alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Antone SPIVEY, Appellant, v. STATE, Appellee.

No. 21107.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 5, 1940.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 16, 1940.

J. A. Collier and Charles Murphy, both of Houston, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for receiving and concealing stolen property. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for two years.

This is a companion case to that of Antone Spivey v. State, 143 S.W.2d 386. The same grounds are presented here for a reversal of the judgment as in that case, and for the reasons therein stated the judgment of the trial court in the instant case 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.

On Rehearing.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The state’s motion for rehearing in this case has been fully considered. We are of the opinion that the case was properly disposed of on original hearing and that nothing new has been presented which requires further written opinion.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1461

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for stalking.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 24, 1993

Mr. MFUME introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties

for stalking.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Stalking Pre5 vention Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. TITLE 18 AMENDMENT.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 7 of title 18, United

8 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow9 ing:
2

•HR 1461 IH

1 ‘‘§ 116. Stalking

2 ‘‘(a) Whoever willfully and knowingly engages in a

3 course of conduct that involves an express or implied

4 threat to kill another person or to inflict bodily injury on

5 another person that is made—

6 ‘‘(1) with the intent to place that person in fear

7 of bodily injury or death; and

8 ‘‘(2) in any manner or context that causes that

9 person reasonably to fear bodily injury or death;

10 shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than

11 5 years, or both.

12 ‘‘(b) The United States Sentencing Commission, in

13 establishing sentencing guidelines for sentences under this

14 section shall provide a longer prison sentence for second

15 or subsequent offenses under this section or a similar non16 Federal law, while a protection order was in effect govern17 ing the defendant’s behavior toward the victim of the of18 fense.

19 ‘‘(c) As used in this section—

20 ‘‘(1) the term ‘course of conduct’ means a per21 sistent pattern or conduct composed of 2 or more

22 acts over a period of time, however short, that evi23 dences a continuity of purpose, but such term does

24 not include any constitutionally protected activity;
3

•HR 1461 IH

1 ‘‘(2) the term ‘protective order’ means any

2 court order, including any restraining order or in3 junction that orders a person—

4 ‘‘(A) to refrain from abusing or threaten5 ing to abuse another person;

6 ‘‘(B) to refrain from contacting, attempt7 ing to contact, or harassing another person;

8 ‘‘(C) to refrain from entering the residence

9 of another person; or

10 ‘‘(D) to remain away from the place of em11 ployment, school, or residence of another per12 son.’’.

13 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

14 at the beginning of chapter 7 of title 18, United States

15 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘116. Stalking.’’.

Æ
ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT 
TO
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

OF

ANDEAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

(present name)

Pursuant to the provisions of section 607.1006, Florida Statutes, this corporation adopts the following articles of amendment to its articles of incorporation:

FIRST: Article One is amended to change the name of the corporation to:

Ever-Glory International Group, Inc.

SECOND: The date of the amendment's adoption is September 10, 2005.

THIRD: The amendment was approved by the holders of common stock, the only class of shares outstanding.  The number of votes cast for the amendment was sufficient for approval.

Signed this 31st day of October, 2005



By: /s/ Yi Hua Kang______________Yi Hua Kang, President
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0000943904
<NAME>                        WNC HOUSING TAX CREDIT FUND V LP, SERIES 3
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                             897,092
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   897,092
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,090,397
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,726,324
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,090,397
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     9,386
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       27,406
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   293,818
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (311,838)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (311,838)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (311,838)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 LeCroy Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Sean B. OConnor, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: February 7, 2008 |  |  |  |                        
|                       |  |  |  | /s/ Sean B. OConnor   
|                       |  |  |  | Sean B. OConnor       
|                       |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# I



# I 1 

# I 

# l

I
I 

## j U.S. Department of Transportation Office of the Secretary ofTransportation

Mr. Jerry Mallot President, JAXUSA Partnership 3 Independent Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202 Dear Mr. Mallot: Assistant Secretary 

### JUN 25 2014 '' 

### ·
.. -·. 

### '

### :_!;l~odNew Jersey Avenue. SE**'wa'~hington,** oc 20590

Thankyou for your letter to Secretary ofTransportation Anthony Foxx, supporting the applicationofJetBlue Airways (JetBlue) for two within-perimeter slot exemptions at Ronald Reagan WashingtonNational Airport (DCA). JetBlue proposes to serve Jacksonville International Airport inJacksonville, Florida, with one nonstop round trip per day from DCA. Secretary Foxx askedthat Irespond to you on his behalf. We received JetBlue's application onMarch 25. Othertimely applications were receivedfrom American Airlines, proposing one nonstop round trip to Islip, New York; from Southwest Airlines, proposing one nonstopround trip to Kansas City, Missouri; and from People Express Airlines, proposing one nonstoproundtrip serving, on a seasonalbasis, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina (April'-October) and West PalmBeach, Florida (October-April). As the matter is still pending, I cannot comment onthe merits ofthe points raisedinyour letter. However, I can assure youthat all applications received by the U.S. Department of Transportation will be given due and careful consideration. The Department's action onthis matter is being administered througha public docket, which allows all interestedparties the opportunity to comment. Following our normal practice, I am placing a copy ofyour letter and this response in docket numberDOT-OST-2000-7182. I appreciate your interest inthis matter.

S10-140407-029 Sincerely yours,

Susan L. Kurland Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs

## E For Regional Economic Development

March 31, 2014
The Honorable Anthony Foxx Secretary United States Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: JetBiue Airways DCA-JAX Application, Docket DOT-OST-2000-7182 Dear Secretary Foxx: On behalf ofJAXUSA Partnership, a Division ofthe Jacksonville Regional Chamber of Commerce, I am writing to express my strong s_upport forJetBiue's application to offer competitive service from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) to Jacksonville International Airport (JAX) in Florida. JetBiue's new DCA-JAX service will provide low fare, high quality service between the capital's convenient, downtown airport and Jacksonville- a marketthat today is served by only one carrier. By offering lower fares and by providing exceptional, award winning service, JetBiue will provide new competition for the many travelers between Jacksonville and Washington each year. I urge you to approve JetBiue Airways' application to provide competitive nonstop service between JAX and DCA.

3 Independent Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Office 904.366.6600 www.jaxusa.or·g DUVAL FLAGLER i'Lt.I.SSAU Fax 904.353.6343 PUTi'J fvl ST. JOHNS
#### SHERRILL v. STATE.

No. 21174.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 23, 1940.

Earl Shelton, of Austin, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

This appeal is before the court without a statement of facts or bills of exception. We have examined the record and find that the indictment, presentment and trial of' the case appear regular. There is no issue that may be considered.

The judgment is affirmed.
Case 4:22-cr-00033-O Document 43 Filed 02/16/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 44
Case 4:22-cr-00033-O Document 43 Filed 02/16/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 45
No. A-969.

#### Baker et al. *v.*New York.

C. A. 2d Cir. Application for stay presented to Mr. Justice Marshall, and by him referred to the Court, denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000870541
 <NAME>                       PUBLIC STORAGE PROPERTIES XX, INC.
 <MULTIPLIER>                                                      1
 <CURRENCY>                                                       US
        
 <S>                                                             <C>
 <PERIOD-TYPE>                                                12-mos
 <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                       Dec-31-1997
 <PERIOD-START>                                          Jan-01-1997
 <PERIOD-END>                                            Dec-31-1997
 <EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                   1
 <CASH>                                                    1,252,000
 <SECURITIES>                                                294,000
 <RECEIVABLES>                                               100,000
 <ALLOWANCES>                                                      0
 <INVENTORY>                                                       0
 <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          1,646,000
 <PP&E>                                                   17,751,000
 <DEPRECIATION>                                          (3,645,000)
 <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           15,752,000
 <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     1,157,000
 <BONDS>                                                           0
 <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                             0
 <PREFERRED>                                                       0
 <COMMON>                                                     12,000
 <OTHER-SE>                                               14,583,000
 <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             15,752,000
 <SALES>                                                           0
 <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          3,466,000
 <CGS>                                                             0
 <TOTAL-COSTS>                                             1,845,000
 <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            112,000
 <LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  0
 <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                0
 <INCOME-PRETAX>                                           1,509,000
 <INCOME-TAX>                                                      0
 <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       1,509,000
 <DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
 <EXTRAORDINARY>                                                   0
 <CHANGES>                                                         0
 <NET-INCOME>                                              1,509,000
 <EPS-PRIMARY>                                                  1.59
 <EPS-DILUTED>                                                  1.25
        

</TABLE>
#### EVANS v. STATE.

No. 21205.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas..

Nov. 20, 1940.

Williford, Williford & Bond, of Fair-field, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appellant was convicted and assessed a fine of $100 by a jury in the county court of Freestone County on a charge of violating the local option law.

The evidence is without dispute in the case that appellant sold to Harold Keeling some whiskey in Freestone County on February 28,' 1940. Keeling was a representative of the Liquor Control Board. It is also without dispute in the case that an election had been properly held, the results declared, published, etc., prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor in Freestone County. The complaint and information add an. allegation to the effect that since the adoption of the local option law and the prohibition of the sale of liquor in said county, it had not been legalized by any subsequent election. There is no proof on this allegation.

The chief complaint on appeal is because of the state’s failure to prove that the sale of liquor had' not been properly legalized. In his • brief appellant submits this proposition of law: “Where a person, place or thing necessary to be mentioned in indictment is described with unnecessary particularity, all circumstances of description must be proved.”

We concede the correctness of this proposition of law and adhere to the list of authorities which are cited in the brief, but it is our conclusion that the allegation under discussion in the instant case is not necessary descriptive matter which has been alleged with unnecessary particularity, but rather as defensive matter of which the appellant might have availed himself. In Blaine v. State, 139 S.W.2d page 792, this court passed upon the very question, saying that had there been any question raised relative to such matter, it would have been necessary to submit it as an issue to the jury, citing Branch’s Criminal Law, page 375. The court, however, having before it the orders sufficient to make a prima facie case, was authorized to charge that the local prohibition law was in force and effect.

In Irish v. State, 34 Tex.Cr.R. 130, 29 S.W. 778, Judge Hurt, having the question before him, held that defensive matters must be proved by the party wishing to avail himself of it and that it will be presumed from the entering of the order of the election and prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors within the county that all preliminary matters had been favorably passed upon. He applied the same rule as is applied to judgments in civil cases.

It is, therefore, apparent that the allegation to the effect that no election had been held and that the sale of liquor had not been legalized was, from the • standpoint of the state, surplus matter. This distinguishes it from a description of necessary things which are more particularly described than is required. The rule is not the same.

The contention of appellant is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
*OPINION ISSUED OCTOBER 29, 2007*

#### STEFANEY A. WILLIAMS VS. DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION

(CC-07-228)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

James A. Kirby III, General Counsel, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This claim was submitted for decision based upon the allegations in the Notice of Claim and respondent's Answer.

Claimant seeks $64.80 which was deducted from her payroll checks from April 2005 through March 15, 2007. Claimant states that the “City of Charleston User Fees” were inadvertently deducted from her payroll checks even though she works in Westover, West Virginia. The documentation was not processed for payment within the appropriate fiscal year; therefore, claimant has not been paid. In its Answer, respondent admits the validity of the claim as well as the amount, and states that there were sufficient funds expired in the appropriate fiscal year from which the invoice could have been paid.

Accordingly, the Court makes an award to claimant in the amount of $64.80.

Award of $64.80.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-11627

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ISRAEL VASQUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-266-9

Before CLEMENT, GRAVES, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Israel Vasquez has moved for leave 

to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Vasquez has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Vasquez’s response. 

We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 30, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-11627 Document: 00515471801 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2020
No. 18-11627

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Vasquez’s motion for the 

appointment of substitute counsel or to proceed pro se is DENIED. See United 

States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

 Case: 18-11627 Document: 00515471801 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/30/2020
#### Mangal SINGH, Appellant, v. Edward L. HAFF, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization for the Port of San Francisco, Cal., Appellee.

No. 9477.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Aug. 2, 1940.

Joseph P. Fallon, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

Frank J. Hennessy, U. S. Atty., and R. B. McMillan and L. R. I&ercado, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of San Francisco, Cal., (A. J. Phelan, U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, of San Francisco, Cal., on the brief), for appellee.

Before WILBUR, MATHEWS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The order is affirmed upon the authority of Channan Singh v. Haff, 309 U.S. 634, 60 S.Ct. 720, 84 L.Ed. -, decided April 1, 1940, by the United States Supreme Court.
----

(2004/C 88 E/0685)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4038/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject:   Processing of radioactive waste in Ukraine

On 10 November 2003, the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, attended a conference in Kiev on the Wider Europe – New Neighbourhood' initiative. He also visited the Chernobyl nuclear power plant and laid the foundation stone of an industrial centre for radioactive waste treatment.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2004)

----
4:22-cr-196-O

Case 4:22-cr-00196-O Document 3 Filed 07/06/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 5
Case 4:22-cr-00196-O Document 3 Filed 07/06/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 6
Case 4:22-cr-00196-O Document 3 Filed 07/06/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 7
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1279

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that members

of Hamas (commonly known as the Islamic Resistance Movement) be

considered to be engaged in a terrorist activity and ineligible to receive

visas and excluded from admission into the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 10, 1993

Mr. DEUTSCH (for himself, Mr. HASTINGS, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, and Mr.

SAXTON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide

that members of Hamas (commonly known as the Islamic

Resistance Movement) be considered to be engaged in

a terrorist activity and ineligible to receive visas and

excluded from admission into the United States.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TERRORIST ACTIVITIES.

4 Section 212(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Na5 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)) is amended by

6 adding at the end ‘‘An alien who is a member, officer,

7 official, representative, or spokesperson of Hamas (com-
2

•HR 1279 IH

1 monly known as the Islamic Resistance Movement) is con2 sidered, for purposes of this Act, to be engaged in a terror3 ist activity.’’.

Æ