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

No. 7178.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Nov. 12, 1936.

J. S. Bracewell, of Houston, for appellants.

Dean & Humphrey, of Huntsville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This case is before us on a certified question from the Court óf Civil Appeals for the First District at Galveston.

This suit was filed in the district court of Walker county, Tex., by Helen Lidell Jones et al. against G. A. Wynne et al. When the case was tried in the district court, that court sustained the general demurrer filed by G. A. Wynne. Helen Lidell Jones et al. appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals for the First District at Galveston. We will not attempt to detail the facts and issues involved. It is sufficient to say that they are rather complicated. The Court of Civil Appeals has certified to this court the following question: “Did the . trial court err in sustaining the general demurrer?”

The question above quoted is not in compliance with article 1851, R.C.S. of Texas 1925. Douglas Oil Company et al. v. State of Texas et al., 124 Tex. 232, 233, 76 S.W. (2d) -1043, 1044. What was said by this court in the case just cited applies to the certificate in this case. We quote therefrom as follows: “It presents the entire case and comes within ‘the oft-declared rule against certifying a whole case to the. Supreme Court,’ and does not comply with article 1851, R.S.1925, ‘requiring the Courts of Civil Appeals to formulate * * * the specific question of law to be determined by the Supreme Court.’ Owens v. Tedford, -114 Tex. 390, 269 S.W. 418. See, also, Hedrick v. Rat-cliff, 122 Tex. 313, 58 S.W. (2d) 41; Hollis v. Parkland Corporation' (Tex.Com. App.) 29 S.W. (2d) 309; First National Bank of Port Arthur v. Zorn, 117 Tex. 180, 299 S.W. 847; Taylor v. Higgins Oil & Fuel Co, 117 Tex. 149, 298 S.W. 891; Falfurrias Immigration Company v. Spielhagen, 103 Tex. 144, 124 S.W. 6.16; Poole v. Burnet County, 97 Tex. 77, 76 S.W. 425.”

It is ordered that the certificate be dismissed and the record returned to the Court of Civil Appeals.
#### WELTCHEK v. STATE.

No. 19932.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 16, 1938.

Currie McCutcheon, of Dallas, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

Conviction is for violation of the liquor law. Punishment assessed is a fine of $250.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bill of exceptions. In its absence, the various matters, complained of by appellant cannot be considered.

The complaint and information are sufficient to charge the offense and all procedural matters seem to be in due order.

The judgment is accordingly 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.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed March

17 , 2020.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 20

- 00187

- CV

IN RE LAWRENCE FEW , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS Probate Court No

. 3 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 406,394



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 6, 2020, relator Lawrence Few filed a [“preemptive”] petition for
writ of mandamus in this court without filing a record

. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the presiding judge of Probate Court No

. 3 of Harris County, to “ execute the valid will [of his mother] and end this probate proceeding.”2

Relator has not established that he is entit led to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Christopher, Wise, and Zimmerer.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 60092

KRISTEN LEWIS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v. KROGER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP I; THE KROGER COMPANY,

Defendants

- Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:16

- CV

- 724

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff

- Appellant Kristen Lewis brought this premises liability suit against Kroger Co. and its related entity, alleging that Kroger was liable for her injuries after a slip

- and

- fall at one of their grocery stores. On Kroger’s motion s , the district court struck an affidavit submitted by Lewis, finding that it directly contradicted her prior deposition testimony , and granted summary judgment for Kroger. Lewis timely appeals.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 13, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-60092 Document: 00514553891 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2018No. 18

- 60092

2 Our careful review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the district court’s ruling demonstrates no error in the district court’s decision. Though an affidavit that supplements or explains prior testimony can be admitted as evidence , the district court did not abuse its discreti on in determining that Lewis’ affidavit contradicted, rather than c larified , her prior deposition testimony

. See, e.g. , S.W.S. Erectors, Inc . v. Infax, Inc. , 72 F.3d 489, 495

– 46 (5th Cir. 1996). On consideration of the remaining evidence , we affirm the district court’s determination that no reasonable jury could find that Kroger either created a hazardous condition causing Lewis injury or had actual or constructive knowledge of such a condition. Vu v. Clayton , 765 So. 2d 1253 , 1255 (Miss. 2000) ( stating the requirements for a premise s liability claim under Mi ssissippi law ); see F ED

. R. C IV

. P

. 56(a) . Accordingly , we affirm the distric t court ’s judgment for essentially the same reasons stated by that court. Case: 18-60092 Document: 00514553891 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2018
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1130 TP 13-00697 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF KHALAIRE ALLAH, PETITIONER,

V ORDER

BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT.

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (LEAH R. NOWOTARSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (PETER H. SCHIFF OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County [Mark H. Dadd, A.J.], entered April 16, 2013) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a Tier III hearing that petitioner had violated an inmate rule.
It is hereby ORDERED that said proceeding is unanimously dismissed without costs as moot ( see Matter of Free v Coombe , 234 AD2d 996).

Entered: November 8, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT**

 

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of 

Acceptance Insurance Companies Inc. and Subsidiaries 

 

We have audited the consolidated financial statements of Acceptance Insurance Companies Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31,2002 and 2001, and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2002, and have issued our report thereon dated March 31, 2003 which report includes an explanatory paragraph as to a going concern which is described in Note 1; suchfinancial statements and report are included in your 2002 Annual Report to Stockholders and are incorporated herein by reference. Our audits also included the financial statement schedules of Acceptance Insurance Companies Inc. and subsidiaries,listed in Item 15. These financial statement schedules are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial statement schedules, when considered inrelation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, present fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein. 

 

/s/    Deloitte & Touche LLP 

 

Omaha, Nebraska 

March 31, 2003
# C_2022179EN.01000101.xml

| 2.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10689 – OCP GROUP / KOCH INDUSTRIES / JORF FERTILIZER COMPANY)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 179/01)

On 25 April 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10689. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10689. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
**Exhibit 31.1**
**RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION**
I, Randall E. Curran, certify that:
1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ICG Communications,Inc.;
2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
       a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
       b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod 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 mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case ofan annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
       a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
       b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.   Date: November 14, 2003 **/s/ Randall E. Curran**    Randall E. Curran  Chief Executive Officer
50
Date: July 7, 2015

To: Docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0738

From: Andrew Bouchard

Subject: Meeting Record for July 7, 2015 Meeting Between the U.S. EPA and The Dow 

Chemical Company

On July 7, 2015, representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 

Region 6, OECA and OAR participated in a meeting with The Dow Chemical Company. The 

purpose of the meeting was to discuss Dow’s projected startup schedule for their propane 

dehydrogenation unit and potential permitting issues with respect to using a MPGF as a control 

technology to control emissions. See Attachment 1 for the names and affiliations of the meeting 

participants.
Attachment 1

Participants in July 7, 2015 EPA/Dow Meeting

The Dow Chemical Company Representatives

Earl Shipp

Gary Hockstra

Jack Ingold

Lisa LaBean

Cheryl Steves

Russell Wozniak

U.S. EPA Representatives

David Gray

John Blevins

Phillip Brooks

Cheryl Seager

Sam Coleman

Ron Curry

Wren Stenger

Steve Thompson

Penny Lassiter

Peter Tsirigotis
# C_2022360EN.01000501.xml

| 20.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 360/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 360/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10805 – MDP / HPS / PREMFINA / iGO4)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 360/05)

On 5 August 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10805. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10805. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2743 

To clarify that the Secretary of Homeland Security is not required to provide 

notice to private entities before issuing binding operational directives 

on agency information security policies and practices. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 24, 2018 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To clarify that the Secretary of Homeland Security is not 

required to provide notice to private entities before 

issuing binding operational directives on agency information security policies and practices. 

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 Network Pro5 tection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NOTICE NOT REQUIRED FOR PRIVATE ENTITIES. 

7 Section 3553 of title 44, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2743 IS

1 (1) by redesignating subsection (j) as sub2 section (k); and 

3 (2) by inserting after subsection (i) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(j) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec6 tion shall be construed to require the Secretary to provide 

7 notice to any private entity before the Secretary issues a 

8 binding operational directive under subsection (b)(2).’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15
 
May 6, 1997


Board of Directors and Shareholders
Homestead Village Incorporated

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements 
(Form S-8, No. 333-17243 and 333-17245) pertaining to the Homestead Village 
Incorporated 1996 Long-Term Incentive Plan and Homestead Village Incorporated 
1996 Outside Directors Plan of our report dated May 6, 1997 relating to the 
unaudited condensed interim financial statements of Homestead Village 
Incorporated that are included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 
1997.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 our report is not a part 
of the registration statements prepared or certified by accountants within the 
meaning of Section 7 or 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.


                                       Ernst & Young LLP
Exhibit 32.2



Statement of Chief Financial Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Pacific Enterprises (the "Company") certifies that:



(i)

the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Annual Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii)

the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







February 26, 2008



/S/  Dennis V. ArriolaDennis V. ArriolaChief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM SEC FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                              70
<SECURITIES>                                       900
<RECEIVABLES>                                      358
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        466
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,088
<PP&E>                                           3,692
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,992
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,494
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,916
<BONDS>                                          1,764
<COMMON>                                           695
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              194
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,576)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,494
<SALES>                                          5,048
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,048
<CGS>                                            3,824
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,824
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    (5)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 152
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    426
<INCOME-TAX>                                       149
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                277
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       270
<EPS-BASIC>                                       4.98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.67


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

No. 18305.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 3, 1936.

L. D. Johnston, of Waxahachie, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Theft is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.

The evidence is sufficient to show the theft by appellant of two slot machines, together with certain money that was in them at the time.

It is the contention of the appellant that, since a slot machine is a gambling device, his conviction could not be sustained under the statute denouncing theft. The exact question was before this court in Bryant v. State, 87 S.W.(2d) 722, and Smitham v. State, 87 S.W.(2d) 724, in which cases it was held that a slot machine, although it could not legally be possessed, was a sub*132ject of robbery. Therefore the appellant’s contention in the present instance must be held untenable.

Deeming the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction, the judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLAR

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,536
<SECURITIES>                                    10,075
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,768
<ALLOWANCES>                                       700
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,952
<PP&E>                                          12,632
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,413
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,545
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,206
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           152
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,012
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,545
<SALES>                                          6,494
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,494
<CGS>                                              178
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,434
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,660
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   7
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,326)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,326)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,326)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.58)


</TABLE>