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

No. 25677.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 27, 1952.

Rehearing Denied April 16, 1952.

No attorney, for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the sale of wine without a permit in a wet area, as denounced by Vernon’s P.C. Article 666-4(a) ; the punishment, a fine of $100. A stipulated statement of facts shows a sale of wine in a wet area without a permit. Appellant did not testify, nor did he offer any witnesses in his behalf.

The sole question presented for review is the jurisdiction of the County Criminal Court of Dallas County to try such an offense. It is appellant’s contention that, since Article 666-4(c)(3) provides for punishment by fine not exceeding $50, the jurisdiction for the offense charged herein should have been in the Justice Court.

In Shafer v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 558, 209 S.W.2d 599, we had an occasion to discuss this same contention and, at that time, carefully analyzed the question and feel that it is controlling herein.

It will further be noted that Article 52-159a, Section 2, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., which created County Criminal Court No. 2 of Dallas County, vested in said court the same criminal jurisdiction as is vested in County Courts under the Constitution and laws of this State. Construing Article 56, C.C.P., this court has repeatedly held that County Courts have concurrent jurisdiction with Justice Courts of misdemeanors cognizable in Justice Courts.

Such a finding disposes of appellant’s one bill of exception.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

On Appellant’s Motion For Rehearing.

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

Appellant urges that the punishment for the offense charged is by fine not exceeding $50 as provided in Sec. 3 of Art. 666-4(c), Vernon’s Ann.P.C.

In Shafer v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 558, 209 S.W.2d 599, we held that such fine was applicable only to violations of Sec. 4(c) of said Art. 666, Vernon’s Ann.P.C.

This prosecution was under Sec. 4(a) of Art. I, Ch. 467, Acts of the 44th Leg., 2nd C.S., as last amended by S.B. 117, Acts of *907the 48th Leg., Ch. 325, Sec. 2, p. 509. (Art. 666-4(a), Vernon’s Ann.P.C.)

The punishment provided for the offense charged is fixed in Sec. 8 of the amended act (Art. 666-41, Vernon’s Ann., P.C.), at a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1000 or by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by both such fine and imprisonment.

A close examination of Art. 666-4, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., will reveal that Subsection (a) of said Article was passed in the Legislature as a separate Act from Subsection (c) of said Artitle. The Act containing Subsection (a) is found in Ch. 325, Acts of the 48th Leg., whereas Subsection (c) is found as a part of Ch. 221, Acts of the 48th Leg. These two acts were compiled by Vernon under the same article.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

Opinion approved by the court.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

RONALD J. COLLINS , Appellant,

v.

U.S. BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF THE J.P. MORGAN TRUST 2007

- S3 MORTGAGE PASS

- THROUGH CERTIFICATES , Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 3079

[ November 5, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Meenu Sasser and James Martz , Judge s ; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2017

- CA

- 006660

- XXXX

- MB

.
Bruce Botsford of Bruce Botsford, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Sarah Todd Weitz of Weitz & Schwartz, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and Cary A. Lubetsky, Joseph J. Huss and Joshua J. Shore of Krinzman Huss Lubetsky Feldman & Hotte, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

L EVINE , C.J., W ARNER and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDING
JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,171
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,283
<ALLOWANCES>                                       903
<INVENTORY>                                     12,220
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,599
<PP&E>                                          18,330
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,430
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  35,936
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,077
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        36,352
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    35,936
<SALES>                                         37,778
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,778
<CGS>                                           26,282
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,282
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,622
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  57
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,031)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         6
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,037)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,037)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.16)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.16)
<FN>
<F1>FOR PURPOSES OF THIS EXHIBIT, PRIMARY MEANS BASIC.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
III

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 34

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 24 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

Received

MARCH 2 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Calling for a continued United States policy of opposition

to the resumption of commercial whaling, and otherwise

expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to

conserving and protecting the world’s whale, dolphin,

and porpoise populations.

Whereas there is significant widespread support in the international community for the view that for scientific, ecological, and educational reasons, whales should no longer

be hunted for profit;

Whereas there is concern that efforts will be made at the

1993 Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission to overturn the Commission’s existing moratorium on commercial whaling of large whales;

Whereas there are species of small cetaceans that are currently subject to direct commercial harvest; and
2

HCON 34 RFS

Whereas there are unique regions of the world’s seas which

serve as important feeding grounds for many species of

whales, and where the impacts of environmental threats

are unknown: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) the United States policy should promote the

4 conservation and protection of whale, dolphin, and

5 porpoise populations;

6 (2) the United States should remain opposed to

7 any resumption of commercial whaling, and should

8 work toward a moratorium on the direct commercial

9 harvest of dolphins and porpoises;

10 (3) the United States should work to strength11 en the International Whaling Commission by

12 reaffirming its competence to regulate direct com13 mercial harvest of small cetaceans and should en14 courage the Commission to consider the expertise of

15 its Scientific Committee;

16 (4) the United States should support the estab17 lishment of appropriate international sanctuaries

18 where whaling is prohibited; and

19 (5) in promoting the conservation and protec20 tion of the world’s whale populations, the United

21 States should make the fullest use of diplomatic
3

HCON 34 RFS

1 channels, appropriate domestic and international

2 law, and all other available means.

Passed the House of Representatives February 16,

1993.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
(logo)TORCHLIGHT

 

 

**ANNUAL COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

 

CERTIFICATIONJ.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2015-C28, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through CertificatesSeries 2015-C28 (the “Trust”)

 

I, WilliamA. Clarkson, on behalf of Torchlight Loan Services, LLC, as special servicer(the “Certifying Servicer”), certify to J.P. MorganChase CommercialMortgage Securities Corp. and its officers, directors and affiliates, and withthe knowledge and intent that they will rely upon this certification, that:

 

I (orServicing Officers under my supervision) have reviewed the CertifyingServicer’s activities for the fiscal year 2018 (the “Reporting Period”) and theCertifying Servicer’s performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement;and

 

Tothe best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Certifying Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement inall material respects during the Reporting Period.  

 

 

Date: February 28,2019

 

 

TORCHLIGHTLOAN SERVICES, LLC, as Special

Servicer

 

 

By: /s/ William A. Clarkson

Name: William A. Clarkson

Title: Authorized Signatory

 

 

280 Park Avenue, New York,NY 10017

T 212.883.2800  F 212.883.2560

E info@torchlightloanservices.com

www.torchlightinvestors.com
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 206

To designate the month of October 1993 and October 1994 as ‘‘National

Down Syndrome Awareness Month’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 27, 1993

Ms. NORTON (for herself and Mr. RAVENEL) introduced the following joint

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil

Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

To designate the month of October 1993 and October 1994

as ‘‘National Down Syndrome Awareness Month’’.

Whereas advancements in education, research, and public

awareness are continuing to improve the quality of life

for people with Down Syndrome;

Whereas approximately 5,000 children are born with Down

Syndrome annually in the United States;

Whereas ignorance, prejudices, myths, and stereotypes regarding Down Syndrome can be overcome only through

increased awareness and education;
2

•HJ 206 IH

Whereas, through the efforts of concerned physicians, educators, parent groups, and the National Down Syndrome

Society, programs are encouraging communities to include people with Down Syndrome in all school programs,

to provide vocational training for individuals with Down

Syndrome in preparation for entering the work force, and

to prepare young adults with Down Syndrome for independent living and jobs in the community;

Whereas television media has greatly augmented such public

awareness and education efforts by casting actors with

Down Syndrome and offering programming that accurately and positively depicts the everyday, personal and

familial effects of living with individuals with Down Syndrome; and

Whereas many people with Down Syndrome who perform

such activities as attending regular schools, playing on

Little League teams, working in corporations and businesses large and small, and volunteering in communities

demonstrate daily the successes people with Down Syndrome are able to achieve: 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 months of October 1993 and October 1994, are

4 each designated as ‘‘National Down Syndrome Awareness

5 Month’’. The President is requested to issue a proclama6 tion calling on the people of the United States to observe

7 such months with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Æ
#### In the Matter of the Application for Approval of Certificate of Incorporation of the Council of Orthodox Rabbis, Inc.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

February 18, 1958.

*McAloon & Hirschberg*for petitioner.

Samuel M. Gold, J.

Application is made under the Membership Corporations Law for approval of a proposed certificate of incorporation of the Council of Orthodox Rabbis, Inc.

