alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . A P - 76, 201

EX PA R TE R EG I N A LD M U C K LE R O Y , A ppl i c ant
ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. 0 6 F 0 0 9 9 - 0 0 5 - A I N T HE 5 J UDI CI AL DI S TR I CT COURT TH FROM BOW I E CO UNTY

P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crimi n al P ro ce d ure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for wr it of habea s corpus. Ex pa rte Y oung , 4 18 S.W. 2d

82 4, 82 6 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 67 ). I n s e pa rate c a us e s, Ap pli c ant p le a de d guil ty to two char g es of theft

and wa s sentence d to teny ear s ’ i m p ri s onment for e ach c harg e, to run
c on c ur re ntl y . A s a

c on dit ion

of the ple a , Ap pli c ant wa s to be br ou g ht ba c k to the tr ia l c ourt wi thi n 180 day s of his se ntencingfor c onsideration of shoc k probation on both cha rg es. He did not appeal his conviction. Applicant wa s broug ht back to the tria l court and pla ced on shoc k p ro b at i o n in one ca use,2

but throug h a cle rica l error , this cause wa s omitt ed fr om the trial docke t. The trial cour t gr anted shock probation in the ot her c ause, a nd althoug h no action wa s taken pursua nt to this cause number, Applicant wa s relea sed on shock probation. Applicant’s probation was later re voked, and the trial
cour t r e f o r me d th e ju d g me n t in th e o th e r c a u s e to r e f le c t a f o ur - y e ar s e n te n c e . Ap p li cant is now
se rv ingthe fo ur -ye ar r e fo rm e d s e nte nc e in t he oth e r c a

us e c on c ur

re ntl y wi th a

te n- y e ar s e nte nc e in this cause. Applicant conte nds, inte r a lia , that h i s plea a g ree ment was bre ache d beca use he w as inadver tently broug ht back to the tria l court, consider ed for and gra nted s hock probation on only one of the two c auses. The orig inal plea a g ree ment contemplated c onsideration for shock probation on both cause s. The trial court held a hear ing on this matter, and has determined t hat applica nt plead g uilty pursuant to an a g ree ment that this sentence w ould run conc urre ntly with his other sentenc e, and that both ca

uses would be c onsidered f or shock p ro b at i o n . Applicant is entitled to relief
. Ex pa rteRoge rs , 629 S.W .2d 741, 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982)

. Relief is g rante d. The judg ment in Cause No. 06F0099- 005-Ain the 5th J udicial District Court of Bow ie County

is set aside, and a

pplicant i s rema

nded to the custody

of the Sherif

f of Bow ie County to a ns we r t he c ha rg e a g a ins t him
. Copies of thi s o p i n i o ns h al l b e s en tt o th e T ex as De p art m en to f C ri m i n al J u s t i ce –Correc tional I nstitut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: August 26, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh
Legal Readiness Checklist

1. Do you have an estate plan directing the disposition of your property

and, if you have children, naming a guardian for them? 

2. Do you have powers of attorney (POAs) to allow someone to manage

some or all of your affairs (such as child care, banking, managing property, 

etc.)? They may be needed for incapacitation, such as from a debilitating 

accident, or unavailability, such as deployment. 

3. Do you have a Medical Directive explaining your wishes in the event

you are in a persistent vegetative state? 

4. Do you have a Medical POA that designates a person to make medical

decisions for you if you are unable to communicate decisions for yourself? 

5. Are all of your beneficiary designations on SGLI and other insurance

and death benefits current? 

6. Do you have a plan in place for the care of your minor children in the

event you are deployed or unavailable for an extended period of time? 

7. Have you made considered and, if applicable, accomplished the transfer

of your Post 9-11 GI Bill entitlement to another eligible family member 

through http://www.gibill.va.gov/GI_Bill_Info/CH33/Post-911.htm? 

8. Have you viewed your credit report in the last 2 years (you are entitled

to a free report from each credit service once per year at 

http://www.ftc.gov/freereports)? 

9. Do you have questions about your or your spouse’s legal residency?

10. Do you have questions about your rights and responsibilities related to

your rented or purchased housing? 

11. Do you have questions about any consumer contracts, such as an auto

purchase? 

12. Do you have any questions about naturalization or citizenship for

yourself or your immediate family? 

13. Do you have any questions related to your taxes?

14. Do you have any pending legal matters you would like to discuss with

an attorney? 

