alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Joshua JACOBS, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas

NO. PD-1360-18

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

DATE DELIVERED: July 24, 2019

Emily Johnson-Liu, for State of Texas

Troy Hornsby, for Joshua Jacobs

Per curiam.

Appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and, pursuant to Texas Penal Code § 12.42(c)(2)(A)(i) and (B)(v), sentenced to life in prison. He appealed, arguing that the Louisiana conviction used to enhance his punishment was not "substantially similar" to the elements of a Texas offense, as required by the statute.

The Court of Appeals applied the two-pronged test from *Prudholm v. State* , 333 S.W.3d 590 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011), and *Anderson v. State* , 394 S.W.3d 531 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013), to conclude that the two statutes were not "substantially similar." *Jacobs v. State* , 565 S.W.3d 87 (Tex. App. - Texarkana 2018, pet. granted). It therefore reversed the trial court's judgment on punishment and remanded for a new punishment hearing. *Id.*

The State has filed a petition for discretionary review of this decision. We recently *533abandoned the second prong of the *Prudholm* / *Anderson* test in *Fisk v. State* , 574 S.W.3d 917 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019).

The Court of Appeals in the instant case did not have the benefit of our opinion in *Fisk* . Accordingly, we grant the State's petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case to the Court of Appeals in light of our opinion in *Fisk* .
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. John F. BILLINGSLEY, Appellant.

No. ED 106164

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: April 23, 2019

FOR APPELLANT: Jessica Hathaway, Rosenblum Schwartz & Fry, 120 South Central Avenue, Suite 130, St. Louis, Missouri 63105, Robert Taaffe, Jr., Taaffe & Associates, L.C.C., 1015 Locust Street, Suite 725, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.

FOR RESPONDENT: Robert J. Bartholomew, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J. and Mary K. Hoff, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM

John Billingsley ("Defendant") appeals judgment entered after a jury verdict convicting him of the class A felony of child kidnapping. Defendant was sentenced to ten years imprisonment as a prior and persistent offender.

For his only point on appeal, Defendant argues the trial court plainly erred in admitting allegedly inadmissible and prejudicial testimony from T. M., the mother ("the Mother") of the child-victim ("A.W."). The Mother noted she had observed similarities between the clothing worn by Defendant when her child identified him as the kidnapper on the day of his arrest and the hearsay evidence of the child's statements describing the clothing worn by the kidnapper six days earlier, when A.W. was kidnapped.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the trial court did not plainly err. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for use of the parties setting forth the reasons for the decision.

*165The judgment is affirmed under Rules 30.25.1

1

All rule citations are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2016) unless otherwise indicated.
**Exhibit 4.2**

----

**LENDER ACCESSION AGREEMENT**

| To:          |   | THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC      as Agent  |
|-------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|              |   |                                          |
| From:   |   | MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL BANK      LIMITED |

 May  2007

**Vodafone Group Plc – U.S.$5,525,000,000 Revolving Credit Agreementdated 24 June 2004 (as amended and restated on 24 June 2005) (the “Credit Agreement”)**

Terms used herein which are defined in the Credit Agreement shall have the same meaning herein as in the Credit Agreement.

We refer to Clause 2.7 (Additional Lenders).

We, Merrill Lynch International Bank Limited agree to become party to and to be bound by the terms of the Credit Agreement as an Additional Lender in accordance with Clause 2.7 (Additional Lenders) with effect on and from 8 May 2007.

Our Revolving Credit Commitment is U.S.$200,000,000.

We confirm to each Finance Party that we:

|        | (a)    | have made our own independent investigation and assessment of the financial condition and affairs of each Obligor and its related entities in connection with its participation in the Credit Agreement and have not relied exclusively on any information provided to us by a Finance Party in connection with any Finance Document; and |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |

|  | (b) | will continue to make our own independent appraisal of the creditworthiness of each Obligor and its related entities while any amount is or may be outstanding under the Credit Agreement or any Commitment is in force. |
|--|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

The Facility Office and address for notices of the Additional Lender for the purposes of Clause 32.2 (Addresses for notices) is:

Merrill Lynch International Bank Limited  Treasury Building  Lower Grand Canal Street  Dublin 2

This Agreement is governed by English law.

MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL BANK LIMITED

By:       

Lee HallaAuthorised Signatory

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC

By:       

Mary DarganAuthorised Signatory

VODAFONE GROUP PLC

By:       

----
----

Action brought on 21 February 2005 by the European Commission against the Council of the European Union

(Case C-91/05)

(2005/C 115/19)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 February 2005 by the European Commission, represented by Pieter Jan Kuijper and Johan Enegren acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The Commission is seeking the annulment for lack of competence under Article 230, second paragraph, of the EC Treaty of Council Decision 2004/833/CFSP of 2 December 2004 implementing Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP with a view to a European Union contribution to ECOWAS in the framework of the Moratorium on Small Arms and Light Weapons. The Council took this Decision under Title V of the Treaty on European Union, whereas Article 11(3) of the Cotonou agreement covers actions inter alia against the spread of small arms and light weapons. Moreover, the Commission had concluded pursuant to Article 10(2) of Annex 1V of the Cotonou agreement a Regional Indicative Programme for West Africa with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU), which gives support to a regional policy of conflict prevention and good governance, and announces support in particular for the moratorium on the import, export and production of light weapons in West Africa. Thus the impugned CFSP decision is in infringement of Article 47 TEU, since it affects Community powers in the field of development aid.

In addition, the Commission is seeking a declaration of illegality under Article 241 EC Treaty of Council Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP of 12 July 2002, and in particular Title II thereof, on the same basis and for the same reasons. Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP is an act of a general legislative nature on which the CFSP Decision is based, of which the annulment for lack of competence is sought. Hence that Joint Action, and more specifically Title II thereof should be declared inapplicable in the present case.

----

(1)  Council Decision 2004/833/CFSP of 2 December 2004 implementing Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP with a view to a European Union contribution to ECOWAS in the framework of the Moratorium on Small Arms and Light Weapons, OJ L 359, 04.12.2004, p. 65.

(2)  Council Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP of 12 July 2002 on the European Union's contribution to combating the destabilising accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons and repealing Joint Action 1999/34/CFSP, OJ L 191, 19.07.2002, p. 1.

----
Exhibit 10.25
 EMDEON INC.
RESTRICTED SHARE UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT
 THIS RESTRICTED SHARE UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT
 WHEREAS,
 NOW, THEREFORE,
 Grant of Restricted Share Units
 
  Terms; Restricted Period
 Exhibit A




---



##### 



(i)
    
    the Grantees termination of employment with the Company, but
only if such termination results from (y) the decision by the Company to
terminate the Grantees employment other than for Cause or (z) the decision by
the Grantee to terminate employment with the Company for Good Reason, or(ii)
    
    365 days following such Change in Control, but only if the
Grantee then remains in employment with the Company.
  Termination of Restrictions
 No Right to Continued Employment
 Adjustments
 Amendment to Award
 2




---



##### 



Withholding of Taxes
 Plan Governs
 Severability
 Notices
 To the Company:
    
    Emdeon Inc.3055 Lebanon Pike, Suite 1000Nashville, Tennessee 37214Attn: Corporate SecretaryTo the Grantee:
    
    The address then maintained with respect to the Grantee in the
Companys records.
 Governing Law
 Successors in Interest
 3




---



##### 



Resolution of Disputes
 Covenants
 Section 409A
    4




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 EMDEON INC.By:Name:Title:GRANTEE: 5




---



##### 



Exhibit A
 Expiration of Restricted Period
  6
Exhibit 13.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Edward
Meng, the Chief Financial Officer of CHINA GERUI ADVANCED MATERIALS GROUP LIMITED (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY
that:



1.   The
Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Report”), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.   Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the undersigned has executed this statement this 7th day of May, 2012.



| | /s/ Edward Meng                             
| | --------------------------------------------
| | Edward Meng                                 
| | Chief Financial Officer                     
| | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to China Gerui Advanced Materials Group Limited and will be retained by China Gerui Advanced
Materials Group Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



The forgoing certification is being furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,
whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
exv10w26






Exhibit 10.26



November 4 , 2009




Pat Miles

4934 Del Mar Mesa Road

San Diego, CA 92130



Dear Pat,



Congratulations on your promotion to President of the Americas. Being awarded an executive
promotion means that you are a NuVasive “A+” Player. You have successfully performed your stretch
goals, demonstrated outstanding performance standards, have embraced your challenges with
enthusiasm, and have continuously worked to perpetuate and grow our culture. I trust that you feel
“lucky” and have an “attitude of gratitude” about your continued growth prospects.



You will officially begin work in this capacity on January 1, 2010. Your new rate of compensation
is $37,500/month. In connection with your promotion, we anticipate granting you, subject to the
approval of the Board of Directors, 85,000 Restricted Stock Units (the “RSUs”) representing a
promise to issue shares of NuVasive stock upon vesting. The RSU’s will vest over four years in
accordance with the Company’s 2004 Equity Incentive Plan and in anticipation of you delivering
outstanding results.



In addition to your compensation increase, your current target bonus for 2010 is 75% of your
annual base salary (with ability to over-perform), with the actual amount being determined at the
discretion of the Board of Directors. All bonus payments will be paid in accordance with the
terms of your letter agreement, dated August 5, 2008, as amended. I fully anticipate that you
will do your part to drive outstanding performance across all of these measures and that you will
personally contribute to your Department’s and the Company’s success.



As Shareowners, our common goal is to contribute meaningfully toward NuVasive’s growth targets,
deliver new and creative products, leverage resources for profitability and exercise Absolute
Responsiveness® to the maximum level. I look forward to continuing the journey with
you.



I wish you tremendous success in your new role!




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Onward and Upward!

NUVASIVE, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/Alexis V. Lukianov
 	 
	 	 	Alexis V. Lukianov 	 


Please sign below indicating your understanding and acceptance of this promotion and return the
fully executed letter to Jen Crutchfield. You should keep one copy of this letter for your
records.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	      /s/Pat Miles
 	 
	 	Pat Miles
#### Harrison Abbot *v.*State Compensation Commissioner

(No. 7590)

Submitted April 12, 1933.

Decided April 18, 1933.

*562*Fulton (& Biddle,*for appellant.

*Homer A. Holt,*Attorney General, and *Kenneth E. Hines,*Assistant Attorney General, for Compensation Commissioner.

*Lefttuich & Shaffer,*for Spruce River Lumber Co.^)

Maxwell, PRESIDENT:

Claimant was refused compensation on the ground that his injury was purposely self-inflicted. This appeal followed.

While coupling coal cars in a mine of the Spruce River Coal Company in Boone County, December 22, 1931, claimant’s right index finger was so seriously maimed that amputation was necessary .just above the second joint. Upon protest of the employer against the award of compensation, the commissioner held a hearing in March, 1932. Evidence was adduced by both the claimant and the employer.

Though the testimony was taken and concluded on the 22nd of March, 1932, the commissioner’s order rejecting the claim was not entered until September 22, 1932. In the interim there was correspondence by mail between officials of the employer and officials of a former alleged employer of claimant in the state of Kentucky. Letters received in this correspondence by the employer tended to discredit certain of claimant’s testimony, and, to that extent, to substantiate the employer’s contention that the injury involved was self-inflicted. This correspondence was before the commissioner when he made his finding in September, 1932.

The underlying purpose of a hearing in compensation cases is to afford opportunity for the examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Where such hearing has been held, both the employer and the employee have full right to assume that the case will be determined on the record as then completed, including both the evidence adduced at such hearing and prior proceedings. To permit either the employer or the employee to submit ex parte statements in the form of letters or otherwise subsequent to the hearing, is highly prejudicial; to the other side.

We are therefore of opinion that the commissioner’s -said order of September 22, 1932, denying compensation should be set aside, and that the commissioner should afford opportunity to both the employee and the employer to take further testi*563mony at such time and place as may be fixed by the commissioner lor an adjourned hearing. The commissioner’s finding hereafter to be made must exclude from consideration all ex parte matters developed subsequent to the hearing in March, 1932.

*Reversed and remanded.*
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.,
SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED



PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



In connection with the annual report of China Dredging Group
Co., Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to his knowledge:



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



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of China Dredging Group Co., Ltd.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: April 27, 2012 | By: | /s/ Xinrong Zhuo              | 
|-------------------- | --- | ----------------------------- | 
|                     |     | Xinrong Zhuo                  | 
|                     |     | Chief Executive Officer       | 
|                     |     | (Principal Executive Officer) |
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 356 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 356

Expressing support for the designation of May 4, 2023, as a ``National 
Day of Reason'' and recognizing the central importance of reason in the 
                        betterment of humanity.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 2, 2023

   Mr. Raskin (for himself, Mr. Huffman, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. 
    Pocan, Ms. Norton, Ms. Jayapal, and Ms. Brownley) submitted the 
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight 
                           and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing support for the designation of May 4, 2023, as a ``National 
Day of Reason'' and recognizing the central importance of reason in the 
                        betterment of humanity.

Whereas the application of reason has been the essential precondition for 
        humanity's extraordinary scientific, medical, technological, and social 
        progress since before the founding of our country;
Whereas reason provides vital hope today for confronting the environmental 
        crises of our day, including the civilizational emergency of climate 
        change, and for cultivating the rule of law, democratic institutions, 
        justice, and peace among nations;
Whereas the United States founders insisted upon the primacy of reason and 
        knowledge in public life, and drafted the Constitution to prevent 
        official establishment of religion and to protect freedom of thought, 
        speech, and inquiry in civil society;
Whereas James Madison, author of the First Amendment and fourth President of the 
        United States, stated ``the advancement and diffusion of knowledge is 
        the only guardian of true liberty'', and ``knowledge will forever govern 
        ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm 
        themselves with the power knowledge gives''; and
Whereas May 4, 2023, would be an appropriate date to designate as a ``National 
        Day of Reason'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of a ``National Day of 
        Reason''; and
            (2) encourages all citizens, residents, and visitors to 
        join in observing this day and focusing on the central 
        importance of reason, critical thought, the scientific method, 
        and free inquiry to resolving social problems and promoting the 
        welfare of humankind.
                                 <all>
```
Dismiss and Opinion Filed May 9, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05
- 22
- 00180
- CR WILLIAM SEDRIC AUTREY , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 429
- 81194
- 2010 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Carlyle, and Goldstein

Opinion by Justice Myers On March 4, 2022, William Sedric Autrey filed a notice of appeal, “seeking to appeal any denial of his N unc P ro T unc M otion by the Trial Court, if that should happen.” He attached a copy of his nunc pro tunc motion that he previously sent to the trial cour t asking for the court to “correct the sentencing judgment and make it reflect that all sentences will run concurrent to each other.” The Collin County
District Clerk forwarded the notice of appeal to this Court along with a document entitled “APPEAL SCHE DULE

. ” On the schedule, the clerk note d: “Defendant is filing an Appeal on a Denial of Nunc Pro Tunc, which doesn’t exist.” We contacted the Collin County District Clerk’s office to determine whether an order disposing of– 2

–

appellant’s motion had been signed . Th e district clerk confirmed that no order has been signed. Appellant has the right to appeal when a trial court enters a “judgment of guilt or other appealable order.” See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(a)(2), 26.2(a). The trial court “enters” an appealable order by signing a written order. See State v. Sanavongxay , 407 S.W.3d 252, 259 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (court of appeals has no jurisdiction
over State ’ s appeal until there is signed written order); State ex rel. Sutton v. Bage , 822 S.W.2d 55, 57 (Tex. Crim. Ap p. 1992) (orig. proceeding) (determining that trial court has not entered order justifying appeal until written order is signed); see also
Rodarte v. State , 860 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (defendant ’ s timetable for filing notice of appeal from adverse habeas decision begins when appealable order signed). Although appellant filed a motion for a judgment nunc pro tunc , the trial court
did not sign and enter an appealable order . Therefore, appellant ’ s notice of appeal
does not confer jurisdiction upon th is Court. See Sanavongxay , 407 S.W.3d at 259

. Under these circumstances, we must dismiss this appeal.

220180f.u05 Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b) /Lana Myers/ / LANA MYERS JUSTICE– 3

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT
WILLIAM SEDRIC AUTREY, Appellant
No. 05

- 22

- 00180

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 429

- 81194

- 2010. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. Justices Carlyle and Goldstein participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal.
Judgment entered this 9 th day of May , 2022

.