alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### LYFORD REALTY CO. et al. v. CLARK.

No. 10937.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

July 16, 1941.

Crane & Glamer, of Raymondville, for appellants.

Kent & Brown, of Harlingen, for appel-lee.

NORVELL, Justice.

This is an action brought by appellee, Mrs. Frank E. Clark, survivor in community of the estate of her deceased husband and herself, upon a promissory note payable to the order of Frank E. Clark, in the principal sum of $1,000, executed by the appellant Lyford Realty Company and endorsed by appellant C. E. Craig. Craig pleaded that he had been a partner of Clark’s and prayed for an accounting of the affairs of said partnership, a settlement of its accounts, and that he be given judgment for such sum of money as might be shown to be due to him upon a balance struck between the parties.

Mrs. Clark denied under oath the existence of the alleged partnership and specially pleaded the two and four year statutes of limitations as defenses to Craig’s cross-action. Articles 5526, 5527 and 5529, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats.

Trial was to the court without a jury and judgment rendered for Mrs. Clark upon the note. Craig was denied a recovery upon his cross-action.

No findings of fact nor conclusions of law were requested, and we therefore *278presume that the trial court found all facts in favor of the judgment which have support in the evidence.

Practically all of the testimony relied upon to support the allegations of a partnership existing between Craig and Clark was given by Craig. Clark being deceased, this testimony in most of its particulars could not be readily contradicted, even if untrue. Under these circumstances the issue of Craig’s creditability was one for the determination of the trier of facts, in this case, the trial court. Thraves v. Hooser, Tex.Com.App., 44 S.W.2d 916, 921, and authorities therein cited.

A finding (here presumed) that appellant Craig failed to meet the burden of proving that a partnership existed between him and Clark, has support in the evidence. Also having support in the evidence, is a presumed finding that the liability, if any, resting upon Clark to pay certain money to Craig, accrued more than two years prior to the assertion of this alleged liability by legal action, and consequently (as a matter of law) was barred by the two years statute. Art. 5526.

We also hold that the appellee, in her capacity as survivor in community, was entitled'to recover upon the note payable to her deceased husband. Walker v. Aber-crombie, 61 Tex. 69; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Kerr, 4 Tex.Civ.App. 280, 23 S.W. 564.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
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

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel Teleconference Review of R25 application.                    

*Date:*                        December 6, 2000.                    

*Time:*                        12:00 pm to 1:00 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                        To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                        6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5E01, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                        Jon M. Ranhand, PhD, Scientist Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health, and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5E03, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301)435-6884.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program; 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 30, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-28335  Filed 11-3-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MATTHEW ANTHONY GERACI,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellant,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendant Below,

Appellee.

§

§ 

§ No. 364, 2021

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ C.A. No. 21C-07-151 (N)

§

§

§

§

 Submitted: May 13, 2022

 Decided: June 22, 2022

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we 

conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior 

Court’s order, dated October 29, 2021 dismissing the complaint and the Superior 

Court’s order, dated November 9, 2021, denying the motion for reargument.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Entrust Financial Services, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Jeffrey D. Rudolph, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) |  | The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) |  | The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date: March
25, 2005 |  | By:/s/  Jeffrey D. Rudolph
      Chief Financial Officer
|-------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------
confidential









ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to
that certain Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 1, 2015, by and among DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION,
as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, LNR PARTNERS, LLC, as Special Servicer, MIDLAND LOAN
SERVICES, A DIVISION OF PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Special Servicer, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee,
and DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian, and PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES
LLC, as Operating Advisor with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, COMM 2015-CCRE22 (the "Agreement").
Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.11 of
this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2018 through
December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made
under my supervision, and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its
obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th
day of February 2019.





____________________________

Leslie Hayton

Managing Director
Wells Fargo Bank







confidential
#### BROWN v. STATE.

No. 25415.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 24, 1951.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the unlawful transportation of whiskey in a dry area; the penalty is a fine of $300.00.

