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

No. 16239.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 17, 1934.

*317Herman G. Nami, of San Antonio, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

Conviction for burglary; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

Property, consisting of watches, guns, knives, etc., stolen during the night of November 1, 1932, from a burglarized store situated some sixty miles from Waco, on the highway leading from San Antonio, Tex., to Waco, was found in a car in Waco, which car was occupied by appellant and three other negroes, the car being found about 12 o’clock on the night of November 3, 1932. Testifying as a witness in his own behalf, appellant said he did not own the car, and knew nothing of its contents, but admitted that he lived in San Antonio, and came from there to Waco on the night of October 31, 1932. This we think a sufficient statement of the facts. The state showed that the car, in which appellant and his party were riding when arrested in Waco, was stolen in San Antonio about November 1, 1932. Appellant having taken the stand as a witness in his own behalf, the state was allowed to prove that "Be was under indictment in San Antonio for theft

It was not necessary to give a special charge asked by appellant, in substance, that he could not be convicted upon proof of possession of the recently stolen property, unless his possession was recent, personal, and exclusive, and involved a conscious assertion of ownership, in view of the court’s correct presentment in the charge of the law of possession of recently stolen property. This is complained of in bill of exceptions No. 1. It was also correct for the court to allow proof of the fact that appellant had been indicted' for a felony. He had assumed the attitude of a witness in the case, and such testimony was admissible as affecting his' credibility, if the jury .believed it did so. Appellant’s denial of knowledge of such indictment would not afford ground for the rejection of such proof. Bill of exceptions No. 4, in substance, presents the same complaint as his first bill of exceptions. We see no need for discussing same further.

Bill of exceptions No. 5 complains of the court’s charge on the effect of possession of recently stolen property, and we believe such complaint not well founded. Said charge was not only not excepted to by appellant, but was verbally sanctioned and re1 quested by appellant’s counsel. Similar charges appear to be upheld by this court in Williams v. State, 98 S. W. 246, and Wheeler v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 350, 30 S. W. 913.

No error appearing, the. judgment will be 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.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

September 30, 2013

h0923 

# Order

Clerk September 30, 2013

146942(19)

RUDY A. WARE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 146942

COA: 313652

Ingham CC: 12

- 001138

- AA

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY

HEALTH,

Defendant

- Appellee.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s July 30, 2013

order is considered, and it is DENIED, bec ause it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
October 18, 2012

Michael Guzzetta

Rule Evaluation Section

Emission Assessment Branch

Stationary Source Division

Air Resources Board

P.O. Box 2815

Sacramento, CA 95812

RE: Repeal of Rule 37, Project XL

Dear Mr. Guzzetta:

Enclosed you will find a subm ittal package regarding the repeal of Ventura County APCD Rule

37. This rule was repealed by the District Board on June 12, 2012.

The enclosed submittal package includes Completeness Check Lists, the Rule Evaluation Form,

and various other materials requ ired by EPA Region IX. Please forward this material to EPA,

Region IX, as a revision to our State Implementation Plan.

If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact me at (805) 645

-

140 8

.

Sincerely

Stan Cowen

Rule Dev elopment
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2481 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2481

          To increase the penalties for fentanyl trafficking.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 1, 2018

  Mr. Kennedy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To increase the penalties for fentanyl trafficking.

    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 ``Stop Trafficking in Fentanyl Act of 
2018''.

SEC. 2. ENHANCED PENALTIES.

    Section 401(b)(1) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
841(b)(1)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A)(vi)--
                    (A) by striking ``400 grams'' and inserting ``20 
                grams''; and
                    (B) by striking ``100 grams'' and inserting ``5 
                grams''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (B)(vi)--
                    (A) by striking ``40 grams'' and inserting ``2 
                grams''; and
                    (B) by striking ``10 grams'' and inserting ``0.5 
                grams''.
                                 <all>
```
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2713 

To limit the level of premium subsidy provided by the Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation to agricultural producers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 19, 2018 

Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself, Mr. FLAKE, and Mr. TOOMEY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To limit the level of premium subsidy provided by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to agricultural producers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON PAYMENT OF PORTION OF 

4 PREMIUM BY CORPORATION. 

5 Section 508(e) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 

6 U.S.C. 1508(e)) is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(9) LIMITATION.— 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2713 IS

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any 

2 other provision of this title, the total amount of 

3 premium paid by the Corporation on behalf of 

4 a person or legal entity, directly or indirectly, 

5 with respect to all policies issued to the person 

6 or legal entity under this title for a crop year 

7 shall be limited to a maximum of $40,000. 

8 ‘‘(B) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAW.—To 

9 the maximum extent practicable, the Corpora10 tion shall carry out this paragraph in accord11 ance with section 1001 of the Food Security 

12 Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308).’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

PG&E GAS TRANSMISSION, NORTHWEST CORPORATION
SEC FILING - FORM 10-K - Year End 1999
EXHIBIT 12 - RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Ratio of earnings to Fixed Charges                      1999        1998        1997        1996      1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                    <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>       <C>
Earnings
     Income from Continuing Operations                 $ 61.5      $ 60.3      $ 42.1      $ 43.5    $ 51.6
Adjustments:
     Income taxes                                        37.6        35.7        24.8        28.8      31.3
     Fixed charges (as below)                            42.8        44.1        46.7        46.3      48.2
                                                    --------------------------------------------------------
            Total adjusted earnings                    $141.9      $140.1      $113.6      $118.6    $131.1
                                                    ========================================================

Fixed charges: (a)
     Net interest expense                              $ 41.7      $ 43.0      $ 46.0      $ 45.7    $ 46.3
Adjustments:
     Interest component of rents                          0.0         0.1         0.4         0.3       0.7
     AFUDC debt                                           1.1         1.0         0.3         0.3       1.2
                                                    --------------------------------------------------------
            Total fixed charges                        $ 42.8      $ 44.1      $ 46.7      $ 46.3    $ 48.2
                                                    ========================================================

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                        3.3%        3.2%        2.4%        2.6%      2.7%
                                                    ========================================================
</TABLE>
#### EWING v. STATE.

No. 16827.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 10, 1934.

D. W. Huffar, of Cooper, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The offense is burglary; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The injured party was Tom Robertson.

There is before this court no statement of the facts heard upon the trial.

A bill of exception, filed on the 17th day of April, 1934, appears in the record. The motion for new trial was overruled on the 20th day of January, 1934. There appears no order of the court extending the time in which bills of exception may be filed which, in the absence of an extension, is thirty days 'after the adjournment of court. In view of the statute, article 760, subd. 5, C. C. P. 1925, this court is precluded from giving effect to the bill of exception. See Border v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 71 S.W.(2d) 515. We will add that, in the absence of the statement of facts, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to appraise the bill of exception.

Upon the record before us, we are constrained to order an affirmance of the judgment, which is accordingly done.
**EXHIBIT32.02**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection withthe quarterly report on Form 10-Q of WellPoint Health Networks Inc.(the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, DavidC. Colby, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  DAVID C. COLBY        |   |   |
|----------------------------|--------|--------|
| David C. Colby             |
| *Chief  Financial Officer* |
| Date: May 10, 2004         |

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS OF ALTERRA
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION FILED WITH THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND RELATED FOOTNOTES.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          57,930
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,244
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               106,337
<PP&E>                                         756,037
<DEPRECIATION>                                (29,476)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 893,081
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           61,348
<BONDS>                                        634,873
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       179,264
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,295
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   893,081
<SALES>                                        174,811
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               174,811
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  157,440
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,075
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,296
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,193
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,103
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        3,837
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,103
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.28


</TABLE>
Note: Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal. 

ENTRY ORDER 

SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2010-474 

MAY TERM, 2011 

Clinton Bedell } APPEALED FROM: 

} 

 v. } Superior Court, Washington Unit, 

} Civil Division 

} 

State of Vermont } DOCKET NO. 388-5-09 Wncv 

 

 Trial Judge: Geoffrey W. Crawford 

In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter: 

Petitioner Clinton Bedell appeals pro se from a superior court order dismissing his complaint. 

We affirm. 

This is the latest in a series of pleadings and appeals filed by petitioner following his conviction 

of sexual assault against his daughter. We affirmed his conviction on appeal in State v. Bedell, No. 1999-

115 (Vt. Nov. 24, 1999) (unpub. mem.). Thereafter, he filed successive unsuccessful motions for 

sentence reconsideration, and we affirmed on appeal in two separate decisions. See State v. Bedell, Nos. 

2002-244 & 2003-047 (Vt. April 4, 2003 (unpub. mem.); In re Bedell, No. 2006-519, 2007 WL 5313337 

(Vt. May 1, 2007) (unpub. mem.). Most recently, we affirmed the dismissal of a Rule 75 complaint. See 

Bedell v. Washington Cnty. State’s Attorney, No. 2009-341, 2010 WL 716111 (Vt. Feb. 25, 2010) 

(unpub. mem.). In our last decision, we noted that the trial court had dismissed the complaint on the

grounds that it was “unintelligible” and stated no “discernible legal claim,” and we upheld the court’s 

decision on the basis that petitioner had offered “no coherent argument” relevant to the appeal and, to the 

extent that his arguments could be discerned, they all related to issues previously decided. Id. at * 1. 

Here, similarly, the trial court ruled that all of the assertions in petitioner’s rambling complaint, 

which he labeled a “motion for P.C.R. expunged,” were either legally incoherent, had been previously 

addressed, or were foreclosed by his guilty plea. Petitioner’s brief on appeal largely repeats the claims 

raised below, and to that extent fails again to provide any coherent or cognizable argument. See Johnson 

v. Johnson, 158 Vt. 160, 164 n.* (1992) (mem.) (this Court will not consider arguments inadequately 

briefed); V.R.A.P. 28(a)(4) (appellant’s brief must identify and explain the issues and how they were 

preserved, and set forth the contentions and the reasons therefore, with appropriate citations to the 

authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on). Even under the relaxed standards applicable to pro 

se litigants, petitioner must set forth comprehensible arguments demonstrating error. He has not met this 

standard. Accordingly, we find no basis to disturb the judgment. 

Affirmed. 

BY THE COURT: 

_______________________________________ 

Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice 

_______________________________________ 

Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice 

_______________________________________ 

Brian L. Burgess, Associate Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

  <ARTICLE>      5
<CIK>            0001013148
<NAME>           Xybernaut Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>      1,000
         
  <S>                      <C>
  <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 Dec-31-1998
  <PERIOD-START>                    Apr-01-1998
  <PERIOD-END>                      Jun-30-1998
  <PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-MOS
  <CASH>                              4,014,723
  <SECURITIES>                            0
  <RECEIVABLES>                        204,876
  <ALLOWANCES>                          22,513
  <INVENTORY>                         1,172,699
  <CURRENT-ASSETS>                    5,769,668
  <PP&E>                              1,173,511
  <DEPRECIATION>                       399,723
  <TOTAL-ASSETS>                      7,433,903
  <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               1,277,405
  <BONDS>                                 0
  <COMMON>                             209,348
  <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
  <PREFERRED>                          364,754
  <OTHER-SE>                          5,582,396
  <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        7,433,903
  <SALES>                              229,634
  <TOTAL-REVENUES>                     231,473
  <CGS>                                271,905
  <TOTAL-COSTS>                        271,905
  <OTHER-EXPENSES>                    2,265,654
  <LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
  <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
  <INCOME-PRETAX>                    (2,303,184)
  <INCOME-TAX>                            0
  <INCOME-CONTINUING>                (2,303,184)
  <DISCONTINUED>                          0
  <EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
  <CHANGES>                               0
  <NET-INCOME>                       (2,303,184)
  <EPS-PRIMARY>                         (.12)
  <EPS-DILUTED>                         (.12)
          

</TABLE>
Letter Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 October 15, 2004 
  
 Joseph Cross 
 President & CEO 
 Nanophase Technologies Corporation 
 1319 Marquette Drive 
 Romeoville, IL 60446 
  

			
	Re:	  	 Nanophase Technologies Corporation/Rohm and Haas Electronic
 Materials CMP Inc. Cooperation Agreement, as Amended


  
 Dear Joe, 
  
 This will confirm our agreement with regard to exclusivity under our June 24, 2002
Cooperation Agreement (the “Agreement”) as follows: 
  

	 	1.	In 2005, exclusivity will be conditioned on RHEM’s purchase from Nanophase of at least [ * * * ] kilograms of Particles for applications in the Field at $[ * * * ] per kilogram
of dry weight, purchased as follows: [ * * * ]; 

  

	 	2.	In 2006, exclusivity will be conditioned on RHEM’s purchase of at least [ * * * ] kilograms of Particles for such year on a schedule to be mutually agreed upon by October 15,
2005; and 

  

	 	3.	If we meet the conditions above, we will remain mutually exclusive – i.e., Sections 2 and 3 will continue to remain in force and effect through 2006, without further
action or discussion. If RHEM does not meet any of these conditions, either party may initiate Adjustment Discussions under Section 12 of the Agreement from the date the relevant condition was not met. 

  
 This will be deemed to be Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement and supercedes and replaces all
contrary or inconsistent provisions related to exclusivity amounts and conditions during 2005 and 2006 contained in the Agreement and Amendment No.1 thereto. All other provisions of the Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1, remain in full force
and effect. 
  
 * * * CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED – this confidential
portion has been omitted from this document and filed separately with the Commission. 







 Mr. Joseph Cross 
 October
15, 2004 
 Page 2 
  
 Thanks for your cooperation and I look forward to our mutual success in the years ahead. 
  
 Yours truly, 
  

	
	 /s/ Nicholas A. Gutwein


	 Nicholas A. Gutwein

	 President and CEO

	 for Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials CMP Inc.


  
 Acknowledged and agreed 
 as of the date first listed above: 
  
 Nanophase Technologies Corporation 
  

			
	By:	 	 /s/ Joseph Cross


	 	 	Joseph Cross, President & CEO
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2573 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2573

To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to reauthorize 
      the appropriate technology transfer for rural areas program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 20, 2018

Mr. Boozman (for himself and Mr. Leahy) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, 
                        Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to reauthorize 
      the appropriate technology transfer for rural areas program.

    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 ``Veteran and Beginning Farmers 
Technical Assistance Act''.

SEC. 2. APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER FOR RURAL AREAS PROGRAM.

    Section 310B(i)(4) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(i)(4)) is amended by striking ``2018'' and inserting 
``2023''.
                                 <all>
```