alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v. E. R. JONES.

(Filed 20 December, 1940.)

1. Criminal Daw §§ 56, 781b—

A motion in arrest of judgment for insufficiency of the indictment may be made in the Supreme Court on appeal, and it is not necessary that the question be presented by exception taken in the trial court. Rule of Practice in the Supreme Court, No. 21.

*7352. Criminal Law § 56: Gaming § 3—

An indictment charging possession of gambling devices, but failing to charge that defendant operated the devices or had them in his possession for the purpose of being operated, is fatally defective, C. S., 4437 (b), and defendant’s motion in arrest of judgment will be allowed..

Appeal by defendant from *Harris, J.,*at March Term, 1940, of Dubham.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the State.*

*James B. Patton, Jr., for defendant, appellant.*

ScheNCK, J.

Although no motion to arrest judgment was lodged below, and therefore no exception addressed to such motion appears in the record, the defendant by virtue of the exception to the general rule laid down in Rule 21, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 213 N. C., 821, lodges motion in this Court in arrest for the insufficiency of the indictment. "We are constrained to hold that the motion is well founded and should be allowed.

The pertinent portion of the statute under which the defendant was tried, C. S., 4437 (b), reads: “It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to operate or keep in his possession, or the possession of any other person, firm or corporation, for the purpose of being operated, any punchboard, machine for vending merchandise, or other gambling device, by whatsoever name known or called, . . .”

The affidavit upon which is based the warrant upon which the defendant was tried charges that the defendant and others “did willfully, maliciously and unlawfully have in their possession certain gambling devices known as tip boards or baseball pool, against the statute, etc.” There is no charge that the defendant operated the gambling devices, or that he kept such devices in his own or the possession of other persons for the purpose of being operated. The omission of such charge was a fatal defect in the indictment, since an essential element of the offense created by the statute is the operation of the gambling device or the keeping in possession of such device for the purpose of being operated, the mere having in possession of gambling devices, and nothing more, is not made a criminal offense. Where an indictment fails to charge an essential element of the offense, the defect may be taken advantage of by a motion in arrest of judgment, *S. v. Bradley,*210 N. C., 290, and cases there cited, and such motion may be lodged in the Supreme Court. *S. v. Julian,*214 N. C., 574.

Judgment arrested.
LaSalle Bank N.A.135 South LaSalle StreetSuite 1625Chicago, IL 60603Global
      Securities and Trust Services








Annual Statement of
Compliance








VIA:
EMAIL






Bear Stearns Asset Backed
Securities I LLC


383 Madison Avenue


New York, New York 10179


regabnotifications@bear.com




EMC Mortgage
Corporation


2780 Lake Vista Drive


Irving, Texas 75067




Re:       Bear Stearns Asset Backed
Securities I Trust 2007-FS1




Reference is made to the Pooling
and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2007 (the “Agreement”), among
Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC, as Depositor, EMC Mortgage
Corporation, as Seller and Master Servicer, and LaSalle Bank National
Association, as Trustee.




I, Barbara L. Marik,
a Senior Vice President of LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee hereby
certify that:




(1) A review of
the activities of the Trustee during the preceding calendar year and of the
performance of the Trustee under the Agreement has been made under my
supervision; and




(2) To the best of
my knowledge, based on such review, the Trustee has fulfilled all its
obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such year or
a portion thereof.






Date: February 27, 2008




LaSalle Bank National Association,
as Trustee






/s/ Barbara L. Marik


Barbara L. Marik


Senior Vice President
## THEA~~~OFCNEYGENEFCAL OFTEXAS Gerald C. Mann A-RN- e-L Hon. C. H. Robinson, D.S.C., Secretary Texas State Board of Chiropody Examiners Fair Building Fort Worth, Texas Dear Sir: OpinionNo. O-2676 Re: May Article 778a of the Penal Code bemade the basis for a criminalprosecution? We have,receivedyour letter of recent date requesting the opinion of this departmentupon the above statedquestion. Your letter reads, in part, as follows:

"The Texas State Board of ChiropodyExaminers.~has

had brought to its attention an instancewhere a licentiate of the said boardpractioes chiropody in thPs State, under a name

- other than his own proper name, which appears

upon h s license certificate,as issued by the State 3oard of ChiropodyExaminers.

