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

No. 22766.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 16, 1944.

Forse & Forse, of Newton, for appellant. . Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State. -

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for the sale of whisky in a dry area. The punishment assessed is a fine of $100.

Appellant brings forward several complaints but we deem it necessary to discuss only the one relating to the variance between the allegation and the proof. It was charged in the complaint and information that *on or*about the 2nd day of October, 1943, appellant did, in Newton County, Texas, a dry area, sell whisky to Allen E. Lewis. The proof showed that the bottle which contained the liquid sold was labeled “Rum”. No other proof of any kind or character that it was whisky was introduced. Consequently there is a variance between the allegation and the proof which requires a reversal of the judgment of conviction.. In support of what we have said we refer to the following cases: Early v. State, 56 Tex.Cr.R. 61, 118 S.W. 1036; Poston v. State, 58 Tex.Cr.R. 583, 126 S.W. 1148; Flippin v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 352, 115 S.W.2d 665, pages 355, 667, respectively, on motion for rehearing; McMillan v. State, 128 Tex.Cr.R. 640, 83 S.W.2d 674; Coleman v. State, 21 Tex.App. 520, 526, 2 S.W. 859.

For the error pointed out, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and! approved by the Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 199 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 199

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 9, 2009

        Received and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Recognizing the 10th Anniversary of the redesignation of Company E, 
 100th Battalion, 442d Infantry Regiment of the United States Army and 
   the sacrifice of the soldiers of Company E and their families in 
                     support of the United States.

Whereas Company E, 100th Battalion, 442d Infantry Regiment of the United States 
        Army was redesignated on February 16, 1999, on the islands of Saipan, 
        Tinian, Rota, Guam and protects the citizens of the Northern Mariana 
        Islands and Guam;
Whereas the soldiers of Company E and their families are active community 
        volunteers supporting the local community and participating in community 
        events;
Whereas Company E has served with great honor and distinction for two tours in 
        Iraq in 2004-2006 and 2008-2009;
Whereas Army Staff Sergeant Wilgene T. Lieto, Army SPC Derence W. Jack, and Army 
        Sergeant Julian F. Manglona of Company E made the ultimate sacrifice for 
        the United States while they served in Iraq; and
Whereas Company E commemorates one of the original companies of the 100th 
        Battalion, 442d Infantry Regiment, which served with distinction during 
        World War II, and continues to live by its motto ``Go For Broke'': Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That Congress--
            (1) recognizes the valuable, historic, and continued 
        contribution of Company E, 100th Battalion, 442d Infantry 
        Regiment of the United States Army to the citizens of the 
        Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the United States;
            (2) commends the efforts and contributions of the soldiers 
        and sacrifices of the families of Company E, 100th Battalion, 
        442d Infantry Regiment to the United States;
            (3) recognizes and reaffirms the commitment of Congress to 
        support the mission of Company E, 100th Battalion, 442d 
        Infantry Regiment; and
            (4) honors the lives of the soldiers of Company E, 100th 
        Battalion, 442d Infantry Regiment who made the ultimate 
        sacrifice on behalf of the United States.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 8, 2009.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 

 § 

VS. § CRIMINAL NO. 4:22-CR-323-Y 

 § 

DANIEL LAL (1) § 

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ADJUDGING DEFENDANT GUILTY 

The Court has reviewed all relevant matters of record in this case, 

including especially (1) the Consent to Administration of Guilty Plea 

and Allocution by United States Magistrate Judge and (2) the Report of 

Action and Recommendation on Plea Before the United States Magistrate 

Judge. No objections to either have been filed within fourteen (14) 

days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, 

the Court concludes that the report and recommendation of the magistrate 

judge on 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. The defendant’s sentence will be imposed in 

accordance with the Court’s sentencing scheduling order. 

SIGNED November 21, 2022. 

 

 _________________________________ 

 TERRY R. MEANS 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cr-00323-Y Document 28 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 56
)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTzuCT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

RANDA M. RHODES,

Plaintiff.

CREDIT GLORY. INC.,

Defendant. Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-2095-C

Court flnds Plaintiff's Motion should be GRANTED.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that dclault

judgment is entered in favor of Plaintilf against Defendant in the amount of:

(1) actual damages of$17,500.00;

(2) attomey's fees and costs of$2,480.10;

(3) post-judgment interest at the applicable statutory rate.

nnl

Signed this / / day ol December. 2022.

