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

No. 21434.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 26, 1941.

Julian La Crosse, of Del Rio, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Upon reconsideration of this case the original opinion is withdrawn and the following substituted in lieu thereof.

Appellant was charged by complaint and _ information with having in her possession, “an illicit alcoholic beverage containing more than one half of one per cent of alcohol by volume, and capable of use for beverage purposes alone and when diluted, to-wit, mescal, in a container to which no *115tax stamp showing the payment of the tax on said beverage due to the State of Texas was affixed, and to which so unstamped container no valid evidence was affixed showing the payment of the tax on such beverage due to the State of Texas.”

The penalty assessed by the jury’s verdict was thirty days in jail.

A representative of the Liquor Control Board testified that he and a deputy sheriff went to the home of appellant on May 7, 1940, in the city of Del Rio and asked for permission to search for mescal. This was granted, and four gallons of mescal were found in the northeast corner of her bedroom under a trap door in the floor. The trap door was hidden by a trunk. Later they found a gallon jug with some mescal in it in another room. The officers had a search warrant, but, having secured the permission of appellant to search her house, they did not present their search warrant.

The evidence details fully the finding of the mescal in containers named, but there is no evidence found in the record which states, or even indicates, that there was no stamp showing the payment of taxes due the State of Texas or evidence thereof, as charged in the complaint and information. The State has wholly failed to offer proof upon which the jury.would be warranted in returning a verdict of guilty under the charge.

Other questions raised in the appeal will not likely occur upon another trial. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded. The, state’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
# Balance Sheet

# Net Cost

# Net Position

# Budgetary Res 

# Financing
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 68987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29175]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-3696-000]


Griffith Energy, LLC Notice of Issuance of Order

November 7, 2000.
    Griffith Energy, LLC (Griffith Energy) submitted for filing a rate 
schedule under which Griffith Energy will engage in wholesale electric 
power and energy transactions at market-based rates. Griffith Energy 
also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, 
Griffith Energy requested that the Commission grant blanket approval 
under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and 
assumptions of liability by Griffith Energy.
    On October 25, 2000, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and 
Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to 
the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by Griffith Energy should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 
and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, Griffith Energy is 
authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as 
a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security 
of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for 
some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of Griffith Energy's issuances of securities or 
assumptions of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is November 27, 2000.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-29175 Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

7000 Series Rail Car

Accessibility Features
7000 Series Car
7000 Series Car 

 More (25%) bars/handholds at door and through 

train than 6000 series car

 Vertical poles at each seat to help people stand up -

seat backs also have handholds/bars)

 Privacy screen at priority seating 

 4 priority seats for people with disabilities and seniors

 2 designated wheelchair parking areas at middle door 

with U shaped grab bar including specially colored 

flooring
7000 Series Car 

 Increased aisle width from 32" to 34" to

accommodate wheelchair users 

 Emergency call buttons at both ends and center of 

car 

 Two ceiling mounted displays providing line, station 

and destination information

 Four wall mounted displays providing line, station 

and destination information 
 Automated station announcements 

 Retained priority seating signage consistent with 

other car series 

 Retained platform to car floor gap reducers 

 Wording of all destination signs will be of the same 

color; the bars at the side of the wording will 

indicate line color

 Improvements to car PA system 

7000 Series Car 
7000 Series Car 

 Removed floor to ceiling stanchions at doors 

consistent with 6000 series car

 Vinyl seat covers 

 Non-slip vinyl floors
7000 Series Car
7000 Series Car
7000 Series Car 
7000 Series Car 
7000 Series Car
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          20,030
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,791
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,766
<PP&E>                                          53,384
<DEPRECIATION>                                     926
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 122,909
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,135
<BONDS>                                         81,067
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,807
<OTHER-SE>                                        (439)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   122,909
<SALES>                                         14,918
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,918
<CGS>                                           13,022
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,022
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   826
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,899
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (485)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (46)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (439)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (439)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
CUMULATIVE 6 MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 INFORMATION IS NOT INCLUDED DUE TO
CHANGE IN CONTROL OF COMPANY ON MARCH 31, 1998.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-10867 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN JOSE LUNA-PINA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:00-CR-290-1-Y

-------------------- February 21, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Juan Jose Luna-Pina appeals his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that his guilty plea was rendered involuntary by the district court’s failure to advise him during the plea colloquy that a prior aggravated felony conviction is an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) which the Government would have to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Luna-Pina acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. UnitedNo. 01-10867 -2- States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). Luna-Pina’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. In lieu of filing an appellee’s brief, the Government has filed a motion asking this court to dismiss this appeal or, in the alternative, to summarily affirm the district court’s judgment. The Government’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. The motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The Government need not file an appellee’s brief.
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED; MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE GRANTED.
|                                                                                            
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                            
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                              
|View History: Annual                                                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                        
|View History:                                                                               
|                                                                                            
|Rocky Mountain (PADD 4) Refinery Working Storage Capacity as of January 1 (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|Rocky Mountain (PADD 4) Refinery Working Storage Capacity as of January 1 (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                                                                                                                            |        |        | 28,350 | 30,081 | 30,282 | 30,273 | 30,032 | 28,867 | 29,330 | 28,811
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 28,878 | 28,873 | 27,777 | 26,820 | 25,807 | 25,591 | NA     | 25,275 | NA     | 30,358
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 24,391 | 24,600 | 24,237 | 24,185 | 24,639 | 24,978 | 24,763 | 25,051 | 25,110 | 25,140
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 24,506 | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 GeneLink, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), John R. DePhillipo, as
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge that:

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

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company at the dates and for the periods shown in such report.