” * * * I’~ n1*** t

.

_ "The question is: In your opinion isAr

### ticle778-a,a part.of.~t~cle 778, by Article 778-a, being.added thereto? Or is Article 778-a, a new Ar%icle without a penalty provisionas contained in Article 7787 In short, oould the said Board prosecute under Artiole778-a? * * * 11

,Ic. May we restate your-question to read: "May Article 778a of the Penal Code be made the basis for a oriminalprosecution?H Article 778a of the Penal Code reads: "Art. '7'78a.

NAME DNDER lWHICRONEMAY PRACTICE CHIROPODY It shall be unlawful for any person orpersons to practice chiropody in this State under the name ofa corporation, company, association, joint stock company or partnership, or trade name, or under any name other than his own proper name,whioh shall be the name in his license, as issued by the State Board of ChiropodyExam: iners. Eaoh day of violation of the Article shall constitute a separate offense."Hon. G. H. noblnson, lJ.a.Li., oeoraLtar.y,

rag= 1.
Artiole 778 of the Penal Code, as amended by the Forty-sixth Legislature,provides for a penalty of a fine of not less than $100.00 noremore than $500.00, or
- by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 30

days nor more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonmentfor certain specifiedviolations set forth in said Article.

Artiole 778a, supra,was enaoted bE the FortysixthLegislature as a new Artiole amending hapter Title 12 of the Penal Code. 11, The mere fact that the Legislature includedArtiole 778a in the sameAct which amended Article 778 does not make Article 778a a part of said amendedArtiole 778.

No penalty is provided in Article 778a for violation of the provisions~of saidArticle and there is no generalpenalty statute contained in fihapter 11, Title 12 of the Penal Code. The'refore,in view of the fact that there is no penalty provided for a violation of Article 778a, it is the opinion of this Department that saidArticle may-not be made the basisf.ora criminal prosecution.

Trusting that the above satisfactorilydisposes of your inquiry,we remain Yours very truly ATTORNEYGENRRAL OF TEXAS By /s/~D. Burle Daviss D. Burle Daviss

. Assistant APPROVED SEPT. 4, 1940 /s/Gerald C.Mann ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS DBD:ob:jrb APPROVED OPINION COMMITTEE BY BWB, Chairman
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 11161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4970]



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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Declaration of Disaster Loan Area #2760; California

    The above-numbered Declaration is hereby amended, effective 
February 21, 1995, to include El Dorado, Madera, and Solano Counties in 
the State of California as a disaster area due to damages resulting 
from winter storms causing flooding, landslides, mud and debris flows 
beginning on January 3, 1995, and continuing.
    In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small 
businesses located in the contiguous counties of Mariposa, Mono, and 
Tuolumne in the State of California, and Douglas County in the State of 
Nevada may be filed until the specified date at the previously 
designated location.
    All other information remains the same, i.e., the termination date 
for filing applications for physical damage is March 13, 1995, and for 
economic injury the deadline is October 10, 1995.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008.)

    Dated: February 23, 1995.
Bernard Kulik,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-4970 Filed 2-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

SEAN GOODMAN, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-3674

)

KIMBERLY GOODMAN, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed September 16, 2020.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee 

County; John S. Carlin, Judge.

Alan J. Rubinstein of Rubinstein & Holz, 

P.A., Fort Myers (withdrew after briefing); 

W. Gus Belcher, II, The Belcher Law 

Firm, P.A., Fort Myers, (substituted as 

counsel of record) for Appellant. 

Kimberly Goodman, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

VILLANTI, SLEET, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
##### 



1.
    
    the Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Exchange Act; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
material respect, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: February 21, 2006
    By:
    /s/ Stephen NagelPresident and Chief Financial Officer




---



##### 



3.
    
    the Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Exchange Act; and4.
    
    the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
material respect, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: February 21, 2006
    By:
    /s/ Stephen NagelStephen NagelChief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 E Com Ventures, Inc. (the Company) of Form 10-K for the year
ended February 2, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donovan Chin, 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; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



By:

/s/ Donovan ChinDonovan ChinChief Financial OfficerJune 5, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 8349]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3655]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Fossil Energy
[FE Docket No. 95-06-NG]


ANR Pipeline Co.; Order Granting Blanket Authorization To Import 
Natural Gas From Canada

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of order.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Office of Fossil Energy of the Department of Energy gives 
notice that it has issued an order granting ANR Pipeline Company 
blanket authorization to import up to 350 Bcf of natural gas from 
Canada over a period of two years beginning on the date of first 
delivery after January 31, 1995. This order is available for inspection 
and copying in the Office of Fuels Programs Docket Room, Room 3F-056, 
Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, 
(202) 586-9478. The docket room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. 
and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued in Washington, DC on January 30, 1995.
Clifford P. Tomaszewski,
Director, Office of Natural Gas, Office of Fuels Programs, Office of 
Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 95-3655 Filed 2-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
**EXHIBIT 21**

 

| **Significant Subsidiaries****** |   | **State of Incorporation****** |  **** |   |  **** |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------|------------|--------|------------|--------|
| USF Bestway Inc.                 |   | Arizona                        |       |
| USF Dugan Inc.                   |   | Kansas                         |       |
| USF Holland Inc.                 |   | Michigan                       |       |
| USF Red Star Inc.                |   | New York                       |       |
| USF Reddaway Inc.                |   | Oregon                         |       |
| USF Logistics Services Inc.      |   | Delaware                       |       |
| USF Distribution Services Inc.   |   | Illinois                       |       |
| USF Processors Inc.              |   | Texas                          |       |
| USF Glen Moore Inc.              |   | Pennsylvania                   |       |
#### A. L. BERRIER v. ROY M. HILTON, Admr. of M. M. MURPHY and PEARL M. BERRIER v. ROY M. HILTON, Admr. of M. M. MURPHY.

(Filed 2 November, 1960.)

Appeal by defendants from *Johnston, J.,*at June 1960 Civil Term, of DAVIDSON.

Civil action instituted by plaintiffs against defendants to recover for certain personal services alleged to have been performed by them for the benefit of M. M. Murphy, *non compos mentis,*under guardianship, the defendant’s intestate.

The cases were consolidated for trial, and submitted to and answered by the jury upon these two issues: “What amount, if any, is the plaintiff A. L. Berrier entitled to recover of the defendant? Answer: $3,500.

“What amount, if any, is the plaintiff Pearl Berrier entitled to recover of the defendant? Answer: $11,000.”

To judgments entered in favor of the respective plaintiffs in accordance therewith the defendant in each case excepted and appeals to Supreme Court, and assigns error.

*Walser & Brinkley for plaintiff appellees.*

*Wilson <& Saintsing for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

Careful consideration of the record of the case on *291appeal here under review fails to disclose error for which the judgments entered in Superior Court should be disturbed. Hence in the said judgments there is

No error.
#### STATE v. LUCIAN THOMAS and THOMAS COLE, JR.

(Filed 19 March, 1947.)

Appeal by defendants from *Burney, J.,*at October Term, 1946, of Lee.

Criminal prosecutions upon separate bills of indictment charging each defendant (1) with tbe larceny of $850.00 in cash, tbe property of one John C. Edwards, and (2) with feloniously receiving said sum of money, well knowing it to have been feloniously stolen, taken and carried away, —both contrary to tbe form of tbe statute, etc., consolidated for tbe purpose of trial.

Verdict: As to each defendant: “Guilty of larceny and recommend tbe mercy of tbe court.”

Judgment: As to each defendant: Confinement in tbe State’s Prison for not less than three years nor more than five years, — “tbe money in evidence to be returned to J. C. Edwards.”

Defendants respectively appeal to Supreme Court and assign error.

*Attorney-General McMullan and- Assistant Atiorneys-General Bruton, Rhodes, and Moody for the State.*

*D. E. Mclver, Jeff 'D. Johnson, Jr., and Gavin, Jackson & Gavin for defendants, appellants.*

Winborne, J.

By means of numerous exceptions directed to tbe admission of evidence in certain instances, to tbe rejection of evidence in others, to tbe refusal to grant motions for judgment as of nonsuit, to various portions of tbe charge as given by tbe court, and to tbe failure *250of the court to charge as required by law, the defendants painstakingly direct an extensive and exhaustive search for error. However, after scanning every part of the record of the trial to which the exceptions relate, we are unable to find any prejudicial error. There is evidence, both direct and circumstantial, tending to support the charge of larceny and to connect the defendants with it, either as principals or as aiders and abettors. The case appears to have been tried and presented to the jury in substantial accord with well settled principles of law. And it does not appear that any request was made for more elaborate instruction. Hence, a discussion of the exceptions *seriatim*would serve no useful purpose.

In the judgment below, we find

No error.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Bank of America, N.A., as Trustee 

for Cross Timbers Royalty Trust: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration StatementNo. 33-55784 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-91460 on Form S-8 of XTO Energy Inc. of our report dated February 22, 2010, with respect to the statements of assets, liabilities, and trust corpus of the Cross TimbersRoyalty Trust as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related statements of distributable income and changes in trust corpus for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009, and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, which report appears in the December 31, 2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Cross Timbers Royalty Trust. 

 

KPMG LLP 

 

Fort Worth, Texas 

February 22, 2010
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-18-0000900

13-AUG-2019

08:52 AM
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 75th 

Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

-2.00% -4.34% 0.49% 0.61% -1.51% -3.73%

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

Proposed Provision: Apply 4 percent payroll tax rate on earnings over $200,000 in 2017, with the 

$200,000 threshold wage-indexed after 2017. Give no benefit credit for additional earnings in AIME for 

benefit computation.

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this provision

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Cost rates with this provision

Income rates under present law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under present law

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Present law With this provision

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2009 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security

May 14, 2010

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Cost rates with this provision

Income rates under present law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under present law

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Present law With this provision
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual Balance 

in 75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

-2.00% -4.34% 0.87% 2.51% -1.13% -1.83%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2009 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security

August 26, 2009

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA)

Proposed Provision: Progressive price indexing of PIA formula factors beginning with individuals newly 

eligible for OASDI benefits in 2016. Create new bend point at the 50th percentile of earners. Maintain 

current-law benefits for earners at the 50th percentile and below and reduce upper 2 formula factors 

(32% and 15%) such that maximum worker benefit grows by inflation rather than the growth in average 

wages.

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this provision

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Year

Percent

Cost rates with this provision

Cost rates under present law

Income rates with this provision

Income rates under present law

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

 (assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Year

Percent

Present law With this provision
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.4

                                      NOTE


                                                               Mountain View, CA
                                                               February 5, 1999

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Thomas Lounibos, promises to pay to Sagent Technology,
Inc., a California corporation (the "Company"), the principal sum of Three
Thousand Four Hundred Forty Two dollars and Ninety Five cents ($3,442.95),
together with interest on the unpaid principal hereof from the date hereof at
the rate of percent (4.66%) per annum, compounded semiannually.

     Principal and interest shall be due and payable on January 28, 2002.
Payment of principal and interest shall be made in lawful money of the United
States of America.

     The undersigned may at any time prepay all or any portion of the principal
or interest owing hereunder.

     This Note is subject to the terms of the Option, dated as of March 6, 1996.
This Note is secured in part by a pledge of the Company's Common Stock under the
terms of a Security Agreement of even date herewith and is subject to all the
provisions thereof.

     The holder of this Note shall have full recourse against the undersigned,
and shall not be required to proceed against the collateral securing this Note
in the event of default.

     In the event the undersigned shall cease to be an employee, director or
consultant of the Company for any reason, this Note shall, at the option of the
Company, be accelerated, and the whole unpaid balance on this Note of principal
and accrued interest shall be immediately due and payable.

     Should any action be instituted for the collection of this Note, the
reasonable costs and attorneys' fees therein of the holder shall be paid by the
undersigned.


                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Signature

                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Thomas Lounibos
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

FIREWORKS LADY & CO LLC,

Appellant

,

v.

DARRYL DAYE

, Appellee

.

No. 4D2023

- 3153

[ July 3, 2024 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; John B. Bowman , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE20011064

.

Richard W

. Ervin, I V

, of Bleakley Bavol Denman & Grace, P.A., Tampa,

for appellant.

No appearance for appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN

, L EVINE and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.