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

No. 18469.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 10, 1936.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 21, 1936.

Warren W. Moore and Horace W. More-lock, both of Austin, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for theft; punishment, three years in the penitentiary.

We find in the record neither statement of facts nor bills of exception. All matters of procedure appear regular.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, Judge.

In the motion for rehearing appellant attacks the validity of the indictment. It is averred in substance that appellant had possession of an automobile belonging to a named corporation by virtue of a contract of hiring with said corporation, and that without consent of the corporation appellant fraudulently converted said automobile to appellant’s own use, etc. The attack made on the indictment is that a corporation could only act through its officers or employees, and that the indictment should have alleged the name of the officer or employee without whose consent the conversion occurred.

The cases cited as supporting appellant’s criticism of the indictment are thought not to sustain his position. In White v. State, 24 Tex.App. 231, 5 S.W. 857, 5 Am.St.Rep. 879, and Thurmond v. State, 30 Tex.App. 539, 17 S.W. 1098, the indictment alleged ownership and want of consent in a named company, but omitted an averment that the company named was a corporation. In Kersh v. State, 45 Tex.Cr.R. 451, 77 S.W. 790, and Barnes v. State, 46 Tex.Cr.R. 513, 81 S.W. 735, ownership and want of consent was alleged in the person having actual control and management of the property. We fail to perceive where Varratta v. State, 103 Tex.Cr.R. 142, 280 S.W. 583, has application. De Blanc v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 628, 37 S.W.(2d) 1024, cited by appellant, seems to be directly against the contention.

It has been held in a number of cases that an indictment is good which lays ownership and want of consent in a named corporation, where it is averred that the concern named is a corporation. The holding has usually been accompanied by a suggestion that on account of the difficulty of making the necessary proof the *196better practice is to aver ownership and want of consent in the special owner. See Osborne v. State, 93 Tex.Cr.R. 54, 245 S.W. 928; Houghton v. State, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 70, 32 S.W.(2d) 837; Kitchen v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 358, 62 S.W.(2d) 144; Modica v. State, 94 Tex.Cr.R. 403, 251 S.W. 1049; De Blanc v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 628, 37 S.W.(2d) 1024. Under authority of the cases last cited, the criticism of the indictment must fail.

In the absence of the facts proven upon the trial, we assume that the aver-ments in the indictment were sustained.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: 2013-AD 

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action 

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement) 

Do not include oncondition costs here 

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours 

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up) 

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our) 

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts) 

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet 

Visual inspection 

for Free Turbine 

Bearing Plug

1.0 $ 85.00 $ 85.00 5 $ 425.00

Rework for Free 

Turbine Bearing 

Plug

3.0 $ 255.00 $13 $ 268.00 5 $1,340.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $1,765 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ 

On-Condition Costs:

Action 

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement) 

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup) 

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour) 

Parts Cost Cost per Product 

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 
Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2975 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2975

To amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure that the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs repays the misused benefits of veterans with 
                              fiduciaries.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 8, 2015

Ms. Brownley of California (for herself and Mr. DeSaulnier) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure that the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs repays the misused benefits of veterans with 
                              fiduciaries.

    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 ``Protect Veterans from Financial 
Fraud Act''.

SEC. 2. REPAYMENT OF MISUSED BENEFITS.

    (a) In General.--Section 6107(b) of title 38, United States Code, 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``In any case in which a 
        fiduciary described in paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``In any 
        case not covered by subsection (a) in which a fiduciary'';
            (2) by striking paragraph (2); and
            (3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
    (b) Application.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply 
with respect to the misuse of benefits by a fiduciary occurring on or 
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7316

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OSTER WITHERSPOON, a/k/a Little Man, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-91-288, CA-96-3536-8-2) Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 3, 1998 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Oster Witherspoon, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Oster Witherspoon seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Witherspoon , Nos. CR-91- 288; CA-96-3536-8-2 (D.S.C. Aug. 21, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 25, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 78351]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22039]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Monday, September 30, 2024, at 3 p.m. EST.

PLACE: Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 
L'Enfant Plaza, SW.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Meeting of the Board of Governors

Monday, September 30, 2024, at 3 p.m. EST

1. Strategic and Financial Matters.
2. Administrative Items.

    General Counsel Certification: The General Counsel of the United 
States Postal Service has certified that the meeting may be closed 
under the Government in the Sunshine Act.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Michael J. Elston, Secretary of 
the Board of Governors, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, 
Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone: (202) 268-4800.

Michael J. Elston,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-22039 Filed 9-23-24; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### DAVIS v. DORSEY.

No. 4634.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.

Feb. 7, 1935.

E. B. Hendricks, of Fort Worth, and Saye, Smead & Saye, of Longview, for plaintiff in error.

James R. Curtis and Edwin Lacy, both of Longview, for defendant in error.

SELLERS, Justice.

This suit was filed in the district court of Gregg county on January 28,1933, by John W. Dorsey against Nora C. Davis, administratrix of the estate of Clay Stinnett, deceased, to establish a claim against said estate. The claim is based upon a promissory note dated November 1, 1921, and due one year after date with interest from date at 8 per cent, per annum and providing for 10 per cent attorney’s fees; the principal of the note being $500. It is further alleged that Clay Stinnett made a payment on the note on November 1, 1925, in the sum of $25, and another payment on November 1, 1931, of the same amount, both of which payments were credited on the back of the note.

The defendant answered by general denial, general demurrer, and further pleaded the four years’ statute of limitation.

The case was tried before the court without a jury, and resulted in judgment for plaintiff, establishing his claim for the sum of $1,-205.90; same being the principal, interest, and attorney’s fees due on said note. The defendant has duly prosecuted writ of error to this court.

The trial court in entering judgment for defendant in error over the plaintiff in error’s plea of limitation evidently did so on the theory that there had been a valid extension of the date of the payment of said note. This contention, in our opinion, must fail for the reason that neither the pleadings of defendant in error nor the evidence offered by him will support the judgment based upon an extension of the date of payment of the note. It is now the settled law of this state that a valid extension of time of payment of a promissory note is a new cause of action and suit must be upon such extension agreement and not upon the original obligation as was here done. Tex. Jur. vol. 28, § 185, p. 279.

In our opinion no useful purpose could be served by a lengthy review of the evidence offered by defendant in error to support a valid agreement for the extension of the payment of the note, since the case must be reversed for a lack of pleadings to support the judgment based upon such an extension; but we will say that we regard the evidence as insufficient to support a valid extension of the time of payment of the note, irrespective of whether the agreement was made before or after the note 'became barred' by the statute of limitation.

Plaintiff in error insists that since it is apparent from the record that defendant in error’s suit is barred by the statute of limitation, she is entitled to have the case re*344versed, and rendered rather than reversed and remanded. This contention is overruled on the authority of Bagley v. Brack (Tex. Oiv. App.) 154 S. W. 247.

The judgment of the trial court will be re^ versed, and the cause remanded.
EXHIBIT 21-1



                         PG ENERGY INC. AND SUBSIDIARY



                        Subsidiaries of the Registrant



    The following are subsidiaries of  the  Registrant.  Their voting securities
are owned 100% by the Registrant and are incorporated in Pennsylvania.


                 Penn Gas Development Co. (1)

                 Honesdale Gas Company (2)


(1)  A subsidiary of PG Energy Inc. accounted for on the equity method which has
     not been consolidated since it is insignificant.

(2)  A subsidiary of PG Energy Inc.  acquired on February 14, 1997, and included
     in the consolidation of PG Energy Inc.
<PAGE>
**Exhibit
        32.1**
 
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO**
 **18
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**
 **OF
        THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
  In
        connection with the annual report of Belarus Capital Corp. (the "Company")
        on
        Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Sanford Leavitt,
        Chief Executive Officer, and Neil Roth, Chief Financial Officer, certify
        pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
        the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:
  (1)
        This
        report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
  (2)
        The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/
                  Sanford Leavitt
              
              
              /s/
                  Neil RothSanford
                  Leavitt
                Chief
                  Executive Officer
              
              
              Neil
                  Roth
                Chief
                  Financial OfficerDate:
                  August 7, 2008
              
              
              Date:
                  August 7, 2008
DRAFT 20110319 

1.1 Risk Matrix

Considerations

 People 

 Continuity of Operation Plan (COOP) 

 Environmental 

 Budget 

Severity Definitions

1. Insignificant 

a) No first aid required injury/illness 

b) No lost work time 

c) None to very limited operational impact, less than 1 hour 

d) None to minimal equipment loss less than 1 day out of service 

e) No environmental impact 

f) None to minimal budget impact 

2. Minor 

a) Injury/illness, first aid required 

b) Little to no lost work time, less than 2 days (16 hours) 

c) None or very limited operational impact, less than 4 hours 

d) None to minimal equipment loss less than 2 days out of service 

e) Contained with none to limited impact 

f) Minimal budget impact 

3. Major 

a) Injury/illness 1 to 5 persons 

b) Death less than 2 persons 

c) Lost work time less than 1 week (40 hours) 

d) Loss of total operations less than 2 hours 

e) Loss of partial operations less 1 day, (24 hours) 

f) Equipment loss less than a week 

g) Non-contained but manageable/mitigated within 1 day 

h) Moderate budget impact 

4. Hazardous 

a) Injury/illness 6 to 49 people 

b) Death less than 5 persons, not Mass Casualty Incident (MCI) 

c) Lost work time 1 week to 1 month 

d) Loss of total operation 2 to 12 hours 

e) Partial loss of operation 48 hours or less 

f) Equipment loss less than 30 days 

g) Non-contained, resulting in environmental impact 1 to 30 days 

h) Serious budget impact 
DRAFT 20110319 

5. Catastrophic 

a) Injury/illness greater than 50 persons 

b) Death greater than 5 persons, MCI 

c) Lost work time greater than one month 

d) Loss of total operation 12+ hours 

e) Loss of partial operations greater than 48 hours 

f) Total loss of equipment 

g) Non-contained, long term impact 30+ days 

h) Grave budget impact 

Probability Definitions

1. Extremely Improbable 

a) Almost impossible 

b) Possibly only once in 10 to 100 years 

2. Extremely Remote 

a) Conceivable but highly unlikely 

b) Possibly once in every 5 to less than 10 years 

3. Remote 

a) Possibly once a year or multiple times from 1 year to or less than 5 years 

b) Unlikely but possible to occur 

4. Probable 

a) Likely to occur multiple times per year or once per month 

b) Regularly expected to occur in the system 

5. Frequent 

a) Likely to occur once a day or multiple times per week 

b) Continuously expected to occur in the system
Att. 004 Manufacturing Flow Diagram
LIFE CYCLE COST OF PACKAGED SYSTEM HEAT PUMPS - SAMPLE CALCULATION (AVG VALUES), January 2001

 Dollar Values in 1998 $ 

LIST INPUTS Age Year 

ELECTRICITY PRICE (cent/kWh) Average Marginal 1998 

ENERGY PRICE PROJECTION START YEAR Year of Purchase 2006 9.75 10.45 

Year Equip. Retires 2023 9.49 10.17 1 2006 

2 2007 

BASE CASE DESIGN PRICE OPTION 3 2008 

SEER 10 CHANGE SEER 13 4 2009 

5 2010 

STANDARD CASE DESIGN Total Installed Price $3,599 $436 12% $4,035 6 2011 

Annual Repair & Maint. $76 $1 2% $77 7 2012 Compressor Cost $283 $82 29% $364 8 2013 

9 2014 

Annual kWh Use (Cool & Heat) 7742 -973 -13% 6768 10 2015 

LIFETIME (years) 18.4 Cooling 602 -139 -23% 463 11 2016 

DISCOUNT RATE 4.2% % SHIPMENT Heating 7140 -835 -12% 6305 Payback 12 2017 

 Comm. 10% Annual Operating Cost (years) 13 2018 

HOUSEHOLD ELEC PRICE IN 1998 Resd. 90% 2006 $831 -$100 -12% $730 4.3 14 2019 

(cent/kWh) Average 10.49 15 2020 

Marginal 11.24 Cumulative Cash Flow $18,909 -$1,298 -7% $17,612 16 2021 

Life-Cycle Cost ($) $14,128 -$771 -5% $13,357 17 2022 

RECS AVERAGE UEC (kWh) 18 2023 

 COOLING 735 19 2024  HEATING 7735 20 2025 RECS AVERAGE SEER 8.2 21 2026 RECS AVERAGE HSPF 6.3 22 2027 

23 2028 24 2029 25 2030 

AEO 2000 - Reference Case 2006

Baseline (SEER=10)20% Impr. (SEER=12)

Fuel Price 

Comparion

Show Plot

Show Inputs

Update

Price 

Multiplier

Mark Up's

Split System

Rev Engr
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                                   5

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                 JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                                    AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                      JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                                              4,053,429
<SECURITIES>                                                        8,917,251
<RECEIVABLES>                                                       3,652,497
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          672,000
<INVENTORY>                                                         5,100,338
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                   21,290,006
<PP&E>                                                              7,357,916
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      3,643,976
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                     25,003,946
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                               4,502,062
<BONDS>                                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                            6,680,377
<OTHER-SE>                                                         13,814,228
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                       25,003,946
<SALES>                                                            20,427,704
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                   20,427,704
<CGS>                                                              10,015,799
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                      10,015,799
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                   21,578,261
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                      9,377
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                   (10,590,381)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                               (10,590,381)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                                      (10,590,381)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                              (.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                            (.67)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         729
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  19,028
<ALLOWANCES>                                   580
<INVENTORY>                                    84,181
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               105,663
<PP&E>                                         6,121
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,461
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 147,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          82,961
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       114
<OTHER-SE>                                     61,262
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   147,700
<SALES>                                        29,292
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               29,292
<CGS>                                          20,640
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  20,640
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               23
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,381
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,193
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,169
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,024
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,024
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.18
        


</TABLE>