alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### LOWRIMORE et al. v. SANDERS et al.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section B.

June 9, 1937.

' Grisham Bros., of Eastland, and J. A. Lantz, of Austin, for plaintiffs in error.

W. S. Adamson and L. R. Pearson, both of Ranger, for defendants in error.

MARTIN, Commissioner.

It is vigorously insisted that the issue of new and independent cause was raised by the evidence. This, because of the presence at the scene of the accident of a winding road, and of a hill and bank limiting visibility. A review of the evidence convinces us that these topographic features of the terrain near and at the scene of the accident may have furnished the occasion for, but, separate and apart from the negligence of the parties to this suit, did not and could not have caused the accident within the meaning of the term “new and independent cause.”

Our attention is called in the present motion to the failure of the Court of Civil Appeals to pass on the assignment of error questioning the excessiveness of the verdict in the present case. Such matter was properly assigned as error in that court, and not passed on. We have no jurisdiction over this question under these facts. Dixon v. Sanchez (Tex.Com.App.) 91 S. W.(2d) 325; 3 Tex.Jur. p. 1197, § 840.

Accordingly, the motion for rehearing is granted, and the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals reversed and cause remanded to that court for such disposition of this case as a consideration of said assignment may require.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court.
#### CASTANON v. STATE.

No. 14010.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 25, 1931.

Webb & Pelts, of Austin, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for transporting intoxicating liquor; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

The facts show without dispute that on the occasion in question appellant drove a car in which was a jug containing intoxicating liquor, along a public highway. He took the stand in his own bebalf, and defended on the proposition that he borrowed the ear from a man named Garcia, and did not know there was any liquor in the car at the time he so drove same. On cross-examination he admitted that he did not know Garcia very well, also that the car in which said liquor was transported was at the time of trial the car of appellant, and that he had made no effort to obtain the testimony of Garcia, etc. The jury were justified in rejecting the testimony of appellant and concluding him guilty.

Bill of exceptions No. 1 brings forward objections to the testimony of the officer who observed appellant driving the car and discovered the whisky in it and arrested appellant. The grounds of objection are that the facts detailed by the officer were not sufficient to show the existence of probable cause for the search, which was without a warrant. It is needless for us to discuss the lack of merit of the proposition. Appellant took the stand himself, and admitted all the facts thus testified *to*by the officer. The authorities are too numerous to need citation. When the evidence obtained by a search, the authority for which is questioned, is put before the jury from some other source without objection, the error, if any, of such admission will be of no avail.

 The next bill of exceptions contains only the objection of the appellant to a question propounded to him while on the witness stand as to whether he was making Garcia’s deliveries for him that day. We see no merit’ in the bill. It was part of a proper cross-examination of the accused. Another bill complains of the refusal of what would have been tantamount to a peremptory instruction in favor of the accused. The bill presents no error. There was no necessity for the court *171setting out in Ms charge to the jury the instances in which one may lawfully transport intoxicating liquor. No such defense is interposed in this case,

- The judgment will be affirmed.
# Official Journal L 273/17 O

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 273 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5017 October 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 273

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5017 October 2007

---

| Contents | | I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Council Regulation (EC) No 1182/2007 of 26 September 2007 laying down specific rules as regards the fruit and vegetable sector, amending Directives 2001/112/EC and 2001/113/EC and Regulations (EEC) No 827/68, (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96, (EC) No 2826/2000, (EC) No 1782/2003 and (EC) No 318/2006 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 | 1 |

Contents

I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory

page

REGULATIONS

*

Council Regulation (EC) No 1182/2007 of 26 September 2007 laying down specific rules as regards the fruit and vegetable sector, amending Directives 2001/112/EC and 2001/113/EC and Regulations (EEC) No 827/68, (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96, (EC) No 2826/2000, (EC) No 1782/2003 and (EC) No 318/2006 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2202/96

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.
# Official Journal C 219A/3 Ju

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 219A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 653 June 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 219A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 653 June 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Systemic Risk Board |
| 2022/C 219 A/01 | Call for expressions of interest from external experts to be appointed as members of the Advisory Scientific Committee of the European Systemic Risk Board (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) | 1 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Systemic Risk Board

2022/C 219 A/01

Call for expressions of interest from external experts to be appointed as members of the Advisory Scientific Committee of the European Systemic Risk Board (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

1

---

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

EN
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MULTIPLE
ZONES INTERNATIONAL, INC CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDING JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             907
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,712
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,043
<INVENTORY>                                     34,053
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               100,001
<PP&E>                                          25,002
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,208
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 115,954
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,387
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        39,266
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,588)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   115,954
<SALES>                                        293,307
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               293,307
<CGS>                                          265,195
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  265,195
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,267
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 216
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (371)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (151)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (220)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (220)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)


</TABLE>
#### SALINAS v. STATE.

No. 14356.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 17, 1931.

Douglass *&*McConnell, of Pampa, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for selling intoxicating liquor; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

*135There are three hills of exception in the record. The first attempts to bring up for review what is claimed to be a variance between the copy of the indictment served upon appellant while in jail after the indictment was returned, and the indictment upon which the trial was had. No objection was made upon this ground at the time the case was called for trial, or at any time, until in the motion for new trial. Manifestly it comes too late. Richardson v. State, 7 Tex. App. 486; Bonner v. State, 29 Tex. App. 223, 15 S. W. 821.

The second and third bills complain of the reception in evidence of testimpny as to what was found on appellant’s premises upon search thereof by the officers, the complaint being founded upon the proposition that' the affidavit and search warrant were, defective. In view of the fact that the court withdrew from the consideration of the jury all testimony relative to the search of appellant’s premises, and the fact that the case was submitted to the jury upon the third count which charged appellant with the sale of intoxicating liquor, and that he was given the lowest penalty upon plain testimony of a sale, we are of opinion that the error, if any, of the admission of the testimony complained of would be of no injury to the accused.

Mr. Lanning testified for the state that he bought from 'appellant a quantity of whisky, and paid him for same; that the transaction occurred at the Elk’s hotel in Carson county, not far from the date the officers raided appellant’s place. This fact was not denied by appellant. The evidence sufficiently supports the verdict and judgment, and, no error appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 1 , 2014

p0325 

# Order

Clerk April 1 , 2014

148063

MARTEZ TILLMAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148063

COA: 309121

Wayne CC: 11

- 004876

- NO

THE PERFECT PITCHER SPORTS PUB, INC.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 22, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

M ARKMAN , J., would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals in part, for the

reasons stated in the Court of Appeals dissenting opinion.
Exhibit
32


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the
undersigned officer of  Southern Bella, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby
certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) , as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operation of the Company.
 
 A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, another document authenticating,
acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement required by
Section 906, has been provided to the Company. and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.


/s/
      Viola HeitzViola
      Heitz, President, Chief Executive Officer,
                  Principal
      Financial Officer and PrincipalAccounting
      Officer and Director
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3050 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow rollovers from other 

retirement plans into simple retirement accounts. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 14, 2015 

Ms. FOXX (for herself and Mr. LARSON of Connecticut) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow rollovers from other retirement plans into simple retirement 

accounts. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ROLLOVERS PERMITTED FROM OTHER RETIRE4 MENT PLANS INTO SIMPLE RETIREMENT AC5 COUNTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 408(p)(1)(B) of the Inter7 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘‘except 

8 in the case of a rollover contribution described in sub9 section (d)(3)(G) or a rollover contribution otherwise de10 scribed in subsection (d)(3) or in section 402(c), 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3050 IH

1 403(a)(4), 403(b)(8), or 457(e)(16), which is made after 

2 the 2-year period described in section 72(t)(6),’’ before 

3 ‘‘with respect to which the only contributions allowed’’. 

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

5 this section shall apply to contributions made after the 

6 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.A
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  /s/ James C. Yardley
James C. YardleyChairman of the Board and President(Principal Executive Officer)Southern Natural Gas CompanyFebruary 28, 2007
##### 



Exhibit 10.1
 HORIZON OFFSHORE, INC.
2005 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
 (as amended and restated as of May 23, 2007)
 1. Purpose.
 2. Administration.
 2.1 Composition.
 2.2 Authority.
 3. Eligible Participants.
 1




---



##### 



provided, however
 4. Shares Subject to this Plan.
 4.1 Type of Common Stock.
 4.2 Maximum Number of Shares.
 4.3 Share Counting.
 4.4 Limitations on Number of Shares.
  2




---



##### 



4.5 Adjustment.
   5. Stock Options.
 3




---



##### 



5.1 Price.
 5.2 Number.
 5.3 Duration and Time for Exercise.
 5.4 Conditions to Exercise.
 5.5 Manner of Exercise.
   4




---



##### 



5.6 Repricing.
 5.7 Incentive Stock Options.
     5




---



##### 



6. Restricted Stock.
 6.1 Grant of Restricted Stock.
 6.2 Restricted Period.
 6.3 Escrow.
  6.4 Dividends on Restricted Stock.
 6.5 Forfeiture.
 6




---



##### 



6.6 Expiration of Restricted Period.
 6.7 Rights as a Stockholder.
 7. Restricted Stock Units.
 7.1 Grant of Restricted Stock Units.
 7.2 Vesting Period.
 7.3 Dividend Equivalent Accounts.
 7




---



##### 



7.4 Rights as a Stockholder.
 8. Stock-Settled Stock Appreciation Rights.
 8.1 Grant of Stock-Settled Stock Appreciation Rights.
 8.2 Number.
 8.3 Duration.
 8.4 Exercise.
 8.5 Payment.
   8




---



##### 



8.6 No Fractional Shares.
 8.7 Repricing.
 9. Other Stock-Based Awards.
 9.1 Grant of Other Stock-Based Awards.
 9.2 Vesting Terms.
 10. Section 162(m) Awards.
 9




---



##### 



11. General.
 11.1 Duration. provided, however
 11.2 Transferability of Incentives.
      10




---



##### 



11.3 Dividend Equivalents.
 11.4 Effect of Termination of Employment or Death.
 11.5 Additional Conditions.
   11




---



##### 



11.6 Incentive Agreements.
 11.7 Withholding.
   11.8 No Continued Employment.
 12




---



##### 



11.9 Deferral Permitted.
 11.10 Amendment or Discontinuance of this Plan. provided, however
   11.11 Definition of Fair Market Value.
 11.12 Change of Control.
   13




---



##### 



provided, however,
      provided, however,
   14




---



##### 



provided, however,
  provided, however
  15




---



##### 



11.13 Repurchase. provided, however,
 11.14 Liability.
  16




---



##### 



11.15 Interpretation.
     11.16 Compliance with Section 409A. ab initio
 17




---



##### 



12. Stock Options for Outside Directors
 12.1 Grant of Options.
 st
  12.2 Exercisability of Stock Options .
 12.3 Exercise Price .
 12.4 Exercise After Termination of Board Service .
 * * * * * * * * * *
 18
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATION
     I, Kenneth A. Swanstrom, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Penn Engineering &Manufacturing Corp. (the “Company”), certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December31, 2004 of the Company;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3.  Intentionally omitted.  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (asdefined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b)  Designed such internal control over financial reporting, orcaused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability offinancial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  (c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (d)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
 

 

    annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.        Date:  April 29, 2005 /s/ Kenneth A. Swanstrom   Kenneth A. Swanstrom,   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
# Official Journal C 70A/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 70A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5224 March 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 70A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5224 March 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 070A/01 | Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — third supplement to the 27th complete edition | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2009/C 070A/01

Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — third supplement to the 27th complete edition

1

---

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

EN
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 187 (Thursday, September 26, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78901-78902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22056]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Defense Electronics Consortium

    Notice is hereby given that, on July 1, 2024, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Defense Electronics Consortium 
(``DEC'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, BoldRF LLC, Boulder, CO; Denkai America, Inc., Camden, 
SC; Phoenix Semiconductor Corp., Austin, TX; and Wright Electric, 
Malta, NY, have been added as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and DEC intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On April 12, 2023, DEC filed its original notification pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on August 
8, 2023 (88 FR 53520).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 9, 
2024. A notice was published in the Federal

[[Page 78902]]

Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on June 28, 2024 (89 FR 
54044).

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2024-22056 Filed 9-25-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P