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

No. 21193.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

*Oct. 30, 1940.*

A. W. Hodde, of Brenham, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of burglary, upon a plea of guilty, and was by the jury assessed a penalty of two years in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exception in the. record, and the only complaint we find therein is relative to the sufficiency of the testimony to show appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This proposition might have given us concern were it not for the fact that after having received a proper warning, the appellant “persisted in pleading guilty.”

The trial court was not vitally concerned' with the quantum of proof herein; the main proposition presented to it was, not to determine appellant’s guilt, — he had confessed that in open court, — but such testimony was only for the purpose of enabling the jury to determine the amount of punishment, and the matter relative to a suspension of sentence, which was asked for herein.

We quote from the case of Anderson v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 194, 42 S.W.2d 1012: “Under the statute (articles 501, 502, C.C. P.) governing the entry of a plea of guilty, the entry of the plea, after due admoñ-*ition, is*conclusive of guilt, unless the evidence introduced upon the trial makes manifest' the innocence of the accused. Harris v. State, 76 Tex.Cr.R. 126, 172 S.W. 975. Upon a plea of 'guilty, the hearing is, not to determine the guilt of the accused, but to enable the jury to assess the punishment. Garcia v. State, 91 Tex.Cr.R. 9, 237 S.W. 279; Bennett v. State, 98 Tex.Cr.R. 661, 267 S.W.987.”

Also see Bunch v. State, 123 Tex.Cr.R. 546, 59 S.W.2d 394.

The judgment is affirmed.
Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance

Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance

Agenda

November 6, 2014

1:00 – 1:10 Welcome – Michael McRaith, Director of the Federal Insurance Office

1:10 – 1:15 New Business 

 Certification of August 7, 2014 Meeting Minutes

1:15 – 2:05 Discussion of the Role of Cyber Insurance in Cybersecurity 

 Presentation by Adam Sedgewick on National Institute of Standards 

 and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework

 Presentation by Catherine Mulligan (Zurich N.A.) on Security & Privacy 

 Insurance Landscape

 Discussion

2:05 – 2:15 Break

2:15 – 3:00 Discussion of the Affordability of Auto Insurance 

 Presentation by J. Robert Hunter (Consumer Federation of America) 

 on the Cost of Mandatory Auto Insurance for Lower Income Households

 Discussion

3:00 – 3:50 Discussion of International Supervisory Standards for Insurers, Including Capital

 Presentation by Tom Finnell (Federal Insurance Office)

 Discussion of Workstreams of the International Association of 

 Insurance Supervisors

 Discussion of Insurance Capital Standards (ICS) and the 

 U.S. Proposal on ICS 

 Discussion of EU-U.S. Insurance Project

3:50 - 4:00 Discussion of Subcommittees 

4:00 Adjourn

Federal Insurance Office

Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance

Agenda

May 10, 2018

1:00 – 1:10 Welcome & Introductions

• Steven Seitz, Deputy Director, Federal Insurance Office 

• Dan Glaser, President and Chief Executive Officer, Marsh & 

McLennan Companies 

1:10 – 1:30 InsurTech Is Happening: Are You Ready?

• Matthew Leonard, Partner, Oliver Wyman

1:30 – 2:50 City of Hartford and Support for InsurTech

• Michelle Cote, Managing Director of the Connecticut Center for 

Entrepreneurship & Innovation, University of Connecticut

• Elizabeth Maerz, Vice President, Customer Experience and

Innovation, Travelers

• Jill Frankle, Assistant Vice President, Strategic Ventures, The Hartford

• Timothy Curry, Deputy Insurance Commissioner, Connecticut Insurance 

Department

2:50 – 3:00 Break

3:00 – 3:50 Blockchain Technology in the Insurance Industry and Potential Uses 

• Susan Joseph, North American Representative, B3i

3:50 - 4:35 Developments in Auto Insurance and the Effect of Autonomous Vehicles 

• Michael Nelson, Partner, Eversheds Sutherland 

4:35 - 4:45 Federal Insurance Office Update 

• Steven Seitz, Deputy Director, Federal Insurance Office 

4:45 - 5:00 New Business 

• Approval of February 22, 2018 meeting minutes

• Set date for next meeting

5:00 Adjourn
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6939

In Re: DWAINE FRANCIS TEEL,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-98-132-4-F)

Submitted: September 6, 2001 Decided: September 14, 2001

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwaine Francis Teel, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

On June 7, 2001, Dwaine Francis Teel filed this petition for

a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to

act on his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2000) filed on September 4, 1998. The district court entered an

order granting the Government’s motion for summary judgment on July

17, 2001. Because the district court has disposed of Teel’s motion

and closed the case on its docket, Teel’s motion is moot. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.

PETITION DENIED
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except underthe limited circumstancesset forth inLocalRule

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-30989

Summary Calendar

LEONARD NICHOLAS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

BURL CAIN, Acting Warden, Louisiana

State Penitentiary; RICHARD P. IEYOUB,

Attorney General, State of Louisiana,

Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(CA-94-3955-M)

June 13, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leonard Nicholas, a Louisiana state prisoner convicted of a second-degree murder

committed in the course of an armed robbery, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

petition for habeas corpus. Nicholas contends that his trial was constitutionally infirm

because: (1) the state withheld Brady information; (2) state witnesses were allowed to

commit perjury; (3) the prosecutor engaged in improper argument; (4) he was denied the
2

right to confront witnesses; and (5) he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

The matter was referred to a magistrate judge who reviewed the record and made his

report and recommendation that the writ of habeas corpus be denied. Following a de novo

review the district court accepted and approved the magistrate judge’s report and adopted it

as its own in rejecting the plaintiff’s petition. A certificate of probable cause was granted

and Nicholas timely appealed.

Having completed our de novo review of the record in this case, and finding no

constitutional infirmity warranting a rejection of Nicholas’indictment, trial, conviction, and

sentence, we hold that essentially on the basis of the facts as found, authorities cited, and

reasons assigned in the thorough, comprehensive and well-crafted Report and

Recommendation issued by the magistrate judge and adopted by the district court, the

judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
# Official Journal L 167/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2009.167.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 167 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5229 June 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2009.167.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 167

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5229 June 2009

---

| Contents | | I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EC) No 543/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 concerning crop statistics and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 837/90 and (EEC) No 959/93 (1) | 1 |
| | * | Regulation (EC) No 544/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 on roaming on public mobile telephone networks within the Community and Directive 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (1) | 12 |
| | * | Regulation (EC) No 545/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 amending Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports | 24 |
| | * | Regulation (EC) No 546/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund | 26 |

Contents

I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EC) No 543/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 concerning crop statistics and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 837/90 and (EEC) No 959/93 (1)

1

*

Regulation (EC) No 544/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 on roaming on public mobile telephone networks within the Community and Directive 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (1)

12

*

Regulation (EC) No 545/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 amending Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports

24

*

Regulation (EC) No 546/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund

26

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

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.
#### TURNBOW et al. v. FREE et al.

No. 14121.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

Feb. 21, 1941.

Rehearing Denied April 4, 1941.

Gerald C. Mann, Atty. Gen., and R. E. Kepke and James Noel, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellant State.

Edwin M. Fulton, of Gilmer, Hendricks Brown and Mike E. Powell, both of Fort Worth, and Trueheart, McMillan & Russell, of San Antonio, for appellant Turn-bow.

Florence & Florence, of Gilmer, for ap-pellees.

McDONALD, Chief Justice.

This is a suit in the form of trespass to try title, brought by-J. W. Free and others against W. C. Turnbow, in which the State of Texas intervened as a party defendant. It is one of the four suits mentioned in W. C. Turnbow et al. v. J. F. Bland et al., 149 S.W.2d 604, on this day decided by us.

Except for the questions relating to the judgment in favor of the Humble Oil & Refining Company for the title and possession of an undivided interest in the minerals under the land in question, the controlling facts are the same as those in the Bland case, and the issues are the same. What we said in the Bland case is decisive of this case, except as to the matters hereinafter referred to.

Appellants contend that there is no evidence sufficient to show that the deed to Humble ,Oil & Refining Company conveyed an undivided interest in the minerals under the land involved in this case. J. W. Free and wife, Ida Free, the owners of the fee, pleaded that the Humble Oil & Refining Company was the owner of an undivided interest in the minerals, and have made no complaint of the judgment in favor of the Humble Oil & Refining Company. In line with our holding in the Bland case, the appellants are not in position to complain of the judgment in- this respect.,

All assignments of error are overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Motion for rehearing overruled per conclusions filed in W. C. Turnbow et al. v. J. F. Bland et al., Tex.Civ.App., 149 S.W. 2d 604.
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



The undersigned, Jean-Pierre M. Ergas, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of BWAY Corporation (the Company) and Kevin C. Kern, Vice-President of
Administration and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | (1) | The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended July 4, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: August 18, 2004



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ Jean-Pierre M. Ergas            
|Jean-Pierre M. Ergas                
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Kevin C. Kern                                           
|Kevin C. Kern                                               
|Vice-President of Administration and Chief Financial
Officer
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). 

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than February 24, 2000. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (D. Michael Manies, Assistant Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001: 

1. Hinton W. and Virginia S. Swearingen, Sedalia, Missouri; to acquire additional voting shares of 1889 Bancshares, Inc., Nevada, Missouri, and thereby indirectly acquire additional voting shares of First National Bank of Nevada, Nevada, Missouri. 

Dated: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 4, 2000. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 00-3027 Filed 2-9-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Exhibit


EXHIBIT 10.8




ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT




For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, STEADFAST ASSET HOLDINGS, INC., a California corporation (“Assignor”), hereby assigns to STAR MEADOWS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignee”), all of Assignor’s rights and obligations under and in regard to that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions dated June 29, 2015, (as may have been amended or may hereafter be amended, the “Purchase Agreement”), between AP WP Green REIT LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Seller”) and Assignor for the purchase and sale of that certain real property located in North Richland Hills, Texas, as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Property”).


Assignee hereby agrees to and shall assume, perform and be fully responsible for the performance of all of the obligations of Assignor under the Purchase Agreement.


All of the provisions, covenants and agreements contained in the Assignment shall extend to and be binding upon the respective legal representatives, successors and assigns of Assignor and Assignee.  This Assignment represents the entire agreement between Assignor and Assignee with respect to the subject matter of the Assignment, and all prior or contemporaneous agreements regarding such matters are hereby rendered null and void and of no force and effect. 


(SIGNATURES APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGE)



	
			
	Assignment of PSA-Meadows
	1
	 














WITNESS THE EXECUTION HEREOF, as of this 26th day of August, 2015.




ASSIGNOR:


STEADFAST ASSET HOLDINGS, INC., 
a California corporation


	
			
	By:
	 
	/s/ Ana Marie del Rio

	 
	 
	Ana Marie del Rio, Vice President




                    
ASSIGNEE:


STAR MEADOWS, LLC
a Delaware limited liability company


By:     Steadfast Apartment Advisor, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability         
company, its Manager
                                                
	
			
	By:
	 
	/s/ Kevin J. Keating

	 
	 
	Kevin J. Keating, Treasurer






                            
          


                            

















	
			
	Assignment of PSA-Meadows
	2
	 








Exhibit A


DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND




	
			
	Assignment of PSA-Meadows
	3
#### J. I. HARRISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 22200.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 27, 1942.

Jesse J. Bartlett, of Austin, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for wife and child desertion, punishment assessed being six months in the penitentiary.

Appellant has filed his affidavit advising this court that he does not desire to further prosecute his appeal, and upon his request said appeal is dismissed.
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

The undersigned, Kenneth M. Roessler, President and Chief Executive Officer of BWAY Holding Company and BWAY Corporation (the Companies) and
Michael B. Clauer, Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of the Companies, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | (1) | The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Companies for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 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 Companies.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Dated: May 7, 2010                   
|                                     
|/s/ Kenneth M. Roessler              
|Kenneth M. Roessler                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|                                     
|/s/ Michael B. Clauer                
|Michael B. Clauer                    
|Executive Vice President and         
|Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

KHAMLOR BOULYAPHONH, §

#56156-177 

 Plaintiff,

§

§

§

v. § No. 3:22-CV-1443-D

§

KENT W. STARR, et al.,

 Defendants.

§

§

ORDER

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, and the

November 9, 2022 findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge, the court finds that the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge are correct, and

they are adopted as the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the court.

SO ORDERED.

December 22, 2022.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

SENIOR JUDGE

 

Case 3:22-cv-01443-D-BT Document 14 Filed 12/22/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 50
|  | 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Midatech Pharma PLC (the “Company”); |
|--|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
|--|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 4. | The Company’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)) and internal control over financial reporitng (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have: |
|--|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 5. | The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): |
|--|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: April 6, 2017 | /s/ Nicholas Robbins-Cherry |
|---------------------|-----------------------------|
|                | Nicholas Robbins-Cherry     |
|                | Chief Financial Officer     |

----