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

No. 21971.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 11, 1942.

Hutchison & Hutchison, of Paris, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for possessing whisky for the purpose of sale in dry area, punishment assessed being a fine of $150.

Officers quite a distance from appellant’s house watched through field glasses and saw several cars stop at the house. Appellant delivered to one of the cars something in a paper sack. The officers then secured a search warrant and found on the sills under the house one pint of liquor in a paper sack, and four half-pints of liquor in two other 'paper sacks, two half-pints being in each sack. The officers testified on direct examination that the liquor was whisky, but on cross-examina- ■ tion destroyed the probative force of such testimony by admitting that they had neither tasted nor smelled the liquor, nor made any test of it whatever. If there were any labels or stamps on the bottles indicating what their contents might be, no mention is made of it. One of the State’s witnesses qualified as knowing the taste and smell of whisky and was handed the bottles with the request that he smell and taste the contents, and then tell the jury what it was. Appellant objected on the ground that it was prejudicial, and the court sustained the objection. If the witness had answered that the contents of the bottles was whisky, it certainly would in a sense have been prejudicial or hurtful to appellant, in that it would have made out a case against him. The evidence was admissible. We have been unable to see any reason for excluding it. Assuming that the answer would have been favorable to the State the effect of the court’s ruling was to prevent the State from placing in the record evidence which is necessary to support the verdict.

Appellant offered no evidence. A motion for an instructed verdict of acquittal was overruled. As the record appears here the motion should have been sustained.

We find an objection to the court’s instruction regarding “prima facie” evidence, but no special charge on the subject was requested as is required in misdemean- or cases. However, in event of another trial, if an instruction on the subject should become necessary we refer to Floeck v. State, 34 Tex.Cr.R. 314, 30 S.W. 794; Ratliff v. State, 114 Tex.Cr.R. 142, 25 S.W.2d 343; McCombs v. State, 50 Tex.Cr.R. 490, 99 S.W. 1017, 9 L.R.A.,N.S. 1036, 123 Am. St.Rep. 855, 14 Ann.Cas. 72; Stoneham v. State, 99 Tex.Cr.R. 54, 268 S.W. 156.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
IA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 374

Designating August 2, 1994, as ‘‘National Neighborhood Crime Watch Day’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 9, 1994

Mr. STUPAK introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating August 2, 1994, as ‘‘National Neighborhood

Crime Watch Day’’.

Whereas neighborhood crime is of continuing concern to the

American people;

Whereas the fight against neighborhood crime requires people

to work together in cooperation with law enforcement officials;

Whereas neighborhood crime watch organizations are effective at promoting awareness about, and the participation

of volunteers in, crime prevention activities at the local

level;
2

•HJ 374 IH

Whereas neighborhood crime watch groups can contribute to

the Nation’s war on drugs by helping to prevent their

communities from becoming markets for drug dealers;

and

Whereas citizens across America will soon take part in a

‘‘National Night Out’’, a unique crime prevention event

which will demonstrate the importance and effectiveness

of community participation in crime prevention efforts by

having people spend the period from 8 to 9 o’clock

postmeridian on August 2, 1994, with their neighbors in

front of their homes: 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 August 2, 1994, is designated as ‘‘National Neigh4 borhood Crime Watch Day’’, and the President is author5 ized and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon

6 the people of the United States to observe such day with

7 appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

Æ
EXHIBIT D

Case 4:22-cv-00662-O Document 21-4 Filed 08/23/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 139
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

IPSEN BIOPHARM LTD.,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GALDERMA LABORATORIES, L.P.,

Defendant. 

CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00662-O 

DECLARATION OF MEGAN DONOVAN

I, Megan Donovan, hereby declare:

1. I am a Director of Galderma Laboratories, L.P. I am over twenty-one years of age 

and of sound mind. I have never been convicted of a crime. I am competent to testify and have 

personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration. 

2. As a Director of Galderma Laboratories, L.P., I am familiar with the corporate 

structure of the company. 

3. I have reviewed Galderma Laboratories, L.P.’s corporate structure documents and 

confirm that Galderma S.A. owns more than 50% of Galderma Laboratories, L.P. 

 My name is Megan Donovan, my date of birth is May 5, 1968, and business address is 

14501 North Freeway, Fort Worth, Texas, 76177. I declare under penalty of perjury that the 

forgoing is true and correct. 

 Executed in San Luis Obispo County, California on the 5th day of August, 2022. 

