alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
W h ile d isc u ssio n a t o ra l ar g u m e n t i n d ic a te d tha t t h e fi sh ing trip d id no t ha p p e n fo r re a so n s u n re la te d to 1 t he t rial , t he t rial co urt wa s st i l l i n re ce ss. 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS
N O . A P - 76, 036

H EC TO R R O LA N D O M ED I N A , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS O N D IR E C T A P P E A L F R O M C A S E F 0 7 -32 9 2 3 -S F RO M T HE 2 8 2 n d J UD I CI AL DI S T RI CT CO UR T OF

DALLAS CO UNTY J OHNS ON , J. , f

i l ed a di s s ent i ng opi ni on . D I S S E N T I N G O P I N I O N Jury duty is n ot an eas y

thi ng , e sp e c ia lly

in a c a pit a l tr ia l, b ut o nc e un de rt ake n, it n e e ds to be the highest priority

for a ll jurors. This is a case in which the court encour ag ed jurors to set other
m at t er s ab o v e t h e dut i es o f aj uro r. T h e t ri al b egano nS ep t emb er 8
. On e j uro r w an t edt o go fi s h i n g, so, on Wednesday , September 10, the court a djourned the c apital trial until Monday , September 15, losing two da

y s of trial time. Over

defe nse objec tion, the trial court then rec essed the capital tria l 12

on September 16 so that a nother juror

coul dbe pre sent for the schedule d, induced birth of a g randc hild. W hen anothe r juror f ell and seve rely

injured her

arm, the tria l court dec ided to wait for
a we ek for

her to re cover , something unlikely to occur with a seve re bone injury . Al t h o u g h the injury coincided w ith the induced birth, the decisions to twice delay proce eding s sever ely

prejudice d appellant’ s ability

to present mitigating e vidence . His wi t n es s es came from outside Texas, eve n from outside of the United States. His expert witness was prese nt at the beg inning of trial, but had
a sc he du lin gc on fl ic t a ft e r t he ne e dle ss r e c e sse s e xten de d th e tr ia l. An alter nate juror was available to repla ce the sever ely injured j uror. An i nduced birth can be re schedule d. Be fore there is a rush to acc use m e of being too harsh, I repe at, j ury duty is not an
e a sy thi ng , e sp e c ia lly in a c a pit a l tr ia l, but on c e un de rt ake n, it ne e ds to be the highe st p ri or ity fo r a ll jurors. The injured juror was not at f ault, but the re was an alternate juror available to complete her service
. I t is rea sonable to assume that the prospective gra ndpare nt knew of the impendinginduced birth scheduled f

or September

16 befor e the tria l beg an on September 8; he to l d t h e j u d g e that he would not be able to foc us on the trial bec ause of it. W hile beingprese nt at the induced bir th was g reatly important to that one person, it is trivial when compare d with a dec ision as to whether a man will live or die. The injured jur or should have be en re place d at the time of her injury and the tria l continued without reg ard to sche duled, induced births. I would grant a new trial on punishment. Be cause the Court do e s n ot d o s o, Idis se nt. Filed: January

12, 2011 Do no t pu bli sh
# C_2016115EN.01000101.xml

| 1.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7874 — Warburg Pincus/General Atlantic/UniCredit/Pioneer US)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 115/01)

On 22 March 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7874. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7874. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
• • ' - ' ^;Pu^ A i JC).\' 3 20 5 Catalin aDr . Newark , D E 1971 1 •• ' '"' ' ' 3 A "i : 3 U May 12,201 1 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Docke t Operation s Wes t Building , Groun dFloo r

Roo mW12-14 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , SE . Washington , D C 2059 0 T o Who mI t

May Concern : Unde r FA RSectio n 11.17 1 woul dlik e t o petitio n fo r achang e t o FA R61.5 1 (f ) (2) . At presen t i f aperso n i s functionin g a s aSecond-in Comman d(SIC ) i n a n aircraf t typ e certificate dfo r

on e pilot , tha t

perso n may no t

lo g SI C whe n operatin g unde r Par t 91 . A perso n performin g th e sam e functio n i n th e sam e typ e aircraf t whil e operatin g unde r FA R13 5 o r

