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

No. 26041.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 19, 1952.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

Upon a plea of guilty before the court, a jury being waived, appellant was convicted of felony tiheft of an automobile, and the court assessed the minimum punishment of two years in the penitentiary.

Appellant was seen to drive the car away from the owner’s premises and was apprehended as he ran from the car after being followed by the owner and his sons.

There are no bills of exception, and the state discharged its burden fully regarding the introduction of proof on appellant’s, plea of guilty.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
Department of the Treasury Quarterly FOIA Report

Fiscal Year 2022, Quarter Q4

1. Ten Oldest Pending Requests: 10

2. Ten Oldest Requests Closed: 3

3. Agency Component Abbreviations

Component 

Abbreviation Component Name

BEP Bureau of Engraving and Printing

DO Departmental Offices

FinCEN Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

Fiscal Service Bureau of the Fiscal Service

IRS Internal Revenue Service - Headquarters Office

MINT United States Mint

OCC Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

TIGTA Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration

TTB Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

Agency / 

Component

Number of requests 

backlogged

Number of requests 

processed

Number of requests 

received

BEP 20 12 22
DO 1336 208 213

FinCEN 38 38 38

Fiscal Service3 69 71

IRS 961 2093 1868

MINT 70 13 21

OCC 13 395 369

TIGTA0 71 72

TTB2 18 14
|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                          
|View History: Annual                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                    
|View History:                                                           
|                                                                        
|U.S. Domestic Crude Oil Refinery Receipts by Pipeline (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|U.S. Domestic Crude Oil Refinery Receipts by Pipeline (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                                                                                                                            |           | 2,342,898 | 2,400,904 | 2,418,760 | 2,441,976 | 2,483,413 | 2,402,360 | 2,219,368 | 2,145,080 | 2,011,558
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 1,967,570 | 1,937,272 | 1,894,993 | 1,856,111 | 1,819,677 | NA        | 1,849,835 | NA        | 1,788,758 | 1,768,243
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 1,802,256 | 1,765,440 | 1,763,214 | 1,710,343 | 1,675,536 | 1,578,511 | 1,598,472 | 1,652,916 | 1,608,757 | 1,714,059
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1,837,731 | 1,870,751 | 1,988,844 | 2,197,568 | 2,405,682 | 2,616,362 | 2,570,879 | 2,809,409 | 3,038,443 | 3,177,032
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2,817,329 | 3,126,960 | 3,227,474 | 3,186,336 |           |           |           |           |           |          
|- = 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
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 219 (Monday, November 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 67727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28934]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-220-006]


Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership; Notice of 
Negotiated Rate Agreement

November 6, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 31, 2000, Great Lakes Gas Transmission 
Limited Partnership (Great Lakes) filed for disclosure, a 
transportation service agreement pursuant to Great Lakes' Rate Schedule 
FT entered into by Great Lakes and CXY Energy Marketing (U.S.A.) Inc. 
(CXY) (FT Service Agreement). The FT Service Agreement being filed 
reflects a negotiated rate arrangement between Great Lakes and CXY 
commencing November 1, 2000.
    Great Lakes states that the FT Service Agreement is being filed to 
implement a negotiated rate contract as required by both Great Lakes' 
negotiated rate tariff provisions and the Commission's Statement of 
Policy on Alternatives to Traditional Cost-of-Service Ratemaking for 
Natural Gas Pipelines and Regulation of Negotiated Transportation 
Services of Natural Gas Pipelines, issued January 31, 1996, at Docket 
Nos. RM95-6-000 and RM96-7-000.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-28934 Filed 11-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the annual report of Enthrust Financial  Services,  Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Arnold P. Kling, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of  operations of the
Company.


/s/ Arnold P. Kling
-------------------
Arnold P. Kling
President
February 7, 2007

[A signed  original of this  certification  has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and  furnished  to the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.]
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of December 1,2014, by and among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., asDepositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as General Master Servicer,RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as General Special Servicer, NCB, FSB as NCBMaster Servicer, NCB, FSB, as NCB Special Servicer, PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICESLLC, as Trust  Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION asCertificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator, and Custodian, and WILMINGTONTRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates Series 2014-LC18 (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.            A review of the activities of the General Master Servicer during the periodfrom January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the “ReportingPeriod”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period hasbeen made under my supervision, and

 

2.            To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the General Master Servicerhas fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all materialrespects  throughout the the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

  

/s/Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President 

Wells Fargo Bank

  

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
#### POWELL v. STATE.

No. 25432.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 31, 1951.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 12, 1951.

W. J. Baldwin, Beaumont, for appellant.

Ramie H. Griffin, Criminal Dist. Atty., Joe B. Goodwin, Asst. Dist. Atty., Beaumont, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., ■of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted of- an assault-with intent to rape upon his daughter; and the jury assessed his punishment at 25 years in the penitentiary.

The- daughter testified to facts which, if believed -by the jury, are sufficient to support their verdict. They need not be discussed.

Bill of exception No. 1 complains that the child, who was under 14 years of age, was not a competent witness, both because of her immaturity and because of her alleged mental deficiency.

The bill reveals that the question of the competency of the witness was first raised after she had given her testimony, when appellant objected “to any of said testimony going to the jury.”

It is noted that appellant, in his motion for new trial, suggested that the court should hear evidence on the issue of the competency of the witness. But from the bill, it appears that no evidence was heard and appellant relies alone on the testimony of the witness .given on cross-examination to show her incompetence.

We. are unable to agree that an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in permitting the child witness to testify is shown. She testified in answer to the district attorney’s question: “That did happen, I am telling the truth. I know what will happen to me if I don’t tell the truth. If I am telling a lie God will punish me and the judge will punish me if I am telling a lie.”

Appellant’s remaining bill is directed to the refusal of the following requested charge: “You are further charged as a part of the law in this case that if you believe from the evidence, or have a reasonable doubt thereof, that the prosecutrix was told by her mother to testify to the-offense of assault with intent to rape or rape as its defenses have been defined to you herein, for the reason of a family dispute between the Defendant and Defendant’s wife, you will find the Defendant ‘not’ guilty’.”

The trial judge properly refused to give such charge, it being on the weight of the evidence and being an incorrect statement of the law. If the testimony of this child be true, it is immaterial that she may have *846been told to relate it by reason of a family quarrel.

The weight to be given the testimony was for the jury. Appellant did not testify. He did not call his wife to the stand, and the State could not.

We would not be authorized to disturb the jury’s verdict, the evidence being sufficient to sustain their findings.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

             In connection with thequarterly report of PC Mall, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its wholly ownedsubsidiaries (collectively, the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarterended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the"Report"), I, Frank F. Khulusi, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, herebycertify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

                    (1)  the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and 

                    (2)  the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for theperiods indicated.  

              A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

              This Certification has notbeen, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the Securities and ExchangeCommission.
j 

I 

~ 

1 

I 

I 

l 

1 

j 

j 

THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 

The Honorable David Vitter 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 2051 0 

Dear Senator Vitter: 

August 22, 2013 

Thank you for your letter supporting the application submitted by the Shreveport Airport 

Authority for a grant under the U.S. Department ofTransportation's Small Cornrnw1ity Air 

Service Development Program. 

The Small Community Air Service Development Program was· established to help smaller 

communities address air service deficiencies, particularly issues related to high airfares or 

insufficient service. Under the statute, the Department may make a maximum of 40 grant 

awards each year, although no more than four awards may be to commwrities in the same State. 

In order to provide communities with latitude in developing solutions to their air service 

deficiencies, the statute provides flexibility in the types of projects that can be funded. 

On June 24, the Department issued an order setting a deadline of July 26 for applications. As 

these grant requests are pending before the Department, I cannot comment on the merits of any 

particular proposaL I assure you that the Department will give full and fair consideration to all 

proposals that have been properly filed. 

As is our standard practice, I am placing a copy of your letter and this response in Docket 

DOT-OST-2013-0120 as a contact outside the record of this matter. I appreciate your interest in 

this program. 

Anthony R. Foxx 
OAVIDVI"l'TER (-~ 

Oti'Ui"l'W!l .. 

"""""""""'l>n'l~'~"'*W.•\• r..,.,>!lll!!"'I-- ~n\tro ~tntts iOengte Ain!OdS.Mttt 

U..kllfln,IIWIIJIQ,.orul'-"'-tufdto 

Sm.altwJ:lfiftiJnriU'Jl~~ 

The Honomble Antl1ony Foxx 

Secretary 

U. S. Department ofTmnsportlltiort 

1200New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590-0001 

DenrSeeretary Foxx, 

WASHINGl'ON, OC 20610 

July 16,2013 

l.lmve boon bllonm:d that the Shreveport Airport Autbority is seekinQ to expru~d Us 

airline service by requesting funding from tlle Smn!l Coo:ununity Air Service DevoloJimcnt 

program. I understand the funding will be for new direct routes to the Midwest and/or 

Atlantic regions. · 

lam told the creation oftbest> new routes Is esseuli11l in otdet for Shreveport Regional 

Arrpotl to properly serve Nol'lhwest Louisl~IUI, BastT(l){l!S1 nnd Southwest Arkuosas. These 

regiQnS depend upoJI the alrport to provide airline conncc!lons to support the growtb of its 

imluslries. 

r commend tl1e Shreveport Airport Authority's ef'fbrl!i to create additional airline 

service and new mutes and ask tbn! you give your fttll consideration to its proposal. A report 

<tftho ftnnl decision would be l1elpful and !lppreoiated. Please contact me through Ms. M:slie 

Quinn in my Sru'llVeport oftlcc at 3 i ll·ll6l·M37 with ro:ry lJnestions. Thank you tor your time 

!llld attention. 

