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

No. 22101.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 10, 1942.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 21, 1942.

Polk Shelton, of Austin, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for receiving and concealing stolen property with a sentence of two years in the penitentiary.

The facts of this case were fully stated in a former appeal, opinion reported in 140 Tex.Cr.R. 188, 143 S.W.2d 942, and will- not be again given. It was there held that Rountree was an accomplice and wrongfully prosecuted as a principal. This holding is adhered to.

The indictment contains three counts, one of which is that for which he was convicted. Inasmuch as he was an accomplice, he could, under the facts of this case, be prosecuted either as such or for receiving and concealing stolen property. If he had been a principal, the rule would be different. This question is considered and it is so held in Gammel v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 328, 62 S.W.2d 139, and Petty v. State, 128 Tex.Cr.R. 562, 82 S.W.2d 965, to which we here refer for further discussion of the law.

Other questions raised are without merit.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

In his motion for rehearing appellant calls attention to his objection to paragraph 7 of the court’s charge instructing the jury regarding the testimony of an accomplice witness.

Appellant cites Poon v. State, 120 Tex.Cr.R. 522, 48 S.W.2d 307; Lightfoot v. State, 128 Tex.Cr.R. 281, 80 S.W.2d 984, as supporting his contention that the instruction in the present case was erroneous. A comparison of the objectionable charges in the cases mentioned with the one found hr the present record1 does not reveal defects apparent in those cases.

In Poon’s case the trial court declined to inform the jury that the accomplice witness should be corroborated as to the theft of the property as well as to the receiving by accused. In the present charge the court told the jury that the corroborating evidence must tend “to establish that a theft was committed.” In Lightfoot’s case the trial court instructed • the jury that the corroborating testimony must tend to connect the accused with the offense, not with its commission. In the present case in one place in paragraph 7 where the court is giving the rule as to the corroboration necessary he says it must in some material matter tend “to connect the defendant with the offense committed, if any,” but immediately follows with a direct instruction that the corroboration is “not sufficient if if. merely shows the commission of an offense, but must go further, and in some material way tend to connect the defendant with its commission.”

Considering the charge upon the subject of accomplice witnesses as' a whole, we think it is not subj ect to the criticisms mentioned.

The appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Case 5:22-cr-00017-H-BQ Document 33 Filed 05/17/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 69
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02
- 13
- 00108
- CV

ALLY FINANCIAL, INC. APPELLANT

V.
SANDRA GUTIERREZ AND HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL APPELLEES

------------ FROM THE 67TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

### ORDER

- ----------- On April 3, 2013, we sent the parties a letter suggesting that this case may be appropriate for referral to an alternative dispute r esolution procedure. On April 1, 2013, appellees filed a written objection to the proposed referral.

Because w e have determined that there is a reasonable basis for the objection, we sustain the objection.
The clerk's record is due on or before Monday, May 27, 2013

.2 The clerk of this court is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the attorneys of record, the trial court judge, and the trial court clerk.

DATED April 15, 2013

.

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

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement  dated as  of June 1, 2015,by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Master Servicer, LNR Partners, LLC, as General SpecialServicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Excluded Mortgage LoanSpecial Servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Trust Advisor, WilmingtonTrust, National Association, as Trustee,  and  Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar,Authenticating Agent and Custodian with respect to Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates Series 2015-C23 (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
- 20151120Letter_Shelby
- 20151120Letter_Brown
- 20151120Letter_Hatch
- 20151120Letter_Wyden
- 20151120Letter_Hensarling
- 20151120Letter_Waters
- 20151120Letter_Brady
- 20151120Letter_Levin
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DARRON ANTOINE DEWAYNE

TAYLOR, TDCJ No. 2085048,

Petitioner,

VS.

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:22-CV-2093-G-BN

)

)

)

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a

recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed

the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding

none, the court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the

United States Magistrate Judge. 