12 1 may lo g SIC . Similarly , unde r military regulations , militar y pilot s ge t credi t for thi s time . Ther e i s a n inequity her e tha t

denies apilo t

legall y loggin g experienc e a s afunctionin g crewmembe r

whil e othe r

pilot s ge t

credi t fo r 3i e sam e duties . I believ e apilo t wh o i s flyin g professionall y a s a n assigne dfligh t crewmembe r

i n aPar t 9 1 operatio n shoul db e permitte dt o receiv e credi t fo r thi s fligjit

time . Whil e I a msur e ther e i s som e concer n tha t afe w individual s wil l abus e thi s privilege , i t i s no t fair t o restric t

th e larg e numbe r

o f pilot s tha t

thi s chang e woul daffect . Recognitio n o f crewmembe r

experienc e whil e flyin g Kin g Air' s an dsimilar aircraf t operate db y corporation s wit h tw o pilot s unde r Par t 9 1 woul db e reflecte di n thi s change . A s suc h I reques t

tha t consideratio n b e give n t o changin g 61.5 1 (f ) (2 ) t o read : Hold s aCommercia l o r

Airlin e Transpor t

Pilo t Certificat e with appropriat e category , clas s an dinstrumen t

ratin g (i f a n instrumen t

ratin g i s require dfor

th e flight) for

th e aircraf

t bein g flown , i f tha t perso n i s a n employe e o f th e operato r

o f th e aircraf

t an dtha t person' s primary duty i s a s arequire dflight crewmember . A s apersona l note , I a

mlon g pas t

th e chang e benefitin g me , bu t I petitio n for

thi s chang e t o provid e equitabl e treatmen t amongs t th e ne w professiona l airman . Than k yo u fo r you r consideration . Sincerely , Crai g P . J . Whee l
| (a) | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the quarter                ended                June                30, 2007 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements                 of                Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (b) | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                 |                                                                                                         |                               |
|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                                 |                                                                                                         |
|                            |                                                                                                    |                          |
| Dated:              January 28, 2008 |                                                                                                    | /s/ Darryl              Cohen |
|                                 | Darryl                Cohen,Chief                Executive Officer andChief                Financial Officer |
|                                 |                                                                                                              |

----
[Civ. No. 8256.

Second Appellate District, Division Two.

July 9, 1934.]

#### THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES (a Municipal Corporation), Appellant, v. THOMAS F. HIGGINS, Respondent.

Erwin P. Werner, City Attorney, Frederick von Schrader, Assistant City Attorney, and Thurmond Clarke and Arthur W. Nordstrom, Deputies City Attorney, for Appellant.

J. R. Sakanow for Respondent.

*620STEPHENS, P. J.

This cause arises out of an eminent domain proceeding, wherein the City of Los Angeles sought to take property belonging to defendant and respondent for street purposes under the Street Opening Act of 1903, as amended. (Deering’s Gen. Laws, 1923, p. 3309, Act No. 8198, Stats. 1903, p. 376, and acts amendatory thereof.)  The interlocutory judgment was signed May 7, 1929, after the determination of awards. Such awards are to be paid from a special fund to be collected by the bureau of assessments of the City of Los Angeles from an assessment levied under and pursuant to the provisions of the Street Opening Act of 1903, which assessments may be represented at the option of those assessed by bonds to issue under and pursuant to the Street Opening Bond Act of 1911. On April 25, 1930, the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss. Thereafter, he filed another motion to dismiss which was granted July 21, 1931. This motion was based solely upon the files of the case and under section 1255a of the Code of Civil Procedure, upon the theory that an implied abandonment had taken place under section 1251 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 1251 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that awards in street opening cases shall be paid within 30 days after interlocutory judgment, or in the event bonds are. to issue, within a year. The 'Street Opening Act of 1903, however, provides by section 31 thereof that awards shall not be paid until there is sufficient money collected therefor to pay them. It would be highly impractical, if not impossible, to collect such money within such a specified time and we think, therefore, that section 1255a is not applicable to the situation. *(City of Los Angeles*v. *Agardy,*134 Cal. 69 [24 Pac. (2d) 915].)

Judgment reversed.

Craig, J., and Archbald, J., *pro tem.,*concurred.
# C_2016270EN.01000201.xml

| 25.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/2

---

Conduct of the activity of the General Court from 1 to 19 September 2016

(2016/C 270/02)

At its plenum on 15 June 2016, the General Court took note of the fact that the new Members of the General Court will be taking the oath before the Court of Justice on 19 September 2016 and that, consequently, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 5 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, until the new Members of the General Court take up their duties:

| — | the President of the General Court will be President Jaeger; |
| --- | --- |

—

the President of the General Court will be President Jaeger;

| — | the Vice-President of the General Court will be Vice-President Kanninen; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Vice-President of the General Court will be Vice-President Kanninen;

| — | the Presidents of the Chambers of five or of three Judges will be Vice-President Kanninen, and Presidents of Chamber Ms Martins Ribeiro, Mr Papasavvas, Mr Prek, Mr Dittrich, Mr Frimodt Nielsen, Mr van der Woude, Mr Gratsias and Mr Berardis; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Presidents of the Chambers of five or of three Judges will be Vice-President Kanninen, and Presidents of Chamber Ms Martins Ribeiro, Mr Papasavvas, Mr Prek, Mr Dittrich, Mr Frimodt Nielsen, Mr van der Woude, Mr Gratsias and Mr Berardis;

| — | the decision on the assignment of Judges to Chambers of 23 October 2013 (OJ 2013 C 344, p. 2), as most recently amended by the decision of 9 June 2016 (OJ 2016 C 243, p. 2), the decisions of 13 May 2015 on the composition of the Grand Chamber and on the method of designation of the Judge replacing a Judge prevented from acting (OJ 2015 C 213, p. 2) and the decisions of 23 September 2013 on the criteria for assigning cases to Chambers and on the composition of the Appeal Chamber (OJ 2013 C 313, p. 4 and p. 5) will continue to apply. |
| --- | --- |

—

the decision on the assignment of Judges to Chambers of 23 October 2013 (OJ 2013 C 344, p. 2), as most recently amended by the decision of 9 June 2016 (OJ 2016 C 243, p. 2), the decisions of 13 May 2015 on the composition of the Grand Chamber and on the method of designation of the Judge replacing a Judge prevented from acting (OJ 2015 C 213, p. 2) and the decisions of 23 September 2013 on the criteria for assigning cases to Chambers and on the composition of the Appeal Chamber (OJ 2013 C 313, p. 4 and p. 5) will continue to apply.

---
TS – 10KK7G, Physical and Chemical Properties Worksheet, Appearance

Redacted
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-68940) of Simon
Property Group, L.P. and in the related prospectus of our reports dated March 7, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Simon Property Group, L.P. and
Subsidiaries, Simon Property Group, L.P. and Subsidiaries management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of Simon Property Group, L.P. and Subsidiaries included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.

|                                     |  | /s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP
|------------------------------------ |  | --------------------
|Indianapolis, Indiana
March 15, 2006 |  |                     

120

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 24.1

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Robert E. Sulentic, Derek R. McClain, Arlin E. Gaffner and J. Christopher
Kirk and each of them, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, to sign on his
behalf, as a director or officer, or both, as the case may be, of Trammell Crow Company, a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2001, and to sign any or all amendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection
therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact, and each of them with or without the others, full power and authority to do and
perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that each of said attorneys-in-fact or their substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

| |  | /s/J. MCDONALD WILLIAMSJ. McDonald Williams
| |  | -------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
AFS-12-311-E May 25, 2012

Exemption No. 10545 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0399

Mr. Michael D. Vollmer Director, Operations Dynamic Airways

701 North Terminal Service Road Greensboro, NC 27409

Dear Mr. Vollmer:

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our decision and explains its basis.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated April 3, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) on behalf of Dynamic Airways (Dynamic) for an exemption from § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations to the extent to allow Dynamic to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman in place of an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) while that PIC is performing prescribed duties during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing when completing initial or upgrade training as specified in § 121.424.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because this is not a precedent-setting petition, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Dynamic.

The FAA issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 10430 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest and would not provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the current regulations. The FAA considered it necessary to require the PIC to be observed by an FAA inspector during at least one flight leg of initial operating experience, which includes a takeoff and landing, if the2

certificate holder uses a course of training in an airplane simulator as provided in § 121.409(c). That requirement was set forth in Amendment 121-91 and has continued in effect until the present.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 10430;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 10430 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Adm inistrator has delegated to me, I hereby deny the petition of Dynamic Airways for an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.434(c)(1)(ii).

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan Deputy Director, Flight Standards

Service

Enclosure
#### Kennedy v. Gelbach.

*Costs*— *Practice, C. P.*— *Malicious prosecution*— *Statute of 22 and 23 Charles II, chap. 9.*

The British Statute of 22 and 23 Charles II, ch. 9, entitled “An act for laying impositions on proceedings at law,” does not apply to an action of trespass for malicious prosecution.

Rule to strike off judgment. C. P. Butler Co., June T., 1921, No. 43.

*Marshall & Watson,*for plaintiff.

*E. H. Negley*and *W. H. Martin,*for defendant.

July 15, 1921.

Reiber, P. J.,

This case is an action of trespass for false arrest and malicious prosecution, and, on trial thereof, resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for 61 cents damages. The defendant paid into court the damages and costs to the extent thereof in the total amount of 13 cents. *122Judgment was thereupon taken by plaintiff on the verdict and an execution issued to enforce the payment of the balance of the costs, and the matter is before us on such motion to determine whether or not the plaintiff is limited to the amount of damages in his judgment for costs.

The question involves the construction of the British Statute 22 and 23 Charles II, chapter 9, entitled “An act for laying impositions on proceedings at law.” The same question was fully considered in Kunkle *v.*Aiken, 23 W. N. C. 372, and McCormick *v.*Northeim, 20 Dist. R. 112, and, following the conclusions therein reached that the statute extended to no actions save trespass *quare clausum fregit*and assault and battery, it follows in this case, being an action under the old pleadings of trespass on the case, the injuries being consequential, it does not come within the provisions of the statute.

For these reasons, it becomes the duty of the court to discharge the rule and sustain the judgment.

And now, July 15, 1921, rule to strike off judgment on part of defendant discharged and judgment sustained.

From James E. Marshall, Butler, Pa.
# C_2016339EN.01000801.xml

| 16.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 339/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/8

---

ESPON EGTC — Invitation for stakeholders to submit proposals for targeted analyses

(2016/C 339/11)

In the framework of the ESPON 2020 Single Operation, the ESPON EGTC invites Stakeholders to submit proposals for targeted analyses.

The closing date for the submission of proposals is 13 January 2017.

13 January 2017.

The application form and a guidance document to support stakeholders in preparing proposals are available for download at the ESPON website: http://www.espon.eu

---
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

 DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JOSEPH W. ROBINSON,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D23-1910

LT Case No. 2011-CF-010567-A

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Decision filed July 25, 2023

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Duval County,

London M. Kite, Judge.

Joseph W. Robinson, Carrabelle, 

pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WALLIS, LAMBERT and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Trevor Edward Hill, Appellant

No. 06-18-00125-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court of 

Smith County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 241-

0661-17). Opinion delivered by Justice 

Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Trevor Edward Hill, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JANUARY 29, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk