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

No. 15431.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 8, 1932.

Rehearing Denied June 24, 1932.

Jones & Jones, of Mineóla, for appellant.

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

CALHOUN, J.

The offense is transporting intoxicating liquor; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

In passing sentence, the court failed to •make application of the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Vernon’s Ann. C. C. P. art. 775). The sentence is reformed in order that it may be shown that appellant is condemned to confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than two years.

As reformed, the judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
NO. 07-07-0304-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	SEPTEMBER 26, 2007

	______________________________

	IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF MARY MCKAY

	DUNCAN AND RICHARD WITT DUNCAN AND IN THE

	INTEREST OF ROBERT RICHARD WITT DUNCAN CHILD

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 200th DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY;

	NO. D-1-FM-94-010519; HON. MARGARET A. COOPER, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	ORDER ON MOTION TO VACATE AND DISMISS APPEAL

			       _______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

	Appellant and appellee, by and through their attorneys, represent to the court that the dispute has been settled.  So too do they request that we “vacate” the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the appeal.   Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2), vacate the trial court’s judgment, and dismiss the case.  Tex R. App. P. 43.2(e) (stating that an appellate court may vacate a trial court’s judgment and dismiss the case).  Our having done so at the request of all the litigants, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

							Brian Quinn

						          Chief Justice
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 8, 2016

NO. 03-14-00375-CV

Auspro Enterprises, LP, Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Transportation, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

REVERSED AND RENDERED ON MOTION FOR REHEARING –

OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the district court on March 17, 2013. We deny 

the Department’s motion for rehearing and order that the opinion and judgment dated August 26, 

2016, are withdrawn. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds 

that there was reversible error in the district court’s judgment. We therefore reverse the district

court’s judgment and render judgment severing Subchapters B and C from the Texas Highway 

Beautification Act as unconstitutional content-based restrictions on speech. The appellee shall 

pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FERMIN REYES-MEDINA; et al.,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-73158

Agency Nos. A076-844-295

 A076-844-296

 A076-844-297

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 26, 2012 ** 

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Fermin Reyes-Medina and his family, natives and citizens of Mexico,

petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying

their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and de

FILED

JUL 09 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-73158

novo purely legal questions. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.

2003). We grant the petition for review and remand.

The BIA abused its discretion in finding that equitable tolling of the ninetyday deadline to file the motion to reopen was not warranted for lack of diligence,

where petitioners acted with due diligence in discovering that former counsel failed

to file an opening brief in this court. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d

818, 825-26 (9th Cir. 2011); Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling is

available where petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering deception, fraud,

or error preventing timely filing).

With respect to petitioners’ claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based

on conduct that occurred after the entry of a final order of removal, the BIA did not

have the benefit of our intervening decision in Singh v. Napolitano, 649 F.3d 899,

900-01 (9th Cir. 2011) when it concluded it lacked jurisdiction. Accordingly, we

grant the petition and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with

this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,319
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   90,416
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,683
<INVENTORY>                                     39,558
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               151,828
<PP&E>                                       2,196,262
<DEPRECIATION>                                 859,076
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,660,647
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           90,814
<BONDS>                                        627,012
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     16,378
<COMMON>                                       447,700
<OTHER-SE>                                     242,081
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,660,647
<SALES>                                        708,781
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               708,781
<CGS>                                          416,165
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  535,513
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              48,709
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                140,251
<INCOME-TAX>                                    44,496
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             95,755
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    95,755
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00<F1>
<FN>
<F1>*All common stock is owned by parent, no EPS required.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                               EXHIBIT 10(ii)(e)


                                 AMENDMENTS TO
                      SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PROGRAM FOR
                    MANAGEMENT PROFIT-SHARING ASSOCIATES OF
                          J. C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC.



              Adopted by Vice President and Director of Personnel

                               December 30, 1997
<PAGE>
 
                                 AMENDMENTS TO
                      SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PROGRAM FOR
                    MANAGEMENT PROFIT-SHARING ASSOCIATES OF
                          J. C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC.


1.   Paragraph (5) (Life Insurance Coverage) of Article IV (Benefits) shall be
     amended effective January 1, 1997 to add a subparagraph two to read as
     follows:

          A Participant whose group term life insurance coverage under the Plan
          terminates because of his attainment of age 70 will have the right to
          convert his group term life insurance coverage to an individual policy
          to the extent, and only to the extent, permitted under the group
          policy applicable to the Participant. Any election to convert to
          individual coverage must be made within 31 days after the
          Participant's coverage under the Plan terminates and must be made in
          accordance with all requirements specified in such policy. The amount
          of coverage that may be converted shall be the amount in effect
          immediately before the Participant attained age 70.

2.   Paragraph (3) (Small Annuities) of Article V (Form and Commencement of
     Benefit Payments) shall be amended effective January 1, 1998 to revise
     sentence one to read as follows:

          If the total benefit payable to an Eligible Management Associate under
          Paragraph (1) or (2) of Article IV would not provide monthly payments
          exceeding $100, the benefit shall be converted into an actuarially
          equivalent lump sum payment (applying the actuarial factors utilized
          in the Pension Plan).

                                       1
# C_2023095EN.01000101.xml

| 14.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10998 – MAGNA INTERNATIONAL / MINTH GROUP / HUAINAN MAGNA MINTH EXTERIORS SYSTEMS JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 95/01)

On 6 March 2023, 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 32023M10998. 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 32023M10998. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
-----Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 05/14/2010 06:41PM -----

To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA From: "Matt Todd" <ToddM@api.org> Date: 05/14/2010 06:13PM cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Subject: UA/UC White Paper Melanie,

The attached “white paper” supports the use of the Urbanized Area and Urban Cluster Census 2000 approach for defining urban areas. This is consistent with the approach used to identify sources as rural or urban in 40 CFR 63 Subpart HH (ONG NESHAP). The Census
Bureau evolution of the urban / rural classification scheme has exploited Geographic Information System (GIS) technology and leveraged population data to improve and refine definitions over time. As we discussed during our meeting, relying on the outdated 1990 Census classification scheme and urban-1 / urban-2 definitions would classify many counties in oil and natural gas production locations like Wyoming as “urban”, which is an inappropriate determination based on a common understanding of these terms.

API does not believe that EPA is limited to the narrow and outdated definitions of U1 and U2 from the 1990 Census approach referenced in the Urban Air Toxics Strategy (UATS), instead the UATS recognized that urban areas would evolve by proposing that “the area in which standards will apply should be made separately for each source category.” The UATS simply relied upon the common contemporary Census Bureau definitions, and there is no compelling
reason to ignore subsequent improvements in the knowledge base.

On a related note, API would like to reiterate concerns expressed in our original comments regarding treatment of oil and gas operations under §CAA112(n)(4)(B). API comment 2.1 (page 11 of 100) requested that EPA consider proximity to urban areas.

CAA §112(n)(4)(B) states: The Administrator shall not list oil and gas production wells (with its associated equipment) as an area source category under subsection (c) of this section, except that the Administrator may establish an area source category for oil and gas production wells located in any metropolitan statistical area or consolidated metropolitan statistical area with a population in excess of 1 million, if the Administrator determines that emissions of hazardous air pollutants from such wells present more than a negligible risk of adverse effects to public health [emphasis added].

This implies that the congressional intent is to restrict oil and gas site area source applicability requirements to urban areas with greater than 1 million people in MSA and
CMSAs.

If you have any questions regarding this white paper or desire additional discussion surrounding this important issue, please contact me at the number below. Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Matt

Matthew Todd
API 1220 L Street NW Washington DC 20005 202.682.8319 www.api.org
EXHIBIT 11

                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS



The following presents the computation of per share earnings reflecting the
assumption that convertible debentures are converted.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                              (IN THOUSANDS
                                                                           EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                                                                           ----------------------
                                                                 1996               1995             1994
                                                             ------------          -------          -------
<S>                                                          <C>                   <C>              <C>    
      Net earnings                                           $     14,720          $18,969          $21,455

      Add interest expense related to convertible
         debenture, net of income taxes                                 -              193              312

                                                             ------------          -------          -------
      Adjusted net earnings for computation (1)              $     14,720          $19,162          $21,767
                                                             ============          =======          =======



      Weighted average common shares outstanding                    7,352            7,344            7,337

      Common equivalent shares from the assumed
         debenture conversion                                           -                -              121

      Adjusted common and common equivalent
         shares for computation (2)                          ------------          -------          -------
                                                                    7,352            7,344            7,458
                                                             ============          =======          =======



      Net earnings per common and common equivalent
         shares outstanding (1 / 2)                          $       2.00          $  2.61          $  2.92
                                                             ============          =======          =======

</TABLE>
**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

 

Eachof the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of ChannellCommercial Corporation (the “Company”), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto the best of his knowledge:

 

•                  The Quarterly Report of the Companyon Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

•                  The information contained in suchreport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operation of the Company.

 

 
| Date: May 15,  2006 |                                    |
|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                     |                                    |
|                     |                                    |
|                     | /s/  William H. Channell, Jr. |   |   |
|                     | Name:                                   | William H. Channell, Jr. |   |
|                     | Title:                                  | President and  Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                     |                                    |
|                     |                                    |
|                     | /s/  Jerry  Collazo                |   |   |
|                     | Name:                                   | Jerry Collazo |   |
|                     | Title:                                  | Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                          |                                         |  |  |  |  |

 

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

<ARTICLE>           5
       
<S>                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                          3,849,194
<SECURITIES>                   10,964,170
<RECEIVABLES>                     878,893
<ALLOWANCES>                       80,000
<INVENTORY>                     3,375,368
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               19,452,300
<PP&E>                          4,535,450
<DEPRECIATION>                  1,906,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 22,423,172
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           2,612,613
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                        4,848,525
<OTHER-SE>                     14,951,823
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   22,423,172
<SALES>                         2,814,646
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                4,834,077
<CGS>                           4,934,887
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   4,934,887
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                9,510,176
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  7,109
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (8,607,721)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (8,607,721)
<DISCONTINUED>                    111,539
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                   (8,496,182)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (.70)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification of Principal Financial Officer 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 Portsmouth
Square, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ann Marie Blair, Corporate Controller of the Company, and serving as its
Principal Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | ● | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 5(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |   |                                                                                                                                                     
| | ● | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|/s/ Ann Marie Blair         | 
|--------------------------- | 
|Ann Marie Blair             | 
|Principal Financial Officer | 



Date: October 13, 2023



A signed original of this written statement required
by Section 906 has been provided to Portsmouth Square, Inc. and will be retained by Portsmouth Square, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
IN THE MATTER OF EMPIRE FLIGHT ACADEMY

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0290 ChiefAdministrative Law Judge Ronnie 

### A. Yoder


### AGENCY'S SUPPLEMENT TOREOUEST FOREXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO RESPONDENT'S MOTIONFORDECISION COMES NOWthe Agency, by and through its designated representative, the Regional Counsel for the Eastern Region and his duly designated agents, and supplements its previously filed request for a II-day extension to time to respond to Respondent's Motion for Decision. To further supportthe request, the Agency submits that after filing ofthe request for an extension, Agency counsel spoke with Respondent's counsel and the later indicated thathe has no objection to this extension.
Respectfully submitted, ALFRED R. JOHNSON, 

### JR. REGIONAL COUNSEL 

# 2e
.**~,.llf,u.** By:**~** 

# /lNl vVlI/c.r-.. ZacharyM. Berman Attorney Date: June 16, 2011 

# I 

# JCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this date sent via facsimile and first class mail a copy ofthe foregoing AGENCY'S SUPPLEMENT TO REOUEST FOREXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO RESPONDENT'S MOTIONFORDECISIONto: Gregory S. Winton, Esq. One Research Court, Suite 450 Rockville, MD 20850 Telefax: (301)294-2525 The Honorable Ronnie 

### A. Yoder ChiefAdministrative Law Judge U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofHearings, M-20, Room E12-320 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 Telefax: (202)366-7536
I hereby certify that I have this date sent via first class mail a copy ofthe foregoing AGENCY'S SUPPLEMENT TO REOUEST FOREXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO RESPONDENT'S MOTIONFORDECISIONto:
Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Att. Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WI0000
Date: June 16,2011 lsaH ks Paralegal Specialist 1 Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434

2 

# I JUN 

# 2:3