alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-17-00317-CR

No. 10-19-00074-CR

CHAZ ANTHONY PHILLIP JONES,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 413th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. F50789

SEVERANCE ORDER

In Trial Court Case No. F50789, appellant Chaz Anthony Phillip Jones pled guilty 

to one count of Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child (Count I), one count of Online

Solicitation of a Minor (Count II), and one count of Possession of a Controlled Substance 

under 1 gram (Count III). After a bench trial for punishment, the court assessed Jones’s 

punishment at 45 years in prison on Count I, 20 years in prison on Count II, and 2 years 

in state jail, probated for two years on Count III. Three judgments were signed, one for 

each count.
Jones v. State Page 2

Jones filed one notice of appeal, showing his desire to appeal from “the judgment 

of conviction and sentence” rendered against him in Trial Court Case No. F50789. The 

appeal therefore bears one case number, Court of Appeals No. 10-17-00317-CR.

Jones’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief challenging only the judgments 

and sentences for Counts I and II. After counsel was ordered to file either a brief bringing 

any alleged error or an Anders-type motion to withdraw and a supporting brief as to 

Count III, Jones’s counsel filed an Anders-type motion to withdraw and a supporting brief 

as to Count III. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). 

Counsel also filed a motion to sever as to that count. See Kirven v. State, No. 10-14-00122-

CR (Tex. App.—Waco Oct. 22, 2015, order) (not designated for publication).

Accordingly, Jones’s Motion for Severance of Counts as to Count III of the District 

Court’s Judgment is granted. Count III of trial court cause number F50789 is assigned 10-

19-00074-CR as its case number on appeal. The Clerk of this Court is ordered to file 

Jones’s Motion to Withdraw, Motion for Severance of Counts, and Supplemental Brief of 

Appellant all filed on May 15, 2018, and all the remaining orders, notices, and responses 

rendered or filed since May 15, 2018 in appellate case number 10-19-00074-CR. The Clerk 

of this Court is also ordered to file copies of the reporter’s record and the clerk’s record 

that were filed in appellate case number 10-17-00317-CR in appellate case number 10-19-

00074-CR.

PER CURIAM
Jones v. State Page 3

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins1

Motion granted

Order issued and filed February 27, 2019

 

1 The Honorable Al Scoggins, Senior Justice of the Tenth Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the 

Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003 (West 2013).
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROSA H. ENRIQUEZ

,

Appellant

,

V.

GLORIA CALDERON AND SARA

LOPEZ

,

Appellee s

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 8

- 00 0 9 5

- CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 5

o f El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 2016DCV1154 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether it should be

dismissed for want of prosecution. Finding that Appellant, Rosa H. Enriquez , ha s failed to file h er

brief or a motion for extension of time to file the brief, we dismiss t he appeal for want of

prosecution.

The Clerk of the Court notified Appellant that h er brief was past due and no motion for

extension of time had been filed. The letter advised Appellant that the Court intended to dismiss

the appeal for want of prosecution unless Appellant responded within ten days and showed grounds

for continuing the appeal. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 38.8(a)(1). Appellant ha s not filed the brief or an- 2

-

extension motion, and s he ha s not filed any response to the Court’s inquiry. Accordingly, we

di smiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).

October 31, 2018

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C. J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906****OF SARBANES – OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

 

The undersigned, Joseph J. Talley ChiefFinancial Officer of American Crystal Sugar Company, (the “Company”), doeshereby certify that:

 

1.          The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year endedAugust 31, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.          Informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operation of the Company.

 

The foregoing certification is being furnishedsolely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Reportor as a separate disclosure document.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has causedthis instrument to be executed this 24th day of November, 2004.

 
| By:                            |  /s/  Joseph J. Talley |   |
|--------------------------------|-----------------------------|--------|
| Name: Joseph J. Talley         |
| Title: Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retainedby the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         October 31, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 24, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 530 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-152, K2025-150.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-25302 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### Hargraves, Appellant, vs. Hoffmann, Respondent.

*April 8*

May *12, 1931.*

For the appellant there were briefs by *Anderson, Donovan & Steinle*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Orlaf Anderson.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Hugo J. Trost,*and oral argument by *Edwin D. Fitzpatrick,*both of Milwaukee.

*85Wickhem, J.

The order is not appealable. There has heretofore been some doubt as to the appealability of an order vacating a default or opening a judgment on cognovit. In several of the cases cited by the plaintiff an appeal was taken from an order opening a default, and consideration was given to the merits of the order, there having been no question raised as to its appealability. *Sawicki v. Wulff,*169 Wis. 377, 172 N. W. 722; *Wessling v. Hieb,*180 Wis. 160, 192 N. W. 458; *O’Brien v. Rice,*186 Wis. 523, 203 N. W. 332; *Velte v. Zeh,*188 Wis! 401, 206 N. W. 197. The question of the appealability of such orders must be taken as settled, however, by the recent cases of *Hanson v. Custer,*203 Wis. 55, 233 N. W. 642, and *Kelm v. Kelm,*204 Wis. 301, 235 N. W. 787. The matter is thoroughly discussed in the *Kelm Case,*and this renders unnecessary an extended treatment of the question here.

*By the Court.*— Appeal dismissed.
## Technical Support Document

Bellefontaine, OH Determination of Attainment for the 2008 Lead Standard

Docket Number: EPA

- R05

- OAR

- 201 2

- 0 779

Sarah Arra October 2013 U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyJustification for C onsidering 39
- 091
- 0006 a New Site

For the Bellefontaine Area, EPA believes it is appropriate to consider site 39

- 091

- 0006 a new site as of January 1, 2010. The contractor that was responsible for the operation of this site through the end of 2009, failed to operate the monitor after October 2009. On January 1, 2010, the Ohio EPA Southwest District Office began operation of a new monitor at the site. Ohio EPA had to sign a new lease and Occupancy Agreement with the landowner of the site. In addition to use of a ne w monitor, Ohio EPA constructed a new ground sampler platform and other infrastructure. Also, beginning January 1, 2010, new sampling methods were used, notably including sampling in 24

- hour increments instead of monthly composites, and Ohio EPA began det ermining concentrations based on local conditions rather than based on standard temperature and pressure. Therefore , EPA finds it appropriate to consider this a new site as of January 1,
2010

.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 184 (Tuesday, December 9, 2008)]
[House]
[Page H10859]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

               COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE

  The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication from 
the Clerk of the House of Representatives:

                                              Office of the Clerk,

                                     House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, November 20, 2008.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     The Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in 
     Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the Clerk received the following message 
     from the Secretary of the Senate on November 20, 2008, at 
     3:57 p.m.:
       That the Senate passed without amendment H.R. 6867.
       Appointments:
       United States-China Economic Security Review Commission.
       With best wishes, I am
           Sincerely,
                                               Lorraine C. Miller,
     Clerk of the House.

                          ____________________
```
Amendment to Employment Agreement with Michael K. Snelling



  
 Exhibit 10.5

 AMENDMENT TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this
“Amendment”), effective as of October 22, 2010, is made between MASSEY ENERGY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and MICHAEL K. SNELLING (the “Executive”). 

WITNESSETH: 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive previously entered into an amended and restated Employment Agreement on May 25, 2009, as the same may have been thereafter amended (the “Employment
Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement in order to express the
understanding of Executive that the Company is not liable to Executive in the event any compensation or benefits provided to Executive are subject to any additional income tax, interest or penalties imposed under Section 409A of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants and agreements
hereinafter set forth (including definitions of capitalized terms which are set forth in Section 25 and throughout the Employment Agreement) and intending to be legally bound hereby, the Company and Executive agree as follows: 

1. The following sentence is added at the end of Section 7 of the Employment Agreement: 

Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Agreement or any other agreement pertaining to Executive, the Company shall not be obligated
to hold Executive harmless from, or make any gross-up payment to Executive for, any additional income tax, interest or penalties imposed under Section 409A of the Code if any payment or benefit which is to be provided pursuant to this Agreement
or otherwise fails to comply with, or be exempt from, the requirements of Section 409A of the Code. 
 2. In all other
respects, the Employment Agreement is unchanged. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be duly
executed and delivered on October 22, 2010. 
  

			
		 	MASSEY ENERGY COMPANY
		
	By:	 	 /s/ John M. Poma

	Name:	 	John M. Poma
	Title:	 	 Vice President and
 Chief
Administrative Officer

		
		 	 /s/ Michael K. Snelling

		 	Michael K. Snelling
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-30048

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

MAJOR WILLIAMS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Middle District of Louisiana

(96-CR-49-B-M2)

December 25, 1997

Before WISDOM, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

A jury convicted Major Williams, Jr. of possession of an

unregistered sawed-off shotgun and possession of a firearm by a

convicted felon. Williams argues that the district court erred in

denying his motion to suppress the shotgun. The district court did

not commit error. We affirm.

Though we review the reasonableness of an investigatory stop
2 United States v. Michelletti, 13 F.3d 838, 841 (5th Cir.

1994 (en banc)

3 United States v. Rideau, 969 F.2d 1572, 1574 (5th Cir. 1992)

(en banc)

4 Id.

2

and frisk de novo, we must review the evidence in the light most

favorable to the government as the prevailing party.2 In assessing

the reasonableness of an officer’s actions, we employ an objective

standard.3 Our inquiry is whether the facts available to the

officer at the moment of the search justify a man of reasonable

caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate.4 The

facts available to the officers in this case support the pat-down.

At approximately 9:00 p.m. on April 11, 1996, law enforcement

officers observed Williams and another individual parked in an

automobile in the parking lot of a car wash. Officer Paul

Marionneaux, the officer who eventually conducted the pat-down of

Williams, testified that substantial criminal activity occurs in

the area in which the car wash is located. He also testified that

Williams and his companion were sitting in an unwashed vehicle,

which made it apparent that the two were not present for the

purpose of utilizing the facilities. When Marionneaux illuminated

the cabin of the vehicle with his floodlight, he noticed Williams

extending his arm downward as if to place something on, or retrieve

something from, the floorboard. When Marionneaux ordered Williams
5 Williams concedes that the initial stop was justified.

3

to exit the vehicle,5 he noticed a bulge in the right-front pocket

of Williams’ jacket. Marionneaux patted down the exterior of the

pocket, and felt what he believed to be shotgun shells. He then

reached into the pocket and discovered four 16-gauge shotgun

shells. Finally, he patted down Williams’ chest area and

discovered a sawed-off shotgun concealed beneath his jacket. Given

the facts of this case, we conclude that Officer Marionneaux’s

conduct fits squarely within the limitations imposed by the Fourth

Amendment.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10(d)

                                 Addendum No. 8

                          Pooling Reinsurance Agreement

                                     Between

                         Empire Mutual Insurance Company

                   (formerly Empire Mutual Insurance Company)

                                       and

                            Allcity Insurance Company

                           Executed September 19, 1989



                     Agreement made this 19 day of September 1989 between Empire
Insurance Company, formerly Empire Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter
called "Empire") and Allcity Insurance Company (hereinafter called "Allcity").

                     Whereas Allcity is an authorized insurance company in New
York State and whereas there is no requirement that Empire withhold funds,
bonds or stocks sufficient to cover Allcity's percentage share of Empire's loss
reserves for unearned premiums, losses and expenses ceded. Now, therefore, it is
mutually agreed, effective 12:01 a.m. October 1, 1989 that the Pooling Agreement
between Empire and Allcity is amended as follows:

                     1.        Addendum No. 1, effective November 12, 1964 is
                               terminated.

                     2.        Article VII of the Pooling Agreement is amended
                               as follows: line 6 following the word "paid"
                               insert a period ending the sentence and Article.
                               The remainder of Article VII following the word
                               "paid" on line 6 is deleted.
<PAGE>
                     Nothing contained herein shall otherwise vary, alter,
waive, or extend any other terms or provisions of the Pooling Reinsurance
Agreement, except as stated above.



Executed at New York, New York



Attest:                                    Empire Insurance Company

By /s/ Mary Jo Marzi                       By /s/ Andrew W. Attivissimo
   -------------------------                  ---------------------------------
                                              Senior Vice President & CFO



Attest:                                    Allcity Insurance Company

By /s/ Lucille Weiss                       By /s/ Robert Iacona
   -------------------------                  ---------------------------------
                                              Vice President & Controller
smsakary1012gex41072010.htm




 



EXHIBIT 4.1


 


 


CUSIP


 



	 	SMSA KATY ACQUISITION CORP. 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 	 	 
	  	  	
SEE REVERSE FOR

	  
	  	
COMMON STOCK 

	
CERTAIN DEFINITIONS

	  
	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  
	  	
SPECIMEN

	  	  










 


 


This


certifies


that


 


 


 


 


is the owner of


 


 


FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK, $0.001 PAR VALUE, OF


SMSA KATY ACQUISITION CORP.


 


(hereinafter called the "Corporation"), transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of the Certificate properly endorsed. This certificate and the shares represented hereby are issued and shall be held subject to all the provisions of the Certificate of Incorporation and the Bylaws of the Corporation, as amended (copies of which are on file at the office of the Transfer Agent), to all of which the holder of this Certificate by acceptance hereof assents. This Certificate is not valid unless countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar. Witness the facsmile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers.


 



	
DATE:

	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  
	  	  
	  	
  [CORPORATE SEAL OMITTED]

	  	  
	  	  
	  	  
	  	  
	  	  	
 Countersigned:

	  	  
	
PRESIDENT

	  	  	
SECURITIES TRANSFER CORPORATION

	  	  
	  	  	  	
P.O. Box 701629

	  	  
	  	  	  	
Dallas, TX 75370

	  	  
	  	  	  	
By:

	  	  
	  	  
	  	  
	
SECRETARY

	  	  	
___________________________________

	  	  
	  	  	  	
TRANSFER AGENT-AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 113 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR SOAP BOX 

4 DERBY RACES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Greater Washington Soap 

6 Box Derby Association (in this resolution referred to as 

7 the ‘‘sponsor’’) shall be permitted to sponsor a public 
2 

•HCON 113 EH 

1 event, soap box derby races (in this resolution referred to 

2 as the ‘‘event’’), on the Capitol Grounds. 

3 (b) DATE OF EVENT.—The event shall be held on 

4 June 16, 2018, or on such other date as the Speaker of 

5 the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules 

6 and Administration of the Senate jointly designate. 

7 SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Under conditions to be prescribed 

9 by the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police 

10 Board, the event shall be— 

11 (1) free of admission charge and open to the 

12 public; and 

13 (2) arranged not to interfere with the needs of 

14 Congress. 

15 (b) EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES.—The sponsor shall 

16 assume full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities 

17 incident to all activities associated with the event. 

18 SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS. 

19 Subject to the approval of the Architect of the Cap20 itol, the sponsor is authorized to erect upon the Capitol 

21 Grounds such stage, sound amplification devices, and 

22 other related structures and equipment as may be required 

23 for the event. 
3 

•HCON 113 EH 

1 SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS. 

2 The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police 

3 Board are authorized to make such additional arrange4 ments as may be required to carry out the event. 

5 SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS. 

6 The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforce7 ment of the restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of 

8 title 40, United States Code, concerning sales, advertise9 ments, displays, and solicitations on the Capitol Grounds, 

10 as well as other restrictions applicable to the Capitol 

11 Grounds, with respect to the event. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 22, 2018. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 113 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the 

Greater Washington Soap Box Derby.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   Exhibit 10(s)


                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                     THE ALLEN GROUP INC. 1994 NON-EMPLOYEE
                           DIRECTORS STOCK OPTION PLAN


     ALLEN TELECOM INC., formerly known as The Allen Group Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby adopts this First Amendment to The Allen Group Inc. 1994 Non-Employee
Directors Stock Option Plan (the "Plan"), effective as of the close of business
on February 28, 1997.

                                       I.

     As a result of the Company's name change from The Allen Group Inc. to Allen
Telecom Inc., the Plan is hereby amended to change the name of the Company      
wherever it is set forth herein, including in the name of the Plan, if
applicable; provided, however, that such name change shall not affect the
substantive meaning of any provision of the Plan.

     EXECUTED on this 28th day of February, 1997.


                                       ALLEN TELECOM INC.


                                       By:  /s/ McDara P. Folan, III
                                            -------------------------------
                                            McDara P. Folan, III
                                            Vice President, Secretary
                                            and General Counsel