alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bedford Jay BUTLER, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 45594.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

July 12, 1972.

Dan J. Anderson, Richardson, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., George O. Washington, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ROBERTS, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order revoking probation. On July 16, 1971, appellant was convicted for the offense of felony theft; the punishment was assessed at five years, probated.

One of the terms of probation was that the appellant report to the probation officer monthly, during the period of probation. A report of probation violation was filed on November 12, 1971, alleging that appellant had violated the terms of his probation in that he had not reported to the probation officer during the months of August, September, and October of 1971. A motion to revoke probation was filed on December 21, 1971, making the same allegation. The probation officer and the appellant both testified that he had failed to report as alleged in the application.

The evidence further showed that appellant did not report during the months of August, September, October, November, or in December, 1971, having been placed in jail on December 21, 1971. The probation officer further testified that he made a phone call to the number given him by appellant; talked to appellant’s brother; a letter was written to appellant at the address given; the probation officer went to the address and talked to appellant’s sister; and in November went to the address and talked to appellant’s father. Appellant testified that the reason he did not report was that he was working as a bartender and felt that that would automatically revoke his probation.

*644The only issue on appeal of revocation of probation is whether or not the trial court has abused its discretion. Pitts v. State, 442 S.W.2d 389 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Basinger v. State, 450 S.W.2d 623 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). The evidence shows appellant violated a condition of his probation, and no abuse of discretion is shown.

The judgment is affirmed.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2053

To prohibit offering homebuilding purchase contracts that contain in a single

document both a mandatory arbitration agreement and other contract

provisions, and to prohibit requiring purchasers to consent to a mandatory arbitration agreement as a condition precedent to entering into

a homebuilding purchase contract.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 5, 2001

Mr. GONZALEZ (for himself and Mr. RODRIGUEZ) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

A BILL

To prohibit offering homebuilding purchase contracts that

contain in a single document both a mandatory arbitration agreement and other contract provisions, and to

prohibit requiring purchasers to consent to a mandatory

arbitration agreement as a condition precedent to entering into a homebuilding purchase contract.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Homebuyers

5 Protection Act’’.
2

•HR 2053 IH

1 SEC. 2. MANDATORY ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—No person engaged in the con3 struction of new houses may require a purchaser to enter

4 into a mandatory arbitration agreement as a condition

5 precedent to entering into a contract for the purchase of

6 a new house.

7 (b) SEPARATE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED.—No person

8 engaged in the construction of new houses may offer a

9 purchaser a contract for the purchase of a new house

10 which includes an agreement on mandatory arbitration

11 unless such agreement is a separate document which con12 tains only language pertaining to the mandatory arbitra13 tion agreement. The separate document containing the

14 mandatory arbitration agreement shall also contain the

15 following statement: ‘‘By Agreeing to Binding Arbitration

16 You Are Giving Up Your Right To Go To Court’’.

17 (c) ARBITRATOR.—The mandatory arbitration agree18 ment shall not name an independent arbitrator and shall

19 contain a procedure that adequately guarantees the pur20 chaser an opportunity to participate in the selection of an

21 arbitrator which shall occur only after a dispute regarding

22 the homebuilding contract has arisen.

23 (d) ENFORCEMENT.—If any person violates sub24 section (a), (b), or (c), the agreement on mandatory arbi25 tration will be of no effect.

Æ
|                                                   |   |                    |                      | Percentage               |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|---------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|                                                   |   |                    |                      | of                Voting |   |
|                                                   |   |                    |                      | Securities               |   |
|                                                   |   | State                of |                      | Owned                By  |   |
|                                                   |   | Incorporation           |                      | Registrant               |   |
|                                                        |   |                    |                      |                     |   |
| Compupower                Corporation                  |   |                    | Delaware                  |                     |   | 100 | % |
|                                                   |   |                    |                      |                     |   |   |   |
| Value                Line Securities, Inc.             |   |                    | New                York   |                     |   | 100 | % |
|                                                   |   |                    |                      |                     |   |   |   |
| The                Vanderbilt Advertising Agency, Inc. |   |                    | New                York   |                     |   | 100 | % |
|                                                   |   |                    |                      |                     |   |   |   |
| Value                Line Publishing, Inc.             |   |                    | New                York   |                     |   | 100 | % |
|                                                   |   |                    |                      |                     |   |   |   |
| Value                Line Distribution Center, Inc.    |   |                    | New                Jersey |                     |   | 100 | % |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1374 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1374

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 600 Calumet Street in Lake Linden, Michigan, as the ``Philip E. 
                     Ruppe Post Office Building''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1374

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 600 Calumet Street in Lake Linden, Michigan, as the ``Philip E. 
                     Ruppe Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 600 
Calumet Street in Lake Linden, Michigan, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Philip E. Ruppe Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Philip E. Ruppe Post Office 
Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 16, 2002.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

V .

Charles Alexander Moz

Case No . 07-cr-121-01-SM

ORDER

Defendant Moz's motion to continue the final pretrial conference and tria l

is granted (document 30) . Trial has been rescheduled for the January 2008 trial

period. Defendant Moz has filed a waiver of speedy trial .

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S .C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference : December 19, 2007 at 4:00 p .m.

Jury Selection : January 8, 2008 at 9 :30 a .m.

Case 1:07-cr-00121-SM Document 33 Filed 10/25/07 Page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED .

October 25, 2007

cc : Daniel S. Adkins, Esq.

H. Paul Carroll, Esq.

Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Helen Fitzgibbon, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

2

Case 1:07-cr-00121-SM Document 33 Filed 10/25/07 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 31.1
                    RULE 13A-14(A) / 15D-14(A) CERTIFICATION

I, Michael Braunold, Chief Executive Officer of SPO Medical Inc. (the
"Company"), certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
31, 2005.

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Company as of, and for, the period presented in this annual report;

4. The Company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the Company and 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 Company is made known to us by others
within the Company, particularly during the period in which this annual report
is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this annual report any change in the Company's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's 2005 fourth fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting;

5. The Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
Company's auditors and the audit committee of Company's board of directors (or
persons fulfilling the equivalent function):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and

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

Date: April 11, 2006

                                                /s/ Michael Braunold
                                                --------------------
                                                Michael Braunold
                                                Chief Executive Officer
Case 1:11-cv-02263-LTB Document 4 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6
Case 1:11-cv-02263-LTB Document 4 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 6
Case 1:11-cv-02263-LTB Document 4 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 6
Case 1:11-cv-02263-LTB Document 4 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 6
Case 1:11-cv-02263-LTB Document 4 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 6
Case 1:11-cv-02263-LTB Document 4 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

United States of America

V .

Felix A . Perez

Criminal No . 08-cr-43-01-JD

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no .

8) filed by defendant is granted .

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days . The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U .S .C . § 3161 (h) (8) (B) (iv) , for the

reasons set forth in the motion .

SO ORDERED .

/s/ Joseph A . DiClerico, Jr .

Joseph A . DiClerico, Jr .

United States District Judge

Date : June 12, 200 8

cc : Adam Harris Bernstein, Esq .

Michael Zaino, Esq .

U .S . Marshal

U .S . Probation

Case 1:08-cr-00043-JD Document 9 Filed 06/12/08 Page 1 of 1
10

A.6. Share of Non-real-estate Bank Loans with a Floating Interest Rate Made to FarmersPercent

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1996...... 63.1 58.1 71.2 67.3 32.9 61.4 60.6 61.5 69.1 62.2 1997...... 65.8 66.4 73.2 67.8 49.9 64.3 60.1 58.0 68.0 67.0 1998...... 54.4 55.0 59.4 68.5 46.7 42.0 57.6 54.8 62.7 51.1 1999...... 60.7 45.6 66.0 68.6 58.2 52.0 52.6 54.6 60.2 63.1 2000...... 66.9 57.3 60.7 67.0 62.2 76.7 53.4 54.6 61.8 74.5 2001...... 74.5 72.9 65.6 75.0 61.0 80.5 58.8 60.9 69.4 81.5 2002...... 75.1 64.6 65.4 75.8 60.9 84.1 67.8 64.5 68.4 81.2 2003...... 74.3 68.7 59.6 74.6 69.5 86.5 67.6 65.1 63.0 82.1 2004...... 74.3 67.2 47.5 73.4 71.2 91.3 65.8 63.7 63.1 79.9 2005...... 77.1 62.7 71.4 73.0 83.9 90.6 67.6 62.9 65.4 83.2 2006...... 75.3 56.9 68.0 70.4 84.1 91.8 68.7 66.1 65.5 79.8 2007...... 69.6 62.0 62.0 63.5 68.8 88.1 64.3 63.3 66.1 72.0 2004: Q4... 74.1 64.4 34.6 79.7 86.9 91.5 70.1 61.7 61.7 79.2 2005: Q1... 72.7 61.2 73.9 73.5 51.6 83.2 66.7 59.1 64.2 78.1  Q2... 82.7 64.7 78.6 74.9 89.7 95.4 65.8 64.4 69.5 88.9  Q3... 75.3 70.0 70.5 63.3 89.1 88.4 68.5 66.5 61.5 81.4  Q4... 75.4 59.7 65.2 81.5 72.6 87.9 70.3 60.5 66.7 81.1 2006: Q1... 70.5 59.1 71.1 65.7 76.4 90.9 63.9 64.5 62.7 74.0  Q2... 75.9 68.7 69.8 66.0 85.6 90.8 68.8 64.4 70.3 79.4  Q3... 78.3 43.0 64.3 81.2 78.5 96.6 76.9 72.9 62.9 83.5  Q4... 76.6 62.7 67.4 74.9 91.4 87.1 65.4 62.3 65.3 82.9 2007: Q1... 64.6 71.8 68.1 55.8 50.0 87.4 62.6 64.9 70.9 62.9  Q2... 71.4 55.6 75.2 65.5 70.8 90.0 63.9 65.3 71.3 73.3  Q3... 74.8 41.5 75.5 71.7 70.2 89.8 66.2 64.0 61.1 82.8  Q4... 69.1 65.5 43.5 64.6 77.1 86.1 64.6 59.1 61.3 73.1 2008: Q1... 68.7 71.7 48.9 62.6 47.5 91.4 56.9 53.5 64.3 71.5  Q2... 74.7 70.5 56.6 72.5 69.0 86.7 65.2 68.7 71.2 76.9  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates annual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT - 23

CONSENT OF EXPERTS AND COUNSEL


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
       We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-44423) pertaining to the 1991 Long-term Incentive
Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-56403) pertaining to the
1994 Long-term Incentive Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-36743) pertaining to the 1997 Long-term Incentive Plan of Milacron Inc., and
in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-70733) pertaining to the
Milacron Inc. Plan for the Deferral of Director's Compensation, of our report
dated February 8, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Milacron Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 2000.




                  /s/ Ernst & Young LLP




Cincinnati, Ohio
March 14, 2001
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 Carrington  Laboratories, Inc.
 (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004  as
 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  I Carlton
 E. Turner, President and  Chief Executive Officer  of the Company,  certify,
 pursuant to 18 U.S. C. S 1350, as adopted pursuant to S 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.


 Date:     March 24, 2005



 /s/ Carlton E. Turner
 ---------------------
 President and Chief Executive Officer
|What's New · 
   What's Next · 
   Site Map · 
   A-Z Index ·
   Careers ·
   RSS ·
   All Videos ·
   Current FAQs |  | Search  Advanced Search | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | 

Aboutthe Fed
    News& Events
    MonetaryPolicy
    BankingInformation& Regulation
    PaymentSystems
    EconomicResearch& Data
    Consumer Information
    CommunityDevelopment
    ReportingForms
    Publications


skip to content 
 Home Economic Research & Data Statistical Releases and Historical Data
 DDP Print
   Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization - G.17 Current Release
  Release Dates
  Monthly Supplement
  Annual Revision
  Historical Data
  About
  Announcements
 Current Release  (250 KB PDF)
(ASCII)  Table 9 Gross Value of Final Products and Nonindustrial Supplies  Item
2005
2010
2010Q4
2011
2011Q1[r]
Q2[p]
Jan.[r]
Feb.[r]
Mar.[r]
Apr.[r]
May[r]
June[p]Final products and nonindustrialsupplies
3,336.9
3,159.9
3,209.4
3,247.1
3,240.5
3,239.9
3,239.1
3,262.2
3,237.6
3,242.1
3,241.9Final products
2,477.7
2,428.8
2,472.1
2,505.2
2,497.0
2,499.7
2,502.1
2,513.7
2,493.6
2,500.5
2,496.8Consumer goods
1,835.2
1,775.2
1,795.1
1,808.6
1,799.3
1,806.6
1,803.7
1,815.4
1,798.6
1,797.4
1,801.9Durable
495.3
416.6
421.0
444.3
441.1
431.9
444.7
456.2
440.7
442.6
439.9Automotive products
288.3
262.1
264.6
284.0
280.3
274.3
284.2
293.7
280.6
281.1
279.3Other durable goods
207.0
154.9
156.9
160.8
161.3
158.1
161.1
163.2
160.6
162.1
161.2Nondurable
1,339.9
1,351.8
1,367.2
1,361.4
1,355.0
1,369.4
1,356.3
1,358.4
1,354.6
1,352.0
1,358.4Equipment, total
642.5
652.6
677.3
698.7
700.4
694.9
701.0
700.3
697.5
706.8
697.0Business and defense
619.1
634.1
658.4
678.6
678.9
675.0
681.0
679.9
676.5
685.1
675.2Business
539.2
524.5
547.7
568.1
567.7
564.7
570.5
569.1
564.9
573.3
564.9Defense and space
79.9
107.0
108.4
108.7
109.3
108.4
108.8
109.0
109.6
109.9
108.5Nonindustrial supplies
859.2
734.7
741.2
746.1
747.6
744.4
741.4
752.5
748.0
745.8
749.0Construction supplies
270.2
200.2
205.6
207.3
209.6
207.5
205.9
208.6
208.7
209.7
210.3Business supplies
589.1
534.7
535.8
538.9
538.2
537.1
535.7
544.1
539.5
536.3
538.9Commercial energy products
210.9
213.0
213.2
212.7
212.5
211.7
209.2
217.1
212.2
210.9
214.3     Return to top
   Home Economic research and data
 Accessibility Contact us Disclaimer  Linking Policy FOIA
 PDF Reader
#### Theresa Schmidt, Appellant, v Thomas DiPerno et al., Respondents.

[808 NYS2d 413]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated February 4, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

*546Initially, the plaintiffs contention that the defendants failed to support the motion with evidentiary proof in admissible form is without merit *(cf. Palumbo v Innovative Communications Concepts,*175 Misc 2d 156 [1997], *affd*251 AD2d 246 [1998]).

The plaintiff brought this action after she allegedly was injured when she slipped and fell on a patch of ice on the driveway adjacent to the defendants’ home. The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, determining that the defendants did not have constructive notice of the icy condition. We reverse.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the icy condition *(see Ronconi v Denzel Assoc.,*20 AD3d 559 [2005]; *Pizarro v Grenadier Realty Corp.,*5 AD3d 652 [2004]; *Voss v D&C Parking,*299 AD2d 346 [2002]; *DeVivo v Sparago,*287 AD2d 535 [2001]).

However, in opposition, the plaintiff tendered evidence in support of her theory that when snow on the roof of the defendants’ home melted, it ran onto the driveway from a downspout, collected or pooled there, and subsequently froze, resulting in the patch of ice that caused her fall. The plaintiffs submissions, which included, inter alia, the affidavits of a meteorologist and a civil engineer, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants had actual notice of a recurrent dangerous condition regarding pooled water on the driveway that may have descended from the downspout, and were thus chargeable with constructive notice of each specific occurrence of the condition *(see Mondello v DiStefano,*16 AD3d 637 [2005]; *Loguidice v Fiorito,*254 AD2d 714 [1998]; *Migli v Davenport,*249 AD2d 932 [1998]). H. Miller, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.