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

No. 21139.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 16, 1940.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 27, 1940.

Henry Taylor, of Temple, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in Mills County on indictment charging that he had received and concealed certain personal property of the value of $50 which had been stolen from Wilbur Waggoner. He is alleged to have received the same from Hugh Kennedy and Harrison White. The injured party operated a filling station in Center City. His place was burglarized on May 9, 1939, at about three or four o’clock in the morning. The next day the property taken was recovered at some place in a pasture belonging to appellant and “back of his house”, but the distance is not given except that it was farther than *600*yards.

The state relies on the testimony of Harrison White, who was an accomplice, for the purpose of connecting appellant with the offense charged against him. The only corroborating evidence which could be relied upon is the circumstance that the property was found on his premises. It is not shown, however, that the appellant knew anything about the property being there except by the testimony of the accomplice witness, who, likewise, had testified that he and his companion placed it there at a late hour during the night and only a few hours before it was discovered. When the property was discovered appellant was in his field plowing and not shown to be anywhere near the property.

We consider the circumstances .insufficient corroboration of the evidence of the accomplice to support a conviction. The location of the property on his premises is not shown to be near his home, and there is no indication that appellant had any knowledge it was there, except the evidence of the accomplice.

Inasmuch as the testimony of the witness accounted for the property being there, and because it is not shown that the appellant knew it was there, it was not incumbent upon appellant to explain it. Riley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 139 S.W.2d 802, and authorities there discussed.

The case is reversed and remanded for a new trial.

On State’s Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Through the Hon. James K. Evetts, District Attorney, the State has filed its motion for a rehearing which was very ably and earnestly presented in oral argument by the District Attorney.

*889It is his contention that the facts testified to by the non-accomplice witnesses sufficiently corroborate the accomplice to meet the requirement of the law. Such contention challenged our attention and has caused us to again critically examine the record before us, and after having done so, we remain of the opinion that the corroboration is not sufficient.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.
|   | ACCOUNTABILITIES,      INC. |                                      |
|--------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|   |                        |                                      |   |
|   | By:                         | /s/ Stephen      DelVecchia          |   |
|   |                        | Name:      Stephen DelVecchia        |   |
|   |                        | Title:      Chief Financial Officer  |   |
|   |                        |                                      |   |

|   | RESTAFF      SERVICES, INC. |                          |
|--------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------|
|   |                        |                          |   |
|   | By:                         | /s/ Rhonda      Faria    |   |
|   |                        | Name:      Rhonda Faria  |   |
|   |                        | Title:      President    |   |
|   |                        |                          |   |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           9,868,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                                   0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   300,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                         0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     17,002,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          31,932,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            31,986,000
<LOANS>                                        141,490,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,387,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 205,737,000
<DEPOSITS>                                     183,928,000
<SHORT-TERM>                                             0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,578,000
<LONG-TERM>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         5,250,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,971,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 205,737,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,300,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  694,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    52,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,046,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,480,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,566,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      112,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                       0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,599,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,283,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,283,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       898,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .57
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                        5.54
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,374,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                       118,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                         0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                          0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,335,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       84,000
<RECOVERIES>                                        18,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,387,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,387,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                                  0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS **

|                                       |                                                            |                                    |
|--------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                                            |                                                            |
|  August                14, 2007  |                                                       |                               |
|                                            | By:                                                   | /s/ Richard              W. Turner |
|                                       | Richard              W. Turner                                  |
|                                       | President              and              Chief Executive Officer |

**A      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been      provided to and will be retained by Conmed Healthcare Management, Inc. and      will      be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon      request.**

----

**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS **

|                                       |                                   |                                             |
|--------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                                       |                                   |
|  August                14, 2007  |                              |                                        |
|                                            | By:                          | /s/ Thomas              W.              Fry |
|                                       | Thomas              W. Fry             |
|                                       | Chief                Financial Officer |

**A      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been      provided to and will be retained by Conmed Healthcare Management, Inc. and      will      be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon      request.**

----
Order – Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SETH KRETZER, AS RECEIVER FOR 

GREAT VALUE STORAGE, LLC AND 

WORLD CLASS CAPITAL GROUP, 

LLC,

§

§

§

§

§

 Plaintiffs, §

§

v. §

§

 Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-2136-L

GVS TEXAS HOLDINGS I, LLC, et al, §

§

 Defendants. §

ORDER

On December 21, 2022, the Receiver in this case filed a Notice of Stay (Doc. 17) notifying 

the court that “the underlying Bankruptcy Cases have been stayed pursuant to an order by the 

Bankruptcy Court because Appellant, Seth Kretzer, as state court appointed Receiver for Great 

Value Storage, LLC and World Class Capital Group, LLC (the “Receiver”)[,] is subject to a 

temporary stay order issued by a state court, which order prohibits him from filing any pleadings 

or taking further action at this time” in this or any action until the stay is lifted. Notice 1. No 

response in opposition was filed to the Receiver’s Notice of Stay. Accordingly, the proceedings 

in this case are stayed and administratively closed. As there appears to be no further reason at 

this time to maintain the file as an open one for statistical purposes, the United States District Clerk 

is instructed to submit a JS-6 form to the Administrative Office, thereby removing this case from 

the statistical records. Nothing in this order shall be considered a dismissal or disposition of this 

case, and, should further proceedings in it become necessary or desirable, any party may file a 

Case 3:22-cv-02136-L Document 18 Filed 02/22/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 10328
Order – Page 2

motion to reopen the case to initiate such further proceedings, or the court may take such action 

sua sponte. 

