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

No. 16016.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 31, 1933.

Rehearing Granted June 23, 1933.

Harwood Beville, of Amarillo, for appellant. I

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for misdemeanor'theft; punishment, ninety days in the county jail.

*121Appellant’s motion for new trial was overruled on October 20, 1932. By order of the court sixty days were given for filing statement of facts and bills of exception. Computation shows this period to have expired on December 19, 1932. Thereafter the court made an order granting thirty days’ additional time for such filing. The period first granted having expired, the court had no power to make an extending order on December 20th. Wiggs v. State, 117 Tex. Cr. R. 539, 36 S.W.(2d) 765; Cupp v. State, 118 Tex. Cr. R. 238, 38 S.W.(2d) 1102; Buckley v. State, 108 Tex. Cr. R. 316, 300 S. W. 67; Stevenson v. State, 110 Tex. Cr. R. 383, 10 S.W.(2d) 548; Simpson v. State, 110 Tex. Cr. R. 399, 10 S.W.(2d) 567; Leago v. State, 112 Tex. Cr. R. 39, 13 S.W.(2d) 852; Ibeck v. State, 112 Tex. Cr. R. 287, 16 S.W.(2d) 232. Many other authorities are to the same effect.

The bills of exception were filed January 18th. We regret that under the law same cannot be considered. Article 760, C. O. P., requires that bills of exception be filed within thirty days after the expiration of the trial term, or else within the limit of some period fixed by legal order of the court. It is uniformly held that after the expiration of a time limit fixed by order of the court, the trial court has no power to grant a new extension which would take the time of filing beyond that fixed by statute.

The statement of facts, however, was filed on January 18, 1932, which was within the ninety-day period granted by said article 760, supra, from the overruling of the motion for new trial, and said statement of facts has been considered. Examination of the facts causes, us to say that we are without power to decide that the jury had no right to believe appellant guilty. There are facts in the record supporting such conclusion.

Finding no error in the record calling for reversal, the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The bills of exception and statement of facts were filed too late for consideration. This is demonstrated in the opinion on original hearing.

It appears from the record that the trial was had before Curtis Douglass, special county judge of Carson county. The record fails to show that the special judge took the oath of office as required by the ■Constitution and by article 555, C. C. P. 1925. In the trial of a criminal case, the necessity that the record show a compliance with the Constitution in the particular mentioned is absolute. See many cases cited in Vernon’s Ann. Tex. C. C. P. vol. 1, p. 481. See, also, Mims v. State, 112 Tex. Cr. R. 176, 15 S.W.(2d) 628; McLemore v. State, 107 Tex. Cr. R. 408, 296 S. W. 552.

For the reason stated, the -motion for rehearing is granted, the affirmance is set aside, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
#### MOSLEY v. STATE.

No. 21156.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 26, 1940.

Percy Woodard, of Marshall, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was tried before the county judge charged with unlawfully carrying a pistol, and by the court fined the sum of $100.

The complaint charging this offense is as follows: “I, H. H. Whatley, do solemnly swear that I have reasons to believe, and do believe, that Alvin Mosley, on or about the 14th day of October, 1939, in the County of Harrison, and State of Texas, and before ' the making and filing of this complaint, did then and there unlawfully on or about his person carry a pistol against the peace and dignity of the State.”

The information follows the complaint in that it is there charged that appellant did carry on ‘or’ about his person a pistol is will be noted that this offense is charged in the disjunctive, and such allegation has often been held bad because of such fact. The allegation should have charged this offense in the conjunctive, that is, the word “and” should have been used in place of the word “or”, and failing to do so the complaint and information are bad for uncertainty. We quote from Branch’s Penal Code, p. 556, as follows: “An indictment or information alleging that defendant did carry on “or” about his.person a pistol is bad for uncertainty,, because the allegation *949is in the alternative. Davis v. State, 23 Tex.App. 637, 638, S S.W. 149; Canterberry v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 44 S.W. 522; Countryman v. State, 52 Tex.Cr.R. 23, 105 S.W. 181; Lewellen v. State, 54 Tex.Cr.R. 640, 641, 114 S.W. 1179; Harris v. State, 58 Tex.Cr.R. 523, 126 S.W. 890; Hunter v. State, 73 Tex.Cr.R. 459, 166 S.W. 164.”

The judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 174 (Monday, September 9, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 73059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20178]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2024 / 
Notices

[[Page 73059]]



AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Notice of Advisory Committee Charter Re-Establishment

AGENCY: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 
the U.S. Agency for International Development is hereby giving notice 
that the Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid (ACVFA) is being 
re-established.

ADDRESSES: To view additional information related to ACVFA please visit 
http://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are/organization/advisory-committee.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Vargas, Designated Federal 
Officer for ACVFA, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#96fde0f7e4f1f7e5d6e3e5f7fff2b8f1f9e0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2b405d4a594c4a586b5e584a424f054c445d">[email protected]</span></a> or 202-705-5769.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ACVFA brings together USAID and 
representatives from private voluntary organizations (PVO), 
universities, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and multilateral 
and private organizations to foster understanding, communication, and 
cooperation in the area of foreign aid. The Administrator of USAID is 
re-establishing the committee for two years, effective on the date of 
filing of its renewed charter.

Karen Vargas,
ACVFA Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2024-20178 Filed 9-6-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6116-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000874320


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                            413,845
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  34,418,746
<ALLOWANCES>                                      903,769
<INVENTORY>                                        13,373
<CURRENT-ASSETS> *                                      0
<PP&E>                                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 34,263,140
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES> **                                0
<BONDS>                                        17,470,845
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                     16,374,660
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   34,263,140
<SALES>                                         6,011,140
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                6,011,140
<CGS>                                             614,441
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                1,204,426
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,651,940
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    2,540,333
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           6.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           6.30
<FN>
*    The  Partnership  has  an  unclassified  balance  sheet  in  its  financial
     statements due to the nature of its industry.  A value of "0" was used for
     current assets and liabilities.

**   The  Partnership  has  an  unclassified  balance  sheet  in  its  financial
     statements due to the nature of its industry.  A value of "0" was used for
     current assets and liabilities.
</FN>




</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Charles J. Hogarty, certify that: 

 

1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc.; 

 

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, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: February 6, 2004
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 28, 2016

d1212 

# Order

Clerk December 28, 2016

153297 & (20)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153297

COA: 330813

Kalamazoo CC: 2010

- 002000

- FC

LONNIE HANEY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 29, 2016

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIE D, because the defendant’s

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). The motion for judicial

notice is DENIED.
#### BEAVER v. BEAVER.

No. 1439.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

Feb. 9, 1933.

H. E. Chesley, of Hamilton, for appellant.

Robert W. Brown, of Gatesville, for appel-lee.

ALEXANDER, Justice.

 This case is before the court on motion of appellee to affirm on certificate because of the failure .of appellant to file the transcript within the time provided by law. *280The record discloses that the trial court rendered final judgment on August 1, 1932. Appellant’s motion for a new trial was overruled on the 24th day of August, 1932, at which time notice of appeal was given. On the 15th day of September, 1932, appellant perfected her appeal by filing the statutory affidavit in lieu of an appeal bond. The time within which the transcript should have been filed in the Court of Civil Appeals expired October 23, 1932. Revised Statutes, article 1839, as amended in 1931 (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 1839). Appellee filed his' motion to affirm on certificate January 17, 1933, during the term to which appellant’s appeal was returnable.

Under the provisions of Revised Statutes, article 1841, thei appellee is entitled to have the judgment of the trial court affirmed. Article 1841, Revised Statutes; 3 Tex. Jur. 737; Scottish Union & Nat. Ins. Co. v. Clancey, 91 Tex. 467, 44 S. W. 482; Snelling v. Security Trust Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 288 S. W. 241; Burton v. Sells (Tex. Civ. App.) 202 S. W. 357; Wagley v. Wagley (Tex. Civ. App.) 1 S.W.(2d) 917; Dandridge v. Masterson, 105 Tex. 511, 152 S. W. 166; Woodfin v. Hulen (Tex. Civ. App.) 13 S.W.(2d) 390.

The motion to affirm on certificate is granted, and the judgment of the trial court affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2245 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2245

 To include New Zealand in the list of foreign states whose nationals 
   are eligible for admission into the United States as E-1 and E-2 
 nonimmigrants if United States nationals are treated similarly by the 
                       Government of New Zealand.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 18, 2017

 Ms. Hirono (for herself, Mr. Lee, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Gardner, 
 Mr. McCain, and Mrs. Murray) introduced the following bill; which was 
       read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To include New Zealand in the list of foreign states whose nationals 
   are eligible for admission into the United States as E-1 and E-2 
 nonimmigrants if United States nationals are treated similarly by the 
                       Government of New Zealand.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Knowledgeable Innovators and Worthy 
Investors Act'' or the ``KIWI Act''.

SEC. 2. NONIMMIGRANT TRADERS AND INVESTORS.

    For purposes of clauses (i) and (ii) of section 101(a)(15)(E) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)), New 
Zealand shall be considered to be a foreign state described in such 
section if the Government of New Zealand provides similar nonimmigrant 
status to nationals of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7038
STANLEY D. LOWE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AUGUSTA CORRECTIONAL CENTER ADMINISTRATION;JACK LEE, Assistant Warden, Augusta Correctional Center; R. L. BOYERS, Lieutenant, Augusta Correctional Center; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DANDRIDGE, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-96-338-R) Submitted: September 17, 1996 Decided: October 9, 1996 Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley D. Lowe, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Theresa Bowers, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court order denying his motion for appointment of counsel. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. Appellant's motions before this court for appointment of counsel, for leave to amend his complaint to add new defendants, and for reconsideration are denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### OVERSTREET et al. v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF BOWIE.

No. 13050.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

Jan. 27, 1934.

■ J. S. Overstreet, of Ryan, Okl., for appellants.

*278T. B. Coftield and J. W. Chancellor, both of Bowie, for appellee.

LATTIMORE, Justice.

This is on motion of appellee to dismiss appeal for want of an appeal bond. The district clerk fixed the probable costs in the Court of Civil Appeals and the Supreme Court at $50, whereupon the appellant paid the costs in the trial court and also deposited $50 in cash with the district clerk in lieu of an appeal bond for costs and presents here his record on appeal.

Curiously enough our statutes nowhere in words say that a cash deposit may be made in lieu of the appeal bond provided for in article 2265, R S. However, same is not prohibited and we are inclined to the belief such a deposit, accompanied by an appropriate written declaration of its purpose, signed and filed with the clerk of the trial court and by him certified to us, would be plainly within the spirit of the law. It satisfies every reason for the bond. Bondsmen fail, but, until the United States government fails, the cash security will be liquid.

However, we are not.called on to decide this question for the deposit is not in double the amount of such probable costs. The appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of appellant to make within fifteen days sufficient security.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 12528; No. 2024-03]

                    Pursuant to the authority vested in the Secretary of State under the Foreign Missions Act, 22 U.S.C. 4301,                     *et seq.*                     (“the Act”), and delegated pursuant to Department of State Delegation of Authority No. 214, dated September 20, 1994, I hereby determine that the representative offices and operations in the United States of Rossiya Segodnya, including their real property and personnel, are a foreign mission within the meaning of 22 U.S.C. 4302(a)(3).                

Furthermore, I hereby determine it to be reasonably necessary to protect the interests of the United States to require the representative offices and operations in the United States of Rossiya Segodnya and its agents or employees acting on its behalf, to comply with the terms and conditions specified by the Department of State's Office of Foreign Missions relating to the above-named entity's activities in the United States.

Rebecca E. Gonzales,

Director, Office of Foreign Missions, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2024-20515 Filed 9-10-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4711-11-P