The approval by a justice of the Supreme Court required by statute, Membership Corporations Law (§ 10) does not involve simply the performance of a ministerial act, but the exercise of a judicial function, to decide whether the special privilege of a corporate charter should be granted or conferred under all the circumstances surrounding the application. One purpose set forth in the certificate is *“to*supervise the Ordination of those students qualified thereby for the Rabbinate ”. Another purpose is “to organize duly ordained orthodox Rabbis in the State of New York, and to act as a body and a unit, and to formulate and execute decisions on Hebrew Law in concert, and to hold council jointly in matters pertaining to the Hebrew Religious Laws, Sabbath observations, Kashruth, and its supervision and identification, as well as the religious aspects of birth, marriage, annulments, divorce and death ’ ’. What I stated in denying approval of a proposed certificate of *Knesseth Harabonim d'America*(131 N. Y. S. 2d 543) may be repeated *63with equal application here, to wit: “ The Court knows of its own knowledge that there are already in existence rabbinic organizations comprised of orthodox rabbis, with a long history of service and accomplishment. Among them are the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada, and the Rabbinical Council of America. In view of that fact, the court is not convinced of the need of any additional rabbinic organizations of orthodox rabbis, which, aside from duplicating services already available, may cause confusion in the community and may conflict with similar endeavors now in process.”

Although Jewish religious life is in no wise authoritarian and draws its position from acceptance in the community, certain standards have already been set up and are generally accepted in the area of ordination of rabbis. Only recognized institutions of learning, such as Yeshiva University, Yeshiva Torah Vodaath, and others, have been recognized as being authorized to confer ordination. The principal objectives of the proposed corporation are those of a rabbinical academy and the court is not convinced that the subscribers are either in a position to accomplish the high purposes set forth therein or that there is any necessity for such an organization. The court feels that any relaxation in the standards for ordaining students into the rabbinate would tend to cheapen a sacred calling and destroy public confidence. Moreover, the proposed “Council of Orthodox Rabbis, Inc.” might easily be confused with the well-recognized and long-established Rabbinical Council of America.

The application for approval of the proposed certificate of incorporation is accordingly denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1 to 10-QSB
----------------------
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the quarterly report of Prologic Management Systems,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, James M. Heim, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best
of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 for the periods presented.



                                           /s/ James M. Heim
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           James M. Heim
                                           Chief Executive Officer
                                           Prologic Management Systems, Inc.
                                           August 14, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           6,115
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,456
<ALLOWANCES>                                       325
<INVENTORY>                                     61,729
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               120,720
<PP&E>                                          13,134
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,496
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 135,310
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,506
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            91
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,097
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   135,310
<SALES>                                        204,919
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               204,919
<CGS>                                          182,992
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  192,720
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,577
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,622
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,249
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,373
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,373
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .69
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00178-CR

Francisco S. MORALES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR6358

Honorable Mary D. Román, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE ANGELINI, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED March 11, 2015.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
### -82 -81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75
37 38 39 40 

## ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 06/27 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 27 Jun 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.77 N 77.11 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
United States Court of Appeals 

For the First Circuit 

No. 19-1389 

THOMAS FRANCHINI, 

Plaintiff, Appellee, 

v. 

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY, INC., d/b/a Investor's Business 

Daily, 

Defendant, Appellant, 

and 

BANGOR PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC., d/b/a Bangor Daily News; MEG 

HASKELL; EDWARD MURPHY; GANNETT COMPANY, INC., d/b/a USA Today; 

DONOVAN SLACK; SALLY PIPES; MTM ACQUISITION, INC., d/b/a 

Portland Press Herald, 

 

Defendants. 

ERRATA SHEET

 The opinion of this Court, issued on November 13, 2020, is 

amended as follows: 

 On page 5, line 16 replace the word "are" with "a" before the 

phrase "foreword by Milton Friedman."
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 127 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 127

To authorize the President to proclaim the last Friday of April 1993 as 
                        ``National Arbor Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 1993

Mr. Klein introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 
           to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
To authorize the President to proclaim the last Friday of April 1993 as 
                        ``National Arbor Day''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is hereby 
authorized and requested to issue a proclamation designating the last 
Friday of April 1993 as ``National Arbor Day'' and calling upon the 
people of the United States to observe such a day with appropriate 
ceremonies and activities.

                                 <all>
```
#### KINDLE v. STATE.

No. 21979.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 4, 1942.

J. W. McCullough, of McKinney, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for the theft of chickens. The penalty assessed is confinement in the county jail for a period of 25 days.

The record is before us without bills of exception or a statement of facts. Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense charged and waived a jury upon the trial. The indictment appears to be in due form.

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.