Yes No
#### LUKENS IRON & STEEL CO., Respondent, v. PAYNE et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 6, 1897.)

Action by the Lukens Iron & Steel Company against Benjamin N. Payne and David W. Payne.

No opinion. Order appealed from affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
Exhibit 32.1



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 Quarterly Report of Secure Computing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John E. McNulty, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:



(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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ John E. McNulty                            
|John E. McNulty                                
|Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
|November 9, 2005
Opinion issued June 4, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 15
- 00209
- CV

——————————— DOCTORS PRACTICE MAN AGEMENT, INC. , Appella nt V. MEDICAL MULTIMEDIA ADVERTISI NG, INC. , Appell e e

On Appeal from the 234th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2013
- 36797

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a judgment signed December 8, 2014

. On May 12, 2015 , the parties filed a joint motion requesting that we vacate the trial court’s judgment and render judgment that Medical Multimedia Advertising, Inc. take nothing in its action against Doctors Practice Management, Inc. ; that all of Medical2

Multimedia Advertising, Inc.’s claims that were or could have been brought in the lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice ; that Doctors Practice Management, Inc. take nothing in its counterclaims against Medical Multimedia Advertising, Inc. ; that all of Doctors Practice Management, Inc.’s counterclaims that were or could have been brought in the lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice ; and that each party bear its own costs, expenses, and attorney fees

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.1 (a)(2)(A)

. No opinion has issued. Accordingly, we grant the motion, vacate the judgment of the trial court, and render judgment effectuating the p arties’ agreement , as described above. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A), 43.2(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot. The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate within 10 days of the date of this opinion. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 18.1. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Massengale.
EXHIBIT 11
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 11

                         EARNINGS PER SHARE CALCULATION


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                For the three months                For the six months
                                                                   ended June 30,                     ended June 30,

                                                               1998              1997              1998             1997
                                                         ---------------    ---------------   --------------   ---------

<S>                                                           <C>               <C>              <C>              <C>       
Net Income............................................        $  493,961        $  468,954       $  952,509       $  914,307

Basic Weighted Average Shares Outstanding.............         2,179,319         2,402,476        2,219,343        2,457,225

Basic Earnings Per Share..............................             $0.23             $0.20            $0.43            $0.37

Basic Weighted Average Shares Outstanding.............         2,179,319         2,402,476        2,219,343        2,457,225

Potential common stock due to:
                  Stock options.......................           109,219            47,871          109,119           48,285
                  MSBP................................             8,839                --            8,672               -- 

Diluted weighted average shares outstanding...........         2,297,377         2,450,347        2,337,134        2,505,510

Diluted earnings per share............................             $0.22             $0.19            $0.41            $0.36

</TABLE>


Basic  earnings  per share of common  stock for the three and six month  periods
ended June 30, 1998 and 1997 has been  determined by dividing net income for the
period by the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding, net
of average  unearned  ESOP shares of 204,763,  206,802,  221,032,  and  223,060,
respectively,  and average unearned MSBP shares of 77,778, 80,639,  106,015, and
106,015, respectively.
# C_2021497EN.01001501.xml

| 10.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 497/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 497/15

---

Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 and Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo

(2021/C 497/04)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 (2), and in Annex Ia to Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 (4), concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons that appear in the above-mentioned Annexes should continue to be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2010/788/CFSP and in Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The grounds for designations of those persons appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.

The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the web-sites in Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 3 of the Regulation).

The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council before 1 September 2022, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1.C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s next review, pursuant to Article 9 of Decision 2010/788/CFSP.

The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council’s decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 336, 21.12.2010, p. 30.

(2)  OJ L 443, 10.12.2021, p. 75.

(3)  OJ L 193, 23.7.2005, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 443, 10.12.2021, p. 3.

---
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Storage                    
csv

      Evaporation                    
csv

      Inflow                    
csv

      Inflow Volume                    
csv

      Total Release                    
csv

      Release Volume                    
csv

      Pool Elevation                    
csv

      Unregulated Inflow Volume                    
csv

      Unregulated Inflow                    
csv

      Mod Unregulated Inflow                    
csv

      Mod Unregulated Inflow Volume                    
csv

      Delta Storage                    
csv

      Area                    
csv

#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Storage                    
json

      Evaporation                    
json

      Inflow                    
json

      Inflow Volume                    
json

      Total Release                    
json

      Release Volume                    
json

      Pool Elevation                    
json

      Unregulated Inflow Volume                    
json

      Unregulated Inflow                    
json

      Mod Unregulated Inflow                    
json

      Mod Unregulated Inflow Volume                    
json

      Delta Storage                    
json

      Area                    
json
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause Number: 01

- 20

- 00071

- CV

Trial Court Cause

Number: D

- 1

- GN

- 19

- 002613

Style: TitleMax of Texas, Inc.

v City of Austin and Anne Morgan, City Attorney of The City of Austin; and Rondella

Hawkins, Officer, City of Austin Office of Telecommunications and Regulatory Affairs,

in their Official and Individual Capacities

Date motion filed * : 12/17/21

Type of motion: Motion for Rehearing

Party filing motion: Appellee s

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? YES NO

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

Denied

Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other:

_____________________________________

Judge's signature: /s / Sherry Radack

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Rivas

- Molloy and Guerra

Date: January 11, 2022
(18 Misc. Rep. 570.)

#### HAND v. PENNOCK et al.

(City Court o£ New York, General Term.

November 30, 1896.)

Contracts—Contingent Liability.

Where a contract provides that money payable thereunder “is only available as a credit, and is to be deducted from the contract price” of future work of the obligor, and that if he does not obtain such work he is to be “absolutely acquitted of any charge,” nothing is due from the obligor until he secures a contract for such work.

Appeal from trial term.

Action by Elwood S. Hand against Joseph E. Pennock and another. From a judgment on a directed verdict for plaintiff, defendants appeal.

Reversed.

Argued before CONLAN, SCHUCHMAN, and O’DWYER, JJ.

Sullivan & Cromwell, for appellants.

C. DeH. Brower, for respondent.

SCHUCHMAN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury directed by the court in favor of the plaintiff, and against the defendants. The defendants except to the direction of the verdict. The plaintiff, in his complaint, sets up three causes of action on three different advertisement contracts in writing, by which the defendants promised to pay $235 in each instance in trade, on publication and delivery of two copies of the advertisement to them. The defendants, in their answer, admit the making of the contracts, and the performance of the advertisements agreeably to the written contracts; but the several contracts contained indorsements which are signed by the plaintiff and the defendants, and which read as follows:

> “The within-named amount is only available as a credit, and is to be deducted from the contract price of our work upon a proposed building, other than we have estimated on or contracted for prior to the date hereof. In the event of said contracts not being awarded us, we are to be absolutely acquitted of any charge for the advertisements herein provided.”

This means that, if no contract is awarded to the defendants, they are not to pay for the advertisements, and that the amount of said advertisement contract is only payable by being deducted from the con*703tract price for defendants’ work upon a proposed building; in other words, that the contract price must be in existence before the amount of the advertisement contracts can be payable or be deducted therefrom. There is a total absence of evidence of any contract whatsoever having ever been entered Upon by the defendants for doing their work -(carpenter work) upon a proposed building. There never was any such contract made by the defendants. For that reason po contract price was in existence, from which the amount of the advertising contracts could be deducted; in short, the event at which the amounts of the three advertisement contracts were to become payable by being deducted. from a contract price has never arrived, and for that reason the defendants are not obligated in any manner to the plaintiff on said advertising contracts.

The direction of the verdict was wrong, and the judgment must be reversed, with costs to the appellants to abide the event, and a new trial granted. All concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                            7626
<SECURITIES>                                      5933
<RECEIVABLES>                                     8863
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       3322
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 26783
<PP&E>                                            2704
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   30222
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             7876
<BONDS>                                              5
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         26070
<OTHER-SE>                                      (3729)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     30222
<SALES>                                           8902
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  8902
<CGS>                                             2456
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     6545
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (164)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   4
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     61
<INCOME-TAX>                                        19
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 42
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        42
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
# C_2021005EN.01000401.xml

| 7.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9383 — ZF/Wabco)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 5/04)

On 23 January 2020, 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 and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | 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 32020M9383. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9383. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

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

---
#### MASON, Respondent, v. EDWARDS, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 16, 1896.)

Action by Anna Mason against Newton N. Ed•wards.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
Exhibit 32.2








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 Quarterly Report of Lexmark International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John W. Gamble, Jr., Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and







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








Dated:  August 8, 2011





/s/ John W. Gamble, Jr.John W. Gamble, Jr.Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer














A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.