 

 ________________________ 

 MEGAN DONOVAN

Case 4:22-cv-00662-O Document 21-4 Filed 08/23/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 140
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

JEFFREY ALLEN MICHAEL BLYSTONE,

JR.,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 139 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of August, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
128865 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 128865 COA: 259604 Wayne CC: 03-012048 RAYMOND EDWARD TUCKER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the May 13, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p1121 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2005

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7142
MARIO BALLARD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RED ONION STATE PRISON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-03-388-3) Submitted: November 21, 2003 Decided: December 8, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mario Ballard, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Mario Ballard seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his successive petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), for lack of jurisdiction and the court’s order denying Ballard’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ballard has not made the requisite showing. To the extent that Ballard’s notice of appeal and appellate brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2254 motion, we deny authorization. See United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied , U.S. , 2003 WL 22232622 (U.S. Nov. 3, 2003) (No. 03- 6548).3 Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, anddismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
CDFI 4.1 Table

(values in $millions)

Agency Total Agency Agency Total Agency Total Percent

Capital Investments Total 4.021 4.021 4.811 3.817 8.628 3.704 3.704 -57.07

Major IT sub-total

non-Major IT sub-total 4.021 4.021 4.811 3.817 8.628 3.704 3.704 -57.07

IT Total 4.021 4.021 4.811 3.817 8.628 3.704 3.704 -57.07

non-IT Total

CDFI Total 4.021 4.021 4.811 3.817 8.628 3.704 3.704 -57.07

Major IT sub-total

non-Major IT sub-total 4.021 4.021 4.811 3.817 8.628 3.704 3.704 -57.07

IT Total 4.021 4.021 4.811 3.817 8.628 3.704 3.704 -57.07

non-IT Total

CDFI Major IT Investments

CDFI non-Major IT Investments

Award Management Information System 0 0 4.146 0 4.146 0 0 -100

015-05-1881 Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund Program Account

0 0 4.146 0 4.146 0 0 -100

CDFI LAN 0.009 0.009 0 0 0 0 0 0

015-05-1881 Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund Program Account

0.009 0.009 0 0 0 0 0 0

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund 

Public Website

0.096 0.096 0.275 0.221 0.496 0.125 0.125 -74.798

015-05-1881 Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund Program Account

0.096 0.096 0.275 0.221 0.496 0.125 0.125 -74.798

Community Investment Impact System 0.77 0.77 0 0.881 0.881 0.898 0.898 1.93

015-05-1881 Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund Program Account

0.664 0.664 0 0.771 0.771 0.788 0.788 2.205

015-05-0142 State Small Business Credit Initiative 0.106 0.106 0 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0

PY 2013 Funding (Estimated Actuals) FY 2014 (Estimated Operating Levels) FY 2015 (President's Budget)

O&M Total DME O&M Total O&M Total Change from CY 

to BY

Page 1 of 2
CDFI 4.1 Table

(values in $millions)

Agency Total Agency Agency Total Agency Total Percent

PY 2013 Funding (Estimated Actuals) FY 2014 (Estimated Operating Levels) FY 2015 (President's Budget)

O&M Total DME O&M Total O&M Total Change from CY 

to BY

IT Program Management Support 1.132 1.132 0 0.935 0.935 1.047 1.047 11.979

015-05-1881 Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund Program Account

1.132 1.132 0 0.935 0.935 1.047 1.047 11.979

IT Security 0.175 0.175 0 0 0 0 0 0

015-05-1881 Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund Program Account

0.175 0.175 0 0 0 0 0 0

Legacy Mission Systems 1.839 1.839 0.39 1.78 2.17 1.634 1.634 -24.7

015-05-1881 Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund Program Account

1.839 1.839 0.39 1.78 2.17 1.634 1.634 -24.7

CDFI non-IT Investments

Page 2 of 2
Case 3:22-cr-00339-X Document 31 Filed 05/11/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 50
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 238 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 238

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SOAP BOX DERBY RACES ON CAPITOL GROUNDS.

    The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association (hereinafter in 
this resolution referred to as the ``Association'') shall be permitted 
to sponsor a public event, soap box derby races, on the Capitol grounds 
on July 16, 1994, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate may jointly 
designate.

SEC. 2. CONDITIONS.

    The event to be carried out under this resolution shall be free of 
admission charge to the public and arranged not to interfere with the 
needs of Congress, under conditions to be prescribed by the Architect 
of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board; except that the 
Association shall assume full responsibility for all expenses and 
liabilities incident to all activities associated with the event.

SEC. 3. STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.

    For the purposes of this resolution, the Association is authorized 
to erect upon the Capitol grounds, subject to the approval of the 
Architect of the Capitol, such stage, sound amplification devices, and 
other related structures and equipment as may be required for the event 
to be carried out under this resolution.

SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.

    The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board are 
authorized to make any such additional arrangements that may be 
required to carry out the event under this resolution.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 23, 1994.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.