DBV:Ihq 

ACAUIANA Xi4t~t.~IJ:)(JM.bll 

8.Utt10l 1..<\IJ.vtnt,.tA~ """.,....,, lA• ~'1) m lUfi 

Sincerely, 

~-J~ Dnvid Vitti:!' 

U nitcd Slates Senete 

25
Order – Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

TIMOTHY SHEARER, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-895-L

§

GREGORY CERASCO; §

CHRISTOPHER WAGNER; §

and ASHLEY RIOS, §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER

Before the court is Defendants Christopher Wagner and Ashley Rios’s Motion to Dismiss

(“Motion to Dismiss”) (Doc. 15), filed August 29, 2022. Dismissal of Plaintiff’s illegal detention 

claim is sought, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), on the ground that the claim 

is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). On December 16, 2022, the United States 

Magistrate Judge entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 20) (“Report”), recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be denied 

without prejudice for failure of Defendants Rios and Wagner to carry their burden with respect to 

the ground for dismissal asserted. No objections to the Report were filed.

Having considered the Motion to Dismiss, briefs, pleadings, Report, file, and record in this 

case, the court determines that the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions are correct, and 

accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court denies without prejudice the Motion 

to Dismiss (Doc. 15).

Case 3:22-cv-00895-L Document 21 Filed 01/06/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 129
Order – Page 2

It is so ordered this 6th day of January, 2023.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

Case 3:22-cv-00895-L Document 21 Filed 01/06/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 130
#### BARNES et al. v. LUCAS.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 20, 1952.

*779S. PI. Monarch, Hardinsburg, for appellants.

Edward T. Ewen, Louisville, Charles Hall, Hardinsburg, for appellee.

CAMMACK, Chief Justice.

Appellee, Mattie Lucas, sued appellant, Rudell Barnes, as administratrix of the estate of Jesse Johnson, to recover a loan allegedly made to the decedent. A jury trial resulted in a verdict for appellee. Appellant moved for a new trial on the ground that the verdict of the jury was the result of an agreement by the jurors to render a verdict in favor of the party who first obtained a majority vote of the jurors.

In support of this motion, appellant offered the statement of one of the jurors. The trial judge sustained an objection to the admission of this evidence. The only question before us is the correctness of this ruling.

It is well established that the affidavit of a juror can not be used to impeach the verdict of the jury except to show that it was arrived at by lot. Criminal Code of Practice, section 272. This rule applies to civil, as well as criminal, cases. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Marshall’s Adm’x, 289 Ky. 129, 158 S.W.2d 137. Moreover, this section of the Code is strictly construed. Salyers v. Commonwealth, 229 Ky. 153, 16 S.W.2d 509. As the method by which the jury allegedly reached the verdict does not constitute a verdict by lot, it follows that the testimony of the juror was properly excluded.

Judgment affirmed.
- 

# -- -----_. 

## SERVED FEBRUARY 24, 2010

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC

IN THE MATTER OF 

### FREEDOM AIRLINES INC. ' FAA DOCKET NO. CP09SW0005 (Civil Penalty Case) DMS FAA-2009-0980 

## AMENDED PROCEDURAL ORDER Paragraph #2 ofthe Procedural Order is amended as follows: WHEREFORE, the parties be and are hereby ORDERED to adhere to the following procedural schedule:

... On or before May 1, 2010, theparties shall conclude all discovery including, but not limited to, depositions, documentproduction, responses toproduction requests and/or interrogatories. 

## If theparties cannot resolve a discovery dispute they shall submit the dispute to the undersigned for resolution in a timely manner... l**Atta~hment** - Service List

I The court does not anticipate schedulingthis caseprior to 1May 2010. 1FAA DocketNo. CP09SW0005 (Civil Penalty Action) SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COpy Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur WrightBuilding-Suite 2WIOOO I 

### ONE COpy Christopher Pappaioanou, 

### Respondent's Counsel Director, Legal Affairs Mesa Air Group 410 North 44th Street, Suite 700 Phoenix, AZ 85008 TEL: 602-685-4000 FAX: 602-685-4350 Annjenet Chennault, 

### Complainant's Counsel ·Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel SouthwestRegion, ASW-7E4, AC Federal Aviation Administration 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137 TEL: 817-222-5071 FAX: 817-222-5092/5946 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,

### Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. EastBuilding Ground Floor, Room E12-320 Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 Legal Assistant FAX: 202-366-7536

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WlOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.