The court therefore TRANSFERS Petitioner’s unauthorized successive 28

U.S.C. § 2254 habeas application to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth

Circuit for appropriate action.

And, because the court is transferring the application to the Fifth Circuit, a

certificate of appealability (“COA”) is not necessary. See United States v. Fulton, 780

Case 3:22-cv-02093-G-BN Document 5 Filed 10/19/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 42
F.3d 683, 688 (5th Cir.) (“[A] transfer order under [28 U.S.C.] § 1631 is not a final

order within the meaning of [28 U.S.C.] § 2253(c)(1)(B), and the appeal of such an

order does not require a COA.”), cert. denied, 577 U.S. 967 (2015); Guel-Rivas v.

Stephens, 599 F. App’x 175, 175 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (applying Fulton’s

holding to transfer of a successive Section 2254 application).

SO ORDERED.

October 19, 2022.

___________________________________

A. JOE FISH

Senior United States District Judge

- 2 -

Case 3:22-cv-02093-G-BN Document 5 Filed 10/19/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 43
<page>			EXHIBIT 31.01



CERTIFICATIONS


I, Jeffrey A. Rothman, President of Demeter Management Corporation
("Demeter"), the general partner of the registrant, certify that:


1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the
registrant;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-
15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under
our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;

b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)	Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting; and


<page>
5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of Demeter's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and

b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting.







Date:   November 15, 2004     /s/	Jeffrey A. Rothman
                                  	Jeffrey A. Rothman
                               	  	President,
	  	Demeter Management Corporation,
                                  	general partner of the registrant
#### McDANIELS v. STATE.

No. 22710.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 12, 1944.

Aubrey Davee, of Brady, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was charged by complaint and information with a violation of the liquor laws of McCulloch County, in that he unlawfully sold intoxicating liquor therein. Upon a trial before a jury he was given a term of fifteen days in the county jail.

There are no bills of exceptions in the record, and the statement of facts clearly substantiates the allegations in the pleadings.

Appellant is exercised over the failure of the county attorney to read the complaint to the jury, although he had previously read the information to such jury. We think the *950county attorney adopted the proper procedure in reading the information alone to the jury. See Art. 642(1), C.C.P.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         194,339
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  742,108
<ALLOWANCES>                                    70,000
<INVENTORY>                                    468,530
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,227,625
<PP&E>                                         436,958
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,020,720
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,320,040
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       956,312
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,020,720
<SALES>                                      8,155,322
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,155,322
<CGS>                                        7,520,905
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,520,905
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,046,115
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              74,617
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,554,847)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,554,847)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,554,847)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)


</TABLE>
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS: 28 USC §2254 (Rev. 9/10) 

ADOPTED BY ALL FEDERAL COURTS IN TEXAS 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FILED 

L.��� 16 2022 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU CLERK, U.S. DISTRJCT COURT 

T lly •.••.• �-&--=-,---

a,=,Sw� 

'--·-····-····---·�----� 

FOR THE (\I O Rll(ER N DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

fo RT VVO RTL-£ DIVISION 

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY 

A PERSON IN STATE CUSTODY 

ELlGAH DAKf\lELL JR

PETITIONER 

(Full name of Petitioner) 

v

s

. !2ioBBY LurvtPlo((f\l 1

0rr1ttTORJTO(J- CID

RESPONDENT 

(Name ofTDCJ Director, Warden, Jailor, or 

authorized person having custody of Petitioner),,_ 

Mlc/-lAEL UNtT

CURRENT PLACE OF CONFINEMENT 

PRISONER ID NUMBER 

4 ... 22CV-712- O 

CASE NUMBER 

(Supplied by the District Court Clerk) 

INSTRUCTIONS - READ CAREFULLY 

I. The petition must be legibly handwritten or typewritten and signed and dated by the petitioner, ,1μ,

under penalty of perjury. Any false statement of an important fact may lead to prosecution for ;S

perjury. Answer all questions in the proper space on the form.

2. Additional pages are not allowed except in answer to questions 11 and 20. Do not cite legal

authorities. Any additional arguments or facts you want to present must be in a separate

memorandum. The petition, including attachments, may not exceed 20 pages.

3. Receipt of the $5. 00 filing fee or a grant of permission to proceed in forma pauperis must occur

before the court will consider your petition.

4. If you do not hav

e the necessary filing fee, you may ask permission to proceed in forma pauperis.

To proceed informa pauperis, (1) you must sign the declaration provided with this petition to

show that you carmot prepay the fees and costs, and (2) if you are confined in IDCJ-CID, you

must send in a certified In Forma Pauperis Data Sheet form from the institution in which you are

confined. If you are in an institution other than 1DCJ-CID, you must send in a certificate

completed by an authorized officer at your institution certifying the amount of money you have

on deposit at that institution. If you have access or have had access to enough funds to pay the

filing fee, then you must pay the filing fee.

Case 4:22-cv-00712-O Document 1 Filed 08/16/22 Page 1 of 12 PageID 1
Case 4:22-cv-00712-O Document 1 Filed 08/16/22 Page 2 of 12 PageID 2
Case 4:22-cv-00712-O Document 1 Filed 08/16/22 Page 3 of 12 PageID 3
Case 4:22-cv-00712-O Document 1 Filed 08/16/22 Page 4 of 12 PageID 4
Case 4:22-cv-00712-O Document 1 Filed 08/16/22 Page 5 of 12 PageID 5
Case 4:22-cv-00712-O Document 1 Filed 08/16/22 Page 6 of 12 PageID 6
Case 4:22-cv-00712-O Document 1 Filed 08/16/22 Page 7 of 12 PageID 7
Case 4:22-cv-00712-O Document 1 Filed 08/16/22 Page 8 of 12 PageID 8
Case 4:22-cv-00712-O Document 1 Filed 08/16/22 Page 9 of 12 PageID 9
Case 4:22-cv-00712-O Document 1 Filed 08/16/22 Page 10 of 12 PageID 10
Case 4:22-cv-00712-O Document 1 Filed 08/16/22 Page 11 of 12 PageID 11
Case 4:22-cv-00712-O Document 1 Filed 08/16/22 Page 12 of 12 PageID 12
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Federal Insurance Office

Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance

Agenda

January 5, 2017

1:00 – 1:15 Welcome

1:15 – 2:00 Discussion of the Emerging Cost Drivers in Auto Insurance

 Presentation by Peter Drogan, Vice President and Chief Actuary,

Amica Mutual Insurance Company

2:00 – 2:45 Discussion of Blockchain Technology in the Insurance Sector

 Presentation by Matt Higginson, Partner,

McKinsey & Company

2:45 – 3:00 Break

3:00 – 3:45 Discussion of an Overview of Insurance Fraud

 Presentation by Alan Haskins, Director, Government Affairs,

National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB)

3:45 – 4:15 Discussion of the Opportunities and Challenges to Insurance Regulation and

Consumer Protection from Insurers' Use of Big Data

 Presentation by David (Birny) Birnbaum, Executive Director,

Center for Economic Justice

4:15 – 4:25 Discussion of the IAIS’ Proposed Insurance Capital Standard

 Presentation by A. Thomas Finnell Jr., Deputy Director, Regulatory Policy 

Federal Insurance Office, U.S. Department of the Treasury

4:45 – 4:50 New Business

 Set date for next meeting

4:50 Adjourn
SCWC

- 16

- 0000096 & SCWC

- 16

- 0000597

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI  I

STATE OF HAWAI  I, Respondent/Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs.

JESSE W. JONES, Petitioner/Defendant

- Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP

- 16

- 0000096 & CAAP

- 16

- 000059 7; 1PC121000865 )

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ., and Circuit Judge Johnson, in place of Wilson, J ., recused )

Petitioner/ Defendant

- Appellant Jesse W. Jones’
Application s for Writ of Certiorari, filed on October 25 , 2019,

are hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai  i, December 9 , 2019

. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Ronald G. Johnson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-16-0000096 09-DEC-2019 02:11 PM
Case 1:22-cr-00059-H-BU Document 21 Filed 12/01/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 44
Case 1:22-cr-00059-H-BU Document 21 Filed 12/01/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 45
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 22, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 70328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29643]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL-6859-2]


National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; 
National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed deletion of the John Deere Ottumwa Works Site (Site) 
from the National Priorities List (NPL).

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region VII proposes 
to delete the John Deere Ottumwa Works site from the National 
Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this action. The 
NPL constitutes Appendix B to Part 300 of the National Oil and 
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA 
promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. 
The EPA has determined that the site poses no significant threat to 
public health or the environment, as defined by CERCLA, and therefore, 
further remedial measures pursuant to CERCLA are not appropriate.
    We are publishing this rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no 
dissenting comments. A detailed rationale for this approval is set 
forth in the direct final rule. If no dissenting comments are received, 
no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives dissenting 
comments, the direct final action will be withdrawn and all public 
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on 
this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. 
Any parties interested in commenting should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments concerning this Action must be received by December 22, 
2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Debra Kring, Environmental 
Protection Specialist, Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region VII, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 
66101. Comprehensive information on this site is available through the 
public docket which is available for viewing at the Site information 
repository at U.S. EPA Region VII, Superfund Division Records Center, 
901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Debra Kring, Environmental Protection 
Specialist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 901 North 5th Street, 
Kansas City, KS 66101, fax (913) 551-7063.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, see the Direct 
Final Action which is located in the Rules Section of this Federal 
Register.

    Dated: August 17, 2000.
William Rice,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VII.
[FR Doc. 00-29643 Filed 11-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
- 1 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JONATHAN AVERY, on behalf of himself 

and all others similarly situated.

 Plaintiff,

 v.

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF 

EMPLOYERS, INC. AND BENEFYTT 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-01224-E

Jury Trial Demanded

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

To the Clerk of Court:

Please be advised that Plaintiff JONATHAN AVERY and Defendants, NATIONAL 

CONGRESS OF EMPLOYERS, INC. (hereinafter “NCE”) and BENEFYTT 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (hereinafter “Benefytt”) have reached a resolution in this matter.

Plaintiff (with the consent of both Defendants) thereby requests that all deadlines be 

removed from the calendar and that the case be kept open administratively for 60 days to allow

the Parties time to finalize and consummate the settlement.

 Respectfully submitted,

Dated: August 1, 2022 /s/ Jacob U. Ginsburg

 Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq.

 Kimmel & Silverman, P.C.

 30 East Butler Ave.

 Ambler, PA 19002

 Phone: (215) 540-8888

 Facsimile: (877) 788-2864

 Email: jginsburg@creditlaw.com

Case 3:22-cv-01224-E Document 11 Filed 08/02/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 35
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq., hereby certify a true and correct copy of the foregoing notice 

has been served on all parties of record via email and/or ECF (method specified below) on the 

following parties on August 1, 2022:

National Congress of Employers

c/o Law Office of Josef M. Mysorewala, PLLC (via email)

2000 S Dixie Highway, Suite 112

Miami, Florida 33133

josefm@lawjmm.com

(305) 356-1031

Counsel for National Congress of Employers

Ann Marie Arcadi

ARCADI JACKSON, LLP

2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 800

Dallas, Texas 75219

Telephone: 214-865-6458

Facsimile: 214-865-6522

annmarie.arcadi@arcadijackson.com

Counsel for Defendant Benefytt Technologies, Inc.

/s/ Jacob U. Ginsburg

Case 3:22-cv-01224-E Document 11 Filed 08/02/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 36