  
  
  






103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 238

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 Authorizing the use of the Capitol grounds for the Greater Washington 
                            Soap Box Derby.`
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 23, 2012 

d0416 

Order 

 

April 23, 2012 

144203-4 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 144203-4 

 COA: 296509, 302136 

Tuscola CC: 09-011135-FH 

PHILLIP WAYNE HARDY, 09-011136-FH 

 Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

SHEILA KAY HARDY, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 11, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT
32.1



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO

18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I,
Yimin Jin, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | The
    Annual Report on Form 10-K of TMSR Holding Company Limited. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December
    31, 2019 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
    Act of 1934 (U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
    of the Company.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date:
    May 14, 2020 | By: | /s/ Yimin
    Jin                                                                                             
|---------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |     | Yimin
    Jin                                                                                                 
|                       |     | Chief
                                         Executive Officer
        (Principal
        Executive Officer)



The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of a separate disclosure document.
Case 3:22-cv-03270-C-BK Document 15 Filed 10/24/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 53
[ '( ~r:, ,., 

·-tr,i\ U •~ 1•/'T·, , 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NQ~~~t~tD/1?bf~RT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS U,d.iv•.,:1 D!YISiON 

LUBBOCK DIVISION 2022 IIOV 29 PH 3: 45 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

DEPUTY CLERK_~ 

v. CASE NO. 5:22-CR-067-H-BQ-1 

JULIAN CESAR TORRES, JR. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLEA 

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

This case has been referred by the United States district judge to the undersigned 

for the taking of a guilty plea. The parties have consented to appear before a United States 

magistrate judge for these purposes. This Report and Recommendation on Plea is submitted 

to the court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). 

The defendant appeared with counsel before the undersigned United States 

magistrate judge, who addressed the defendant personally in open court and informed the 

defendant of, and determined that the defendant understood, the admonitions contained in 

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

The defendant pleaded guilty (under a written plea bargain agreement with the 

government) to Count Two of the Superseding Indictment, charging defendant with a 

violation of 21 US.C. §§ 841 (a)(l) and 841 (b)(J)(A)(viii), that is, Possession with Intent 

to Distribute 50 Grams or More of Methamphetamine (Actual). After examining Defendant 

under oath the undersigned magistrate judge finds the following: 

1. Defendant, upon advice of counsel, has consented orally and in writing 

to enter this guilty plea before a magistrate judge, subject to final 

approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge; 

Case 5:22-cr-00067-H-BV Document 35 Filed 11/29/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 74
2. Defendant fully understands the nature of the charges (including each 

essential element of the offense(s) charged) and penalties; 

3. Defendant fully understands the terms of the plea agreement and plea 

agreement supplement; 

4. Defendant understands all constitutional and statutory rights and wishes 

to waive these rights, including the right to a trial by jury and the right 

to appear before a United States district judge; 

5. Defendant's plea is made freely and voluntarily; 

6. Defendant is competent to enter this plea of guilty; 

7. There is a factual basis for this plea; and 

8. The ends of justice are served by acceptance of the defendant's plea of 

guilty. 

Although I have conducted these proceedings and recommend acceptance of 

Defendant's plea of guilty, the United States district judge has the power to review my 

actions and possesses final decision-making authority in this proceeding. Thus, if 

Defendant has any objections to these findings or any other action of the undersigned, he 

is required to make those known to the United States district judge within fourteen (14) 

days of today. 

Based on the above, I recommend that Defendant's plea of guilty be accepted, that 

Defendant be adjudged guilty, and that sentence be imposed accordingly. 

Signed November 29, 2022. 

UNITED STATES MAGIS RA TE JUDGE 

Case 5:22-cr-00067-H-BV Document 35 Filed 11/29/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 75
Case 2:22-cv-00176-Z-BR Document 35 Filed 06/26/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 140
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 16 December 2004

in Case C-528/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2002/35/EC - Maritime transport - Safety of fishing vessels)

(2005/C 45/20)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-528/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Wils and K. Simonsson) v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: H.G. Sevenster and C.A.H.M. ten Dam) – action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 18 December 2003 – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk and P. Kÿris (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 December 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 59 of 06.03.2004.

----
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

NO. 5:22-CR-071-01-H

COLLIN LEE TERRELL,

Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AIYD RECOMMENDATION

OF TIIE UMTED STATES MAGISTRATE JI]DGE

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry

of a Plea of Guilty, the Consent of the Defendant, and the Report and Recommendation

Conceming Plea of Guilty of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto

having been f,led within fourteen (14) days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C.

0 636OX1), the undersigrred District Judge is of the opinion that the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge conceming 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.

Sentence will be imposed in accordance with the Court's scheduling order.

SO ORDERED.

Dated Novemb er LL , 2022.

JAMES

UNITE

SLEY NDRIX

STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUBBOCKDIVISION

Case 5:22-cr-00071-H-BQ Document 28 Filed 11/22/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 52
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 19, 2016

No. 04-16-00508-CR

Miguel AGUILAR, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CRS1753 D4

Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The trial court granted appellant’s motion for a free record and ordered the court 

reporter to prepare the record. We reinstate this appeal on the docket of the court. We order 

court reporter David J. Laurel to file the reporter’s record by November 18, 2016.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 19th day of October, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court