alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Rashon Ali BETHEA, Defendant.

No. COA17-1419

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 20, 2018

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4848 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4848

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the rate of tax on 
        corporations that make certain education contributions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 15, 2010

 Mr. Young of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the rate of tax on 
        corporations that make certain education contributions.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Tax Cut Job Creation Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. CORPORATE INCOME TAX RATE REDUCTION.

    (a) In General.--Section 11 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(e) Reduction for Certain Contributions.--
            ``(1) In general.--In the case of a qualified corporation, 
        the amount of tax imposed by subsection (a) for the taxable 
        year (determined without regard to this subsection) shall be 
        reduced by an amount equal to 5 percent of so much of the 
        taxable income of the corporation for such taxable year as 
        exceeds $75,000.
            ``(2) Qualifying corporation.--For purposes of this 
        subsection--
                    ``(A) Qualified corporation.--The term `qualifying 
                corporation' means a corporation the aggregate amount 
                of specified contributions of which for the taxable 
                year are not less than an amount equal to 20 percent of 
                an amount equal to 5 percent of so much of the taxable 
                income of the corporation for the taxable year as 
                exceeds $75,000.
            ``(3) Specified contributions.--The term `specified 
        contributions' means--
                    ``(A) the charitable contributions (as defined in 
                section 170(c)) of the corporation for the taxable year 
                to organizations described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii), 
                and
                    ``(B) the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) 
                paid by the corporation to interns as part of a 
                vocational educational course of such an organization.
            ``(4) Termination.--This subsection shall not apply to 
        taxable years beginning after December 31, 2014.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010.
                                 <all>
```
STATE of North Carolina v. Quadir BRYANT

No. COA17-1201

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 18, 2018

DISMISSED.
#### Robb D. HITCHCOCK, Appellant, v. Melvin H. LAIRD, as Secretary of Defense, et al., Appellees.

No. 71-1971.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Feb. 4, 1972.

*1065David Anthony Jones, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Greensboro, N. C., for appellees.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, SOBELOFF, Senior Circuit Judge, and FIELD, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

After administrative denial of his request to be disenrolled as a member of the R.O.T.C. as a conscientious objector and his subsequent induction on active duty,1 Hitchcock sought a writ of mandamus ordering the Army to grant his request for discharge as a conscientious objector. The District Court denied the petition on September 9, 1971, and this appeal followed.

Hitchcock has been Absent Without Leave since May 27, 1971, and on June 1 he was posted as a deserter. By taking this course of action, Hitchcock has indicated that he will comply with the decision of this court only if it is favorable. We believe that a party who will comply only with favorable judicial decisions is not entitled to have his claim heard. Johnson v. Laird, 9 Cir., 432 F.2d 77, 79. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, with leave to the petitioner to move the court to reinstate his appeal if he will surrender himself to the custody of the military authorities at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri within 30 days of the filing of this order.

Dismissed.

1

. His request for disenrollment was granted on other grounds, leading to his assignment to active duty in accordance with the terms of his contract.
M A N D A T E

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 of HIDALGO COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 16th day of July,

2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

MIGUEL MALDONADO, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-12-00586-CR (Tr.Ct.No. CR-10-5416-B)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 29th day of September, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK

FILE COPY
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES A. WILLIAMS

No. 6821SC458

(Filed 11 December 1968)

Appeal by defendant from *Armstrong, J.,*at the 27 May 1968 Criminal Session of Foesyth Superior Court.

By indictment proper in form, defendant was charged with store-breaking and larceny. The jury found the defendant guilty as charged, and from sentence imposed thereon, defendant appealed.

*Attorney General T. Wade Bruton and Deputy Attorney General Harry W. McGalliard for the State.*

*Hatfield, Allman & Hall hy Raymond D. Thomas for defendant appellant.*

Beitt, J.

Defendant’s court-appointed counsel brings forward no assignment of error, frankly stating that he is unable to find prejudicial error but asks the court to carefully review the record and grant such relief as may be proper.

Accordingly, we have carefully reviewed the record before us and find that the defendant was given a fair trial, free from prejudicial error, and that the sentence imposed was within statutory limits. *234
      *State v. Hopper,*271 N.C. 464, 156 S.E. 2d 857; *State v. Campbell,*2 N.C. App. 406, 163 S.E. 2d 78.

The judgment of the superior court is

Affirmed.

BeocK and PaeKEk, JJ., concur.
#### Drew CHERRY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The ATLANTIC-RICHFIELD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, Texas Employers Insurance Association, Intervenor-Appellee.

No. 71-3330

Summary Calendar.**

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 13, 1972.

Before BELL, DYER and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

**

 Rule 18, 5th Cir.; See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of N. Y., 431 F.2d 409, Part I (5th Cir. 1970).

PER CURIAM:

The court required the jury to return its verdict in the form of answers to special interrogatories. The instructions of the court explicitly charged the jury that it should not reach the issue of damages if it found that the plaintiffs’ injuries arose from work intimately connected with the defect the workmen were being employed to remedy. The first verdict both found that the injuries were intimately connected with the defect under repair and returned damage awards for both plaintiffs. Viewed in the most generous way, these answers were wholly inconsistent. It was not error for the court to refuse the answers and return the jury for further deliberation to resolve the conflict. 9 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 517-18 (1971). The other errors alleged were without merit. Affirmed. See Local Rule 21.1

1

. Sec NLRB v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 430 F.2d 906 (5th Cir. 1970).
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 199 (Monday, October 17, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 60349]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20685]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Advisory Committee for Injury Prevention and Control (ACIPC): 
Teleconference

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the following subcommittee meeting.
    Name: Science and Program Review Subcommittee to ACIPC.
    Time and Date: 1 p.m.-3 p.m., November 2, 2005.
    Place: The teleconference call will originate at the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia. Please see 
Supplementary Information for details on accessing the teleconference.
    Status: Open to the public, teleconference access limited only by 
availability of 50 telephone ports.
    Purpose: The Subcommittee provides advice on the needs, structure, 
progress, and performance of the National Center for Injury Prevention 
and Control (NCIPC) programs. The Subcommittee provides second-level 
scientific and programmatic review for applications for research 
grants, cooperative agreements, and training grants related to injury 
control and violence prevention, and recommends approval of projects 
that merit further consideration for funding support. The Subcommittee 
also advises on priorities for research to be supported by contracts, 
grants, and cooperative agreements and provides concept review of 
program proposals and announcements.
    Matters to be Discussed: The subcommittee will meet to review, 
discuss, and evaluate program review documents.
    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This conference call is scheduled to begin 
at 1 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. To participates in the teleconference, 
please dial 1-877-951-7375, Pass Code 603636. You will then be 
automatically connected to the call.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Louise Galaska, Executive 
Secretary, ACIPC, NCIPC, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, NE., M/S K02, 
Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3724, telephone 770/488-4694.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to 
announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, 
for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dated: October 12, 2005.
Alvin Hall,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 05-20685 Filed 10-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
----

**Exhibit        31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

| 1. | I                  have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form                  10-K/A of                  ViewSonic Corporation; |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based                  on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement                  of a                  material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make                  the                  statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such                  statements                  were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by                  this                  report; |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                    April 30, 2007 |                                                                                                    |   |
|-----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                    | /s/                    James Chu                                                                        |   |
|                                    | James                    Chu                                                                            |   |
|                                    | *Chairman                    of the Board of Directors**and                    Chief Executive Officer* |   |

----
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

December 10, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00769

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.G.R. , et al children,

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas Trial Court No. 14

- 09

- 0581

- CVW Honorable Melissa Uram

- Degerolami, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant seeks to appeal from a final order terminating h er parental rights. An appeal from such an order is accelerated. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 263.40 5. The trial court signed the final order of termination on October 8, 2015 . Because this is an accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal was due on October 28, 2015

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1(b) (requiring notice of appeal to be filed within twenty days after the judgment is signed in an accelerated appeal ) ; see also T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 263.405(c) ( filing of a motion for new trial does not extend the appellate deadline )

. A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was therefore due

on November 14 , 2015

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3 (providing a fifteen

- day grace period after the deadline for filing notice of appeal) . Appellant filed h er notice of appeal on November 11, 2015

, within the fifteen

- day grace period allowed for filing a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal; however, no motion for extension was filed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3

. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fif teen

- day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing predecessor to Rule 26)

. However, the appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for f a iling to file the notice of appeal in a timely

manner. See id. ; T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C).

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant file, within ten (10) days from the date of this order, a response presenting a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c).All appellate deadlines in this matter are suspended until further order of this court.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 10th day of December, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
#### E. J. Gormley *v.*The State of Ohio.

Motion for leave to file a petition in error to reverse the judgment of tlie District Court of Shelby County.

*T. J. Sweeney,*for the motion.

*George W. Wash,*attorney-general, *contra.*

By the Court.

1. A plea of not guilty was entered on an indictment, and subsequently, leave was granted to withdraw the plea “for no other purpose ” than to enable the defendant to plead a former conviction. No order was made to strike the plea from the indictment, and the plea remained thereon. The plea of former conviction not having been sustained, the defendant was placed on trial without further plea, and convicted. *Held,*that such withdrawal of the former plea was not absolute, and when the plea of former conviction was disposed of, it was not error to try the case on such plea of not guilty.

2. A plea of former conviction which is insufficient in matter of substance, does not raise an issue for a jury, but may be adjudged insufficient on demurrer..

3. A conviction for keeping a place where intoxicating liquors are sold in violation of law between designated days in 1879, and a judgment that such place is a common nuisance, constitute no bar to an indictment for keeping such place between designated days in 1880, although the order under the first conviction, that the defendant should shut up and abate the nuisance, was not obeyed or enforced.

*Motion overruled.*
Exhibit 31.2 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Travis T. Jenson, Secretary, Treasurer and CFO of Autostrada Motors, Inc. (the "Registrant"), certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Quarterly Report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this Quarterly Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Quarterly Report; 

 

4. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Registrant and we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Quarterly Report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this Quarterly Report (the "Evaluation Date"), and presented in this Quarterly Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures; and 

 

c) disclosed in this Quarterly Report any change in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter, that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; 

 

5. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function); 

 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

| *Date:*** | *08/04/06*** | * * | *By:***  | */s/Travis T. Jenson***                            |
|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|----------------------------------------------------|
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | *Travis T. Jenson, Secretary, Treasurer and CFO*** |
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Air Force

# AGENCY:

Department of the Air Force, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of the forthcoming meeting of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. The purpose of the meeting is to present and discuss the findings of the 2004 Science and Technology Quality Review of Air Force Research Laboratory programs. Because classified and contractor-proprietary information will be discussed, this meeting will be closed to the public.

# DATES:

February 24, 2005.

# ADDRESSES:

1670 Air Force Pentagon, Room 4E936, Washington, DC 20330-1670.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Major Kyle Gresham, Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Secretariat, 1180 Air Force Pentagon, Rm 5D982, Washington, DC 20330-1180, (703) 697-4808.

Albert Bodnar,

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 05-2049 Filed 2-2-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-05-P
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU LY 20, 2017

NO. 03

- 17

- 00294

- CV

C. O., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 421ST DISTRICT COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBERTON, AND GOODWIN

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment sig ned by the tr i a l court on April 25, 2017. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the trial court’s judgment . Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. Because

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.