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

No. 22031.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 1, 1942.

Aubrey Davee, of Brady, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The unlawful sale of whiskey in a dry area is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $200.

The facts show,- without dispute, that appellant sold, to an Inspector for the Texas Liquor Control Board, a pint of whiskey, in McCulloch County, a dry area within the meaning of the Texas Liquor Control Act, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. Art. 666 — 1 et seq.

 It is insisted that members of the jury panel from which the jury in this case was selected heard the evidence or were present upon a former trial of this case, and were, therefore, disqualified from serving as jurors upon the instant trial. The bill of exception presenting this question affirmatively reflects that the jurors selected to try this case stated that they had no opinion in the cause and were not in any manner biased in favor of or prejudiced against the appellant. The mere fact that a juror has heard the evidence in a former trial does not disqualify him from serving as a juror upon a subsequent trial of the same case. It is only when such a juror has formed or expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused that he is disqualified to sit in the case. Sec. 13 of Art. 616, Vernon’s Annot. Code of Criminal Procedure; Pierson v. State, 21 Tex.App. 14, 17 S.W. 468; Parchman v. State, 2 Tex.App. 228, 28 Am.Rep. 435; Thompson v. State, 19 Tex.App. 593.

The record failing to reflect that any member of the jury which convicted the appellant was disqualified under the rule stated, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

- The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
Case 4:22-cr-00119-P Document 35 Filed 05/04/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 98
Case 4:22-cr-00119-P Document 35 Filed 05/04/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 99
#### BOOKMAN v. STATE.

No. 22036.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 1, 1942.

Earl Shelton, of Austin, for appellant.

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

*528DAVIDSON, Judge.

Upon his plea of guilty to the offense of selling whiskey in a wet area, without a license, the appellant was assessed a punishment of a fine of $100.

The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                        10445000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  8444000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    2754000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              22952000
<PP&E>                                        86431000
<DEPRECIATION>                                22033000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                90996000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         11659000
<BONDS>                                       34905000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        150000
<OTHER-SE>                                    41499000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  90996000
<SALES>                                      111170000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             111170000
<CGS>                                         96342000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 96342000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               5634000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3420000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5774000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   3694000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3694000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-00157-N

§

ANTWOINE ENTAY YARBROUGH (1) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

ANTWOINE ENTAY YARBROUGH (1), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 

(5th Cir. 1997), has appeared before me pursuant to Fed. R. Crim.P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count(s) 1 of the 

Indictment After cautioning and examining ANTWOINE ENTAY YARBROUGH (1) under oath concerning each of the 

subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense(s) 

charged is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore 

recommend that the plea of guilty be accepted, and that ANTWOINE ENTAY YARBROUGH (1) be adjudged guilty of 

18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon and have sentence imposed accordingly. 

After being found guilty of the offense by the district judge,

☐ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community

if released.

☐ The Government does not oppose release.

☐ The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

☐ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ The Government opposes release.

☐ The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

☐ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the

Government.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown

under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released.

Date: May 25, 2023 

______________________________________ 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its 

service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States 

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B). 

Case 3:22-cr-00157-N Document 31 Filed 05/25/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 67
Case 4:22-cr-00071-Y Document 29 Filed 08/31/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 203
Case 4:22-cr-00071-Y Document 29 Filed 08/31/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 204
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

LAWRENCE RASHUAN JEANPIERRE,

Petitioner

v.

UNITED STATES,

Respondent

______________________

2022-1389

______________________

Appeal from the Board of Correction for Army Records 

in No. AR20170008831.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

Before PROST, REYNA, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Responding to the court’s February 17, 2022, order to 

show cause, the United States urges dismissal of this appeal from a decision of the Board of Correction for Army 

Records (the “Board”). Lawrence Rashuan JeanPierre submits a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis but

has not responded to the order to show cause.

Case: 22-1389 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 04/18/2022
2 JEANPIERRE v. US

This court’s limited subject matter jurisdiction does not 

extend to appeals directly from the Board. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295. When this court lacks jurisdiction, it may, under 

28 U.S.C. § 1631, transfer a case to another court where it 

could have been brought. While the United States indicates that the United States Court of Federal Claims would 

have jurisdiction over this matter generally, it urges dismissal on the ground that the applicable statute of limitations would bar any claim before the Court of Federal 

Claims. We deem it the better course to transfer the case

to the Court of Federal Claims to make a determination as 

to the application of the statute of limitations in the first 

instance. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, this case and all transmittals are transferred to the United States Court of Federal Claims.

April 18, 2022

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 22-1389 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 04/18/2022
#### COLLINS v. STATE.

No. 24439.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 26, 1949.

None on appeal.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was charged with the offense of driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The verdict shows that the jury found him guilty and assessed his punishment as $50 fine.

The record, as brought forward, contains neither a judgment of conviction nor proper notice of appeal, both of which are necessary to give this Court jurisdiction to review the case.

The appeal is dismissed.
|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                        
|View History: Annual                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                  
|View History:                                                         
|                                                                      
|U.S. Catalyst Petroleum Coke Consumed at Refineries (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                      
|                                                                      
|U.S. Catalyst Petroleum Coke Consumed at Refineries (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 74,062 | 74,936 | 78,297 | 77,444
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 77,556 | 77,503 | 80,926 | 84,748 | 81,162 | 81,347 | 84,134 | 84,294 | 85,980 | 86,754
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 87,956 | 87,176 | 87,074 | 88,298 | 88,777 | 87,410 | 90,034 | 87,367 | 81,447 | 81,657
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 82,074 | 83,143 | 84,496 | 84,068 | 84,891 | 82,010 | 85,595 | 83,954 | 84,570 | 80,536
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 68,851 | 71,950 | 72,374 | 70,575 |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
Case 4:22-cr-00086-O Document 23 Filed 04/06/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 32
Case 4:22-cr-00086-O Document 23 Filed 04/06/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 33
Case 4:22-cr-00088-P Document 24 Filed 03/23/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 36
Case 4:22-cr-00088-P Document 24 Filed 03/23/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 37
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REFERRAL TO MEDIATION – Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FT. WORTH DIVISION

ROBERT (BOB) ROSS 

Plaintiff,

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ Case No. 4:22-CV-00343

V.

§

§ 

§

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL 

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, 

MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND 

ASSOCIATES, INC., JULIE 

HEDRICK,ERIK HARRIS 

Defendants.

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

PLAINTIFF’S WRITTEN REQUEST 

FOR COURT TO APPOINTMENT A MEDIATOR 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, Robert “Bob” Ross, Plaintiff herein, and files this Written Request for 

Court to appoint a Mediator, and in support thereof would respectfully show unto the court the 

following: 

I.

In compliance with this Court’s Mediation Order entered on February 22, 2023, Counsel 

for Plaintiff and Defendants have attempted to meet and confer on a selection of a mediator, a date, 

a manner, and duration of mediation. Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants’ have exchanged

numerous emails attempting to schedule and choose a mediator between August 10, 2023 to 

August 31, 2023. As of the date of this filing the parties are unable to agree on a mediator, a date, 

a method, or a duration for a mediation to occur. Plaintiff reasonably believes that using the 

services of a court-mandated mediation service, in Tarrant County may increase the likelihood of 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 112 Filed 08/31/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 2332
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REFERRAL TO MEDIATION – Page 2

a resolution of this case and will save valuable judicial resources. However, without judicial 

intervention, the parties are unable to agree on a mediator. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court 

please appoint a mediator who may set the case for mediation in accordance with the Mediation

Order entered as of February 22, 2023; and for such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may 

show himself justly entitled to receive.

Respectfully submitted,

K.D. PHILLIPS LAW FIRM, PLLC

 

 

By: /s/ Kerri Phillips 

Kerri Phillips

Texas Bar No. 24065906

Email: kerri@KDphillipslaw.com

6010 W. Spring Creek Parkway

Plano, Texas 75024

Phone: (972) 327-5800 

Fax: (940) 400-0089 

For Service of Filings: 

notice@KDphillipslaw.com

 

 

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 112 Filed 08/31/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 2333
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REFERRAL TO MEDIATION – Page 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on August 31, 2023, a true and correct copy of the above was served on 

Defendants’ attorney via the e-filing manager. 

Michael Rake

Jeff Bartos

Charlette Matts

James Sanford

/S/ Kerri Phillips

 Kerri Phillips

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 112 Filed 08/31/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 2334
#### HUSKEY v. STATE.

