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

No. 15500.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 19, 1932.

Alee Johnson, of Stephenville, for appellant.

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

MORROW, P. J.

Receiving and concealing stolen property is the offense; penalty assessed at a fine of $150, and confinement in the county jail for a period of 100 days.

The indictment appears regular and regularly presented. There is no statement of facts before this court; nor are there bills of exception complaining of the rulings of the trial court.

The motion for new trial is unverified, and attempts to set up misconduct of the jury and other matters of fact. None of them are reviewable, in the absence of a statement of facts or bills of exception duly verified.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### VELA v. GARZA.

No. 9225.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Jan. 10, 1934.

S. L. Gill and John W. Hill, both of Ray-mondville, for appellant.

Jesse G. Foster, of Raymond ville, for ap-pellee.

SMITH, Justice.

This appeal is predicated upon three assignments of error, which will be noticed in the order presented.

It is first,contended that the court erred in striking out a supplemental answer filed by appellant on the day the case was called for trial, but the record does not afford the premise for such complaint. The record shows a motion to strike the pleading, 'but. it does not appear that the court acted upon the motion. Moreover, assuming that the pleading was stricken, as appellant contends, it does not appear that the court abused its discretion in the matter. The record is not sufficient to present the question sought to be raised in appellant’s first assignment of error, which is overruled.

It is contended in appellant’s second assignment of error that appellee’s trial petition was subject to the general demurrer because it was not therein alleged that the note sued on was presented to the principal obligor for payment, or that notice of dishon- or was given appellant as a surety on the note. The note set out in the .petition, as well as the allegations in the petition, showed that the three signers of the note were principal obligors, and that each of them waived presentment, notice of nonpayment, protest and notice thereof, and diligence in bringing suit. The general demurrer was properly overruled, and appellant’s second assignment will therefore be overruled, as will also the third assignment, for the same reasons.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### TEXAS LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD v. WARFIELD.

No. 2069.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

Jan. 12, 1939.

Wm. McCraw, Atty. Gen., and Leon O. Moses and Victor W. Bouldin, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellant.

Darden, Burleson & Wilson,, of .Waco, for appellee. -

GEORGE; Justice.

This is an appeal by Texas Liquor Control Board from a judgment of the district court setting' aside an order of its. administrator of September 2, 1937, denying. appellee, Warfield, a package store permit . for., the period commencing September 1,- 1937 and ending'August 31; 19.38.-

The administrator refused the permit on the sole ground that he had, on. May 3, 1937, canceled appellee’s package store permit covering .period extending from September 1, 1936 to August 31, 1937, because one of appellee’s employees had, on Sunday, March 14, 1937, in McLennan county, without appellee’s consent and knowledge and against his instructions, sold and delivered one-half pint of whiskey not upon a prescription issued by a duly licensed physician to an employee of appellant.

The pertinent provisions of the Penal Code, Vernon’s Annotated Statutes, in force on September 2, 1937, read as follows :

> “Art. 666 — 11. The Board or Administrator shall refuse to issue a permit to any applicant either with or without a hearing if it has reasonable grounds to believe and finds any of the following to be true: * * * (2). That the applicant has violated- any provision of this Act or any rule or regulation of the Board during the previous permit period.”

> “Art. 666t-;1,3.- Any permit granted under this Act shall- be a purely- personal privilege, * * * good for the year in which issued, -and ending on August 31st of each year at 12 o’clock midnight, * * 3⁄8 *»*

Thus, the controlling question presented to the trial court for determination was whether, the' facts supported the administrator’s finding that, appellee had violated any provision of the Act during the previous, permit period commencing September 1, 1936 and ending August 31, 1937. Texas Liquor Control Board v. Floyd, Tex.Civ.App., 117 S.W.2d 530; Texas Liquor Control Board v. Tschoerner, Tex.Civ.App., 117 S.W.2d 121; Texas Liquor Control Board v. Warfield, Tex.Civ.App., 110 S.W.2d 646.

Therefore, it is manifest that this case is now moot for the actual controversy between the. parties ceased to exist on September 1,’ 1938,.and that the question sought to be determined has not since then rested upon existing rights of either party. Speed v. Keys, 130 Tex. 276, 109 S.W.2d 967; Trent v. Kennedy, Tex.Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d 327; Hamner v. Headrick, Tex.Civ.App., 66 S.W.2d 1106; Richmond v. Hog Creek Oil Company, Tex.Com.App., 239 S.W. 904; Love v. Griffith, Tex.Civ.App., 236 S.W. 239; Commissioners’ Court of Nacogdoches County v. Winder, Tex.*980Civ.App., *113 S.W.2d 277 ; 3*Tex.Jur. sec. 25, p. 69, sec. 30, pp. 74-75. And each party shall pay the costs incurred by him in this and the trial court. McAfee v. Staerker, Tex.Civ.App., 116 S.W.2d 789; Spratling v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App., 68 S.W.2d 278.

The appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit 15




                                       Re: Colonial Realty Limited Partnership
                                           (File No. 0-20707)
                                           Registrations on Form S-3


We are aware that our report dated May 12, 2003 on our review of interim
financial information of Colonial Realty Limited Partnership for the three-month
periods ended March 31, 2003 and 2002 and included in the Partnership's
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the periods then ended, is incorporated by
reference in the registration statement on Form S-3 related to the Shelf
Registration filed on May 25, 2000 (File No. 333-37922). Pursuant to Rule 436(c)
under the Securities Act of 1933, this report should not be considered a part of
the registration statement prepared or certified by us within the meaning of
Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.




                                           /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
                                               PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP



Birmingham, Alabama
May 15, 2003
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 5, 2023 No. 04-22-00193-CV Alfonso TREVINO , III, individually and Alfonso Trevino, III, as representative and beneficiary of Estate of Geraldine Trevino, and Alfonso Trevino, III, A/N/F of minors C.T. and A.T., IV,

beneficiaries of Estate of Geraldine Trevino,

Appellant
v. Alejandro OROZCO , Jr. and City of San Antonio,

Appellees From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI17867 Honorable Larry Noll, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R The Appellee’s (City of San Antonio) Unopposed Second Motion for Extension of Time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Appellee’s brief is due January 27, 2023. No further extensions absent extenuating circumstances.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 5th day of January, 2023.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADDED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, James R. Reske, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of First Commonwealth Financial Corporation (“First Commonwealth”), certify that the Annual Report of First Commonwealth on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2018 , fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of First Commonwealth at the end of such period and the results of operations of First Commonwealth for such period. DATED: March 1, 2019/S/    James R. ReskeJames R. ReskeExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

** Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972).

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10699 Conference Calendar

ASADI SHAMSIDEEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus THE STATE OF TEXAS ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:97-CV-1092-X

- - - - - - - - - - June 16, 1998 Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Asadi Shamsideen appeals the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim of his pro se , in forma pauperis civil rights lawsuit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Even giving his appellate brief the liberal construction afforded pro se pleadings, ** Shamsideen does not address the issues of absolute or Eleventh-Amendment immunity in his appellate brief. See id. , passim . He has therefore waived any argument challenging theNo. 97-10699 -2- district court’s conclusion that the appellees are immune from suit. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987)(issues not asserted on appeal are abandoned). Because Shamsideen fails to challenge the district court’s dismissal of his illegal-detention claim, that claim is likewise abandoned. Id. Further, because his lawsuit was dismissed for failure to state a claim prior to service on the appellants, Shamsideen’s argument that he is entitled to a default judgment is meritless. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Shamsideen’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because it is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Shamsideen that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Shamsideen is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous. Shamsideen’s motions for default judgment, damages, and the appointment of counsel are DENIED.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED; MOTIONS DENIED.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-08-00133-CV

ROBERT WALTON,

Appellant

v.

ROBERT RUTLEDGE,

Appellee

From the 414th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-543-5

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. Appellee has not filed a 

response. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

FELIPE REYNA

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed September 17, 2008

[CV06]
# Official Journal C 335/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 335 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 624 October 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 335

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 624 October 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 335/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| 2019/C 335/02 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  2
  ) | 4 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2019/C 335/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

2019/C 335/02

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  2
  )

2

4

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |
| | (2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

(2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty

2

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2924 

To withdraw certain Federal lands and interests located in Pima and Santa 

Cruz counties, Arizona, from the mining and mineral leasing laws of 

the United States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2015 

Mr. GRIJALVA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To withdraw certain Federal lands and interests located in 

Pima and Santa Cruz counties, Arizona, from the mining 

and mineral leasing laws of the United States, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Southern Arizona Pub5 lic Lands Protection Act of 2015’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2924 IH

1 SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL LANDS AND INTERESTS 

2 LOCATED IN PIMA AND SANTA CRUZ COUN3 TIES, ARIZONA. 

4 Subject to valid existing rights, after the date of en5 actment of this Act— 

6 (1) all federally owned interests in National 

7 Forest lands in Santa Cruz County and Pima Coun8 ty, Arizona, are withdrawn from— 

9 (A) all forms of entry, appropriation, and 

10 disposal under the public land laws; 

11 (B) location, entry, and patent under the 

12 mining laws; and 

13 (C) operation of the mineral leasing and 

14 geothermal leasing laws, and the mineral mate15 rials laws; 

16 (2) all federally owned subsurface interests 

17 under the administrative jurisdiction of the Bureau 

18 of Land Management in lands in Pima County, Ari19 zona, with respect to which the surface interests are 

20 owned by such county, including in such lands lo21 cated in Davidson Canyon, are withdrawn from— 

22 (A) all forms of entry, appropriation and 

23 disposal under the public land laws; 

24 (B) location, entry, and patent under the 

25 mining laws; and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2924 IH

1 (C) operation of the mineral leasing and 

2 geothermal leasing laws, and the mineral mate3 rials laws; and 

4 (3) all federally owned interests in Bureau of 

5 Land Management lands in Pima County, Arizona, 

6 are withdrawn from entry, location, or patent under 

7 the general mining laws. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 (the Report) of Powell Industries, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Thomas W. Powell, President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
               Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                         |                                                                                       
|------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date:   January 31, 2005 | /s/   THOMAS W. POWELL         
Thomas W. Powell
President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 23

The Board of Directors
PCA International, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form
S-8 for the PCA International, Inc. 1990 Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan,
registration statement on Form S-8 for the PCA International, Inc. 1992
Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan and registration statement on Form S-8 for the
PCA International, Inc. 1996 Omnibus Long-Term Compensation Plan of our report
dated March 19, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of PCA
International, Inc. and subsidiaries as of February 2, 1997 and January 28, 1996
and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders'
equity and cash flows and related schedule for each of the years in the
three-year period ended February 2, 1997 which report appears in the February 2,
1997 annual report on Form 10-K of PCA International, Inc.

                                                       /s/KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
                                                       KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Charlotte, North Carolina
April 29, 1997

<PAGE>
# Official Journal L 121/2018

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 121 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6116 May 2018 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 121

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6116 May 2018

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/685 of 3 May 2018 amending Annexes II, III and IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for abamectin, beer, fluopyram, fluxapyroxad, maleic hydrazide, mustard seeds powder and tefluthrin in or on certain products (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/686 of 4 May 2018 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for chlorpyrifos, chlorpyrifos-methyl and triclopyr in or on certain products (
  1
  ) | 30 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/687 of 4 May 2018 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for acibenzolar-S-methyl, benzovindiflupyr, bifenthrin, bixafen, chlorantraniliprole, deltamethrin, flonicamid, fluazifop-P, isofetamid, metrafenone, pendimethalin and teflubenzuron in or on certain products (
  1
  ) | 63 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/685 of 3 May 2018 amending Annexes II, III and IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for abamectin, beer, fluopyram, fluxapyroxad, maleic hydrazide, mustard seeds powder and tefluthrin in or on certain products (
  1
  )

1

1

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/686 of 4 May 2018 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for chlorpyrifos, chlorpyrifos-methyl and triclopyr in or on certain products (
  1
  )

1

30

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/687 of 4 May 2018 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for acibenzolar-S-methyl, benzovindiflupyr, bifenthrin, bixafen, chlorantraniliprole, deltamethrin, flonicamid, fluazifop-P, isofetamid, metrafenone, pendimethalin and teflubenzuron in or on certain products (
  1
  )

1

63

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### Zelles et al., a Partnership, d. b. a. Amusement Service Co., Appellant, *v.*Matowitz et al., Appellees.

(No. 29086

Decided April 15, 1942.)

*Mr. Martin A. McCormack*and *Mr. Maxwell J. Gruber,*for appellant.

*Mr. Thomas A. Burke, Jr.,*director of law, *Mr. Joseph F. Smith*and *Mr. John J. Lasko,*for appellees.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Matthias, Hart-and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Bettman, J., not participating.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2777 

To exempt State and county payments under the Gulf of Mexico Energy 

Security Act of 2006 from sequestration. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 26, 2018 

Mr. CASSIDY (for himself and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To exempt State and county payments under the Gulf of 

Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 from sequestration. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN PAYMENTS FROM SE4 QUESTRATION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 255(g)(1)(A) of the Bal6 anced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 

7 (2 U.S.C. 905(g)(1)(A)) is amended by inserting after 

8 ‘‘Payments to Social Security Trust Funds (28–0404–0– 

9 1–651).’’ the following: 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2777 IS

1 ‘‘Payments to States pursuant to section 

2 105(a)(2)(A) of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Se3 curity Act of 2006 (Public Law 109–432; 43 

4 U.S.C. 1331 note) (014–5535–0–2–302).’’. 

5 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by this 

6 section shall apply to any sequestration order issued under 

7 the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 

8 of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.) on or after the date of 

9 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS