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

No. 21657.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 25, 1941.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 5, 1941.

*850Clem Calhoun, of Amarillo, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Under an indictment charging that appellant assaulted W. C. Anderson with intent to murder him with malice, he was convicted of such assault without malice and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years.

The sufficiency of the evidence to authorize the conviction presents the only question for review.

According to the State’s testimony, W. C. Anderson, Sheriff of Hall County, pursuant to a telephone call from others living in the neighborhood of appellant, went to appellant’s home. Hume, a policeman, accompanied him. They approached the house, and, as they stepped onto the porch, the light thereon flashed on. The remainder of the house was dark. As Anderson was about to knock, appellant, with a rifle in his hand, appeared at the door. Anderson said to him, “I want to talk to you, Doc”, whereupon appellant pushed back the screen door and opened fire, firing three shots — one at Anderson, the others at Hume. The bullet shot at Anderson passed through his clothing, without entering the body, but “just left a kind of blood blister” on the skin. Hume was not hit. Anderson attempted to return the fire but his gun jammed. Hume returned the fire, firing two shots from a .38 calibre pistol, without hitting áppellant.

Appellant, testifying as a witness in his own behalf, denied that he had a gun in his hand, or that he fired a shot. He said that, as he opened the door, a shot was fired; that Anderson fell off the porch; and that he saw Hume fire two shots at Anderson, aimed at his stomach.

Appellant claimed that the physical facts —the range and lodgment of the bullets —corroborated his theory and showed that he did not fire the shots as claimed.

Disputed issues of fact are for the jury, and their findings will not be disturbed upon appeal. The State’s testimony amply authorized the jury’s conclusion of guilt. Shoffitt v. State, 128 Tex. Cr.R. 486, 82 S.W.2d 379; Honey v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 98, 102 S.W.2d 224; Catlett v. State, 75 Tex.Cr.R. 9, 169 S.W. 673.

There appear in the record some special charges seeking to have certain argument of State’s counsel withdrawn from the jury’s consideration. No exception was reserved to the action of the trial court in refusing to submit the charges. Such charges are, therefore, not subject to be considered.

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.
EXHIBIT 13.1



CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL

OFFICER 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 Annual Report of L&S Light & Strong, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Uri Orbach does certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his
knowledge:



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



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



| | /s/ Uri Orbach                
| | ------------------------------
| | Uri Orbach                    
| | Chief Executive Officer and   
| | Acting Chief Financial Officer
| |                               
| | Date:  April 21, 2016
# Official Journal C 263/2015

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 263 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5811 August 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 263

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5811 August 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 263/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2015/C 263/01

Euro exchange rates

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 263/02 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7652 — Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich/Valida Holding) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2015/C 263/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7720 — Mahindra World City Developers/Sumitomo/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 263/04 | Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 4 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2015/C 263/02

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7652 — Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich/Valida Holding) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

2

2015/C 263/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7720 — Mahindra World City Developers/Sumitomo/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

3

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2015/C 263/04

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

4

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Agenda -- February 2005 Refunding 

Treasury Dealer Meetings January 27-28, 2005 

Dealer ___________________ 

To allow more time for discussion, please e-mail your responses prior to 5:00 p.m. on 

Wednesday, January 26 to debt.management@do.treas.gov . Even if you are not 

scheduled to meet with Treasury officials this quarter, your responses are still 

appreciated. 

I. Borrowing Estimates Central 

Estimate

Range that would 

not surprise you 

January – March 

 Ending Cash Balance 

April-June 

 Ending Cash Balance 

II. Budget Deficit Estimates 

FY2005 

FY2006 

III. Quarterly Note Issuance 

 3-year note 

 5-year note 

 10-year note 

Avg 2-year note, Feb - Apr 

Avg 5-year note, Mar - Apr 

10-year reopening 

5-year TIPS reopening 

10-year TIPS reopening 

IV. Discussion Topics 

• What do you see as risks to higher or lower budget deficits than you have forecast 

here? Do you think the current financing schedule provides enough flexibility to 

handle uncertain financing needs going forward? 

 

• We are considering the setting of coupons in decimal increments rather than the 

current 1/8 increments. Ideally we would set coupons at 0.001% increments, 

allowing us to increase the number of securities issued at par (i.e., the coupon would 

be in the same units as the bid award). Should we move to 0.001% increments or 

would higher increments be preferable? Why? 

• To prevent unintended reopenings, we are also considering a policy of stepping down 

a coupon by one increment. Do you see any difficulties with this approach?
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

CHARLES EDWARD SCOTT, §

 § 

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00750-O-BP

 §

ANYONE THAT IS STILL CLAIMING §

MY PROPERTY GRANTED MY THE §

JUDGE IN FORT WORTH, TEXAS, §

 §

Defendant. §

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, and the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is ripe for 

review. The District Judge reviewed the proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation 

for plain error. Finding none, the undersigned District Judge believes that the Findings and 

Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are accepted as the Findings and 

Conclusions of the Court. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

SO ORDERED on this 6th day of October, 2022. 

Case 4:22-cv-00750-O Document 10 Filed 10/06/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 33
# Official Journal L 230I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 230I |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6430 June 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 230I

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6430 June 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Decision (EU) [2021/1074] of the European Central Bank of 18 June 2021 on the temporary exclusion of certain exposures to central banks from the total exposure measure in view of the COVID-19 pandemic and repealing Decision (EU) 2020/1306 (ECB/2021/27) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Decision (EU) [2021/1074] of the European Central Bank of 18 June 2021 on the temporary exclusion of certain exposures to central banks from the total exposure measure in view of the COVID-19 pandemic and repealing Decision (EU) 2020/1306 (ECB/2021/27)

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 

§ 

VS, § CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-357-K (01) 

 § 

ZAVEN DEMOND SNEED § 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

ZAVEN DEMOND SNEED, by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 

(5th Cir. 1997), has appeared before me pursuant to Fed. R. Crim.P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to

the One Count Indictment, filed on September 20, 2022. After cautioning and examining Defendant

Zaven Demond Sneed, under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined that 

the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense charged is supported by an 

independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore recommend 

that the plea of guilty be accepted, and that Defendant Zaven Demond Sneed, under oath concerning each 

of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was, be adjudged guilty of Possession 

of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon, in violation of 18 USC § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8), and have sentence 

imposed accordingly. After being found guilty of the offense by the district judge. 

□ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody. 

□ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear 

and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the 

community if released. 

□ The Government does not oppose release. 

□ The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release. 

□ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to 

any other person or the community if released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or 

(c).

□ The Government opposes release.

□ The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release. 

□ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

□ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there 

is a substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly 

shown under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the 

community if released. 

 Signed October 31, 2023. ____________________________________ 

 REBECCA RUTHERFORD

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date 

of its service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United 

States District Judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B).

Case 3:22-cr-00357-K Document 25 Filed 10/31/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 38
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. 1971 Idaho]

      ( print page 70561)    
On November 14, 2000, Idaho Power Company filed a request for additional time to respond to the Request for Additional Studies and Information (fish passage studies) filed on October 30, 2000, by the Nez Perce Tribe, American Rivers, Idaho Rivers United, and Trout Unlimited. Idaho Power Company stated that more time is needed to identify the nature and extent of any disagreement over the scope, content, and timing of ongoing studies and the issues raised by the study request.

Upon consideration, notice is hereby given that an extension of time for the filing of a response is granted to and including December 14, 2000.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-29950  Filed 11-22-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 263

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 30 (legislative day, JUNE 7), 1994

Received

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Thursday, June 30, 1994, it stand adjourned

4 until 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 12, 1994, or until noon

5 on the second day after Members are notified to reassem6 ble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,

7 whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses

8 or adjourns at the close of business on Thursday, June

9 30, 1994, Friday, July 1, 1994, Saturday, July 2, 1994,

10 or Sunday, July 3, 1994, pursuant to a motion made by

11 the majority leader or his designee, in accordance with this

12 resolution, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on

13 Monday, July 11, 1994, or at such time on that day as
2

HCON 263 RDS

1 may be specified by the majority leader or his designee

2 in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon on the

3 second day after Members are notified to reassemble pur4 suant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever

5 occurs first.

6 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the majority

7 leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

8 the minority leader of the House and the minority leader

9 of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House and

10 the Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their

11 opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Passed the House of Representatives June 29, 1994.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ABILENE DTVISION

I]NITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

NO. 1:22-CR-067-01-}]

DOMINIC ANTHONY ASCENCIO,

Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE I,JNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JIJDGE

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 Guilfy of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto

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

$ 636(bX1), the undersigrred District Judge is ofthe opinion that the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge concerning 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 Decembe, Z' 

, zoz2.

JAMES

UNITE

SLEY HENDRIX

STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:22-cr-00067-H-BU Document 21 Filed 12/02/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 38
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 190 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             H. J. RES. 190

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

   Designating July 17 through July 23, 1993, as ``National Veterans 
                        Golden Age Games Week''.



                                     


103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 190

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION


 
   Designating July 17 through July 23, 1993, as ``National Veterans 
                        Golden Age Games Week''.

Whereas from July 17, 1993, through July 23, 1993, the Department of Veterans 
        Affairs Medical Center at Mountain Home, Tennessee, will host the 
        seventh annual Veterans Golden Age Games;
Whereas the games are a national multi-event sports and recreational competition 
        for veterans, age 55 and over, who are currently receiving medical care 
        from the Department of Veterans Affairs;
Whereas sports and recreation are integral components in the rehabilitative 
        medicine programs offered at Veterans Administration hospitals, and help 
        improve the health and quality of life for older veterans;
Whereas veteran athletes from across the United States will compete in events 
        and competitions at the games;
Whereas the National Veterans Golden Age Games Program serves as a showcase for 
        the prevention and therapeutic medical value that sports and recreation 
        provide in the lives of all older Americans; and
Whereas the games provide further recognition of the valiant service given to 
        the Nation by its veterans: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That July 17 through July 23, 
1993, is designated as ``National Veterans Golden Age Games Week'', and 
the President is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation 
calling upon the people of the United States to observe such week with 
appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 13, 1993.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.`
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7209** 

WILLIE JOE CALDWELL , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. MICHAEL MCCALL , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 4:12

- cv - 02619

- SB )

Submitted : November 21, 2013 Decided: December 6, 2013

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Willie Joe Caldwell, Appellant Pro Se. Brendan McDonald, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit
.2 PER CURIAM: Willie Joe Caldwell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion to reconsider the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificat e of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006)
. 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) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the meri ts, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Caldwell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument beca use the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED