, lv gtd 472 Mich 

881 (2005). 

t1024 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2005 

Clerk
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 133

Providing for the printing of a collection of statements made in tribute

to the late Justice Thurgood Marshall.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 5, 1993

Mr. ROSE (for himself and Mr. THOMAS of California) submitted the following

concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for the printing of a collection of statements made

in tribute to the late Justice Thurgood Marshall.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That a collection of statements made in trib3 ute to the late Justice Thurgood Marshall, together with

4 related materials, shall be printed as a House document,

5 with illustrations and suitable binding. The collection shall

6 be prepared under the direction of the Joint Committee

7 on Printing.

8 SEC. 2. In addition to the usual number, there shall

9 be printed—
2

•HCON 133 IH

1 (1) 50,000 copies (including 1,000 casebound

2 copies) of the document, of which 33,440 copies (in3 cluding 440 casebound copies) shall be for the use

4 of the House of Representatives, 7,600 copies (in5 cluding 100 casebound copies) shall be for the use

6 of the Senate, and 8,960 copies (including 460

7 casebound copies) shall be for the use of the Joint

8 Committee on Printing; or

9 (2) such number of copies as does not exceed

10 a total production and printing cost of $66,988, with

11 distribution to be allocated in the same proportion

12 as described in paragraph (1), except that in no case

13 shall the number of casebound copies be less than

14 one per Member of Congress.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>         0000939728
<NAME>        RED OAK
<MULTIPLIER>  1
<CURRENCY>    U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                       JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                         MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                      1
<CASH>                                    18,071
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                          1,808,894
<ALLOWANCES>                              10,000
<INVENTORY>                            3,504,897
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       7,501,422
<PP&E>                                   704,763
<DEPRECIATION>                           355,507
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         8,510,217
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  5,688,176
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                1,552
<COMMON>                                  16,025
<OTHER-SE>                               554,736
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           8,510,217
<SALES>                               17,205,221
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      17,205,221
<CGS>                                 16,851,271
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         16,851,271
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       1,418,805
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       197,067
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (1,226,501)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   (1,226,501)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                          (1,248,318)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (0.08)



</TABLE>
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/jquennev/Desktop/p130010.en2.txt[3/8/2013 9:39:15 AM] INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0010 Post-Focus Draft Revision 2 2/7/2013 ENGINEER: Macek \ AG / EV / REC PV (kg/yr)

SUBMITTER: Eastman Chemical Company, Inc.

MSDS: Yes Label: No Gen Eqpt: safety glasses with side shields (or goggles) / chemical-resistant gloves, footwear, and protective clothing / Good general ventilation (typically 10 air changer per hour) should be used. Ventilation rates should be matched to conditions. If applicable, use process enclosures, local exhaust ventilation, or other engineering controls to maintain airborne levels below recommended exposure limits. Respirator: If engineering controls do not maintain airborne concentrations below recommended exposure limits (where applicable) or to an acceptable level (infile:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/jquennev/Desktop/p130010.en2.txt[3/8/2013 9:39:15 AM] countries where exposure limits have not been established), an approved respirator must be worn. In the United States of America, if respirators are used, a program should be instituted to assure compliance with OSHA Standard 63 FR 1152, January 8, 1998. Respirator type: Air-purifying respirator with an appropriate, government approved (where applicable), air-purifying filter, cartridge or canister. Contact health and safety professional or manufacturer for specific information. Health Effects: causes eye irritation / toxicological properties of this material have not been investigated TLV/PEL: None Established

SAT (concerns) (10/12/2012):

to Rapid PBT rating: P1B1T1 . Health: 1-2 Dermal, Drinking Water, Inhalation Eco: 2 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 20 ppb), XB Testing (Testing desired)
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1Bfile:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/jquennev/Desktop/p130010.en2.txt[3/8/2013 9:39:15 AM] NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: Yes (0 criteria met) 1) # of workers exposed: 39 >1000? No 2) >100 workers with >10 mg/day inhalation exposure: No 3) (a) >100 workers w/1-10 mg/day inh. exp. & >100 days/yr: No (b) Routine Dermal Cont: >250 workers & >100 days/yr: No INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0010file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/jquennev/Desktop/p130010.en2.txt[3/8/2013 9:39:15 AM]file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/jquennev/Desktop/p130010.en2.txt[3/8/2013 9:39:15 AM]file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/jquennev/Desktop/p130010.en2.txt[3/8/2013 9:39:15 AM] INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0010

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARYfile:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/jquennev/Desktop/p130010.en2.txt[3/8/2013 9:39:15 AM]
Appendix in Support of Defendant’s Partial 

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction - Page 1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

DAVID SAMBRANO, individually, and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., 

Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Civil Action No. 

