alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. AP-75,908 & AP-75,909

EX PARTE SANTIAGO TELLES ROSALES, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. 0417619 & 0417620 IN THE 8 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM HOPKINS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex

parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of indecency

with a child and attempted sexual assault, and sentenced to eight and six years’ imprisonment,

respectively.

Applicant contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he failed to

timely file notices of appeal. We remanded these applications to the trial court for findings of fact

and conclusions of law.
On remand, the trial court ordered counsel to submit an affidavit in response to Applicant’s

claim. Finding counsel’s affidavit credible, the trial court concluded that Applicant consulted with

counsel and was advised of his right to appeal but failed to request the appointment of appellate

counsel. The trial court recommended that we deny. We disagree. “[T]rial counsel, retained or

appointed, has the duty, obligation and responsibility to consult with and fully to advise his client

concerning meaning and effect of the judgment rendered by the court, his right to appeal from that

judgment, the necessity of giving notice of appeal and taking other steps to pursue an appeal . . . .”

Ex parte Axel, 757 S.W.2d 369, 374 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). According to the record, counsel was

retained by Applicant’s employer, who was “noncommital about an appeal” despite Applicant’s wish

to appeal. Counsel’s duties, however, were not dependent on whether Applicant’s employer intended

to retain counsel on appeal. “[T]hat retained counsel did not intend to handle the resultant appeal

does not justify his failing to assist his allegedly indigent client in giving notice of appeal.” Axel, 757

S.W.2d at 374. 

We hold that counsel failed to timely file notices of appeal. Accordingly, Applicant is entitled

to the opportunity to file out-of-time appeals of the judgments of conviction in Cause Nos. 0417619

and 0417620 from the 8 Judicial Court of Hopkins County. Applicant is ordered returned to that th

time at which he may give written notices of appeal so that he may then, with the aid of counsel,

obtain meaningful appeals. All time limits shall be calculated as if the sentences had been imposed

on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant desire to

prosecute appeals, he must take affirmative steps to file written notices of appeal in the trial court

within 30 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Applicant’s remaining claims are dismissed. Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1997).
Delivered: April 30, 2008

Do Not Publish
** **

**Exhibit10.1**

 

**[LOGO] IMAGEWARE SYSTEMS, INC.**

 

 

March 30, 2004

 

Offerof Restricted Stock in Exchange for Certain Stock Options Previously Granted

 

OfferMade to James Miller

 

ImageWare’s Board has authorized managementto offer you the ability to receive restricted stock in consideration under the2001 Equity Incentive Plan in exchange for certain out of the money optionswhich had been previously granted to you under various option plans.

 

This proposal will not only provide you withwhat can be considered greater equity incentives, it also results in increasedoption pools for future grants to all employees.

 

Attached is a spreadsheet which summarizesthe proposed option surrender / restricted stock grant.

 

Based upon an exchange ratio of three sharesof restricted stock for five options, 124,162 shares of restricted stock wouldbe granted out of the 2001 plan in exchange for the surrender of optionscovering 206,936 shares (from the 2001, 1999 and 1994 plans) with a net of82,774 of those options going back into the option pool for future grants toemployees.

 

The restricted stock will vest over threeyears on a quarterly basis (one twelfth per quarter) and will fully vest uponany of the following:

 

•                  a change in control,

•                  the sale of the company,

•                  termination of employmentunless such termination was for cause.

 

By vesting in small increments on a quarterlybasis, you will be able to plan and time tax implications (ordinary income onthe entire value of vested stock on the date it vests).  Certificates will be issued to you quarterlyas they vest (or upon the occurrence of one of the events listed above).  The shares will be fully registered whenissued.

 

Please indicate your agreement to accept theoffer presented above by signing below where indicated.  Return the signed original along with the originaloption grants covering the options being exchanged.

 

 
| /s/  Patrick J. Downs                                                                                |   |         |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------|
| Patrick Downs   Member of Board of Directors and  Compensation Committee Chairman  Imageware Systems, Inc |   | James Miller |
|                                                                                                      |   |         |

 

 

----
#### John Svedrovich, Appellant, v 16-20 Realty Associates, Respondent, and Ancomar Construction Corp., Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff. Fuhrmann Matura Plumbing Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Burton Sherman, J.), entered on July 13, 1989, after a jury trial, in favor of defendant 16-20 Realty Associates and defendant and third-party plaintiff Ancomar Construction Corp., and which dismissed the third-party complaint as against third-party defendant Fuhrmann Matura Plumbing Corp., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to plaintiff’s assertions, the trial court, in its charge, did not improperly merge the theories of common-law negligence, as codified in Labor Law § 200 (1), and absolute statutory liability under Labor Law § 241 (6), so as to mandate a reversal of the jury verdict in favor of the defendants and a remand for a new trial. *(Cf., Zalduondo v City of New York,*141 AD2d 816, 817.) The trial court, in charging the jury, accurately and fully delineated the distinctions between the two theories of liability in a clear and comprehensive manner with respect to each defendant, consistently applied the notice requirement solely to the common-law theory of negligence under Labor Law § 200 (1) and remained consistent therewith in carefully instructing the jurors on the distinction between the two sections of the Labor Law during the course of a requested supplemental charge during deliberations.

Accordingly, in view of the trial court’s thorough and detailed instructions, we find that there was no need for a *398special verdict setting forth the distinction between these two sections of the Labor Law, particularly where there is no significant probability that the form of the interrogatories improperly influenced the verdict. *(Zimmerman v Jamaica Hosp.,*143 AD2d 86, *lv denied*73 NY2d 702.)

Finally, we find that the trial court’s supplemental instruction did not improperly cause the jury to consider theories not advanced by the plaintiff, but rather merely elaborated on the theories of liability advanced by the plaintiff himself by restating the substance of the original charge to the jury.

We have considered the plaintiff’s remaining contentions, and have found them to be without merit. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Asch and Wallach, JJ.
Order – Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SASHA WINDHAM, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-759-L-BN

§

REGIONAL ACCEPTANCE §

CORPORATION, §

§

§

Defendant. §

ORDER

On August 10, 2022, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 11) (“Report”) was entered, recommending that the court dismiss without 

prejudice this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because of Plaintiff’s

failure, despite warnings, to comply with court orders and prosecute. No objections to the Report 

were filed, and the deadline for asserting objections has expired.

Having considered the pleadings, file, Report, 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 dismisses without prejudice this action under Rule 41(b) as a result 

of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders and prosecute. 

It is so ordered this 1st day of September, 2022.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

Case 3:22-cv-00759-L-BN Document 12 Filed 09/01/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 63
#### MARTIN v. STATE.

No. 25910.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 18, 1952.

No attorney for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $50.

A deputy sheriff testified that he noticed an automobile driving over the center stripe of the highway and almost colliding with an on-coming truck; that he stopped such automobile and found appellant, who was the driver of the same, to be intoxicated; that in the pocket of the car he *927found an almost empty bottle of whiskey; that he arrested appellant and placed him in jail.

The jailer testified that appellant was intoxicated and cursing when he was brought to the jail.

Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, admitted that he had taken two swallows of whiskey shortly before his arrest, but denied that he was intoxicated.

The jury decided this issue adversely to appellant, and we find their verdict supported by the evidence.

No bills of exception appear in the record. The proceedings appearing regular, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### GRODA v. STATE.

No. 21724.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 12, 1941.

J. G. Minkert, of Bryan, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for wife and child desertion. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for one year.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. The indictment .and all matters of procedure appear regular.

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.
ex-10.1

 PROMISSORY NOTE
 

 

  August 26, 2015
 

 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Nogales Resources Corp., a Nevada Corporation, promises to pay Misael Velasco Aguirre, on or before December 31, 2018, the amount of Three Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($3,600) in the currency of the United States, plus simple interest on the principal amount of this Promissory Note accrued at a rate of 6% per annum.
 

 Time shall be the essence of this Promissory Note.
 

 This Promissory Note shall be governed by and constituted in accordance with the laws of the State of Nevada.
 

 

 NOGALES RESOURCES CORP.
 

 

 Per /s/ Misael Velasco
      Misael Velasco Aguirre, Pres., CEO, CFO
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 224 (Monday, November 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29545]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 23, 2000, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), IMS Global Learning 
Consortium, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with 
the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership status. The notifications were filed for the 
purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ; Miami-Dade 
Community College, Miami, FL; Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores, CA; 
Sun Microsystems, Inc., Palo Alto CA; University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, 
Ann Arbor, MI; eduprise Inc., Morrisville, NC; Microsoft Corporation, 
Redmond, WA; Apple Computer, Inc., Cupertino, CA; Macromedia, Redwood 
City, CA; MindLever.com, Raleigh, NC; SCT Corporation, Malvern, PA; 
unext.com, Deerfield, IL; WebCT, Peabody, MA; Cisco Systems, Inc., San 
Jose, CA; University of Maryland, Adelphi, MD; Blackboard, Inc., 
Washington, DC; Department of Education-Training and Youth Affairs 
(Australia)--University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, 
AUSTRALIA; click2learn.com, Inc., Bellevue, WA; and Training Server, 
Baltimore, MD have been added as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and IMS Global Learning Consortium, 
Inc., intends to file additional written notification disclosing all 
changes in membership.
    On April 7, 2000, IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. filed its 
original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on September 13, 2000 (65 FR 
55283).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 21, 
2000. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on September 13, 2000 (65 FR 55283).

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-29545 Filed 11-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
|                                                                                              
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                          
|View History:                                                                                 
|                                                                                              
|Gulf Coast (PADD 3) Natural Gas Used as Feedstock for Hydrogen Production (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                              
|                                                                                              
|Gulf Coast (PADD 3) Natural Gas Used as Feedstock for Hydrogen Production (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 80,291 | 41,049
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 43,170 | 50,968 | 62,829 | 62,936 | 60,887 | 56,223 | 54,614 | 54,296 | 59,469 | 59,847
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 51,961 | 50,544 | 53,291 | 54,569 |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### Gus WALKER v. STATE.

No. 21846.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 14, 1942.

Carpenter & Boling, of Lubbock, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The conviction is for selling whisky in a dry area. The punishment assessed is a fine of $200.

