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

No. 21966.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 4, 1942.

Reynaldo Garza, E. T. Yates, and H. L. Yates, all of Brownsville, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for the offense of knowingly receiving and concealing stolen property. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of two years.

The State’s evidence, briefly stated, shows that Santiago Lopez and Jose Vega stole three small calves from Margarito Gomez and sold them to appellant, who was operating a dairy. The calves were turned in among the dairy cattle near a public road from where they might be seen. Gomez reported the theft to the officers who went to appellant’s home and found two of the calves. Appellant was not at home at the time but his wife was there. A day or two later, appellant saw Gomez and asked him why he had not come to get the other calf. The State proved by the two self-confessed thieves that they did not execute and deliver to appellant any bill of sale to the calves.

Appellant took the witness stand and admitted the purchase of the calves in question but denied that he knew at the time that they were stolen.

The court, in his charge, among other things, instructed the jury as follows. “Upon the trial of any person charged with the theft of any animal of the cattle species the possession of such alleged stolen animal, if any, by the accused, without a written transfer or bill of sale, containing a specific description of such animal, shall be prima facie evidence against the accused that such possession was illegal.”

Appellant, in due time and in the manner prescribed by law, objected to said charge and requested the court to delete it from his charge, but the court declined to do so. A charge in almost the same language was given in the cases of Gilliland v. State, 24 Tex.App. 524, 7 S.W. 241, and Reed v. State, 113 Tex.Cr.R. 366, 21 S.W.2d 684, and was condemned by this court as being on the weight of the evidence. We do not deem it necessary to here further discuss the same as a mere reference to the cases cited will disclose the error therein. Therefore, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the cause remanded.

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.
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 218 (Thursday, November 9, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67255-67256]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28845]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 00-ACE-24]

Amendment to Class E Airspace; Washington, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This document confirms the effective date of a direct final 
rule which revises the Class E airspace at Washington, MO as published 
in the Federal Register August 11, 2000 (65 FR 49192) Airspace Docket 
No. 00-ACE-24, and corrected in the Federal Register (65 FR 52811) 
Airspace Docket No. 00-ACE-24.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 65 FR 49192 and corrected in 
65 FR 52811 is effective on 0901 UTC, November 30, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, 
Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: 
(816) 329-2525.

[[Page 67256]]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On August 11, 2000, the FAA published in the Federal Register a 
direct final rule; request for comments which revises the Class E 
airspace at Washington, MO (65 FR 49192, Airspace Docket No. 00-ACE-
24). An error in longitude for the Washington Memorial Airport, MO was 
corrected in (65 FR 52811, Airspace Docket No. 00-ACE-24). After 
careful review of all available information related to the subject 
presented above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public 
interest require adoption of the rule.
    The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-
controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse 
public comment. This direct final rule advised the pubic that no 
adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse 
comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse 
comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would 
become effective on November 30, 2000. No adverse comments were 
received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule 
will become effective on that date.

    Issued in Kansas City, MO on October 27, 2000.
Richard L. Day,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.
[FR Doc. 00-28845 Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ROBERT (BOB) ROSS §

§

VS. § ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-343-Y

§

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL §

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, ET AL. §

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED RESPONSE

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File

Late Response/Amended Response (doc. 36). The certificate of

conference to the motion indicates that the motion is unopposed. 

As a result, and after review of the motion, the Court concludes that

it should be and hereby is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Amended Response

to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims for Relief is

DEEMED filed this same day, and the clerk of the Court is DIRECTED

to file a copy of the second amended response, which was attached

as electronic exhibits 7-11 to the motion for leave. See N.D. Tex.

L. Civ. R. 15.1(b).

Defendants shall have until October 5, 2022, to file a reply

to Plaintiff's Amended Response.

SIGNED September 15, 2022.

____________________________

TERRY R. MEANS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 40 Filed 09/15/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1028
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 24, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-41263

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANCISCO JAVIER SILVA-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:05-CR-19-ALL

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

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Francisco Javier

Silva-Rodriguez raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
 
                                                           EXHIBIT 11.1

                                  PSINET INC.

CALCULATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE AND WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES USED
                          IN CALCULATION  (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                        
                                                                                THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                                   June 30, 1998
                                                                                   --------------
<S>                                                                             <C> 
Weighted average shares outstanding:
Common stock:

     Shares outstanding at beginning of period                                          50,975,263

     Weighted average shares issued during the three months ended June 30, 1998
     (276,895 shares)                                                                     135,578
                                                                                    -------------
                                                                                       51,110,841
                                                                                    =============
Net loss to common shareholders                                                     $ (54,414,000)
                                                                                    ==============

Basic and diluted loss per share                                                    $      (1.06)
                                                                                   ==============

</TABLE> 
                                      39
#### ALVAREZ v. STATE.

No. 26036.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 12, 1952.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

G'éorge P. Blackburn, 'State’s Atty. of Austin, for the State.

■BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was assessed a fine of $200 for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor in a dry area.

The state’s evidence amply supports the jury verdict. Officers of the Liquor Control Board testified to purchasing liquor from her on the date alleged, that it was taken to Austin, turned over to a chemist for analysis, and the same was introduced in evidence before the jury. The chemist who made the analysis testified in the trial that the bottle contained intoxicating liquor.

Appellant’s defense was that of an alibi. The issue thus raised was decided against her by the jury verdict.

The record contains three bills of exception. The first bill complains that the court overruled her third application for a continuance for the testimony of a witness alleged to have been subpoenaed and to be a resident of the county where the case was tried. We find no evidence showing any diligence to secure this witness, other than that the subpoena had been served, nor is it contended that she could not be reached and brought into court to give her testimony in the trial of the case from which the appeal comes. We think proper diligence has not been shown.

Bill of Exception No. 2 complains of a remark made by the judge trying the case. When the defendant called for a witness the judge instructed the sheriff to “bring the witness out of jail.” This was done and his testimony was given before the jury. The bill complains of the court’s remark showing that the witness was in jail. There is no showing in the bill that this remark was made in the presence and hearing of the jury. In the absence of this showing we find no basis for sustaining the bill.

Appellant filed a bill complaining of the action of the court in overruling her motion for a new trial without defendant being present and having a, hearing. The judge’s qualification recites that he asked appellant’s counsel when he wanted a heading, to which counsel replied that he- could pass on-' it any time he wanted to. ' It was the court’s understanding that counsel *468did not desire to. be present. With this qualification no error is shown.

The judgment of the trial court is ■ affirmed.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 110

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 27 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science,

and Transportation

AUGUST 6 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Committee discharged

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct appropriate programs and activities to acknowledge the status of the county of Fond

du Lac, Wisconsin, as the ‘‘World Capital of Aerobatics’’,

and for other purposes.

Whereas the International Aerobatic Club, which was founded

on February 6, 1970, held its first championships in

August 1970 in the county of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin;

Whereas in 1992 the International Aerobatic Club had 5,342

members throughout the world, representatives of which

gathered in Fond du Lac to compete in the 23d Annual
2

•HJ 110 CDS

Aerobatic Championships during the period of

August 9–14, 1992;

Whereas in 1992 the Experimental Aircraft Association and

the Board of Directors of the International Aerobatic

Club named Fond du Lac as the ‘‘World Capital of

Aerobatics’’;

Whereas participants and spectators drawn to the aerobatic

championships in Fond du Lac stimulate the economic

well-being of the community and provide a spectator

event of international significance; and

Whereas Congress declares that the county of Fond du Lac,

Wisconsin, is the ‘‘World Capital of Aerobatics’’: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Adminis4 tration may conduct appropriate programs and activities

5 at the Fond du Lac County Airport to acknowledge the

6 status of the county of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, as the

7 ‘‘World Capital of Aerobatics’’, and that the airport may

8 display signs notifying the public of such status.

