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

No. 21198.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 6, 1940.

On Rehearing Jan. 15, 1941.

David E. O’Fiel, of Beaumont, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of cattle theft, and on an allegation of a former conviction for a similar offense he was given a penalty of ten years.

The record is before us without bills of exception.

Appellant testified in his own behalf and said that he had taken the cattle at the instance of his cousin under the belief that they belonged to his cousin’s father and that he had authority to take them. The jury declined to accept the defensive theory presented by appellant, and assessed the very heavy penalty. The circumstances surrounding the taking of the cattle and the transporting of them to Plouston for sale, with which appellant was intimately connected, justifies the jury in reaching the conclusion which they did. It is not for this court to say that they exceeded their authority. The court overlooked giving effect to the indeterminate sentence law as provided by Art. 775, C.C.P., Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P. art. 775. The sentence is amended to direct that the punishment be confinement in the penitentiary for not less than two nor more than ten years. Otherwise the record appears to be in every way regular, and the judgment of the trial court as amended is affirmed.

On State’s Motion for Rehearing.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

On November 6, 1940, during the present term, the judgment in this case was reformed and affirmed. Subsequently the state has filed a motion to set aside that order on the ground that there was no notice of appeal in the record and that this court is without jurisdiction to enter such order.

Upon further examination of the record the motion is granted, the judgment of af-firmance set aside and the mandate of this court reflecting such judgment is recalled and the appeal is dismissed.
- 1 -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WICHITA FALLS DIVISION

JACKI PICK. §

§

§

 Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 7:22-cv-00112-O

§

BRADLEY JAY RAFFENSPERGER §

§

 Defendant. §

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Substitution of Counsel (ECF No. 28), filed 

August 9, 2023. The Motion is hereby GRANTED. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Matthew Sarelson, Christopher M. Halbohn, and Karin 

M. Sweigart of Dhillon Law Group, inc. are hereby discharged as attorneys of record for Plaintiff. 

Further, C. Dunham Biles and Jeremy R. Wilson, of Biles Wilson, PPLC are hereby substituted as 

attorneys of record for Plaintiff in the above-entitled and numbered cause. Service of all documents 

shall be made upon said attorneys as specified below:

• Firm: Biles Wilson, PLLC

• Mailing Address: 547 Laurence St., Suite 195, Heath, TX 75032

• Telephone: (972) 345-2626

• Email for Service: Dunham@bileswilson.com; Jeremy@bileswilson.com

SO ORDERED this 16th day of August, 2023.

Case 7:22-cv-00112-O Document 29 Filed 08/16/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 344
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          63,998
<SECURITIES>                                12,673,831
<RECEIVABLES>                                  300,674
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,038,503
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          278,190
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,760,313
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,038,503
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               708,264
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   86,158
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                622,106
<INCOME-TAX>                                   622,106
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            622,106
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   622,106
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DARIN D. HARRIS,

#939000

§

§

 Plaintiff, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-01525-K (BT) 

§

PROSPERITY BANK, 

 Defendant.

§

§

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

case, and the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge dated August 16, 2022, the Court finds that the Findings and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are accepted as the 

Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the Court. IT IS, THEREFORE, 

ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge are accepted. 

SO ORDERED.

Signed September 9th, 2022.

____________________________________

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01525-K-BT Document 7 Filed 09/09/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 28
A. APPLICANT INFORMATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

Not A Consortium

Community Now Receives EAS subsidy

Community (or Consortium member) prevoiusly received a Small Community Grant

If previous recepient: Date of Grant Expiration Date of Grant: N/A

B. PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS (LIST ORGANIZATION NAMES):

PRIVATE

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

C. PROJECT PROPOSAL (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

D. EXISTING LANDING AIDS AT LOCAL AIRPORT:

Regional Air Service Enhancement (RAISE)

Intrastate Consortium

PUBLIC

Interstate Consortium

Federal Funds Requested:

Carrier(s) Service Obtained:

Destination(s) Served:

N/A

Start-Up Cost Offset

Secure Additional Service

Marketing

Travel Bank

Surface Transportation

Launch New Carrier

Published Instrument Approach

All applicants must submit this information with their proposal, along with a completed Form SF424 on www.grants.gov

SUMMARY INFORMATION

SMALL COMMUNITY AIR SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PROGAM

DOCKET DOT-OST-2012-0069

Full ILS Outer/Middle Marker

New Route

Subsidy

Revenue Guarantee

First Service

Study Other (explain below)

Upgrade Aircraft

Service Restoration

Regional Service

Localizer Other
E. PROJECT COST (DO NOT ENTER TEXT INTO SHADED AREA):

F. IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS**

G.

H.

LINE DESCRIPTION SUBTOTAL TOTAL

1 Federal Amount Requested $ 2,000,000

3a. Airport cash funds $ 275,000

3b. Non-airport cash funds $ 1,200,000

2 State cash financial contribution $ -

Local cash financial contribution

In-Kind Contribution

5a. Airport in-kind contribution** $ 125,000

3 TOTAL CASH FUNDS (3a+3b) $ 1,475,000

4 TOTAL CASH FUNDING (1+2+3) $ 3,475,000

6 TOTAL PROJECT COST (4+5) $ 3,600,000

5b. Other in-kind contribution** $ -

5 TOTAL IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION (5a+5b) $ 125,000

For funds in lines 5a (airport in-kind contribution) and 5b (other in-kind contribution), please describe the source(s) of fund(s) for 

each:

Airport in-kind contribution is from waived landing fees and terminal fees.

IS THIS APPLICATION SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY STATE UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS?

IS THE APPLICANT DELINQUENT ON ANY FEDERAL DEBT? (IF "YES", THEN PROVIDE EXPLANATION)

c. Program is not covered by E.O. 12372

No Yes (please explain below)

a. This application was made available to the state under Executive Order 12372 Process review on (date): 

______________

b. Program is subject to E.O. 12372, but has not been selected by the state for review
1 

No. 03-13-00760-CR

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRD DISTRICT

AUSTIN, TEXAS

 

JAMES BROWN, 

 Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

 Appellee.

 

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING APPELLEE'S BRIEF

 

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:

 The State of Texas, by and through the District Attorney for Travis County, 

respectfully moves this Court to extend the time for filing Appellee's brief. In 

support of this motion, the State respectfully shows the Court as follows:

 Appellee's brief in this cause is due on Friday, January 30, 2015. Appellee has

not requested any prior extension to file Appellee's brief. Appellee respectfully 

requests an extension of one month. 

As of January 14, 2015, I, William G. Swaim III, was appointed Special 

Assistant District Attorney for this appeal. Appellee requests this extension in order 

ACCEPTED

03-13-00760-CR

3794398

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

1/16/2015 10:45:16 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/16/2015 10:45:16 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
2

to have an appropriate amount of time to review the record and to respond fully to 

Appellant’s brief.

PRAYER

For these reasons, the State requests the Court to grant this motion to extend 

the time for filing Appellee's brief until February 27, 2015. 

Respectfully submitted,

ROSEMARY LEHMBERG

DISTRICT ATTORNEY

TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

/s/ William G. Swaim III

Special Assistant District Attorney

State Bar No. 00785074

P.O. Box 1748

Austin, Texas 78767

Phone (512) 854-9637

Fax No. (512) 854-9316

Bill.Swaim@traviscountytx.gov
3

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i), I hereby certify, based 

on the computer program used to generate this motion, that this motion contains 337

words, excluding words contained in those parts of the brief that Rule 9.4(i) exempts 

from inclusion in the word count. 

/s/ William G. Swaim III 

Special Assistant District Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that, on this the 16th day of January 2015, a copy of the foregoing 

motion was sent, via U.S. mail, email, or electronically through the electronic file 

manager, to the following attorney for the appellant:

Tanisa Jeffers, Esq. Brian 

Bernard, Esq. Bernard & 

Associates 1203 Baylor 

Street Austin, TX 78703

Fax: 512.478.9827

Email: tanisaL@hotmail.com

attorneybernard@yahoo.com

/s/ William G. Swaim III 

Special Assistant District Attorney
23

Figure 1

2006-2008 Lead Monitored Design Values
24

Figure 2
25

Figure 3

Location and Emissions of Stationary Sources in Madison County
26

Figure 4

Proximity of Emission Sources to Nearby Monitor
27

Figure 5

Location of NL Industries/Taracorp Superfund Site
28

Figure 6

Madison County Population Density and Urbanization 
29

Figure 7

Madison County Total Population by Municipality
30

Figure 8

Percent of Land Cover by Type in Madison County 
31

Figure 9
32

Figure 10

Meteorology – St. Louis Wind Rose
33

Figure 11

Madison County Elevation (Topography)
34

Figure 12

Proposed Lead Nonattainment Area, City of Granite City
INDEX OF STATE COURT DOCUMENTS Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

USI SOUTHWEST, INC., §

§

 Plaintiff, §

§

v. § CIVIL NO. 3:22-cv-02161

§

HUB INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE §

SERVICES, INC., §

§

 Defendant. §

INDEX OF STATE COURT DOCUMENTS 

No.

Date Filed

or Entered Document

B N/A State Court Docket Sheet

C-1 08/16/2022 Plaintiff’s Original Petition

C-2 08/16/2022 Citation for HUB International Insurance Services, Inc. 

C-3 08/16/2022 Jury Demand

C-4 09/02/2022 Return of Service for Executed Citation for HUB International 

Insurance Services, Inc. 

C-5 09/26/2022 HUB International Insurance Services, Inc.’s Original Answer

Case 3:22-cv-02161-S Document 1-1 Filed 09/29/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 6
#### NAVAIRA v. STATE.

No. 21302.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 23, 1940.

Walter Hein, of San Antonio, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is aggravated assault; the punishment, a fine of fifty dollars.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

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.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 11 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 11

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
  provide that Representatives shall be apportioned among the several 
 States according to their respective numbers, counting the number of 
      persons in each State who are citizens of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2009

  Mrs. Miller of Michigan introduced the following joint resolution; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
  provide that Representatives shall be apportioned among the several 
 States according to their respective numbers, counting the number of 
      persons in each State who are citizens of the United States.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States 
according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by 
counting the number of persons in each State who are citizens of the 
United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7246

MAKANDI L. TERRY , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN EVANS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 4:17

- cv - 00207

- DCN )

Submitted : February 22, 2018 Decided: March 6, 2018

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Makandi L. Terry, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Caroline M. Scrantom, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublis hed opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Makandi L. Terry seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relie f on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

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

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

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Terry has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Ter ry’s motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                     Exhibit 11.1
                               ACTIVE VOICE CORPORATION
                          Computation of Earnings Per Share
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                               Year Ended March 31,
                                                              ----------------------------------------------
                                                                    1997           1996           1995  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                          <C>            <C>             <C>         
PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE
Average shares outstanding                                       4,580,841      4,515,698      4,434,541
Net effect of dilutive stock options based on the treasury
  stock method using average market price                           42,299        128,046        168,920
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total                                                            4,623,140      4,643,744      4,603,461
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Net income                                                      $1,751,000     $5,162,000     $5,110,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per share amount                                                     $0.38          $1.11          $1.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
Average shares outstanding                                       4,580,841      4,515,698      4,434,541
Net effect of dilutive stock options based on the treasury
  stock method using the period end market price, if higher
  than average market price                                         46,867        129,690        173,683
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total                                                            4,627,708      4,645,388      4,608,224
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Net income                                                      $1,751,000     $5,162,000     $5,110,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per share amount                                                     $0.38          $1.11          $1.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

</TABLE>


                                       34
#### Harvey C. Jones, as Parent and Natural Guardian of Harvey C. Jones, Jr., an Infant, Respondent, v Park Realty et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 1.)

— Appeal dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Because we have reversed the order denying the motion for summary judgment and have granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the appeal from this order is moot *(see, Jones v Park Realty*[appeal No. 2], 168 AD2d 945 [decided herewith]).

All concur except Balio and Lawton, JJ., who dissent and vote to affirm in the following memorandum.

Balio and Lawton, JJ.

(dissenting). We respectfully dissent.

Inasmuch as we concluded in our dissenting memorandum in *Jones v Park Realty*([appeal No. 2] 168 AD2d 945, 946 [decided herewith]) that the trial court properly denied summary judgment this appeal is not moot. We concur with Supreme Court’s ruling that set aside the jury’s verdict in the interest of justice and granted a new trial. Consequently, we would affirm. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J. — set aside verdict.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
#### MESSMER v. STATE.

No. 21270.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 16, 1940.

Jesse R. Orth, of Odessa, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a.conviction in Ector County on a charge of murder in which a penalty of three years was assessed.

The sheriff of Ector county, having in custody the appellant in this cause, has presented and filed his affidavit showing that the appellant escaped from jail where she was confined on the 8th day of April, 1940, and was out of his view and custody and wholly at large until the 5th day of *620June, 1940, when she was captured and returned to his custody and placed in jail where she is at this time confined. On this showing the state has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.

Upon the showing made, the appeal is dismissed.
#### TALAMANTEZ v. STATE.

No. 21432.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 12, 1941.

Ditzler H. Jones, of Uvalde, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was charged with robbery of the person by assault, and by the jury awarded a penalty of five years in the penitentiary.

He complains in his motion for a new trial of a failure of the allegation and proof to correspond. in the matter of the name of the person alleged to have been robbed. We find that the. indictment alleges the person robbed to have been named Toleno Rodriguez, and we find the testimony of the witness to be: “My name is Victoriano Rodriguez, and I also go *800by the name of Toleno Rodriguez; they call me Toleno Sanchez but it’s Toleno Rodriguez; that’s my name, Toleno Rodriguez, and I live here in Brackett, and have lived here since I was a boy.”

It seems that the injured party was known by possibly two names, and it- seems to be sufficient to allege either name in the indictment. See Branch’s Penal Code, p. 239, Sec. 464; Stokes v. State, 46 Tex.Cr.R. 357, 358, 81 S.W. 1213.

The testimony shows that appellant struck the complaining witness over the head and knocked him down, and while the witness was down appellant again struck witness and then ran his fingers under the fingers of the complaining witness and forcibly took the money out of witness’ hand and left. We think these facts show a robbery by assault as charged in the indictment.

We find no error presented to us, and therefore the judgment is affirmed.