alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### NICHOLS et al. v. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN BOND & INDEMNITY CORPORATION.

No. 9558.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

April 3, 1935.

L. J. Freeman, of Beeville, for appellants.

Alex F. Cox, of Beeville, for appellee.

BIOKETT, Chief Justice.

In this suit, instituted by Benjamin Franklin Bond *&*Indemnity Corporation against O. F. Nichols and E. S. Price, the defendants filed pleas of privilege, which were overruled ; hence, this appeal.

The note, which is the basis of the suit, was dated at Beeville, Tex., but did not specify any place of payment The sole question here is as to whether this is a contract in writing to perform an obligation in a particular county, as contemplated by article 1995, subd. 5, Revised Civil 'Statutes of Texas (1925), so as to sustain the venue in Bee county.

A promissory noté which is dated at a particular place and which is otherwise silent as to the place of payment is not, within the purview of the above-cited statutory provision, a contract in writing to perform the obligation in the county where the town specified in the date line is located. The pleas of privilege were therefore good. Collier v. Steinhardt (Tex. Civ. App.) 16 S.W.(2d) 984.

The judgment of the district court is accordingly reversed, and the cause is remanded, with instructions to change the venue of the entire case to Refugio county.
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 42



### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000

18 12 06 00 08/15 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 15 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL
Exhibit 4.2

                      [LETTERHEAD OF VINTAGE FILINGS, LLC]


October 16, 2004
Marx Toys, Inc.

                         RE: CONTRACT FOR EDGAR SERVICES

           I would like to take this opportunity to introduce you to a package
program of EDGAR services from Vintage Filings, LLC as a method of saving your
public company the typical costs associated with EDGAR filings and SEC reporting
requirements.

I.       CONSULTING SERVICES

         Vintage Filings hereby agrees to provided the following consulting and
advisory services to your Company: review your Company's filing history
throughout the prior twelve month period and, while taking into consideration
the new requirements of Sarbanes Oxley, determine a cost effective plan to
edgarize the filings you are likely to require over the next 12 months. We will
provide you, on a timely basis, with updates regarding SEC edgar filing software
and new developments with regard to SEC filing forms and HTML requirements. If
needed, we can train the Company how to file Section 16 reporting requirements
(Forms 3, 4 and 5 ) on-line and assist in obtaining edgar access codes for the
Company's officers, directors and 10% shareholders. We will also assist in
formatting filings which may include Forms 3, 4, 5, 13Gs, 13Ds, S-8, 8K, 10Q,
10K, S-3, SB-2, S-2 and proxy statements. In analyzing your expected costs we
have taken into account the typical costs associated with

    - text and tabular pages
    - amended proofs and changed pages / expedited fees
    - test filing and real time live filing fees
    - all email distributions of PDF EDGAR proofs
    - all facsimile transmissions of EDGAR proofs
    - all 12b25 and NT-10K extension forms - SEC filing of a Form ID


<PAGE>

II.      FEES

As part of this Agreement, we agree to provide the above-described, unlimited,
edgarizing services for the Company's SEC filings for 12 months. In return for
these services, you hereby agree to issue, to our below named individuals,
shares of the Company's Common Stock to be registered under Form S-8 in the
following amounts:

     -   2,200,000 shares to be registered in the name of
         Shai Z. Stern -
         43 Maple Avenue
         Cedarhurst, NY 11516

     -   2,200,000 shares  to be registered in the name of
         Seth Farbman  -
         301 Eastwood Road
         Woodmere, NY 11598

Such shares must be registered on a Form S-8 registration statement within 15
days from the date hereof.

We would appreciate the opportunity to further develop our long-term
relationship and be of service to you and your Company. Please feel free to
contact us at (212) 730-4302 or via email at efilings@vfilings.com. Please
confirm agreement by signing and faxing to 646.349.9655. We look forward to
beginning of a mutually beneficial relationship.

                                                     Best wishes,


                                                     Seth A. Farbman, Esq.
                                                     Co-Chairman and President

AGREED:

COMPANY:


By: _________________________________________
#### BLAIR v. STATE.

No. 16315.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 13, 1933.

*318Rey M. Hofheinz, of Houston, for appellant;

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Receiving and concealing stolen property is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the county jail for a period of sixty days.

Appellant entered a plea of not guilty and waived a jury. The evidence heard by the trial judge is not before this court for review.

There are no bills of exception.

In the motion for new trial, there is complaint of the reception of certain evidence. In the absence of a statement of the evidence that was before the trial judge, this court is not in a position to estimate the force of the complaint mentioned.

The criticism of the conviction upon the ground that the court should have instructed a verdict of not guilty is entirely out of harmony with that part of the record which shows that the appellant was tried before the court and not before a jury. The same principle obtains with reference to that part of the motion which alleges that some of the testimony came from an accomplice witness. In the absence of a statement showing all the testimony heard upon the trial, this court cannot intelligently pass upon the complaint.

The same is true of the alleged newly discovered evidence. To appraise it, it is essential that this court be advised of the evidence that was actually heard upon the trial.

Under the circumstances, we are constrained to order an affirmance of the judgment of conviction, which is accordingly done.
#### MEDFORD v. STATE.

No. 20332.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 29, 1939.

Robert Allen, of Henderson, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for cattle theft. Under proper formalities appellant entered his plea before the court and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The indictment appears regular. No statement of facts or bills of exception accompany the record. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2
                                                                    ------------

                                  CERTIFICATION
                                  -------------

I, Edward F. Cooke, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Levcor International,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual
report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the small business issuer and have:

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

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this annual 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 annual report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the small business issuer's auditors and
the audit committee of small business issuer's board 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 small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: March 22, 2004

/s/ EDWARD F. COOKE
----------------------------------
Edward F. Cooke,
Chief Financial Officer, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer

                                      -58-
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2688 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2688

 To block any action from being taken to finalize or give effect to a 
 certain proposed rule governing the Federal child support enforcement 
                                program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 9, 2015

  Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin (for himself and Mr. Boustany) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To block any action from being taken to finalize or give effect to a 
 certain proposed rule governing the Federal child support enforcement 
                                program.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON TAKING ANY ACTION TO FINALIZE OR GIVE EFFECT 
              TO CERTAIN PROPOSED RULE GOVERNING THE FEDERAL CHILD 
              SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services may not take any action to finalize, implement, 
enforce, or otherwise give effect to the proposed rule, entitled 
``Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support 
Enforcement Programs'' (79 FR 68548-68587, November 17, 2014), or any 
proposal set forth in the proposed rule.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PACIFIC BELL
AND SUBSIDIARIES' DECEMBER 31, 1997 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           43
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 2,436
<ALLOWANCES>                                    237
<INVENTORY>                                       0<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              2,703
<PP&E>                                       29,681
<DEPRECIATION>                               17,606
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               15,503
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         4,011
<BONDS>                                       5,588
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                        225
<OTHER-SE>                                    3,048
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 15,503
<SALES>                                           0<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              9,938
<CGS>                                             0<F3>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 4,218
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              2,021
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                245
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              461
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  54
<INCOME-TAX>                                     46
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               8
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                       342
<NET-INCOME>                                    350
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0
<FN>
<F1> THIS AMOUNT IS IMMATERIAL.
<F2> NET SALES OF TANGIBLE PRODUCTS IS NOT MORE THAN 10% OF TOTAL OPERATING
     REVENUES AND THEREFORE HAS NOT BEEN STATED SEPARATELY IN THE FINANCIAL
     STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO REGULATION S-X, RULE 5-03(B).  THIS AMOUNT IS
     INCLUDED IN THE "TOTAL REVENUES" TAG.
<F3> COST OF TANGIBLE GOODS SOLD IS INCLUDED IN COST OF SERVICES AND PRODUCTS
     IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE "TOTAL-COST" TAG, PURSUANT TO
     REGULATION S-X, RULE 5-03(B).
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2022351EN.01001101.xml

| 14.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 351/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 351/11

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10619 – SNAM / ENI / JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 351/07)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Snam S.p.A. (‘SNAM’, Italy), |
| --- | --- |

—

Snam S.p.A. (‘SNAM’, Italy),

| — | ENI S.p.A. (‘ENI’, Italy), |
| --- | --- |

—

ENI S.p.A. (‘ENI’, Italy),

| — | JV (Italy). |
| --- | --- |

—

JV (Italy).

SNAM and ENI will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of JV.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

2.

| — | SNAM is the holding company of the SNAM Group, which owns the main gas transmission system operator in Italy, and has several participations in companies active in the gas transmission and storage markets in various EU countries, |
| --- | --- |

—

SNAM is the holding company of the SNAM Group, which owns the main gas transmission system operator in Italy, and has several participations in companies active in the gas transmission and storage markets in various EU countries,

| — | ENI is part of the ENI group that has been historically active worldwide across the entire oil and gas value chain. |
| --- | --- |

—

ENI is part of the ENI group that has been historically active worldwide across the entire oil and gas value chain.

3.

The business activities of JV will be the the operation of, and the provision of ancillary services to the Tunisian and submarine sections of the gas import pipeline on the Algeria-Italy route (Transmediterranean pipeline).

4.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

5.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10619 – SNAM / ENI / JV

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
# C_2022236EN.01010401.xml

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/104 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/104

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10652 – MOL / LOTOS PALIWA)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 236/07)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | MOL Hungarian Oil & Gas Public Limited Company (‘MOL’, Hungary), |
| --- | --- |

—

MOL Hungarian Oil & Gas Public Limited Company (‘MOL’, Hungary),

| — | LOTOS Paliwa sp. z o.o. (‘Lotots Paliwa’, Poland). |
| --- | --- |

—

LOTOS Paliwa sp. z o.o. (‘Lotots Paliwa’, Poland).

MOL will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Lotos Paliwa.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | MOL and its affiliated entities are a Central Eastern European (CEE) integrated oil and gas corporation active in the oil and gas exploration and production, refining, midstream services, as well as consumer services (fuel retail) segments. MOL also produces and sells petrochemicals, |
| --- | --- |

—

MOL and its affiliated entities are a Central Eastern European (CEE) integrated oil and gas corporation active in the oil and gas exploration and production, refining, midstream services, as well as consumer services (fuel retail) segments. MOL also produces and sells petrochemicals,

| — | LOTOS Paliwa manages a network of petrol stations across Poland under the ‘Lotos’ brand. |
| --- | --- |

—

LOTOS Paliwa manages a network of petrol stations across Poland under the ‘Lotos’ brand.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10652 – MOL / LOTOS PALIWA

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SBI COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR THE QUARTERLY
PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             485
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     79,444
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,529
<PP&E>                                       7,458,345
<DEPRECIATION>                                  88,538
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,610,010
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          817,950
<BONDS>                                      1,050,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  8,265,000
<COMMON>                                         5,570
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,742,060
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,610,010
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   593
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  182,168
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,061
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (280,209)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (280,209)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (280,630)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.05)
        

</TABLE>
#### UVALDE ROCK ASPHALT COMPANY, Appellant, v. Anna SLATTERY et al., Appellees.

Ne. 3647.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

May 8, 1940.

Rehearing Denied May 29, 1940.

Geo. A. Weller, of Beaumont, for appellant.

D. L. Broadus, of Beaumont, for appel-lee.

WALKER, Chief Justice.

The nature of this suit is fully stated in our opinion filed this day in Slattery et al. v. Uvalde Rock Asphalt Company, 140 S.W.2d 987, written by Mr. Associate Justice O’Quinn. Appellant’s petition was subject to the general demurrer. But, if we are in error in that conclusion, every issue in this case is now moot.

The judgment of the lower court is in all things affirmed.
# C_2022246EN.01000401.xml

| 29.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/4

---

Special report 16/2022

‘Data in the Common Agricultural Policy – Unrealised potential of big data for policy evaluations’

(2022/C 246/04)

The European Court of Auditors has published its special report 16/2022: ‘Data in the Common Agricultural Policy – Unrealised potential of big data for policy evaluations’.

The report can be consulted directly or downloaded at the European Court of Auditors’ website: https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=61415

---