Date: August 13, 2002                   By: /s/ John R. DePhillipo
                                            ---------------------------------
                                            John R. DePhillipo, Chief Executive
                                            Officer and President



                                       16
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 2000-010]

# November 8, 2000.

                        The establishment of the Cooperative Consultation Process (CCP) Team and the Scoping Process for relicensing of the St. Lawrence-FDR Power Project was identified in the Notice of Memorandum of Understanding, Formation of Cooperative  Consultation Process Team, and Initiation of Scoping Process Associated With Relicensing the St. Lawrence-FDR Power Project issued May 2, 1996, and found in the                         **Federal Register**                         dated May 8, 1996, Volume 61, No. 90, on page 20813.                     

The CCP Team will meet on November 21, 2000, to discuss the preliminary terms and conditions filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) per the Notice issued on August 11, 2000, and the Notice extending the comment period to September 29, 2000. The meeting will be conducted at the New York Power Authority's (NYPA) Robert Moses Powerhouse, at 10:00 a.m., located in Massena, New York. 

If you would like more information about the CCP Team and the relicensing process, please contact any one of the following individuals: 

                    Mr. Thomas R. Tatham, New York Power Authority, (212) 468-6747, (212) 468-6141 (fax), e-mail:                     *Tatham.T@NYPA.Gov*

                    Mr. Bill Little, Esq., New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, (518) 457-0986, (518) 457-3978 (fax), ­e-mail:                    *WGLittle@GW.DEC.State.NY.US*

                    Dr. Jennifer Hill, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, (202) 219-2797, (202) 219-2152 (fax), e-mail:                    *Jennifer.Hill@FERC.FED.US*

                    Further information about NYPA and the St. Lawrence-FDR Power Project can be obtained through the Internet at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us.*

Linwood A. Watson, Jr., 

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-29204 Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Ebonee Collens, Respondent, Dr.<br><br>against<br><br>John W.S. Sayegh, Appellant. </font></b></div><br><br><p>Law Office of William G. Sayegh, P.C. (Zena Dubas and Maria Corrao of counsel), for appellant.Ebonee Collens, respondent pro se.</p><p>Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Peekskill, Westchester County (Reginald J. Johnson, J.), entered November 3, 2016. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,162.50.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>In this small claims action, defendant appeals from a judgment which, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,162.50, representing the security deposit she had paid to defendant, her former landlord. </p><p>In a small claims action, this court's review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UCCA 1807; <i>see</i> UCCA 1804; <i>Ross v Friedman</i>, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; <i>Williams v Roper</i>, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). The determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>credibility (<i>see Vizzari v State of New York</i>, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; <i>Kincade v Kincade</i>, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). This deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (<i>see Williams v Roper</i>, 269 AD2d at 126). </p><p>Defendant's argument as to "venue" lacks merit, as this was a small claims case brought pursuant to UCCA 207 and UCCA 1801, and defendant conceded that he maintains an office in Westchester County (<i>see</i> UCCA 1801; <a href="../2010/2010_52086.htm" target="_blank"><i>Payne v Genato</i>, 29 Misc 3d 1229</a>[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52086[U] [Rye City Ct 2010]; <i>Germain v CNY Mgt. Corp.</i>, 121 Misc 2d 871, 871 [Albany City Ct 1983]). Defendant's argument that he was the improper party to be sued is raised for the first time on appeal, and we decline to consider it (<a href="../2012/2012_51488.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Crowder v LaGrande</i>, 36 Misc 3d 140</a>[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51488[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th &amp; 10th Jud Dists 2012]). Finally, as the record supports the court's determination that plaintiff established her entitlement to the return of her security deposit, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice (<i>see</i> UCCA 1804, 1807).</p><p>Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.</p><p>RUDERMAN, J.P., TOLBERT and EMERSON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: August 08, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69050]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29156]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-37,884]


Rycraft Incorporated, Corvallis, OR; Notice of Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By letter of September 18, 2000 the company requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance (TA-W-37,884). The denial notice was signed on 
August 25, 2000 and published in the Federal Register on September 12, 
2000 (65 FR 55049).
    The company provided additional information about customers which 
should have been considered by the Department in its survey of 
customers.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of 
Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.

    Dated: Signed at Washington, D.C. this 2nd day of November 2000.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-29156 Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Credit Suisse First BostonMortgage Securities Corp. 

11 MADISON AVE

NEW YORK, New York 10010-3643

 

Re: Annual Statement ofCompliance for Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp., CommercialMortgage  Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-C1

 

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of March 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo'sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

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