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

No. 19039.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 2, 1937.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 20, 1937.

*198Jack M. Moore and John'H. Bencken-stein, both of Beaumont, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of having in his possession distilled liquor at a place where he had legal permit to sell vinous and malt liquor, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $100. Prosecution was under subsection (c), § 3, art. 1, c. 467, 44th Legislature, Second Called Sess. (Vernon’s Ann.P. C. art. 666 — 3(c).

No attack was made on the indictment in the court below either by motion to quash or in arrest of judgment, but it is here criticized as being defective under the holding in Gremillion v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 492, 100 S.W.(2d) 106; Teal v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 454, 100 S.W.(2d) 107; Kelley v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 621, 102 S.W.(2d) 211. It will be noted that in those cases it was alleged that accused had a permit to sell vinous and malt liquor, but no averment that he was engaged in the business of so doing at the place where he was in possession of the distilled' liquor. In the present indictment it is alleged that appellant “was a retail dealer in wines and beer” under a permit. The meaning of “dealer,” as found in Webster’s International Dictionary, is “a trader, a trafficker, a shopkeeper, a broker or a merchant”; hence we are of opinion that the averment that appellant was a retail dealer in wines and beer was equivalent to alleging that he was engaged in such business. See Gripon v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 495, 100 S.W.(2d) 355.

Appellant objected to the court not charging on circumstantial evidence, and requested a special charge on the subject. We fail to see, how the case is one on circumstantial evidence. Inspectors for the Liquor Control Board' went to appellant’s place of business and in a room adjoining the one in which beer was dispensed they found two bottles each containing some whisky, and also found whisky in a pitcher in a cabinet over the sink. The inspectors testified that appellant admitted ownership of the whisky. There was an open door between the rooms mentioned, and in the one where the whisky'was found was the ice box in which appellant cooled the beer which he sold on the place.

Appellant requested the court to instruct the jury that it was not unlawful for a person to consume liquor m a beer parlor, if such liquor was owned by such person and was brought into the beer parlor by him. We fail to see the pertinence of the requested instruction. If the whisky found by the officers had been brought into the beer parlor by customers it might have presented an issue whether appellant was in possession of it; but that was not the question suggested by the requested charge.

Finding no errors upon which a reversal could properly be predicated, the judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Yearend  Audited  Financial  Information
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       25833
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              5878554
<ALLOWANCES>                               (472253)
<INVENTORY>                                 106058
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           6226075
<PP&E>                                    10904274
<DEPRECIATION>                            (2785694)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            14542245
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      9366083
<BONDS>                                    4978916
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                      1569
<OTHER-SE>                                  195677
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              14542245
<SALES>                                   27231313
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          27236456
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             26541440
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (8855)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         1265704
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (396569)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (396569)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (396569)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.03)


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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         107,057
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         244,147
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                30,023
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    812,647
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           3,238
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             3,255
<LOANS>                                      2,893,691
<ALLOWANCE>                                     47,535
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,220,069
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,995,954
<SHORT-TERM>                                   324,960
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             26,873
<LONG-TERM>                                    686,478
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              194
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         272<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               4,220,069
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 54,005
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               19,683
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   875
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                74,563
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              35,471
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              53,666
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           20,897
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 278
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 21,003
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,178<F2>
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,178
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,541
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    1.94
<LOANS-NON>                                     16,420
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                42,195
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 90,630
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                50,538
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    6,469
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,966
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               48,035
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            48,035
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         31,692
<FN>
<F1> Minority interest: Preferred stock of consolidated subsidiary
<F2> Earnings before income taxes and $7 thousand minority interest in
subsidiary which is included in (Expense-Other)
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
From: Kevin Lewis [mailto:klewis@airsci.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 2:52 PM 

To: Branscome, Marvin R. 

Cc: Chuck French; Greg.Schoen@Kinross.com 

Subject: FW: Round Mountain 2009 

The information you requested is below:

1. 2009 kiln hours of operation – 8652 hrs.

2. 2009 preg/barren tanks hours of operation – 8760 hrs.

3. 2009 furnace hours of operation – 584 hrs.

(#4) Total tons of Concentration

EW Sludge Gravity Mill Spirals Total

Toz Tons Toz Tons Toz Tons Toz Tons

1210058 41.49719 14802 0.507613 54944 1.884225 1279804 43.88903

Note the gravity and Mill concentrate is NOT generated from the carbon adsorption/desorption process,

like the EW concentrate is.

(#5) Our record shows 3312 tons. This number is recorded from carbon lots in ADR and per a

conversation with Greg should be the same as the carbon stripped.
#### Penn-Ohio Coach Lines Co., Appellant, *v.*Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

(No. 28904

Decided February 4, 1942.)

*263
      *Mr. Norman A. Emery, Messrs. Harrington, Huxley é Smith*and *Mr. R. G. Jeter,*for appellant.

*Mr. Thomas J. Herbert,*attorney general, and *Mr. Kenneth L. Sater,*for appellee.

By the Court.

Section 496, G-eneral Code, requires *264the secretary of the Public Utilities Commission to keep a full and complete record of all proceedings of the commission.

Section 544, General Code, provides that a *final order*made lay the commission may be reversed, vacated or modified by this court on appeal, if upon consideration of the record this court is of the opinion that such order was unlawful or unreasonable.

Section 547, General Code, bars such appeal “unless * * * filed within sixty days after the entry of the *final order*complained of upon the journal of the commission.” (Italics ours.)

This court has held that an oral announcement or placing in the files of a signed memorandum granting a certificate and stating when it should take effect, does not bar the commission from making further investigation or from modifying such memorandum before entering a final order upon its journal and issuing a certificate. *Interstate Motor Transit Co.*v. *Public Utilities Commission,*119 Ohio St., 264, 163 N. E., 713, paragraph 2 of the syllabus. See, also, *Penna. Rd. Co.*v. *Public Utilities Commission,*123 Ohio St., 203, 174 N. E., 737.

No final order has been entered by the commission on its journal. That is apparent from an examination of the stipulated facts.

The motion is sustained and the appeal dismissed.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman and Bettman, JJ., concur.
# C_2022421EN.01005301.xml

| 4.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/53

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2022/C 421/05)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

| Date and time of closure | 28.9.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 28.9.2022 — 31.12.2022 |
| Member State | Italy |
| Stock or Group of stocks | ARS/GF8-11 |
| Species | Giant red shrimp (Aristaeomorpha foliacea) |
| Zone | GSA 8-9-10-11 |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 09/TQ110 |

Date and time of closure

28.9.2022

Duration

28.9.2022 — 31.12.2022

Member State

Italy

Stock or Group of stocks

ARS/GF8-11

Species

Giant red shrimp (Aristaeomorpha foliacea)

Zone

GSA 8-9-10-11

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

09/TQ110

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted fron S.E.C.
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1995 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          73,300
<SECURITIES>                                     9,800
<RECEIVABLES>                                  578,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (28,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    615,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,457,500
<PP&E>                                       2,164,400
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,473,400)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,261,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          719,000
<BONDS>                                        526,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        75,400
<OTHER-SE>                                     642,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,261,800
<SALES>                                      2,236,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,236,900
<CGS>                                        1,298,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,394,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                11,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              52,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (201,400)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (61,200)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (140,200)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (140,200)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
February 15, 2017

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

RE: Amendment to change business name on uMAP’s Section 333 Exemption No. 12326

.

Dear Sir or Madam:

uMAP, LLC hereb y applies for an amendment to change t he business name from uMAP, LLC to Uviation, LLC
and maintain the previou sly granted E xemption No. 12326. uMap, LLC has been D oing B usiness A s Uviation, LLC since December 2015, and would like to officially change the business name on all FAA forms.

Thank you for your time, and please contact the undersigned should you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Tiffany Javernick

Uvation , LLC

1624 Market Street, Suite 202

Denver, CO 80202
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50335

In the Matter of: SHERRY L BELCHER

Debtor

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

SHERRY L BELCHER

Appellant

v.

JOHN DOE; JOHN O’DOWD; GAYLE O’DOWD

Appellees

Appeal from the United States United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:06-CV-1068

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Debtor Sherry L. Belcher appeals from the district court’s order affirming

the bankruptcy court’s adjudication of two state-law causes of action in an

adversary proceeding. After reviewing the parties’ briefs, the record, and the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 4, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50335

2

applicable law, the district court’s judgment is MODIFIED for the following

reasons:

1. The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over the trespass to try title

action and the claim that Belcher violated TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE

§ 81.103 under its “related to”jurisdiction because both causes conceivably

could have affected the bankruptcy estate. See 28 U.S.C. §1334; In re

Wood, 825 F.2d 90, 93 (5th Cir. 1987). We need not decide whether a

violation of TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 81.103 is a personal injury tort

under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) because Belcher impliedly consented to the

bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction by failing to object in both the bankruptcy

court and the district court. See In re Tex. Gen. Petroleum Corp., 52 F.3d

1330, 1337 (5th Cir. 1995).

2. Belcher fails to explain what witnesses and photographs she was

precluded from offering or how denial of the evidence harmed her. She

also provides no record citation for the purported real estate instruments.

We find no error in the bankruptcy court’s evidentiary rulings. See, e.g,

Triple Tree Golf, Inc. v. Nike, 485 F.3d 253, 265 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding

that evidentiary rulings, which are reviewed for abuse of discretion and

subject to harmless error analysis, will be affirmed unless a substantial

right has been affected).

3. We do find error in the bankruptcy court’s ruling that Belcher violated

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 81.103 because there is no evidence that

Belcher knew of Doe’s test. She knew of his health condition from what

he had told her, but nothing was said to her about a test or medical proof.

See New Times, Inc. v. Doe, 183 S.W.3d 122 (Tex. App. 2006).

The judgment is modified to vacate the award of $1,000 damages to John

Doe for violation of the Health & Safety Code. The district court remanded to

the bankruptcy court the award of attorneys’ fees, and that is not before us. We
No. 08-50335

3

leave that matter where it is, with however our present ruling may affect it.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
#### WOODWARD v. STATE.

No. 20536.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

June 14, 1939.

Nolan Queen, of Weatherford, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for driving while intoxicated a motor vehicle on a public road, punishment being by fine of $200 and fifty days in jail.

The indictment properly charges the offense. No bills of exception or statement of facts being found in the record, nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed;
# CI2022063EN.01000301.xml

| 7.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 63/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 63/3

---

Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2017/1775/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) 1770/2017 concerning restrictive measures against Mali apply

(2022/C 63 I/02)

The attention of data subjects is drawn to the following information in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1).

The legal basis for this processing operation is Council Decision 2017/1775/CFSP (2), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/157 (3), and Council Regulation (EU) 1770/2017 (4), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/156 (5).

The controller of this processing operation is the RELEX 1 department in the Directorate-General for External Relations (RELEX) of the General Secretariat of the Council (GSC), which can be contacted at:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX 1 Global and Horizontal Affairs |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX 1 Global and Horizontal Affairs

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The purpose of the processing operation is the establishment and updating of the list of persons subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Decision 2017/1775/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2022/157, and in Regulation (EU) 2017/1770, as implemented by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/156.

The data subjects are the natural persons who fulfil the listing criteria as laid down in Decision 2017/1775/CFSP and Regulation (EU) 2017/1770.

The personal data collected includes data necessary for the correct identification of the person concerned, the statement of reasons and any other data related thereto.

The personal data collected may be shared as necessary with the European External Action Service and the Commission.

Without prejudice to restrictions pursuant to Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, the exercise of the rights of the data subjects, such as the right of access, the right to rectification and the right to object, will be answered in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

Personal data will be retained for five years from the moment the data subject has been removed from the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures or the validity of the measure has expired, or for the duration of court proceedings in the event they have been started.

Without prejudice to any judicial, administrative or non-judicial remedy, data subjects may lodge a complaint with the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

---

(1)  OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39.

(2)  OJ L 251, 29.9.2017, p. 23.

(3)  OJ L 25 I, 4.2.2022, p. 7.

(4)  OJ L 251 29.9.2017, p. 1.

(5)  OJ L 25 I, 4.2.2022, p. 1.

---
# C_2021471EN.01000401.xml

| 22.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 471/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 471/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — The Software Incubator Ltd v Computer Associates (UK) Ltd

(Case C-410/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Self-employed commercial agents - Directive 86/653/EEC - Article 1(2) - Definition of ‘commercial agent’ - Supply of computer software to customers by electronic means - Grant of a perpetual licence for use - Concepts of ‘sale’ and ‘goods’)

(2021/C 471/04)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Software Incubator Ltd

Defendant: Computer Associates (UK) Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘sale of goods’ referred to in Article 1(2) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that it can cover the supply, in return for payment of a fee, of computer software to a customer by electronic means where that supply is accompanied by the grant of a perpetual licence to use that software.

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.

---