alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ERWIN v. SHERROD et al.

No. 5125.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

March 4, 1940.

E. A. Bills, of Littlefield, for appellant.

, Bean, Evans & Bean, of Lubbock, for appellees. . i ■

*179FOLLEY, Justice.

A petition for injunction in this cause was heretofore before this court, in which we restrained the sheriff of Lamb County from executing an alias order of sale commanding him to sell sixteen Maytag washing machines, the subject of this suit, until the final orders of this court. Our per curiam opinion in this matter will be found in Tex.Civ.App., 134 S.W.2d 756 to which we refer for a statement of this case.

This cause was submitted on its merits on February 26, 1940. Theretofore, on February 2, 1940, the appellant, C. G. Erwin, tendered to the clerk of this court his brief for filing in this cause. Such brief not having been presented within the time required, the same was not filed. No excuse has been offered by the appellant for his delay in presenting this brief, no relief has been sought for filing it out of time, and no waiver has been obtained from the appellees in regard to this matter. However, the appellees have filed briefs and present no objections to our consideration of the appellant’s briefs. We therefore shall examine the record for fundamental error.

A decision on the question of fundamental error will incidentally decide the only assignment presented in appellant’s brief. The only issue in the case is the priority of liens upon the property asserted respectively by the appellant and appellees, which issue was resolved against the appellant by the trial court. We deem it sufficient to state that we have examined the record and find ample testimony to support . the trial court’s conclusion in this respect. We are therefore of the opinion that no error of any sort is presented in this case.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### J. H. ROBINSON TRUCK LINES, Inc., v. BAIZE.

No. 11116.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

March 4, 1942.

Kemp, Lewright, Dyer, Wilson & Sor-rell, of Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Butler & Grimes, of Robstown, for ap-pellee.

MURRAY, Justice.

This suit was instituted in the Justice’s Court of Nueces County by J. W. Baize against J. H. Robinson Truck Lines, Inc., seeking to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by Baize as a result of the negligent driving of a truck belonging to the Truck Lines Company.

A trial was first had in the Justice’s Court, and an appeal taken to the County Court where a trial de novo was had before the court without the intervention of a jury, resulting in judgment in Baize’s favor for the sum of $125, from which judgment the Truck Lines Company has prosecuted this appeal.

Appellant requested the trial judge to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. They were not filed within the time required by Art. 2247, Vernon’s Ann.Civ. Stats. The appellant, in writing, called the attention of the trial court to his failure to file such findings and conclusions within the time prescribed, but the trial court again failed to file such findings of fact and conclusions of law within the additional five days allowed him under the provisions of Art. 2247, supra. There is no statement of facts in the record. Such failure on the part of the trial judge, under such circumstances, constituted reversible error. Art. 2247, supra; Art. 2208, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats.; Averill v. Wierhauser, Tex.Civ.App., 175 S. W. 794; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Loyd, Tex.Civ.App., 278 S.W. 282; Barnett v. Barnett, Tex.Civ.App., 98 S.W.2d 215.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Order entered May 21, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01378-CR

JOSE EZEQUIEL LOPEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MB16-34780-C

ORDER

We REINSTATE this appeal.

We abated the appeal for a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief had not been filed. 

On May 19, 2019, we received the reporter’s record from the hearing. At the hearing, retained 

counsel informed the trial court that appellant had signed a motion to withdraw the appeal. 

Appellant has since filed his motion to withdraw with this Court. An opinion will issue in due 

course.

 

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 31.1





CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





I, Stratton Nicolaides, certify that:





|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Numerex Corp..;
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------



|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;
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Date: April 30, 2013



| | /s/ Stratton
    Nicolaides                                                           
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Stratton Nicolaides
        
        Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATIONS**I, David Yntema, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Packeteer, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) andinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonableassurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accountingprinciples;  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors: (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Dated: May 8, 2008 /s/ David Yntema   David Yntema   Chief Financial Officer
H. Con. Res. 289 Agreed to July 12, 2010

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 3360) to amend 

title 46, United States Code, to establish requirements to ensure 

the security and safety of passengers and crew on cruise vessels, 

and for other purposes, the Clerk of the House of Representatives 

shall make the following correction: In section 4(b), strike ‘‘Coast 

Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004’’ the second place 

it appears and insert ‘‘Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation 

Act of 2006’’. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate.
#### Gilbert SINGLETON and Eldon Lee, Appellants, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 21358.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 4, 1940.

F. H. Hammond, of Burnet, and Tom L. Robinson, of Gatesville, for appellants.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Upon appellants’ plea of guilty of the offense of theft of one sheep, and the waiver of a trial by jury, the court assessed their penalty at two years’ confinement in the ■penitentiary each.

Accompanying the record is the written motion of the appellants, duly verified, requesting the privilege of withdrawing their appeal. The request is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
#### GARDNER v. STATE.

No. 21223.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 6, 1940.

J. F. Mangum, of Crockett, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was charged with cattle theft, and pleaded not guilty, and filed an application for a suspended sentence. After evidence was heard herein appellant withdrew his plea of not guilty, and was by the court allowed to plead guilty to the charge in the indictment, and the jury found him guilty, in response to the court’s charge, and assessed his penalty at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years,, refusing to suspend his sentence.

We are at a loss to see why the trial court allowed the appellant to withdraw his plea of not guilty after the testimony of the first witness was heard. Ed Tate, the first witness, the man whose cow was alleged to have been stolen by appellant, testified on cross-examination by the appellant’s attorney that appellant was of unsound mind. To the same effect was the testimony of Jesse Gardner, appellant’s father, and also the testimony of J. A. Harrison, the appellant’s employer, and also Ernie Bruton testified to the same substantial effect, that appellant was of unsound mind. At this point the court allowed appellant to withdraw his plea of not guilty and accepted a plea of guilty, whereupon Dr. Sam Barclay, a practicing physician and surgeon, was placed upon the stand by the State and testified that, according to his judgment, the appellant was of sound mind, but very timid and shy.

The trial court should not have allowed the withdrawal of the first plea of not guilty, but instead, under the circumstances, should have proceeded under the plea of not guilty and instructed the jury the law in regard to insanity. In fact it was the court’s duty to have entered a plea of not guilty in behalf of the appellant, — in the event appellant desired to plead guilty at any time during the trial, — when it developed in the course thereof that there was an issue as to appellant’s sanity before the jury.

In the Edwards case, Edwards v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 153, 114 S.W.2d 572, that was the course pursued by the learned trial judge, and such a course found sanction in the opinions in the cases of Thompson v. State, 127 Tex.Cr.R. 494, 77 S.W.2d 538; Yantis v. State, 95 Tex.Cr.R. 541, 255 S.W. 180; Taylor v. State, 88 Tex.Cr.R. 470, 227 S.W. 679; Harris v. State, 76 Tex.Cr.R. 126, 172 S.W. 975; Johnson v. State, 120 Tex.Cr.R. 368, *48*S.W.2d 274.

For the error in allowing the appellant to withdraw his plea of not guilty and plead guilty in the presence of testimony showing his insanity, this judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
H. J. Res. 75

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three

Joint Resolution

Designating January 16, 1994, as ‘‘National Good Teen Day’’.

Whereas Salem City Schools in Salem, Ohio, have proclaimed January 16, 1992, as ‘‘Good Teen Day’’;

Whereas there are more than twenty-four million teenagers in

the United States according to the 1990 Census;

Whereas our Nation’s teenagers represent an important part of

our society, and the many physical and emotional changes and

character-building experiences which teenagers go through are

an important concern;

Whereas it is easy to stereotype teenagers as either those who

have problems or those who excel;

Whereas teenagers should not simply be recognized for their intelligence, abilities, skills and talents, but rather for the good which

is inherent in all human beings;

Whereas as unique individuals, teenagers are encouraged to esteem

the good as well as the potential that is within each of them;

Whereas a day should be created to focus on the positive qualities

in America’s youth; and

Whereas teenagers are the future of this great country: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That January

16, 1994, is designated as ‘‘National Good Teen Day’’, and the

President is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe such day by
H. J. Res. 75—2

recognizing the teenagers of the United States and by participating

in appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
III 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 289 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 12, 2010 

Received; considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make 

a technical correction in the enrollment of H.R. 3360. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 3360) 

3 to amend title 46, United States Code, to establish re4 quirements to ensure the security and safety of passengers 

5 and crew on cruise vessels, and for other purposes, the 

6 Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the fol7 lowing correction: In section 4(b), strike 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HCON 289 ATS 

1 ‘‘Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004’’ 

2 the second place it appears and insert ‘‘Coast Guard and 

3 Maritime Transportation Act of 2006’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 30, 2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 231 (Thursday, November 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 71300]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30691]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207.

TIME AND DATE: Thursday, December 7, 2000, 2 p.m.

LOCATION: Room 410, East-West Towers, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland.

STATUS: Closed to the Public--Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(f)(1) and 16 
CFR 1013.4(b) (3), (7), (9), and (10) and submitted to the Federal 
Register pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3).

Matter to be Considered:  

Compliance Status Report

    The staff will brief the Commission on the status of various 
compliance matters.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-0709.

CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Sadye E. Dunn, Office of the 
Secretary, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20207, (301) 504-0800.

    Dated: November 28, 2000.
Sadye E. Dunn,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30691 Filed 11-28-00; 2:48 pm]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-M
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 425

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 3 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Received

JOINT RESOLUTION

Providing for the convening of the First Session of the One

Hundred Fourth Congress.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the first regular session of the One Hundred Fourth

4 Congress shall begin at noon on Wednesday, January 4,

5 1995.

Passed the House of Representatives October 7,

1994.

Attest:DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1378 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1378

To amend title 10, United States Code, with respect to applicability of 
  qualification requirements for certain acquisition positions in the 
                         Department of Defense.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 1993

Mr. Sisisky (for himself and Mr. Hansen) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, with respect to applicability of 
  qualification requirements for certain acquisition positions in the 
                         Department of Defense.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. APPLICABILITY OF QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN 
              ACQUISITION POSITIONS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

    Section 1724(c)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``or lower'' before ``grade''; and
            (2) by inserting ``or lower'' before ``level''.

                                 <all>
```
| | Re: | Annual Statement of Compliance for JPMBB Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2015-C28, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2015-C28
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"),
the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby
certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "Reporting Period"):



(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and
of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and



(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells
Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.







February 27, 2017





























Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
#### SHAFFER v. STATE.

No. 21129.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 5, 1940.

W. H. Crunk, of Cooper, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is possessing whisky in a dry area for the purpose of sale; the punishment, a fine of $400.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. In the absence of a statement of facts, we are unable to appraise appellant’s objections to the charge of the court.

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.
Amendment no. 1 to License no. 20732 for the territory of the Amur License Area



 EXHIBIT 4.9.1 
  
 Amendment No. 1 
 to License No. 20732 (registration series A 020114) 
 dated January 10, 2002 
  
 To amend clause 2 of the Conditions For Carrying Out Activities Under License No. 20732 to
read as follows: 
  
 “2. The aggregate installed capacity of
the network and the percentage of territory covered hereunder, provided that sufficient frequency resources are allocated, must constitute as of December 31 of each year, respectively, no less than: 
  

									
	2004	  	-	  	3,000 numbers	  	-	  	30%
	2011	  	-	  	20,000 numbers	  	-	  	70%

  

					
	 First Deputy Minister
 of the Russian
Federation for
 Telecommunications and Information Technologies
	 	 [Signature]
	 	 Yu.A. Pavlenko

			
	 	 	 	 	 April 17, 2002

			
	 Deputy Head of the Department
 of the
Organization
 of Licensing Activity
	 	 [Signature]
	 	 N.M. Popov

	 	 	 [Seal]
	 	 

  

 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
<CURRENCY>                       U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                      MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                             1
<CASH>                                  5,637
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                          69,548
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      117,792
<PP&E>                                249,615
<DEPRECIATION>                         12,349
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        439,892
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  69,670
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                  230
<OTHER-SE>                            189,005
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          439,892
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       94,351
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          86,018
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      3,173
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         5,160
<INCOME-TAX>                            2,167
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     2,993
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                            2,993
<EPS-BASIC>                              0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0.13



</TABLE>