This case is similar in all respects to that of Gus Walker v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 887 S.W.2d 157, this day decided.

The charge of the court in this case is subject to the same defects pointed out and upon which a reversal of that case was ordered.

For the same reason the judgment of the trial court in this case 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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Lemont Laing, Respondent.

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Linakis, J.), dated March 23, 1990, which denied their application to allow a witness to provide identification testimony despite the lack of a notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 with respect to that witness.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

"As a rule, no appeal lies from an order arising out of a criminal proceeding absent specific statutory authorization” *(People v Santos,*64 NY2d 702, 704). CPL 450.20 (8) permits an appeal by the People only when suppression is granted under CPL 710.20, and that was not the basis for the preclusion in this case. Since there is no statutory authorization for the instant appeal, it must be dismissed. Eiber, J. P., Sullivan, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 391 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 391

  To designate the week of September 12, 1994, through September 16, 
          1994, as ``National Gang Violence Prevention Week''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 20, 1994

  Mrs. Collins of Illinois introduced the following joint resolution; 
  which was referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  To designate the week of September 12, 1994, through September 16, 
          1994, as ``National Gang Violence Prevention Week''.

Whereas the number of gang homicides has risen in Chicago alone from 38 in 1980 
        to 101 in 1990;
Whereas the number of gang-related homicides as of 1991 stood at 1,051;
Whereas, in the past decade, gang-related homicides and gang related drug 
        trafficking has increased and spread to cities in all 50 States;
Whereas, between the years 1989 and 1991, the number of gangs and gang members 
        in the Nation's 79 largest cities doubled;
Whereas the number of gangs as of 1991 stood at 4,881 which includes 249,324 
        members;
Whereas gangs are now part of the crime problem in communities with populations 
        as small as 8,000 citizens;
Whereas many gangs are actively involved in drug trafficking, and some Los 
        Angeles gangs have been linked to Colombian drug cartels;
Whereas our youth are directly impacted by the rise in gang membership, with the 
        average age of gang members being 19; and
Whereas every effort needs to be made to reduce gang violence and steer our 
        young people away from gangs and every citizen needs to be aware of the 
        problem: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the week of September 12, 
1994, through September 16, 1994, be designated as ``National Gang 
Violence Prevention Week'', and the President is authorized and 
requested to issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United 
States to observe the week with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
                                 <all>
```
Bill Powers

From: PAUL.LINDAHL@ct.spx.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 9:27 AM

To: bpowers@powersengineering.com

Subject: Nuclear Comparison Page 1 of 1

6/14/2009 Bill,

A comparison of wet and ClearSky back to back towers for a reference duty is included in the attached summary.

Paul Lindahl , LEED AP Director, Market Development SPX Thermal Equipment & Services
7401 W 129th St Overland Park, KS 66213

TEL 913.664.7588
MOB 913.522.4254 paul.lindahl@spx.com www.spxcooling.com
www.balcke-duerr.com/

The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is intended by SPX Corporation for the use of the named individu al or entity to which it is directed and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If you have received this electronic mail transmission in error, please delete it from

your system without copying or forwarding it, and notify the sender of the error by reply email so that the sender’s address re cords can be corrected.Nuclear Plant Retrofit Comparison for Powers Engineering 9-June-2009

Case 1A Case 2A Case 1B Case 2B

Water Salt Salt Fresh Fresh Type ClearSky BTB Wet BTB ClearSky BTB Wet BTB

Cells 3x22=66 3x18=54 3x20=60 3x18=54 Footprint 3@529x109 3@433x109 3@481x109 3@433x109 Rough Budget $115.6 million $38.6 $109.1 $36.4

Basis: 830,000 gpm at 108-88-76. Plume poi nt is assumed at 50 DB/90% RH.

Low clog film type fill is used for all of the selections, assuming any fresh water used would likely be reclaimed water of some sort . Low clog fill has been used successfully in various sea water applications. Intake screens would be require d for the make-up sea water to limit shells, etc. Make-up for th e ClearSky tower would be approximately 80- 85% of the wet tower make-up on an annual ba sis. Budget is tower only, not including basins. Infrastructure cost is estimated by so me at 3 times the cost of the wet tower, including such things as site prep, basins, piping, electrical wiring and controls, etc. Subsurface foundations such as piling can add significantly, and may be necessary for a seacoast location. The estimates above are adjusted for premium hardware and California seismic requirements, which are a factor in the taller back-to-back (BTB) designs both for wet and ClearSky. These ar e approximate comparisons. Both the wet towers and ClearSky towers could likely be op timized more than what has been estimated here, and may have to be tailored to actua l site space in any event. ClearSky has pump head like a wet tower, is piped like a wet tower, and has higher fan power than a wet tower to accommodate the increased air flow and pressure drop.

Coil type wet dry towers woul d cost significantly more, with premium tube (titanium for sea water, and possibly for reclaimed water) and header materials. An appropriate plenum mixing design has yet to be devel oped, but would also re quire non-corrosive materials and high pressure drop on the air si de. No coil type BTB wet dry towers are likely to be proposed.