In the absence of a proper notice of appeal in the record, this court is without jurisdiction to consider the same.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 174 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 174

Expressing the sense of Congress that entities established under health 
care reform proposals should not be permitted to form political action 
        committees or make contributions to Federal candidates.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 4, 1993

Mr. Calvert (for himself, Mr. Bachus of Alabama, Mr. Walker, Mr. Fish, 
and Mr. Armey) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of Congress that entities established under health 
care reform proposals should not be permitted to form political action 
        committees or make contributions to Federal candidates.

Whereas health care reform is a national need and priority;
Whereas central to many reform proposals are new national and regional entities 
        designed to oversee and implement health coverage;
Whereas health coverage, records, and practices affect Americans at the most 
        private and personal level; and
Whereas the requirement to insulate any new governmental, quasi-governmental, or 
        government-mandated bureaucracies from Federal electoral affairs is 
        self-evident and paramount: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that none of the following entities 
established under any national health care reform enacted by Congress 
should be permitted to form a political action committee or to make a 
contribution to Federal candidates:
            (1) Any ``National Health Board'', ``Benefits Commission'', 
        or other entity established to oversee or set Federal standards 
        regarding national health care benefits, costs, or quality 
        standards.
            (2) Any regional alliance, cooperative, or other entity 
        established by States under national health care reform for the 
        purpose of purchasing coverage for employees and dependents of 
        companies with fewer than 5,000 employees, and for the families 
        of most part-time workers, the self-employed, the unemployed, 
        and nonworkers.
            (3) Any corporate alliance, cooperative, or other entity 
        established under national health care reform by corporations 
        with more than 5,000 employees, Taft-Hartley plans, and rural 
        electric and telephone cooperatives for the purpose of 
        purchasing coverage.

                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3223 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3223

    To provide for the compensation of furloughed Federal employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 30, 2013

Mr. Moran (for himself, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Hoyer, Ms. Norton, Mr. Cummings, 
 Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Wittman, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Connolly, 
       Mr. Rigell, Mr. Delaney, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. 
  Ruppersberger, Mr. Visclosky, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. 
Langevin, Mr. Lewis, Mr. David Scott of Georgia, Mr. Danny K. Davis of 
 Illinois, Mr. Dingell, Ms. Speier, Ms. Pingree of Maine, Mr. Andrews, 
   Ms. DeLauro, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Keating, Ms. Bass, Mr. Ellison, Ms. 
 Slaughter, Ms. Brown of Florida, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, 
 and Mrs. Lowey) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
            the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide for the compensation of furloughed Federal employees.

    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 ``Federal Employee Retroactive Pay 
Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. COMPENSATION FOR FURLOUGHED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

