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

No. 20988.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 1, 1940.

G. W. Lindsey, of Jefferson, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of one year.

The only question presented for review is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. Q. R. Lockett, Constable of Precinct No. 3 of Marion County, testified that he and a Mr. Davis, Constable of Precinct No. 5, were in a car on Highway No. 49, when they overtook the appellant and three companions in a car. Appellant was doing the driving. Mr. Loc-kett testified that appellant was driving from one side of the road to the other. That he tried to pass him several times but in each instance appellant swerved his car over in front of his, Lockett’s, car. That he blew his horn trying to get appellant to stop but he would not do so. That a negro woman, who was on the seat with appellant, jumped or fell out of the car, and when Lockett again attempted to pass, appellant ran into Lockett’s car and pushed it into a ditch. Appellant was arrested, carried to jail and confined. Immediately, or at least soon after being placed in jail, he was taken to a doctor’s office to be treated for a head injury inflicted upon him by Lockett. The doctor testified that he smelled the odor of whis-ky on appellant’s breath. Lockett testified that he smelled the odor of intoxicants on his breath but could not tell whether it was beer or whisky. That he did not find any whisky on his person, did not see him drink any, nor hear of him having bought or drunk any. The doctor testified that from his observation of appellant and the odor on his breath he concluded that appellant was to some extent intoxicated. Neither Mr. Davis nor either of appellant’s companions were called by the State to testify. Appellant did not testify or offer any witnesses who denied his intoxication.

This court is authorized to reverse a case when the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction. However, when there is sufficient competent evidence from which a jury may reasonably draw a conclusion of appellant’s guilt, this court would not be justified in setting aside their verdict. To do so, under such state of facts, would be a usurpation by this court of the functions of the jury.

From what we have said, it follows that the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

*806PER 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.
# Official Journal C 317/22 D

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 317 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4722 December 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 317

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4722 December 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Council |
| 2004/C 317/1 | Council Decision of 2 December 2004 amending the Council Decision of 27 March 2000 authorising the Director of Europol to enter into negotiations on agreements with third States and non-EU related bodies | 1 |
| 2004/C 317/2 | List of appointments made by the Council (May, June, July and August 2004 (social field)) | 2 |
| 2004/C 317/3 | Council Decision of 13 December 2004 appointing the full members and alternate members of the Administrative Board of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions | 4 |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 317/4 | Euro exchange rates | 8 |
| 2004/C 317/5 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3572 — CEMEX/RMC) (1) | 9 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Council

2004/C 317/1

Council Decision of 2 December 2004 amending the Council Decision of 27 March 2000 authorising the Director of Europol to enter into negotiations on agreements with third States and non-EU related bodies

1

2004/C 317/2

List of appointments made by the Council (May, June, July and August 2004 (social field))

2

2004/C 317/3

Council Decision of 13 December 2004 appointing the full members and alternate members of the Administrative Board of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

4

Commission

2004/C 317/4

Euro exchange rates

8

2004/C 317/5

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3572 — CEMEX/RMC) (1)

9

---

| | II   Preparatory Acts pursuant to Title VI of the Treaty on European Union |
| --- | --- |
| 2004/C 317/6 | Initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with a view to adopting a Council Decision on protecting the euro against counterfeiting, by designating Europol as the Central Office for combating euro counterfeiting | 10 |

II   Preparatory Acts pursuant to Title VI of the Treaty on European Union

2004/C 317/6

Initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with a view to adopting a Council Decision on protecting the euro against counterfeiting, by designating Europol as the Central Office for combating euro counterfeiting

10

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3296 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3296

      To clarify that the oath of allegiance to the United States 
     administered in the naturalization process may not be altered.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 29, 2015

   Mrs. Black (for herself, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Barletta, Mr. 
  Duncan of Tennessee, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Fincher, Mr. Fleischmann, Mr. 
 Donovan, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Olson, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Babin, Mr. 
Pearce, Mr. McClintock, Ms. Jenkins of Kansas, Mr. Salmon, Mr. Conaway, 
Mr. Harper, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Curbelo 
 of Florida, Mr. Rouzer, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Mr. Poe of Texas, and 
 Mr. Nugent) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To clarify that the oath of allegiance to the United States 
     administered in the naturalization process may not be altered.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Restore the Oath of Allegiance 
Act''.

SEC. 2. OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.

    Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the oath taken 
under section 337 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1448) shall be the same formulation and shall be subject to the same 
potential omissions or alterations from such formulation, as the 
formulation of such oath administered on July 20, 2015.
                                 <all>
```
**usbank****Annual Statement of Compliance****Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2012-C5***VIA: EMAIL*Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. 1585 Broadway New York, New York 10036 Attention: Stephen Holmes stephen.holmes@morganstanley.com Re: The Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement") dated as of July 1, 2012 among Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc., as depositor, Bank of America, National Association, as master servicer, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as special servicer, Situs Holdings, LLC, as trust advisor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as custodian, and U.S. Bank  National  Association,  as  trustee,  certificate  administrator,  certificate  registrar  and authenticating agent I, Kimberly O. Jacobs, a Senior Vice President of U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator, as a certifying servicer hereby certify that:           (1) A review of the activities of the  Certificate Administrator during the preceding calendar year (the  "Reporting  Period") and  of the  performance  of  the  Certificate  Administrator  under the  Agreement has been made under my supervision; and           (2) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Certificate Administrator has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such Reporting Period  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Agreement. Date: March 15, 2016 U.S. Bank National Association as Certificate Administrator  By:  /s/ Kimberly O. Jacobs Kimberly O. Jacobs           Senior Vice President
#### LAMAR v. STATE.

No. 14196.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 20, 1931.

Appeal Reinstated June 17, 1931.

J. G. Minkert, of Bryan, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for murder; punishment being five years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

In order to secure his enlargement pending appeal, appellant, after adjournment of the trial term of court, entered into an appeal bond which was approved by the sheriff only. Article 818, C. C. P. specifically requires such bonds to be approved by the sheriff and the court trying said cause. On account of the defect in the bond, the appeal must be dismissed.

If appellant desires to further prosecute his appeal, he may have fifteen days from this date to furnish an appeal bond ih compliance with the statute and forward same to this court by supplemental transcript in connection with a motion to reinstate the appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal.

MORROW, P. J.

A perfected appeal bond having been filed, the appeal is reinstated.

There is presented for review no complaint of the ruling of the trial court save that with reference to the overruling of the motion for new trial.

The state’s case is summarized as follows : The appellant shot and killed Lee Gaitor. He claimed that Gaitor had taken possession of certain articles of personal property belonging to him. This Gaitor denied. The appellant declared that he would kill Gaitor if the property was not returned. The state’s evidence describing the homicide was such as to show an unprovoked killing.

The appellant, through his testimony and that of his witnesses, presented the issue of self-defense. The evidence, including the appellant’s confession, presented an issue of fact; that is, whether the appellant acted upon malice or in defense of his- life. Upon *163that issue the jury was fully, and apparently accurately, instructed, in a charge against which there is no exception addressed. The jury was also instructed upon the law of suspended sentence, but declined to recommend it.

In entering the judgment and sentence, the court failed to take note of the indeterminate sentence law as set forth in article 775, C. C. P. The judgment is reformed so as to provide that the appellant shall be confined in the state penitentiary for a period of not less than two nor more than five years. As so reformed, the judgment is affirmed.
#### SMITH v. STATE.

No. 19589.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 30, 1938.

*413Mahan & Broughton, of Childress, for appellant.

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

KREUGER, Judge.

Conviction is for knowingly selling intoxicating liquor to a minor; punishment, a fine of $350.

The record shows that Wesley Fitzgerald, a minor about nineteen years of age, and Orval 'Owens, a man twenty-six years of age, went into a drug store and purchased a quart of wine. Neither Fitzgerald or Owens positively identified appellant as the person who sold the wine to them. The sheriff and his deputy, who were across the street at the time, testified that they saw appellant go into a back room of the drug store, accompanied by Fitzgerald and Owens, and return in a short time to the front part of the store, where appellant rang the cash register and handed something to Fitzgerald. After Owens and Fitzgerald had left the store, the officers followed them and recovered the quart of wine. The state, in addition to proving the above facts, proved by the custodian of the records of the Scholastic Census that Fitzgerald was, according to the record, only eighteen years of age. This, in substánce, is the extent of the state’s testimony. Appellant did not testify or offer any witnesses.

Appellant asserts that, in a legal sense, the testimony is insufficient to justify and sustain his conviction. We are inclined to agree with him. This prosecution was brought under article 666 — 26, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., which, among other things, provides : “It shall further be unlawful for any person to knowingly sell any liquor to any person under tweijty-one (21) years of age,” etc.

It is apparent from the language of the statute quoted that knowledge is an essential element of the offense and the burden is upon the state to show knowledge of minority. In the absence of such proof, the conviction cannot be sustained. There is not a particle of evidence in the record that appellant knew that Fitzgerald was under twenty-one years of age. See Hunter v. State, 18 Tex.App. 444, 51 Am.Rep. -319; Williams v. State, 23 Tex. App. 70, 3 S.W. 661; Henderson v. State, 37 Tex.Cr.R. 79, 38 S.W. 617; Gray v. State, 44 Tex.Cr.R. 470, 72 S.W. 169.

We are also of the opinion that the court should have given appellant’s special requested charges Nos. 2 and 4, as appeared in the record, or charges of like import.

For the errors hereinabove discussed, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.

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.
#### MILLER v. STATE.

No. 24178.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 1, 1948.

No appearance for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted by a jury for the offense of selling whisky in a dry area. The punishment assessed is thirty days in jail and a $100 fine.

The transcript in the record contains no notice of appeal, hence this Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal is dismissed.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

February 16, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00065

- CR

In re Stephen Wayne RICHARDSON , Relator

Original Proceeding 1

ORDER

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on February 16, 2022

.

_____________________________ Beth Watkin s, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 16th day of February, 2022

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz

, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010

- CR

- 10629 , styled Ex parte Richardson , pending in the 399th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Juanita A. Vasquez

- Gardner presiding.
Civil Service 

Retirement 

System 

Federal Employees’ 

Group Life 

Insurance Program 

Federal Employees 

Health Benefits 

Program 

Federal Employees 

Retirement 

System 

Long Term 

Care Insurance 

Program 

United States 

Office of 

Personnel Management 

The Federal Government’s Human Resources Agency

Retirement and Insurance Service 

Benefits Administration Letter 

Number: 02-207 Date: June 5, 2002 

Subject: Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Program – Revision of SF 2822, 

Request for Insurance

What is the revision date? 

The revised form is dated January 2002. 

Why did OPM revise the form? 

We revised the form to: 

Rewrite the instructions in plain language using the question and answer format. 

Update OFEGLI’s address. 

Clarify the instructions for agencies. 

Allow agencies to indicate a fax or email address so that OFEGLI can send its 

approval/denial to the agency by fax or email. 

Eliminate the requirement that the employee sign the form in the presence of agency 

personnel. 

Add space for the employee’s daytime phone number. 

Refine the list of medical questions the employee must answer to align them more closely 

with the medical questions the insurance company asks in its other group life insurance 

contracts. 
2

Add “or other healthcare provider” after “physician” in the several places it appears on the 

form. Employees do not have to go to a physician for the physical. They can choose to visit 

any healthcare provider who performs physicals, such as a nurse practitioner. 

Make other minor changes to improve the form. 

How do we order the form? 

Because of its low usage, this form is available in electronic format only. 

Is this new form available on the Internet? 

Yes. You can download the revised form from the FEGLI web site 

(http://www.opm.gov/insure/life) in a PDF-fillable version. 

Can we use previous editions? 

No. You should discard all old editions since some information and OFEGLI’s address are not 

current. 

 

 Abby L. Block 

 Assistant Director 

 For Insurance Programs
#### J. H. (Pee Wee) DREW v. STATE.

No. 20145.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 4, 1939.

G. W. Lindsey, of Dallas, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

Conviction is for' keeping a place to gamble; punishment is assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of two years.

The appellant has filed an affidavit to dismiss his appeal, duly certified as required by law. The motion is granted as prayed for and the appeal is dismissed.

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.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3469 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3469

                   For the relief of Beloved Jefeti.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 9, 2015

   Mrs. Davis of California introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   For the relief of Beloved Jefeti.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR BELOVED JEFETI.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Beloved Jefeti shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 
204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Beloved Jefeti enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), he shall 
be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Beloved Jefeti, the Secretary 
of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the 
current or next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant 
visas that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's 
birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, 
if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
available to natives of the country of the alien's birth under section 
202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Beloved 
Jefeti shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any 
right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3407 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove the deduction 

for charitable contributions from the overall limitation on itemized deductions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 29, 2015 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER (for himself, Mr. HARPER, and Mr. JONES) 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 remove 

the deduction for charitable contributions from the overall limitation on itemized deductions. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CHARITABLE DEDUCTION EXCEPTION TO 

4 OVERALL LIMITATION ON ITEMIZED DEDUC5 TIONS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section 68 of the 

7 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

8 ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (2), by striking the period 

9 at the end of paragraph (3) and inserting ‘‘, and’’, and 

10 by adding at the end the following: 


rfrederick on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3407 IH

1 ‘‘(4) the deduction under section 170 (relating 

2 to charitable, etc., contributions and gifts).’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

5 December 31, 2014. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS