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

No. 25223.

March 28, 1951.

*Reynold M. Gardner,*Amarillo, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of burglary and given a term of eight years in the state penitentiary.

The testimony shows a breaking of the store of A. F. Smith in Amarillo, the entry being made through a window, and a sum of money taken therefrom out of a cash box and cash register. Sometime later, a sack containing money, identified as being similar to the lost money, as well as the wrappings thereon being similar to the ones lost by Mr. Smith, were located hidden by a post on the roadside in the suburbs of Amarillo. A peace officer, having been notified thereof, found this sack of money. He emptied the money and filled the sack with rocks and then replaced it. Soon thereafter, the appellant and a woman companion drove up in her car. He went to the point where the sack was concealed and picked it up. Finding that the same was filled with rocks, he discarded it. Both occupants of the car were soon thereafter arrested. The woman with the appellant was his ex-wife and the mother of his child, and both were taken to jail.

Appellant was desirous of having his ex-wife exonerated and discharged. He made one written statement relative to this burglary which was not introduced in evidence. However, the *576ex-wife was discharged. Eventually, the next day, he made a written statement to the sheriff which was introduced in evidence, the objections to which comprise practically all the bills of exception herein. The sheriff took this statement and reduced the same to writing and same was signed by appellant. In his oral testimony before the jury the sheriff merely stated:

> “Yes, I gave the warning; told him that he did not have to make any statement at all, and any statement he might make would be used against him.”

It will be noted that the sheriff did not go further and say “on his trial for the offense concerning which the confession is therein made.” However, it is noted that the written confession introduced in evidence did contain such omitted phrase, and it is also shown that appellant read such statement and signed the same.

We think the case of Oglesby v. State, 148 Tex. Cr. R. 393, 187 S.W. (2d) 555, to be in point, wherein it is held that a substantial compliance with Article 727, Vernon's Ann. C.C.P., will be sufficient, provided all elements of such statute are embraced in such warning.

It is evident that the sheriff was speaking from his recollection only of the warning given orally, but it is further shown by the statement itself that the proper statutory warning is found in the statement thus read and signed by the appellant. See DeBeauford v. State, 95 Tex. Cr. R. 398, 254 S.W. 572.

All the bills of exception relate to this statement and its admissibility and will be overruled.

No error appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.
#### Felicite Skiff Riddle, Respondent, v. Bernarr A. MacFadden, Appellant, Impleaded with Luther S. White.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report of Concord Communications, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John A.
Blaeser, President and Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge:

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

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

                                                     /s/ JOHN A. BLAESER
                                           -------------------------------------
                                                     John A. Blaeser
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer

March 16, 2005
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

ANTHONY R. RODRIGUE AND

CHELSEA BROOKS

VERSUS

THE GRAY INSURANCE COMPANY, 

WASTEWATER TREATMENT OF

LOUISIANA, INC., ASCENSION

WASTEWATER TREATMENT, INC., 

AND MICHAEL DEAN SWAN

NO. 2022 CW 0605

JULY 5, 2022

In Re: Michael Dean Swan, applying for supervisory writs, 23rd Judicial District Court, Parish of Ascension, No. 129993. 

BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., GUIDRY AND WOLFE, JJ. 

motion

WRIT DISMISSED. This writ is dismissed pursuant to the to dismiss filed by relator, Michael Dean Swan, that the parties stating have reached an agreement as to the issues pending before this court in the writ application and requesting that this court dismiss the writ application. 

VGW

JMG

EW

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CL RK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
Exhibit 32.1



Statement of Chief Executive Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Pacific Enterprises (the "Company") certifies that:



(i)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the "Quarterly Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii)

the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







November 2, 2006



/S/  Debra L. ReedDebra L. ReedChief Executive Officer
Document

AMENDMENT TO THE
AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




        This Amendment (“Amendment”) is entered into as of the 17th day of February 2020, by and between Home Bancorp, Inc. (the “Corporation”) and John W. Bordelon (the “Executive”).


WITNESSETH


        WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Executive previously entered into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated as of May 20, 2019 (the “Agreement”); and


        WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement in order to extend its term, as provided in Section 2(b) thereof.


        NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows:


         1. The last sentence in Section 2(a) of the Agreement is amended and restated to read as follows: “The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be and remain in effect during the period beginning on the Effective Date of this Agreement and ending on May 20, 2023, plus such extensions, if any, as are provided pursuant to Section 2(b) hereof (the “Employment Period”).”


         2. Except to the extent expressly amended hereby, the Agreement shall continue unmodified and shall remain in full force and effect.


        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed by the parties hereto as of the day and year first written above.


                     HOME BANCORP, INC.




             By:   /s/ Michael P. Maraist   
                     Michael P. Maraist
                     Chairman of the Board




                      EXECUTIVE




                       /s/ John W. Bordelon   
                      John W. Bordelon
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Rich Robins v. Austen Perry Clinkenbeard and Jonathon G.