4:21-CV-01074-P 

APPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL 

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION 

NOW COMES, Defendant United Airlines, Inc. and files this Appendix in Support of its 

Partial Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. 

EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.

 A Declaration of Kirk Limacher dated October 7, 2021 App. 1 - 4 

 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Jordan M. Matthews 

Jordan M. Matthews 

IL Bar No. 6300503 

JONES DAY 

77 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 3500 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

Telephone: (312) 782-3939 

Facsimile: (312) 782-8585 

Email: jmatthews@jonesday.com 

 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 48 Filed 10/07/21 Page 1 of 6 PageID 461
Appendix in Support of Defendant’s Partial 

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction - Page 2 

Donald J. Munro 

D.C. Bar No. 453600 

JONES DAY

51 Louisiana Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20001 

Telephone: (202) 879-3939 

Facsimile: (202) 626-1700 

Email: dmunro@jonesday.com 

Alexander V. Maugeri 

NY Bar No. 5062666 

JONES DAY

250 Vesey Street 

New York, NY 10281-1047 

Telephone: (212) 326-3880 

Facsimile: (212) 755-7306 

Email: amaugeri@jonesday.com 

Russell D. Cawyer 

State Bar No. 00793482 

KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP 

201 Main St., Ste. 2500 

Fort Worth, Texas 76102 

(817) 878-3562 (telephone) 

(817) 335-2820 (facsimile) 

Email: russell.cawyer@kellyhart.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 

UNITED AIRLINES, INC. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

On October 7, 2021, I electronically submitted the foregoing document with the clerk of 

court for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the electronic case filing system 

of the court. I hereby certify that I have served all counsel and/or pro se parties of record 

electronically or by another manner authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2). 

 /s/ Jordan M. Matthews 

 Jordan M. Matthews 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 48 Filed 10/07/21 Page 2 of 6 PageID 462
App. 1

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 48 Filed 10/07/21 Page 3 of 6 PageID 463
App. 2

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 48 Filed 10/07/21 Page 4 of 6 PageID 464
App. 3

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 48 Filed 10/07/21 Page 5 of 6 PageID 465
App. 4

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 48 Filed 10/07/21 Page 6 of 6 PageID 466
#### LITTLE v. STATE.

No. 21757.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 3, 1941.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal Jan. 28, 1942.

L. D. Johnston, of Waxahachie, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a fine of $100 for the violation of the local option law.

The record contains no notice of appeal; there is no judgment and no sentence, and the caption does not show when the term of court began, for either of which reasons this court has no jurisdiction to consider any matter presented on appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction was for having possession of illicit alcoholic beverage, to wit: whisky, in a container to which no stamp tax was affixed.

The appeal was dismissed at a former day of the term. In the order of dismissal we inadvertently said that among other things the transcript showed no “sentence.” It being a misdemeanor, of course no sentence was necessary. The defects in the record have been remedied in the essentials necessary by a supplemental transcript. The appeal is reinstated and will now be disposed of on its merits.

Officers entered a house occupied by appellant and his brother, O. P. Little, by virtue of a search warrant. No one was present except appellant. He was seen by the officers pouring the contents of two half pint bottles through a hole in the floor. When first seen the bottles appeared to be about full. By the time the officers stopped him only a small quantity, a few drops, remained in each bottle. A considerable amount of the liquid had spilled and spread out on the floor around the hole. The scent of whisky was noticeable. Enough liquor remained in the bottles for the officers to taste, which they did, and testified that it was whisky. Appellant told the officers it was whisky, and that it belonged to him, and not to his brother; that he had bought it from a *310Bohemian. The bcittles had no stamp tax on them evidencing payment of tax.

The only two bills of exception in the record question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. The State’s evidence related demonstrates that the contention is without merit.

The judgment is affirmed.