No. 25651.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 6, 1952.

Crosslin & Pharr, Lubbock, for appellant.

James Pearson, County Atty., Sweet-water, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The complaint and information charged possession of whisky and beer in a dry area for the purpose of sale, two prior convictions being alleged for the purpose of enhancing the punishment. Upon a jury trial, appellant was convicted and his punishment assessed at a fine of $400.00.

The sufficiency of the evidence is challenged. The premises searched is referred to as “Highway 80 Club”, and appears to be the same premises searched a week previously, the evidence obtained becoming the basis for the complaint in another prosecution brought to this court in Huskey v. State, 248 S.W.2d 131.

The place searched was referred to as “Mr. Huskey’s place” by the searching officer who testified also, “I walked in the door and handed Earl the search warrant, and I says to him, ‘Have you got anything?’ and he says, ‘You are not kidding.’ ” The search resulted in the finding of 131⁄2 cases of beer, 5 half-pints and 3 pints of whisky.

Appellant did not testify but offered evidence to the effect that he did not occupy the premises searched as a residence, but was there at the time of the search visiting 'his brother who lived there. We are inclined to view the reply of appellant to the officer’s question above quoted as did the county attorney in his argument, that is, as an admission that he possessed the beer and whisky found by the officers. We think the jury was warranted in finding that the “Mr. Huskey” referred to by the officer in his testimony was appellant, John Earl Huskey, and not the brother Lynn Huskey. Being recalled, this witness described those present at the time of the search as “Steve Wells, Mr. and Mrs. Huskey and wife, and Lynn Huskey.” He said Lynn Huskey is the brother of the defendant.

From the verdict it is apparent that the jury accepted the state’s version as to the possession and control of the beer and whisky, and the- purpose of such possession, and declined to accept the defense testimony to the effect that Lynn Huskey was in control of the premises and the liquor found there. The evidence is sufficient to sustain such verdict, and no reversible error appears.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### VENEZIA v. STATE.

No. 24454.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 2, 1949.

None on appeal for appellant.

A. C. Winborn, Cr. Dist. Atty., Houston, Tex., E. T. Branch, Asst. Cr. Dist. Atty., Houston, Tex., George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Upon his plea of guilty, appellant was convicted for the offense of assault with intent to murder, and his punishment assessed at three years in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
EXHIBIT
      32.1








STATEMENT
      OF GEORGE L. JONES,


PRESIDENT
      AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF BORDERS GROUP, INC.


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











I,
      George
      L. Jones, certify that the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 4, 2007,
      of
      Borders Group, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and
      that
      the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Borders
      Group, Inc.




















Date: 
      September 6, 2007









/s/GEORGE
      L. JONES


George
      L.
      Jones


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


Borders
      Group, Inc.
Case 2:22-cv-00032-Z-BR Document 8 Filed 02/28/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 16
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMPACE CORPORATION FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,087,590
<ALLOWANCES>                                    84,493
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,866,487
<PP&E>                                      25,615,043
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,411,920
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,632,433
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,373,836
<BONDS>                                     16,995,099
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           310
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,148,655
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,632,433
<SALES>                                     21,251,648
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,261,648
<CGS>                                       24,503,522
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,503,522
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             671,043
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,912,917)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,912,917)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.28)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.6

                                     INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION

[AETNA LOGO]

                                     JAMES H. GOULD
                                     Vice President
                                     Compensation, Benefits & HR Services, RW2A
                                     (860) 273-8588
                                     Fax:  (860) 273-2030

To            Thomas J. McInerney

Date          July 5, 2000

Subject       Enhanced Severance

This memo is to confirm how benefits are to be administered in connection with
the enhanced severance letter you received. During the period you receive
severance payments, you will be eligible for the same employee benefits, if
any, as are provided under the severance plan or program in which you otherwise
would have been eligible to participate but for this special arrangement. Let
me know if you have any further questions.

/s/ James H. Gould
#### CROSBY v. STATE.

No. 22084.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 29, 1942.

B. F. Patterson, of San Antonio, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for unlawfully carrying a pistol, punishment being 30 days in jail.

No statement of facts or bills of exception are found in the record. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.