Passed the House of Representatives July 26, 1993.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 

 § 

VS. § CRIMINAL NO. 4:22-CR-147-Y 

 § 

NEIMAN JAKE WILLIAMS (1) § 

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ADJUDGING DEFENDANT GUILTY 

The Court has reviewed all relevant matters of record in this case, 

including especially (1) the Consent to Administration of Guilty Plea 

and Allocution by United States Magistrate Judge and (2) the Report of 

Action and Recommendation on Plea Before the United States Magistrate 

Judge. No objections to either have been filed within fourteen (14) 

days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, 

the Court concludes that the report and recommendation of the magistrate 

judge on the plea of guilty is correct, and it is hereby accepted by the 

Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty, and defendant 

is hereby adjudged guilty. The defendant’s sentence will be imposed in 

accordance with the Court’s sentencing scheduling order. 

SIGNED July 15, 2022. 

 

 _________________________________ 

 TERRY R. MEANS 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cr-00147-Y Document 28 Filed 07/15/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 52
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0083

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

DARRIN LELAND REBER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time to 

produce transcripts on appeal, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Court Reporter Julie Pesanti 

DeLong is granted an extension of time to and including November 25,

2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve the transcripts requested 

on appeal. 

The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon the district court 

and the court reporter.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 8 2024

10/08/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0083
EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF EXPERTS AND COUNSEL


<PAGE>




               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
Leeds Federal Bankshares, Inc.:

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration  Statement
(No.333-44899) on Form S-8 of Leeds Federal Bankshares, Inc. of our report dated
August 2,  2002,  except  for note 18 as to which the date is August  28,  2002,
relating to the consolidated  statements of financial condition of Leeds Federal
Bankshares,  Inc.  and  subsidiary  as of June 30, 2002 and 2001 and the related
consolidated  statements  of  income  and  comprehensive  income,  stockholders'
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended June
30, 2002,  which report  appears in the June 30, 2002 Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Leeds Federal Bankshares, Inc.



                                               /s/  KPMG LLP


Baltimore, Maryland
September 27, 2002
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 

 § 

VS. § CRIMINAL NO. 4:22-CR-130-Y 

 § 

LEE HERMAN HALL (1) § 

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ADJUDGING DEFENDANT GUILTY 

The Court has reviewed all relevant matters of record in this case, 

including especially (1) the Consent to Administration of Guilty Plea 

and Allocution by United States Magistrate Judge and (2) the Report of 

Action and Recommendation on Plea Before the United States Magistrate 

Judge. No objections to either have been filed within fourteen (14) 

days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, 

the Court concludes that the report and recommendation of the magistrate 

judge on the plea of guilty is correct, and it is hereby accepted by the 

Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty, and defendant 

is hereby adjudged guilty. The defendant’s sentence will be imposed in 

accordance with the Court’s sentencing scheduling order. 

SIGNED May 19, 2022. 

 

 _________________________________ 

 TERRY R. MEANS 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cr-00130-Y Document 24 Filed 05/19/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 37
|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                   
|View History:                                                                          
|                                                                                       
|No chart available.                                                                    
|No chart available.                                                                    
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|Alabama Refinery Alkylates Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 28 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 28

   Expressing the sense of Congress that the stamp commemorating the 
Oregon National Historic Trail should be issued in Oregon City, Oregon.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 1993

   Mr. Kopetski (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mr. DeFazio, and Ms. Furse) 
 submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to 
             the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of Congress that the stamp commemorating the 
Oregon National Historic Trail should be issued in Oregon City, Oregon.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That because Oregon City, Oregon, is recognized as the western terminus 
of the Oregon National Historic Trail, it is the sense of Congress that 
the stamp commemorating the Oregon National Historic Trail should be 
issued in Oregon City, Oregon.

                                 <all>
```
#### James ALLEN, Movant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Jan. 16, 1951.

Haynes Carter, Elizabethtown, for mov-ant.

A. E. Funk, Atty. Gen., Zeb A. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal denied. Judgment affirmed.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Fl  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement  dated as  of April 1,2015, by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells FargoBank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, ADivision of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer, Park BridgeLender Services LLC, as Trust Advisor, Wilmington Trust, National Association,as Trustee, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as CertificateAdministrator, Certificate Registrar, Authenticating Agent and Custodian withrespect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-C22 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 13.9 ofthe Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial MortgageServices do hereby certify that:

 

1.       A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period fromJanuary 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”),and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made undermy supervision, and

 

2.       To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout 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 |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|