It is so ordered this 22nd day of February, 2023.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

Case 3:22-cv-02136-L Document 18 Filed 02/22/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 10329
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William McPhee, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: From our review of the evidence, the law and the circumstances in this case, we conclude that defendant was provided with meaningful representation *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 146-147). We also conclude that the suppression court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the fruits of his warrantless arrest, his in-court identification and his statements to the police. Further, defendant has failed to preserve for review his contention that his statements to the police should have been suppressed because the police, after giving him his *Miranda*warnings *(see, Miranda v Arizona,*384 US 436), failed to honor his right to remain silent *(see, People v Mandrachio,*55 NY2d 906, 907, *cert denied*457 US 1122; *People v McNeil,*132 AD2d 986, *lv denied*70 NY2d 801). Additionally, even if the suppression court erred in failing to suppress defendant’s statements to the police, the error was harmless because the proof against defendant was overwhelming and there was no reasonable possibility that admission of these statements contributed to his conviction *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 237).

With regard to the remainder of appellate counsel’s and defendant’s *pro se*contentions, we find them either unpreserved or without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J. — robbery, first degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
Exhibit 32.5

CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Trump Entertainment Resorts Funding, Inc. (the
Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark Juliano, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

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

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



|                       |  |  |  |                                                                     
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |  | 
|Date: November 7, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/    MARK JULIANO                                                 
|                       |  |  |  | Mark Juliano                                                        
|                       |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer of Trump Entertainment Resorts Funding, Inc.
#### Ex parte BLAND.

No. 24267.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 17, 1948.

*795Thomas H. Howard, of Dallas, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Relator applied to the Judge of the District Court of Clay County, Texas, for a ■writ of habeas corpus, and as ground therefor claimed that he was illegally restrained of his liberty by the penitentiary authorities of the State of Texas. The writ was .granted. After a hearing on July 26, 1948, the Judge remanded relator to the penitentiary authorities.

From that order relator attempts to appeal to this court. Our State’s Attorney calls attention to the fact that no notice of appeal is in the record. Without such notice this court is without jurisdiction. Ex parte Davis, 105 Tex.Cr.R. 146, 287 S.W. 246; Ex parte Francis, 91 Tex.Cr.R. 398, 239 S.W. 957.

The appeal is dismissed.
# Official Journal C 176A/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.176.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 176A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5621 June 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.176.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 176A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5621 June 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Corrigenda |
| 2013/C 176A/01 | Corrigendum to notice of open competition EPSO/AD/249/13 (OJ C 75 A, 14.3.2013) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

Corrigenda

2013/C 176A/01

Corrigendum to notice of open competition EPSO/AD/249/13 (OJ C 75 A, 14.3.2013)

(OJ C 75 A, 14.3.2013)

1

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 27 | (RO) |
| 29 | |
| 33 | |
| 34 | |
| 36 | (DA) |
| 41 | (BG) |
| 43 | (EN) |
| 49 | (ET) |
| 50 | (HU) |
| 51 | (SL) |
| 54 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 58 | (EN/GA) |
| 75 | |
| 81 | |
| 82 | |
| 88 | (BG) |
| 89 | (CS) |
| 94 | |
| 104 | |
| 109 | |
| 111 | |
| 112 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 117 | (ET) |
| 118 | |
| 120 | |
| 131 | |
| 143 | |
| 160 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 162 | |
| 166 | |
| 167 | |
| 168 | |
| 172 | |
| 173 | |
| 174 | |
| 176 | (BG/DE/EN/ET/FI/IT/LT/LV/MT/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV) |

5

27

(RO)

29

33

34

36

(DA)

41

(BG)

43

(EN)

49

(ET)

50

(HU)

51

(SL)

54

(DE/EN/FR)

58

(EN/GA)

75

81

82

88

(BG)

89

(CS)

94

104

109

111

112

(DE/EN/FR)

117

(ET)

118

120

131

143

160

(DE/EN/FR)

162

166

167

168

172

173

174

176

(BG/DE/EN/ET/FI/IT/LT/LV/MT/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV)

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

EN

---

Corrigenda

| 21.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 176/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 176/1

---

Corrigendum to notice of open competition EPSO/AD/249/13

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 75 A of 14 March 2013
  )

(2013/C 176 A/01)

On page 6, in Section VI.2(d):

for:

‘..........

| (d) | a structured interview on your competencies in the field, based on the information provided in the “Talent Screener” tab of your application |
| --- | --- |

(d)

a structured interview on your competencies in the field, based on the information provided in the “Talent Screener” tab of your application

...........’,

read:

‘..........

| (d) | a structured interview, based on your competencies in the field and on the information provided in the “Talent Screener” tab of your application |
| --- | --- |

(d)

a structured interview, based on your competencies in the field and on the information provided in the “Talent Screener” tab of your application

...........’.

---
# Official Journal L 330/2017

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 330 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6013 December 2017 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 330

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6013 December 2017

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2017/2120 of amending budget No 3 of the European Union for the financial year 2017 | 1 |
| | * | Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2017/2121 of amending budget No 4 of the European Union for the financial year 2017 | 14 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

*

Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2017/2120 of amending budget No 3 of the European Union for the financial year 2017

1

*

Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2017/2121 of amending budget No 4 of the European Union for the financial year 2017

14

All amounts in this budget document are expressed in euro unless otherwise indicated.

Any revenue provided for in Article 21(2) and (3) of the Financial Regulation, entered in Titles 5 and 6 of the statement of revenue, may lead to additional appropriations being entered on the headings which bore the initial expenditure giving rise to the corresponding revenue.

Figures for outturn refer to all authorised appropriations, including budget appropriations, additional appropriations and earmarked revenue.

Budgetary remarks are only executable insofar as they do not modify or extend the scope of an existing legal base, impinge on the administrative autonomy of institutions and can be covered by available resources (as indicated in the annex to the executability letter dated 28 October 2015).

| 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.
Agenda – November 2012 Refunding 

Treasury Dealer Meetings – October 25-26, 2012 

Dealer ___________________ 

To allow more time for discussion, please e-mail your responses prior to 12:00 PM on Monday, October 

22, 2012 to Debt.Management@treasury.gov , Sean.Savage@ny.frb.org, and Kale.Smimmo@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 

 October – December 2012 / 

 Ending Cash Balance / 

 January – March 2013 / 

 Ending Cash Balance / 

 FY 2013 Total Net Marketable Borrowing 

 FY 2014 Total Net Marketable Borrowing / 

 FY 2015 Total Net Marketable Borrowing / 

 

II. Budget Deficit and Growth Estimates 

 FY 2013 / 

 FY 2014 / 

 FY 2015 / 

 Real GDP(4Q/4Q YoY % Chg) CY2013 

 Real GDP(4Q/4Q YoY % Chg) CY2014 

 Nominal GDP(4Q/4Q YoY % Chg) CY2013 

 Nominal GDP(4Q/4Q YoY % Chg) CY2014 

 

III. Quarterly Note and Bond Issuance Estimates 

 3-year note (Nov/Dec/Jan) / / / / - / / 

 10-year note (Nov) / 

 10-year note reopening (Dec/Jan) / / - / 

 30-year bond (Nov) / 

 30-year bond reopening (Dec/Jan) / 

 2-year note (Nov/Dec/Jan) / / / / - / / 

 5-year note (Nov/Dec/Jan) / / / / - / / 

 7-year note (Nov/Dec/Jan) / / / / - / / 

 10-year TIPS reopening (Nov) 

 5-year TIPS reopening (Dec) 

 10-year TIPS (Jan) 

 

IV. Bill Issuance Estimates 

 52-week bill size (Nov/Dec/Jan) / / / / - / / 

 Total change in bills outstanding 11/12-1/13 / 

 Total change in bills outstanding FY 2013 / 

 CMB issuance Nov ‘12 – Jan ‘13 (size/date) / / / / 

Discussion Topics

1. Please discuss your latest economic and fiscal forecasts for FY2013 and FY2014. Do 

you believe the current auction schedule is well-suited to meet Treasury’s expected 

financing needs? What adjustments, if any, would you recommend? 

2. Over the last several years Treasury has made substantial changes to the TIPS program in 

an effort to improve the overall liquidity of the TIPS market. For 2013, are there any 

recommendations that Treasury should consider for the TIPS program? 

3. Please discuss whether market conditions in short-dated Treasuries will be impacted by 

policy and regulatory developments in the coming months.
#### DANIELS v. STATE.

No. 21214.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 6, 1940.

No attorney for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is theft. Ori account of two previous convictions for felonies less *279than capital, which were set forth in the indictment, the penalty assessed was confinement in the penitentiary for life. See Article 63, P.C.

The state proved the two previous convictions. The proof showed that on or about September 16, 1939, someone stole an automobile belonging to Frank Penna. Shortly after the car had been taken it was found in appellant’s possession. The motor number had been filed off and the license numbers changed.

Appellant did not testify.

The evidence is deemed sufficient to support the conviction.

The judgment 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.