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

No. 17862.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 22, 1936.

See, also, *71*S.W. (2d) 530.

John L. Poulter, of Fort Worth, for appellant. •

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for receiving and concealing stolen property; punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

Mr. Barker owned a car. It was stolen on March 18, 1933, in Quanah, Hardeman county, Tex. In May, 1933, said car was found in possession of appellant in Runnels county, Tex. The motor numbers had been changed. There is no proof as to who stole the car, who changed the numbers, or how or when the car came into appellant’s possession. The state introduced in evidence a statement of appellant that he was not in' Quanah in March, 1933, and did not take Barker’s car. The evidence wholly fails to make a case.

As said by Judge Davidson in Bloch v. State, 81 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 10, 193 S.W. 303, 308: “In a case of this character there must be shown to be a theft first, and, second, that the accused did receive or conceal the alleged stolen property, * * * and, third, that he knew it was stolen at the time he received it.” We also quote from Forrester v. State, 69 Tex.Cr.R. 62, 63, 152 S.W. 1041, 1042, opinion by the same learned judge, as follows: “The statute requires that he must know the goods to have been stolen when he received them. Knowledge on his part is essential, and not only so, but the fraudulent intent must exist as well at the time he received the goods. The mere reception of stolen prop*256erty is not criminal. As before stated, there must be knowledge on his part that the goods were stolen; and he must receive them with the fraudulent intent to convert them to his own use and deprive the owner of the goods or their value. This question has been decided so frequently that it is hardly necessary to cite authorities, but the statute requires that the defendant must receive the goods knowing them to be'stolen.” Authorities are cited supporting the proposition above quoted.

In Castleberry v. State, 35 Tex.Cr.R. 382, 383, 33 S.W. 875, 60 Am.St.Rep. 53, it is said: “Now, then, will the bare fact that the accused received the stolen property be sufficient proof, standing alone, that he knew the property was stolen when he received it? It will not.”

If there be authorities contrary to those we have cited, we are not aware of them. The state’s attorney with this court confesses error. Under these facts, we have no alternative.

The judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded, because of the lack of testimony showing knowledge of the fact that the car was stolen, on the part of appellant.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

**In the Matter of**

**RICHARD W. BASEMAN**

**PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT FROM ADMINISTRATIVE SUSPENSION**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: No. 56 DB 2015 (No. 35 RST 2015)** 

**Attorney Registration No. 20578** 

**(Out of State)**

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 27 th**  **day of May, 2015, the Report and Recommendation of Disciplinary Board Member dated May 15, 2015, is appro**  **ved and it is ORDERED that Richard W. Baseman, who has been on administrative suspe**  **nsion, has never been suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he ha**  **s the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission t**  **o practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to act**  **ive status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the**  **Board in the investigation and processing of this matter shall be paid by the Petit**  **ioner.**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      34,233,988
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,403,806
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                     326,319,563
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,115,421
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             369,974,015
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       146,571
<OTHER-SE>                                 279,813,869
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               369,974,015
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,903,078
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,217,761
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             942,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,053,481
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,053,481
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,053,481
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2823 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2823

    To amend title 18, United States Code, to ensure that juveniles 
   adjudicated in Federal delinquency proceedings are not subject to 
      solitary confinement while committed to juvenile facilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 18, 2015

 Mr. Cardenas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 18, United States Code, to ensure that juveniles 
   adjudicated in Federal delinquency proceedings are not subject to 
      solitary confinement while committed to juvenile facilities.

    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 ``Protecting Youth from Solitary 
Confinement Act''.

SEC. 2. JUVENILES ADJUDICATED IN FEDERAL DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS NOT 
              SUBJECT TO SOLITARY CONFINEMENT WHILE COMMITTED TO 
              JUVENILE FACILITIES.

    Section 5039 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by adding ``No juvenile in Federal custody held in 
        juvenile facilities may be subject to solitary confinement.'' 
        at the end of the second undesignated paragraph; and
            (2) by inserting after the second undesignated paragraph 
        the following:
    ``Not later than 180 days after the end of each fiscal year, the 
Director of the Board of Prisons shall submit to the President and 
Congress a report with respect to the preceding fiscal year. The report 
shall contain a detailed summary and analysis of the most recent data 
regarding the rate at which juveniles are subject to solitary 
confinement and the trends demonstrated by the data described in the 
next sentence. The data referred to in the preceding sentence are, for 
each juvenile who was subject to solitary confinement during the period 
to which the report pertains, the types of offenses for which the 
juvenile is incarcerated, the race, gender, and age of the juvenile, 
how many hours the juvenile was subject to solitary confinement; and 
the purpose for the solitary confinement.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>





                                                                    Exhibit 22.1

                                  SUBSIDIARIES




             Subsidiaries                   % Ownership   State of Incorporation
             ------------                   -----------  -----------------------
Alpha Title Company, Inc. (Division of OHC)        100           Florida
OHC Corp.                                          100           Florida
Oriole G & T Management Corp.                      100           Florida
Oriole At Harbour Heights, Inc.                    100           Florida
South Florida Residential Mortgage Co.             100           Florida
Oriole-Boca, Inc.                                  100           Florida
The Pier Club, Inc.                                100           Florida
Oriole Limited, Inc.                               100           Florida
Oriole Fairway Point, Inc.                         100           Florida
Oriole Joint Venture, Ltd.                         100           Florida
Oriole of Naples, Inc.                             100           Florida
Oriole at Stonecrest, Inc.                         100           Florida
Seabreeze Properties, Inc.                         100           Maryland





                                     - 63 -
#### BOMAR v. STATE.

No. 15515.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 4, 1933.

. B. R. Reeves, of Palestine, for appellant.

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

MORROW, P. J.

The unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

Jack Porter, the alleged purchaser, testified that he purchased whisky from the appellant at about 10 or 11 o’clock in the morning of December 15, 1931: Porter described himself as an “undercover man.” According to his testimony, the whisky was bought by him in order to entrap the appellant. In the course of his testimony the witness said that in the pursuit of his occupation he drank whisky as one of his professional duties. Several hours subsequent to the alleged purchase of the whisky by Porter, a search warrant was obtained by Lively, the sheriff, and the home of the appellant was searched and whisky found therein. Appellant advanced the theory that he was not at home at the time of the alleged purchase and by circumstances combatted the claim that he had sold the whisky. The defense of alibi was presented to the jury in the charge of the court.

Erom bill of exception No. 1, it appears that the appellant did not testify in his own behalf but supported his theory of alibi by the testimony of three witnesses.

In his argument to the jury, counsel for the state used the following language: “W. N. Lively testified when he searched the house of the defendant he found liquor and that the defendant then made the statement that he had to make his living selling liquor, which shows that the defendant was a bootlegger. *If what Mr. Lively said, was not true, the defendant could have introduced evidence to disprove it; however, there was no one present to contradict Mr. Lively except the defendant and he does not have to testify.”*

Appellant objected to the remarks italicized above and requested that they be withdrawn from the consideration of the jury. In failing to comply with this request, we are constrained to regard the action of the court as error-requiring a reversal of the judgment. The contention that the remarks of counsel offended .against the inhibition in article 710, C. C. P., against reference to or comment upon the failure of the accused to testify, apparently cannot be successfully controverted.' Citation of authorities is deemed unnecessary. Many of them will be found collated in Vernon’s Ann. Tex. C. O. P. 1925, vol. 2, p. 751, § 35. It is not to be implied that the withdrawal of the remarks would have cured the error.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
IIB 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2820 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act 

of 2005, and for other purposes. 

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


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2820 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stem Cell Therapeutic 

3 and Research Reauthorization Act of 2015’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE STEM CELL THERAPEUTIC 

5 AND RESEARCH ACT OF 2005. 

6 (a) CORD BLOOD INVENTORY.—Section 2 of the 

7 Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005 (42 

8 U.S.C. 274k note) is amended in subsection (h)— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1)— 

10 (A) by striking ‘‘$23,000,000 for each of 

11 fiscal years 2011 through 2014 and’’; and 

12 (B) by inserting before the period at the 

13 end the following: ‘‘and $23,000,000 for each of 

14 fiscal years 2016 through 2020’’; and 

15 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘2011 

16 through 2015’’ and inserting ‘‘2015 through 2020’’. 

17 (b) NATIONAL PROGRAM.—Section 379B of the Pub18 lic Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 274m) is amended by 

19 striking ‘‘2011 through 2014’’ and inserting ‘‘2016 

20 through 2020’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 8, 

2015. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 183 (Friday, September 20, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 77128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21595]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. P-7887-019]


Ashuelot River Hydro, Inc.; Notice of Reasonable Period of Time 
for Water Quality Certification Application

    On August 27, 2024, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental 
Services (New Hampshire DES) submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (Commission) notice that it received a request for a Clean 
Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification as defined in 
40 CFR 121.5, from Ashuelot River Hydro, Inc., in conjunction with the 
above captioned project on July 8, 2024. Pursuant to section 4.34(b) of 
the Commission's regulations,\1\ we hereby notify New Hampshire DES of 
the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR [4.34(b)(5)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Date of Receipt of the Certification Request: July 8, 2024.
    Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request: One 
year, July 8, 2025.
    If New Hampshire DES fails or refuses to act on the water quality 
certification request on or before the above date, then the certifying 
authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean 
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).

    Dated: September 16, 2024.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-21595 Filed 9-19-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4672-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Alaska (FEMA-4672-DR), dated September 23, 2022, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This change occurred on July 19, 2024.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Lance E. Davis, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

This action terminates the appointment of Brian F. Schiller as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

                        The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance                               ( print page 76493)                            (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.                    

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2024-21185 Filed 9-17-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
# C_2022437EN.01000101.xml

| 17.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10882 – IRCP / CDC / ADTIM GROUP)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 437/01)

On 9 November 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 32022M10882. 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 32022M10882. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
[Cite as In re Petition of CSX Transp., Inc. , 124 Ohio St.3d 1235, 2010-Ohio-1316.]

I N RE P ETITION OF CSX T RANSPORTATION , I NC ., TO C LOSE TO V EHICULAR T RAFFIC THE C OUNTY R OAD 205/U LSH R OAD G RADE C ROSSING (262-061N),
L OCATED IN C LARIDON T OWNSHIP , M ARION C OUNTY , O HIO . [Cite as In re Petition of CSX Transp., Inc. ,

124 Ohio St.3d 1235, 2010-Ohio-1316.] (No. 2010-0127 — Submitted March 24, 2010 — Decided April 1, 2010.)
A PPEAL from the Public Utilities Commission, No. 09-125-RR-UNC.
O N M OTIONS TO D ISMISS

__________________ {¶ 1} This cause is pending before the c ourt as an appeal from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. Appellee and intervening appellee have filed motions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, asser ting that appellant failed to perfect its appeal. {¶ 2} The motions to dismiss are granted. Accordingly, this cause is
dismissed.
M OYER , C.J., and L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , and C UPP , JJ., concur.
P FEIFER , J., concurs separately.

__________________ P FEIFER , J., concurring. {¶ 3} I concur in the decision to dismi ss the appeal but write separately to emphasize that dual filing re quirements should be abolished. A. Schulman, Inc.
v. Wilkins , 112 Ohio St.3d 1208, 2006-Ohio-6677, 859 N.E.2d 553, ¶ 6 (Pfeifer, J., dissenting). They serve no useful purpose. Olympic Steel, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision , 110 Ohio St.3d 1242, 2006-Ohio-4091, 852 N.E.2d 178 (Pfeifer, J., dissenting). Dual filing requirements are a trap for attorneys operatingS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 outside their normal area of practice. Prosecuting attorneys are not normally expert in the procedures associated with public utility law. In this case, that lack of experience led to the prosecuting attorney’s failing to deliver a notice of appeal to the Public Utility Commission of Ohio ’s docketing division and, ultimately, to
a dismissal other than on the merits. In other circumstances, I might have cast a dissenting vote, but in this case, the prosecuting attorney had an opportunity to cure the filing defect but did not avail himself of it.

__________________ Brent W. Yager, Marion County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant, Claridon Township Board of Trustees. Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Duane W. Luckey and William L. Wright, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee, Public Utilities Commission of
Ohio. Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, L.L.P., R. Leland Evans, and Megan E. Bailey, for intervening appellee, CSX Transportation, Inc.

______________________
# Email Protection

## You are unable to access this email address nij.ojp.gov

The website from which you got to this page is protected by Cloudflare. Email addresses on that page have been hidden in order to keep them from being accessed by malicious bots. **You must enable Javascript in your browser in order to decode the e-mail address**.

If you have a website and are interested in protecting it in a similar way, you can sign up for Cloudflare.

                  - How does Cloudflare protect email addresses on website from spammers?
                  - Can I sign up for Cloudflare?

Cloudflare Ray ID: **860f98596e6532c4**•      Your IP:      Click to reveal68.61.119.13•Performance & security byCloudflare