SA INGS

IOR ED STATE CT.IUDGE

C

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

On this date, the Court considered Plaintiff s Motion for Default Judgment, the

L/? t//

4/'V7'77/t

I

Case 3:22-cv-02095-C Document 12 Filed 12/27/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 45
Case 2:22-cv-00202-Z-BR Document 9 Filed 12/20/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 30
Case 2:22-cv-00202-Z-BR Document 9 Filed 12/20/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 31
ex10-1.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 


Interest-Free LOAN AGREEMENT


 


UNICOBE CORP.


 


Dated May 21, 2014


 


 


This Loan Agreement (the “Agreement”) has been made between Anatoliy Kanev, sole officer and director of Unicobe Corp. (the “Mr. Kanev”) from one side and Unicobe Corp. (the “Company”), with the address Serdike 17A, ap. 37, Sofia, Bulgaria, 1000 from another side.


 


The purpose of the Agreement: The Company requires funds for proceeding business operations and Mr. Kanev has agreed to loan to the Company $40,000 US DOLLARS (the “Loan”) on the terms and conditions written below. Here the parties has agreed to follows:


 



	
1.  

	
 In accordance to this Agreement Mr. Kanev has agreed to loan to the Company the Loan in accordance with the execution of the Agreement on demand of the Company;







 



	
2.  

	
The advanced Loan is non-interest bearing, secured and payable upon demand;







 



	
3.  

	
Any additional loans from Mr. Kanev to the Company are subject to the same terms and conditions as this Agreement, unless otherwise agreed in writing.







 



	
4.  

	
In accordance to the registration statement of the Company, if the proceeds from the offering of shares will not be sufficient, Mr. Kanev will loan to the Company needed additional funds to complete the registration process, implement business plan, and maintain reporting status and quotation on the OTC Electronic Bulletin Board or other quotation service.







 



	
5.  

	
The Loan is available for the Company until the Company starts generating revenues to remain operational and pay the bills.







 


Repayments of the Loan:


 


The repayment of the Loan to Mr. Kanev by the Company will start when the Company will earn sufficient revenues to cover all liabilities and expanses. The repayment will be in accordance to the Loan amount of funds by the Company to Mr. Kanev for the period of time from inception of the Company till the date of last loan.


 


In witness thereof the parties has agreed to the terms and conditions written above as of May 21, 2014.


 


Authorized signature of:


 


Anatoliy Kanev/ Unicobe Corp.                       /s/Anatoliy Kanev
#### Gilbert MAY, Marlin Holton, John Benard and Irvin McCray, Appellants, v. STATE, of Texas, Appellee.

No. 22373.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 4, 1942.

A. M. Mood, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant Marlin Holton has filed his personal affidavit, asking that his appeal be dismissed as he no longer desires to prosecute same. The request is granted and, as to said appellant, the appeal is dismissed.

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,
STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND
                            PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS


                        AMERICAN RADIO SYSTEMS CORPORATION


                                   EXHIBIT 12

         The following  table reflects the  computation of the ratio of earnings
to combined fixed charges and preferred stock dividends for the years indicated.
(In thousands, except ratio data)



                                                Three Months    Three Months  
                                               Ended March 31,  Ended March 31,
                                                    1996             1997      
                                               --------------   ---------------

Computation of Earnings:
Loss from continuing operations before
   extraordinary loss and income taxes            $   (827)         $ (4,410)
Add:                                                               
Interest expense (1)                                 4,702             7,504
Rent expense (2)                                       285               494
                                                  --------          --------
Earnings as adjusted                                 4,160             3,588
                                                  ========          ========
Computation of Fixed Charges:                                      
Interest expense (1)                                 4,702             7,504
Rent expense (2)                                       285               494
Preferred dividends (3)                                                6,198
                                                  --------          -------- 
Fixed charges                                        4,987            14,196
                                                  ========          ========
Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and                    
   preferred stock dividends                          --                --
                                                                   
Deficiency in earnings required to cover                           
   combined fixed charges and preferred stock                      
   dividends                                           827            10,608
                                                                   
                                                                   
                                                                   
                                                             
-----------------------------------

(1)  Interest expense includes amortization of deferred financing costs.

(2)  The  interest  element  of  rent  expense  is  assumed  to be 30% of  gross
     operating  rent charges.  

(3)  Includes dividends on redeemable preferred stock.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tony Gomez, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bonnie Wittner, J.), rendered January 3, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of assault in *389the second degree and sentencing him to concurrent, indeterminate terms of imprisonment of *2Vz*to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

The People established that Graham, a correction officer assaulted by defendant, had suffered "physical injury”, as defined in the Penal Law. The headaches and swelling that Graham described, the testimony given by the chiropractor, and the records of the Correction Department showed that Graham suffered substantial pain *(Matter of Philip*A., 49 NY2d 198) and impairment of a physical condition *(People v McDowell,*28 NY2d 373). Failure to introduce the records of St. John’s Hospital, where Graham was treated, was not fatal to the People’s case as the evidence was otherwise sufficient *(cf, People v Morales,*75 AD2d 745).

Defendant also fails to show that he is entitled to a new trial because the court’s supplemental charge on physical injury was deficient. Not only had the court’s main charge properly defined physical injury three times, but the jury did not avail itself of the court’s offer to prepare another note in the event that jury determined that more guidance was necessary. Moreover, the jury certainly recognized that it had to find that Graham in fact suffered physical injury. Counsel had stressed the point in summation. Concur—Ross, J. P., Rosenberger, Kassal, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 7716

LINWOOD WHITEHEAD , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. MS. ROOKS, Correction Officer , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Raymond A. Jackson , District Judge. ( 2:19

- cv - 00326

- RAJ

- RJK )

Submitted : March 29, 2022 Decided: April 1, 2022

Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges.

Remanded by un published per curiam opinion

. Linwood Whitehead, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Linwood Whitehead seeks to appeal the district court’s order d ismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to prosecute . In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court e xtends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s order was entered on July 27, 2021. Whitehead filed his notice of appeal on December 10, 2021. Therefore, Whitehead’s notice of appeal is untimely. However, under R ule 4(a)(6), the district court may reopen the time to file an appe al on a party’s motion if: (1) the moving party did not receive notice of entry of judgment within 21 days after entry; (2) the motion is filed within 180 days of entry or within 14 days after the moving party receives notice from the court, whichever is earlier; and (3) no party would be prejudiced. In his notice of appeal , Whitehead indicated his desire to appeal and stated that he had not received the district court’s final order until a few days before filing his notice of appeal. We construe the not ice of appeal as a motion to reopen the appeal period under R ule 4(a)(6). Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether Whitehead is entitled to a reopening of the appeal period. The record, as supp lemented, will then be returned to this court for further proceedings.
REMANDED
Dear Mr. Parsons, 

 

I am deeply concerned about the negative impact on air quality from the oil and gas development in the

Colorado Plateau. I am requesting that you tightly regulate this industry to protect the health of Utah citizens. 

Thank you, Judy Gooch 

Re Docket ID: EPA-HQ-Oq-2010-0505

Judith Gooch 

to: 

Nick Parsons 

08/02/2010 03:15 PM 

Show Details 

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\nparsons\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web4753.h... 8/9/2010
Agenda – May 2010 Refunding 

Treasury Dealer Meetings Friday, April 30, 2010 

Dealer ___________________ 

To allow more time for discussion, please e-mail your responses prior to noon on Wednesday, 

April 28, 2010 to Debt.Management@do.treas.gov and Fabiola.Ravazzolo@ny.frb.org. Even if you are 

not scheduled to meet with Treasury officials this quarter, your responses are still appreciated. 

I. Marketable Borrowing Estimates 

 Central 

Estimate 

Range that would not 

surprise you 

 Low/High 

 April – June / 

 Ending Cash Balance / 

 July - September / 

 Ending Cash Balance / 

 FY 2010 Total Marketable Borrowing / 

 FY 2011 Total Marketable Borrowing / 

 

II. Budget Deficit Estimates 

 FY 2010 / 

 FY 2011 / 

 FY 2012 / 

 

III. Quarterly Note and Bond Issuance Estimates 

 3-year note (May/Jun/Jul) / / / / - / / 

 10-year note (May) / 

 10-year note reopening (Jun/Jul) / / - / 

 30-year bond (May) / 

 30-year bond reopening (Jun/Jul) / 

 2-year note (May/Jun/Jul) / / / / - / / 

 5-year note (May/Jun/Jul) / / / / - / / 

 7-year note (May/Jun/Jul) / / / / - / / 

 10-year TIPS (Jul) / 

 

IV. Bill Issuance Estimates 

 52-week bill size (May/Jun/Jul1/Jul2) / / / / / / - / / / 

 Total change in bills outstanding May ‘10 – Jul ‘10 / 

 Total change in bills outstanding FY 2010 / 

 CMB issuance May ‘10 – Jul ‘10 (size/date) / / / / 

Please provide your estimates in the format provided above with central estimates followed by low/high 

estimates for each. 

Discussion Topics

1. Treasury indicated at the February refunding that debt managers are contemplating a reduction in 

coupon sizes as the fiscal outlook improves. How should Treasury accomplish such a reduction?

2. The Securities and Exchange Commission recently adopted amendments to rule 2a-7 of the 

Investment Company Act of 1940. Please discuss how these changes may impact the demand 

for Treasury bills and any effects they may have on broader Treasury repo and cash market 

functioning. 

3. In February, Treasury announced that it is considering increasing the frequency of TIPS auctions 

through the addition of a second reopening of 10-year TIPS offerings. What considerations 

should Treasury keep in mind if it decides to implement such a change? Going forward, what 

other changes regarding TIPS issuance should Treasury be evaluating?
Amendment to Lease Agreement



 Exhibit 10.26 
  
 AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT 
  
 BY AND BETWEEN 
  
 PROLOGIS NORTH AMERICAN PROPERTIES FUND, L.P. 
 (Successor in interest to SCI Development
Services Incorporated) 
  
 And 
  
 EYE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC. 
  
 This Amendment To Lease Agreement is made and effective this 1st of June, 2003, by and between ProLogis North American Properties Fund, L.P. (hereinafter, “Landlord”) and Eye Care
Centers Of America, Inc., (hereinafter, “Tenant”). 
  
 WITNESSETH: 
  
 WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant previously entered into
that certain Lease Agreement dated the 13th of February 1997, as amended (such lease and all amendments thereto
collectively hereinafter referred to as the “Lease”), providing for the leasing by Landlord to Tenant of that certain office/warehouse space containing 40,000 square feet located at Tri-County Distribution Center, Building #1, at 5925
Tri-County Parkway, Suite 150, Schertz, Texas 78154 (the “Original Premises”); and 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the foregoing, and in consideration of mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the Lease is modified and amended as set out below: 
  

	 	1.	With regard to Lease Term the following shall apply: 

  
 The Lease Term shall be extended 60 full calendar months, from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2009. 
  

	 	2.	With regard to Base Rent for the extended term the following shall apply: 

  

				
	 Term

	  	Monthly Base Rent


	 July 1, 2004 – June 30, 2007
	  	$	17,200.00
	 July 1, 2007 – June 30, 2009
	  	$	18,800.00

  

	 	3.	With regard to Tenant Improvements the following shall apply: 

  
 Landlord shall provide at no cost to Tenant an additional parking area immediately adjacent to Tenant’s existing parking area. All construction to
be in accordance with ProLogis standard construction specifications. See attached Exhibit A for parking plan to be constructed. 
  
 IT IS HEREBY AGREED BY THE PARTIES HERETO, that with the exception of those terms and conditions specifically modified and amended herein, the herein referenced Lease
shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with all its terms and conditions. 
  
 In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment To Lease Agreement as of the day and year as first above written. 
  

													
	LANDLORD:	  	 	 	TENANT:
		
	 PROLOGIS NORTH AMERICAN PROPERTIES FUND LIMITED
 PARTNERSHIP, a Texas limited partnership
	 	Eye Care Centers of America, Inc.
				
	By:	  	 ProLogis NAPF I LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
  
	 	By:	 	 /s/ David E. McComas


	 	  	By:	  	ProLogis North American Properties Fund I LLC, its Sole Member	 	Its:	 	 David E. McComas
 President & CEO

						
	 	  	 	  	By:	  	ProLogis Management Incorporated, its Manager	 	Date:	 	5/14/03
							
	 	  	 	  	 	  	By:	  	 /s/ Mark Cashman

	 	 	 	 
	 	  	 	  	 	  	Name:	  	Mark Cashman	 	 	 	 
	 	  	 	  	 	  	Title:	  	Senior Vice President	 	 	 	 








 EXHIBIT A
IA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 372

Disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (Most-FavoredNation treatment) to the products of the People’s Republic of China.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 26, 1994

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

the Committee on Ways and Means

JOINT RESOLUTION

Disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment

(Most-Favored-Nation treatment) to the products of the

People’s Republic of China.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the Congress does not approve the extension of the

4 authority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of

5 1974 recommended by the President to the Congress on

6 May 26, 1994, with respect to the People’s Republic of

7 China.

Æ