alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Randolph Jones v. State.

No. 25177.

February 28, 1951.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for the daytime burglary of a private residence with intent to commit the crime of theft, the punishment assessed being two years in the penitentiary.

The injured party is the uncle of the appellant. The building alleged to have been burglarized was his home, situated across the street from his place of business. The entry was made about *482nine o’clock, a. na. A small box containing approximately $50 was taken.

Upon direct examination, the injured party testified that appellant did not have “permission to go in my home and get my money.” Upon cross-examination, however, and when the witness was interrogated directly as to whether the appellant had his consent to enter the house, he testified, “He had the right to go in my house when he wanted to.”

It is apparent, therefore, that the appellant had the consent of the injured party to enter the alleged burglarized house, thereby precluding the crime of burglary to commit theft, as here charged. Bird v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 96, 90 S. W. 651; Miller v. State. 136 Tex. Cr. R. 345, 125 S. W. 2d 596; Shaffer v. State, 137 Tex. Cr. R. 476, 132 S. W. 2d 263.

Under the facts here presented, appellant may be guilty of theft but he is not shown to be guilty of burglary, as charged.

The facts being insufficient to support the conviction, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the court.
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50299

Summary Calendar

__________________

GLYNDA S. COYLE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE, 

Department of the Air Force,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas

(CA-SA-94-376)

______________________________________________

May 21, 1996

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Glynda S. Coyle, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

(IFP), filed a gender discrimination suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

2000e et seq., against the Air Force in connection with her civil

service employment. The magistrate judge conducted a bench trial

and determined that Coyle failed to show any discriminatory or

retaliatory acts. Coyle then moved for a transcript at government
2

expense. The district court found that she failed to present a

substantial question for review and therefore denied the motion. 

On appeal, this Court revoked her IFP status and denied her

request for a transcript at government expense, concluding that her

financial affidavit reflected that she had the resources to afford

the costs of her appeal without undue hardship.

Coyle argues that the magistrate judge's factual findings are

clearly erroneous. However, Coyle has not provided this Court with

a transcript of the trial in accordance with Rule 10(b)(2) of the

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Consequently, we are unable

to determine whether the findings are clearly erroneous. See

Marshall v. Neptune Maritime, Inc., 838 F.2d 737, 739 (5th Cir.

1987); Archie v. Christian, 812 F.2d 250, 252 (5th Cir. 1987).

Additionally, to support her argument that the magistrate judge

erred, she refers to her trial notes, which she has included in the

record excerpts. Those notes are not contained in the record on

appeal, and therefore, we are barred from considering them. Galvin

v. Occupational Safety & Health Administration, 860 F.2d 181, 185

(5th Cir. 1988).

Coyle also argues that certain Equal Employment Opportunity

(EEO) or military regulations were violated. In his memorandum,

the magistrate judge stated that Coyle failed to identify the

specific regulations. Moreover, the violations alleged would not

establish that the magistrate judge clearly erred in concluding

that there was "nothing to indicate that any actions taken were

motivated by any discriminatory intent or in retaliation for

plaintiff's EEO activity." 
3

Accordingly, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 20, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 49229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19235]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11264 and <greek-i>11265; IOWA 
Disaster Number IA-00015

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 11.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of IOWA (FEMA-1763-DR), dated 05/27/2008.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 05/25/2008 and continuing.

DATES: Effective Date: 08/12/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 09/29/2008.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 02/27/2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: M. Mitravich, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the Presidential disaster 
declaration for the State of IOWA, dated 05/27/2008, is hereby amended 
to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:

Primary Counties: (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Audubon, 
Winnebago, Adair Cass, Grundy, Guthrie Henry.
Contiguous Counties: (Economic Injury Loans Only): All other 
information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008).

James E. Rivera,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster, Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-19235 Filed 8-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
EX-4.43



 Exhibit 4.43 

SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT 

TO THE ZT ONLINE 2 PLATFORM SOFTWARE DISTRIBUTION AND LICENSE AGREEMENT 

This Supplementary Agreement to the ZT Online 2 Platform Software Distribution and License Agreement (“Supplementary Agreement”) is made and
entered into on June 25, 2013 (“Effective date”) in Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China, by and between: 
 Party
A: Shanghai Jujia Network Technology Co., Ltd. 
 Address: 11FL, Building No.3, No.700 Yishan Road, Shanghai, PRC 

Party B: Shanghai Giant Network Technology Co., Ltd. 

Address: 11FL, Building No.3, No.700 Yishan Road, Shanghai, PRC 
  

	1.	WHEREAS, Party A and Party B entered into the ZT Online 2 Platform Software Distribution and License Agreement (the “Original Agreement”) on August 25, 2011 (Party A’s Number of
Agreement is HT0911120001). According to Article 26 of the Original Agreement, the term of the Agreement is two years from the date of execution. 


Since both parties are satisfied with their cooperation, and want to extend the term of the cooperation, therefore, the Parties reach the
following supplementary agreement 
  

	2.	Term 

 Both Parties agree to modify Article 26 of the Original Agreement as follows “this
Agreement shall keep being effective until December 31, 2015” 
  

	3.	All the other content in the Original Agreement shall remain untouched. 

  

	4.	This Supplementary Agreement shall supersede the Original Agreement with respect to the subject matter. In all the rest that is not provided by this Supplementary Agreement the Parties shall be governed by the Original
Agreement. 

  

	5.	This Supplementary Agreement is prepared in four counterparts; either party shall have two counterparts with the same legal effect. 

  


	6.	This Supplementary Agreement shall become effective immediately upon sealed by the Parties as of the date first wrote above. 

  

			
	 Party A: Shanghai Jujia Network

Technology Co., Ltd.
	  	 Party B: Shanghai Giant Network

Technology Co., Ltd.
#### FLOYD F. BANKSTON v. ANDREW ENTRAVIA.

No. 2104.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

April 10, 1940.

Reid & Reid, of Hammond, for appellant.

Rownd & Tycer, of Hammond, and H. W. & H. M. Robinson, of New Orleans, for appellee.

LeBLANC, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the opinion this day handed down' in the case of Elmer Pier v. Andrew Entravia, La.App., 195 So. 124, it is ordered that the judgment be amended by reducing the amount of the award from the sum of $1,031 to the sum of $781, and that as thus amended it be affirmed. Appellant to pay all costs.
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                        -------------------------------



The Board of Directors
Sonic Solutions

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-66187) on Form S-8 of Sonic Solutions of our report dated April 26, 1999,
except as to note 11 which is as of May 29, 1999 relating to the balance sheets
of Sonic Solutions as of March 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related statements of
operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended March 31, 1999, and the related financial statement
schedule, which report appears or is incorporated by reference in the March 31,
1999, annual report on Form 10-K of Sonic Solutions.


                                          /s/ KPMG LLP

San Francisco, Califonria
June 28, 1999
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.9a

(PLAZA REALTY & MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. LOGO)

THE HAMMONS TOWER
901 St. Louis Street, Suite 106
Springfield, Missouri 65806
(417)864-4544
Fax (417)864-4596

December 8, 2004

Mr. John Q. Hammons
John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc.
300 John Q. Hammons Parkway, Suite #900
Springfield, MO 65806

RE: LEASE RENEWAL - SUITE 800, JOHN Q. HAMMONS BUILDING

Dear Mr. Hammons,

Please allow this letter to serve as the Lessor's proposal to extend your Lease
Agreement relating to your Leased Premises within the John Q. Hammons Building,
Springfield, Missouri.

As of January 1, 2005, the Lessor will extend your Lease for an additional one
(1) year period under the same terms and conditions as outlined in your Lease
dated December 16, 1998 and renewal dated December 18, 2001 with exception to
base rental which shall be increased to $8,100.00 per month. We will also adjust
your base year as it relates to increased building costs to the actual cost for
2004.

Should this meet with your approval, please sign all three (3) copies of this
letter and return them to my attention. Upon receiving the Lessor's approval and
signature, I will return one (1) fully executed copy for your files.

Sincerely,

PLAZA REALTY & MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.


/s/ Mark Harrell
------------------------
Mark Harrell
President


LESSOR:
ACCEPTED BY: /s/ John Q. Hammons             DATE: 12-13-04
             -----------------------------
                 Mr. John Q. Hammons


LESSEE:
ACCEPTED BY: /s/ John Q. Hammons             DATE: 12-13-04
             -----------------------------
                 Mr. John Q. Hammons
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-60542

Summary Calendar

GEORGE GAKIO MUCHANGA,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A078 999 466

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner George Gakio Muchanga asks us to review the denial of his

motion to reopen following the discretionary denial of his application for

adjustment of status brought under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). Pursuant to

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), no court has jurisdiction to review discretionary denials of

relief, including decisions denying motions for adjustment of status under 

§ 1255(a). See Hadwani v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 798, 800 (5th Cir. 2006) (invoking

jurisdictional bar where adjustment of status was denied as a matter of

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 21, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-60542 Document: 00512248825 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/21/2013
No. 12-60542

discretion after the petitioner failed to disclose prior arrest). Further, “where a

final order of removal is shielded from judicial review by a provision of

§ 1252(a)(2), so, too, is [the] refusal to reopen that order.” Assaad v. Ashcroft,

378 F.3d 471, 474 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted). 

Section 1252(a)’s jurisdiction-stripping provisions are not absolute. 

Gutierrez-Morales v. Homan, 461 F.3d 605, 609 (5th Cir. 2006). We retain

jurisdiction to review “constitutional claims or questions oflaw.” § 1252(a)(2)(D);

see, e.g., Bokhari v. Holder, 622 F.3d 357, 359 (5th Cir. 2010), (reviewing

determination that petitioner’s untimely application made him statutorily

ineligible for adjustment of status). Muchanga does not contend that the denial

of adjustment presents a question of law. Although he purports to raise a claim

of the denial of due process, Muchanga’s argument is merely a restatement of his

claim that the denial of his motion to reopen was an abuse of discretion. 

Accordingly, we reject this “abuse of discretion claim cloaked in constitutional

garb.” Hadwani, 445 F.3d at 801 (internal quotation marks, citation, and

alteration omitted). We also reject Muchanga’s assertion that § 1252 does not

apply, as he relies on former legislation that is not applicable to his case. See

Santos v. Reno, 228 F.3d 591, 595 (5th Cir. 2000). We also lack jurisdiction to

consider Muchanga’s claim that his removal will result in extreme hardship to

his United States citizen child because Muchanga failed to raise this issue in his

appeal to the BIA. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir. 2009). The

petition for review is DISMISSED. 

2

 Case: 12-60542 Document: 00512248825 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/21/2013
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 164 (Friday, August 22, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49610-49611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19531]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2008-0769]


Oregon Symphony Celebration Fireworks Display, Portland, OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the ``Oregon Symphony Celebration 
Fireworks Display safety zone on the Willamette River''; from 8:30 p.m. 
through 11:30 p.m. on August 28, 2008. This action is necessary to 
provide a safe display for the public and to keep them clear of the 
fall out area of the fireworks. During the enforcement period, no 
person or vessel may enter the safety zone without permission of the 
Captain of the Port Portland or his designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1315(a)(7) will be enforced from 
8:30 p.m. through 11:30 p.m. on August 28, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: BM2 Joshua Lehner, Sector Portland 
Waterways Management at (503) 247-4015.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone 
for the Oregon Symphony Celebration Fireworks Display in 33 CFR 
165.1315(a)(7) on August 28, 2008 from 8:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m.

[[Page 49611]]

    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1315, a vessel may not enter the 
regulated area, unless it receives permission from the Captain of the 
Port (COTP) or his designated representative. The Coast Guard may be 
assisted by other Federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies in 
enforcing this regulation.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1315 and 5 
U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the 
Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance 
notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to 
Mariners and a marine information broadcast. If the COTP determines 
that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration 
stated in this notice, he may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to 
grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: August 13, 2008.
F.G. Myer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Portland.
 [FR Doc. E8-19531 Filed 8-21-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 21, 2021

b0414 

# Order

Clerk April 21, 2021

162249

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 162249

COA: 353958

Oakland CC: 1999

- 166149

- FC

JOHNNY LEROY STANLEY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 11, 2020 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because w e are not persuaded

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Opinion issued August 20 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 14 - 00731 - CV

——————————— DEBORAH HUNT , Appella nt

V. DEME SN E REALTY , Appell e e On Appeal from the County Court at Law No . 4

Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 14 - CCV - 053294
MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Deborah Hunt , has failed to timely file a brief. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 38.6(a) (governing time to file brief), 38.8(a) (governing failure of appellant to file brief). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary2

dismissal of case). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to timely fi le a brief. We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Lloyd
.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 747

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the deduction

of partnership investment expenses under the minimum tax.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 30, 1995

Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. HOUGHTON, Mr. CRANE, Mr. MATSUI, Mr.

SHAW, and Mr. HERGER) 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 provide

for the deduction of partnership investment expenses

under the minimum tax.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF PARTNERSHIP INVESTMENT

4 EXPENSES UNDER MINIMUM TAX.

5 (a) GENERAL RULE.—Subparagraph (A) of section

6 56(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating

7 to limitation on deductions) is amended to read as follows:

8 ‘‘(A) DISALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN DEDUC9 TIONS.—
2

•HR 747 IH

1 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—No deduction shall

2 be allowed—

3 ‘‘(I) for any miscellaneous item4 ized deduction (as defined in section

5 67(b)), or

6 ‘‘(II) for any taxes described in

7 paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section

8 164(a).

9 ‘‘(ii) TREATMENT OF PARTNERSHIP

10 INVESTMENT EXPENSES.—Subclause (I) of

11 clause (i) shall not apply to the taxpayer’s

12 distributive share of the expenses described

13 in section 212 of any partnership; except

14 that the aggregate amount allowed as a de15 duction by reason of this sentence shall not

16 exceed the lesser of (I) the aggregate ad17 justed investment income of the taxpayer

18 from partnerships, or (II) the excess of the

19 aggregate of the taxpayer’s distributive

20 shares of such expenses over 2 percent of

21 adjusted gross income. For purposes of the

22 preceding sentence, the term ‘adjusted in23 vestment income’ means investment income

24 (as defined in section 163(d)(4)(B) without

25 regard to clause (ii)(II) or clause (iii)) re-
3

•HR 747 IH

1 duced by investment interest (as defined in

2 section 163(d)(3)).

3 ‘‘(iii) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN

4 TAXES.—Subclause (II) of clause (i) shall

5 not apply to any amount allowable in com6 puting adjusted gross income.’’

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

8 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after

9 December 31, 1994.

Æ
ingr_Ex10_19



		

			 

		





		
			Exhibit 10.19
		

		
			Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation
		

		
			 
		

		
			The following summary describes the individual components of the non-employee director compensation of Ingredion Incorporated (the "Company")  in 2020. Effective January 1, 2020, each non-employee director is entitled to an annual retainer of $230,000 (increased from $220,000 in 2019), which is comprised of (i) an annual cash retainer of $100,000 and (ii) an annual equity retainer of $130,000 in Company common stock (increased from $120,000 in 2019) issued under the Company's Stock Incentive Plan.
		

		
			In addition, the Company's Chairman of the Board receives an additional annual retainer of $140,000 (unchanged from 2019), which is comprised of 50% cash and 50% common stock issued under the Company's Stock Incentive Plan. The chair of the Audit Committee receives an additional annual retainer of $25,000 (increased from $20,000 in 2019), which is comprised of 50% cash and 50% common stock issued under the Company's Stock Incentive Plan. The chair of the Compensation Committee receives an additional annual retainer of $20,000 (increased from $15,000 in 2019), which is comprised of 50% cash and 50% common stock issued under the Company's Stock Incentive Plan. The chair of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee receives an additional annual retainer of $15,000 (increased from $10,000 in 2019), which is comprised of 50% cash and 50% common stock issued under the Company's Stock Incentive Plan.
		

		
			Each of the foregoing retainers is payable in quarterly installments on the first day of each calendar quarter during 2020.
		

		
			Under the Company's Deferred Compensation Plan for Outside Directors, an unfunded, nonqualified deferred compensation plan, non-employee directors are entitled to defer all or a portion of their cash and common stock compensation into restricted stock units issued under the Company’s Stock Incentive Plan.  If a deferral is elected by a non-employee director, settlement of the restricted stock units is deferred until at least six months and no more than ten years and six months after the director's termination of service from the Board of Directors, at which time the restricted stock units will be settled in one or more installments by delivering shares of common stock, with fractional shares to be paid in cash.