Clinkenbeard aka Jon Clinkenbeard

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00059

- CV

Trial court case number: 1107951

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 3 of Harris County

Appellant, Rich Robins, has filed a second unopposed motion to extend time to file

a motion for rehearing and for en banc reconsideration. Appellant’s motion is timely and

complies with the rules

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.5 (b) , 49.8 ; see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.1, 49.7

. Accordingly, we grant appell ant ’s motion to extend time

. Appellant’s motion for rehearing

and/ or for en banc reconsideration , if any, is due no later than April 3, 2020

.

No further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: ___ March 24, 2020

___
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6183 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6183

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a credit 
against tax, or refund of tax, for certain Federal insurance taxes for 
      employees who are members of religious faiths which oppose 
                    participation in such insurance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 8, 2021

  Mr. Gibbs (for himself and Mr. Balderson) 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 a credit 
against tax, or refund of tax, for certain Federal insurance taxes for 
      employees who are members of religious faiths which oppose 
                    participation in such insurance.

    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 ``Religious Exemptions for Social 
Security and Healthcare Taxes Act''.

SEC. 2. CREDIT OR REFUND OF CERTAIN FEDERAL INSURANCE TAXES FOR MEMBERS 
              OF CERTAIN RELIGIOUS FAITHS.

    (a) In General.--Section 6413 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(e) Credit or Refunds of Certain Federal Insurance Taxes for 
Members of Certain Religious Faiths.--
            ``(1) In general.--An employee who receives wages with 
        respect to which the tax imposed by section 3101 is deducted 
        during a taxable year for which an authorization granted under 
        this subsection applies shall be entitled (subject to the 
        provisions of section 31(b)) to a credit or refund of the 
        amount of tax so deducted.
            ``(2) Authorization for credit or refund.--Any individual 
        may file an application for authorization under this subsection 
        if he is an individual described in the first sentence of 
        section 1402(g)(1). Rules similar to the rules of 1402(g)(1) 
        shall apply to the granting of such authorization and rules 
        similar to section 1402(g)(2) shall apply with respect to the 
        period for which such authorization is in effect.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply with respect to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-70034

BRENT RAY BREWER,

Petitioner-Appellee,

v.

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, 

Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Correctional Institutions Division,

Respondent-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This court reversed the district court’s judgment conditionally granting a

writ of habeas corpus. Brewer v. Dretke, 442 F.3d 273 (5th Cir. 2006) (reversing

Brewer v. Dretke, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14761 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2004)). The

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 27, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 04-70034

2

Supreme Court reversed. Brewer v. Quarterman, 127 S. Ct. 1706 (2007).

The state acknowledges that in light of the denial of the petition for writ

of certiorari in Nelson v. Quarterman, 472 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2006) (en banc),

cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 2974 (2007), this court should remand for re-entry of the

conditional grant of habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, this matter is

REMANDED so that the district court can re-enter its judgment to provide that

a writ shall issue, vacating the sentence and commuting it to life imprisonment

unless, within 180 days of the re-entry of judgment, the state grants a new sentencing hearing or commutes the sentence to life imprisonment.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

June 25, 2013

ERRATA

______________________ 

Appeal No. 2012-1042

COMMIL USA, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Decided: June 25, 2013

Precedential Opinion

______________________ 

The following changes have been made to the concurring-in-part, dissenting-in-part opinion filed by Circuit 

Judge O’MALLEY in the opinion released June 25, 2013:

Page 9, line 35, “We unanimously” is changed to 

“Judge Prost and I”.

Page 10, line 5, “the majority concludes” is changed to 

“Judges Prost and Newman conclude”.
Exhibit
        31: Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification
   Re:  Morgan
        Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL (the “ Trust ”)
 
 I,
        Valerie Kay, Vice President of Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. certify
        that:
  1.  I
        have
        reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to
        be
        filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the
        Trust
        (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
  2.  Based
        on
        my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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;
  3.  Based
        on
        my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required
        to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included
        in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
  4.  Based
        on
        my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report
        under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange
        Act
        periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the
        servicing agreements; and
  5.  All
        of
        the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
        securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance
        with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
        in
        this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act
        Rules
        13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except
        as
        otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
        described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
        10-K.
  In
        giving
        the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided
        to me
        by the following unaffiliated parties: HomEq
        Servicing, Wachovia Equity Servicing, LLC, successor by merger to HomEq
        Servicing Corporation and LaSalle Bank National Association.
 Date:  March
        30,
        2007
  /s/
        Valerie Kay
 By:
        Valerie Kay
 Title:
        Vice President
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6035
DEXTER DRAKE COFFIN, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus L.H. BREZEE; EUNICE BELVIN; A. D. MATHEWS, Sheriff; EMSA CORRECTIONAL CARE, Defendants - Appellees, and
UNKNOWN OR IDENTIFIED MEDICAL EMPLOYEES OF HENRICO COUNTY JAIL; HENRICO COUNTY JAIL, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-95-260-R) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 2, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Dexter Drake Coffin, III, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Paul Falzone, David Wayne Robinson, HIRSCHLER, FLEISCHER, WEINBERG, COX & ALLEN, Richmond, Virginia; Carlyle Randoph Wimbish, III, Marvin Pierce Rucker, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the dist rict court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Coffin v. Brezee , No. CA-95-260-R (E.D. Va. Dec. 6, 1995).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00381-CR

The State of Texas

v.

Randall Lee Binkley §

§

§

§

§ From the 415th District Court

of Parker County (CR16-0307)

February 8, 2018

Opinion by Justice Pittman

(p)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s order. It is ordered that the order of the trial

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellant Th e State of Texas shall pay all of the

costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Mark T. Pi ttman_________________

Justice Mark T. Pittman
205 La. 708

#### STATE v. LEJEUNE.

No. 37463.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 17, 1944.

H. Purvis Carmouche, of Crowley, for appellant.

Eugene Stanley, Atty. Gen., Niels 'F. Hertz, Asst. Atty. Gen., Griffin T. Hawkins, Dist. Atty., and Preston L. Savoy and Alan H. McLane, Asst. Dist. Attys., all of Lake Charles, for appellee.

ROGERS, Justice.

Fernest Lejeune was charged in a bill of information with criminal neglect of his family in violation of Article 74 of the Criminal Code. The bill of information was filed in the Fourteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Calcasieu. Defendant filed an exception to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that he was a resident of the Parish of Acadia and within the jurisdiction of the Fifteenth Judicial Court for that parish, and that therefore the Fourteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Calcasieu is without jurisdiction of his alleged offense. The trial judge overruled the plea, and defendant moved for and was granted a suspen-sive appeal to this Court.

Alleging that there is nothing in the record to show that this Court has appellate jurisdiction of the case at this time, the State has moved to dismiss the appeal.

The jurisdiction of this Court, in criminal cases is restricted to those cases in which the penalty of death or imprisonment at hard labor may be imposed, or where a fine exceeding $300 or imprisonment exceeding six months has been actually imposed. Constitution, Article 7, sec. 10.

A conviction in this case can not result in a sentence of death or imprisonment at hard labor and, as the case has not yet been tried on the merits, no fine exceeding $300 nor imprisonment exceeding six months has actually been imposed. It therefore follows that this Court is without jurisdiction to pass on the question involved in defendant’s appeal. State v. King, 167 La. 3S0, 119 So. 252.

For the reasons assigned, the appeal is dismissed.

O’NIELL, C. J., takes no part.

ODOM, J., absent.
EX-4.57



 Exhibit 4.57 
 English Summary of 
 Internet Applications Channel Services Framework
Agreement 
 Between 
 China Telecommunications Corporation and 
 Registrant 

On December 16, 2013, the Registrant and China Telecommunications Corporation entered into the Internet Applications Channel Services Framework
Agreement in relation to the provision of Internet applications channel services to China Telecommunications Corporation and/or its associates. 

Services Scope 
 The channel services
mainly include the provision of telecommunications channel and applications support platform, provision of billing and deduction services, coordination of sales promotion and development of customers services, etc. 

Charge Principle 
 The charges payable
for the services under the Internet Applications Channel Services Framework Agreement are calculated on the following basis: 
 (1) the
government-prescribed prices (if any); 
 (2) where there are no government-prescribed prices but there are government-guided prices, the
government-guided prices; 
 (3) where there are neither government-prescribed prices nor government-guided prices, the market prices. Market
prices shall mean the prices at which the same type of services are provided by independent third parties in the ordinary course of business; or 

(4) where none of the above is applicable, the prices are to be agreed between the parties based on the reasonable costs incurred in providing the
services plus reasonable profit margin (for this purpose, “reasonable costs” means such costs as confirmed by both parties after negotiations). 
 Annual Cap 
 For the two years ending 31 December 2014 and 2015, the Annual Caps for the
transactions contemplated under the Internet Applications Channel Services Framework Agreement shall be RMB800 million (equivalent to approximately HK$1,030 million) and RMB1,500 million (equivalent to approximately HK$1,920 million) respectively.

 Consideration 
 The
consideration under the agreement will be satisfied in cash and no payment will be made on a deferred basis. 
 Effect and Renewal

 The agreement will become effective from 1 January 2014 and will expire on 31 December 2015. No later than 30 days prior to the
expiry of the Internet Applications Channel Services Framework Agreement, the Registrant is entitled to serve a written notice to China Telecommunications Corporation to renew the agreement, and the parties shall consult and decide on matters
relating to such renewal.