    Federal employees furloughed as a result of any lapse in 
appropriations which begins on or about October 1, 2013, shall be 
compensated at their standard rate of compensation, for the period of 
such lapse in appropriations, as soon as practicable after such lapse 
in appropriations ends.
                                 <all>
```
Case 3:22-cr-00143-M Document 24 Filed 11/15/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 44
III

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 222

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 19 (legislative day, APRIL 11), 1994

Received and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the placement of a bust of Raoul Wallenberg

in the Capitol.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Joint Committee on the Library is

3 authorized to accept a bust of Raoul Wallenberg and to

4 place the bust in an appropriate location in the Capitol,

5 as determined by the Joint Committee on the Library.

Passed the House of Representatives April 18, 1994.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           2,442
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,250
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,692
<PP&E>                                          47,335
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,874
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,326
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,147
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           200
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,155
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,326
<SALES>                                          6,051
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,051
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                48,906
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 563
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (42,280)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (42,280)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (42,280)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
exv10w38



 




Exhibit 10.38


FIRST AMENDMENT TO TESORO CORPORATION

2005 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PLAN




     This AMENDMENT made this 6th day of March, 2006 by Tesoro Corporation, a
corporation (the “Company”),



W I T N E S S E T H:




     WHEREAS, the Company sponsors the Tesoro Corporation 2005 Director Compensation Plan (the
“Director Plan”) on behalf of non-employee directors of the Company; and



     WHEREAS, under Article IV of the Director Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company
(“Directors”) retained the right to amend the Director Plan; and



     WHEREAS, the Directors of the Company have decided to amend the Director Plan to clarify the
allocation of shares of the Company’s Stock to directors under the Plan;



     NOW, THEREFORE, notwithstanding any other provisions of the Director Plan to the contrary, the
Director Plan is hereby amended effective for allocations made under the Director Plan on or after
September 1, 2005 as follows:



     (1)      Section 3.1 of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read as follows:




3.1 Payment of Annual Retainer Fee in Stock. A Director’s
Annual Retainer Fee for a Fiscal Year shall be paid in installments.
Each such installment payment shall be paid as soon as practicable
after the close of the applicable Service Period. From time to
time, the Board shall make an allocation of the portion of the
Annual Retainer Fee to be paid in cash and the portion of the Annual
Retainer Fee to be paid in Stock; provided, however, that the
portion of the Annual Retainer Fee to be paid in Stock shall not
exceed one-half of the Annual Retainer Fee for the Fiscal Year. For
each Service Period during the term of the Plan, provided that there
are sufficient shares of Stock available for issuance under the
Plan, the Company shall issue to the Director the number of shares
of Stock equal to (a) the portion of the Annual Retainer Fee to be
paid in Stock earned during the Service Period (expressed as an
aggregate dollar amount) divided by (b) the Fair Market Value of the
Stock on the last trading day in such Service Period. No fractional
shares of Stock shall be issued under the Plan; accordingly, the
number of shares of Stock to be delivered to a Director with respect
to the portion of Annual Retainer Fee earned during a Service Period
shall be rounded up to the nearest whole share if necessary to
prevent the issuance of a fractional share.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Directors of the Company have caused this Amendment
Agreement to be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, this
6th day of March, 2006.



-1-









 





	 	 	 
	ATTEST:	 	
TESORO CORPORATION
	/s/    CHARLES S. PARRISH
 
	 	
  By        /s/      BRUCE A. SMITH
 

	Vice President, General Counsel and

Secretary	 	
Bruce A. Smith, Chairman of the Board







-2-
#### BYROM v. STATE.

No. 24500.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 11, 1950.

Charles D. Butts and Allen, Locke & Kouri, Wichita Falls, for appellant.

Clyde Suddath, County Attorney, Henrietta, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for t'he State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Upon considering appellant’s motion for rehearing, the opinion approved by this Court on the 16th day of November, 1949, ¿s hereby withdrawn and the following substituted in lieu thereof.

This is a conviction for burglary, with punishment assessed at four years confinement in the penitentiary.

The sole question presented for review is whether the jury was guilty of misconduct in commenting upon the failure of the appellant to testify.

Upon the hearing of the- motion for new trial, all the jurors testified. This testimony has been brought forward in a bill of exception. It would serve no useful purpose to here detail this testimony. It is sufficient to say that during the deliberation of the jury and before the jurors had reached their verdict as to appellant’s guilt, his failure to testify as a witness in his own behalf was mentioned by one or. two members of the jury.

The foreman of the jury immediately called the jurors’ attention to the fact that they wbre not to mention or consider such fait, and further reference thereto was suppressed.

A casual reference by the jury, during deliberations, to the failure of the *843accused to testify does not vitiate the verdict. To constitute reversible error, such reference must amount to a discussion by the jurors or be used as a circumstance against the accused. Lovell v. State, 123 Tex.Cr.R. 619, 60 S.W.2d 208; Graham v. State, 123 Tex.Cr.R. 121, 57 S.W.2d 850.

The bill complaining of the conduct of the jury was approved by the court who attempted to qualify same. It is noted, however, that exception was taken to such qualification, leaving the 'bill approved as presented.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Case 5:22-cr-00040-H-BQ Document 31 Filed 08/10/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 63